A2015 - San Pedro - Evidence Reviewer

Sec. 12, Art.
3, 1987 Constitution
A2015 Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his
EVIDENCE own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of

counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
REVIEWER (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any

other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
PART ONE this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
Rule 128 violations of this section as well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
SECTION 1 . Evidence defined. — Evidence is the
and their families.
means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
(1) Sec. 17, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a
Sec. 2 . Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the witness against himself.
same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except
as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a) Sec. 201, Tax Reform Act of 1997
SEC. 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable
Sec. 3 . Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is Document. - An instrument, document or paper which is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not required by law to be stamped and which has been
excluded by the law of these rules. (3a) signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being
duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any
Sec. 4 . Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be
have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce admitted or used in evidence in any court until the
belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and
collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it cancelled.
tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a) RA 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Law
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
Rules of Exclusion authorized by all the parties to any private
Secs. 2 & 3, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable,
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly
persons, houses, papers, and effects against overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a
after examination under oath or affirmation of the participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape
particularly describing the place to be searched and the record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
persons or things to be seized. record, or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after the effective
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
order of the court, or when public safety or order communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence
in any proceeding. in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses
A2015 FINALS REVIEWER – EVIDENCE (SAN PEDRO) – AGBAYANI . MANIBOG . RIVERA . TEH . VILLARROYA 1
mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this package deposited with the court. The envelope or
prohibition. package so deposited shall not be opened, or the
recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their
Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which
render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice
who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons
execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the whose conversation or communications have been
two preceding Secs. in cases involving the crimes of recorded.
treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case The court referred to in this Sec. shall be understood to
of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, mean the Court of First Instance within whose territorial
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to be executed.
to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal
Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the
punishing espionage and other offenses against national existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
security: Provided, That such written order shall only be meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
issued or granted upon written application and the information therein contained obtained or secured by
examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant any person in violation of the preceding Sec.s of this Act
and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been investigation.
committed or is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving RA 1405, Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, banking institutions in the Philippines including
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, investments in bonds issued by the Government of the
such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that Philippines, its political subdivisions and its
a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an
actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be inquired or looked into by any person, government
obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or official, bureau or office, except upon written permission
to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon
crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
available for obtaining such evidence. dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where
The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the identity the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of
of the person or persons whose communications, the litigation.
conversations, discussions, or spoken words are to be
overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee
telegraphic or telephonic communications, the telegraph of a banking institution to disclose to any person other
line or the telephone number involved and its location; than those mentioned in Section two hereof any
(2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to information concerning said deposits.
overhear, intercept, or record the communications,
conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3) the General Banking Act of 2000 (Sec. 55, RA No. 8791)
offense or offenses committed or sought to be
SECTION 55. Prohibited Transactions. —
prevented; and (4) the period of the authorization. The
55.1. No director, officer, employee, or agent of any
authorization shall be effective for the period specified in
bank shall —
the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the
(b) Without order of a court of competent jurisdiction,
date of issuance of the order, unless extended or
disclose to any unauthorized person any information
renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such
relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the
extension or renewal is in the public interest.
bank belonging to private individuals, corporations, or
All recordings made under court authorization shall,
any other entity: Provided, That with respect to bank
within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period
deposits, the provisions of existing laws shall prevail;
fixed in the order, be deposited with the court in a sealed
envelope or sealed package, and shall be accompanied
by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence:
stating the number of recordings made, the dates and 1. relevant  when it has such a relation to the fact in
times covered by each recording, the number of tapes, issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
discs, or records included in the deposit, and certifying existence; determinable by rules of logic and human
that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part experience.
thereof have been made, or if made, that all such 2. competent  when it is not excluded by the law or
duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or rules; determined by prevailing exclusionary rules of
evidence
1. Relevant, material, and competent evidence
Kinds of Evidence According to Form: a. relevant  having any value in reason as
1. object (real)  directly addressed to the senses of tending to prove any matter provable in an action; test is
court and consists of tangible things exhibited or the logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in
demonstrated in court, in an ocular inspection, other issue (whether the former tends to establish the
places designated by court (autoptic proference) probability and improbability of the latter)
2. documentary  evidence supplied by written b. material  evidence directed to prove a fact
instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such in issue as determined by the rules on substantive law
as letter, which ideas are represented into material and pleadings; test is whether the fact it intends to prove
substances is in issue or not (W/N fact in issue is determined by
3. testimonial  submitted through court through substantive law, pleadings, etc.)
deposition or testimony of witness c. competent  not excluded by the Rules, a
statute, or the Constitution;
Notes:
Evidence - mode and manner of proving facts in judicial 2. Direct and circumstantial
proceedings. a. direct  proves fact in dispute without the aid
of any inference or presumption
Proof of fact: An effect of evidence. It is when the b. circumstantial  proof of a fact or facts from
requisite quantum if evidence of a particular fact has which taken taken singly or collectively, the existence of
been duly admitted and given weight. the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
necessary or probable consequence
Factum probandum: ultimate fact or fact sought to be
established. (PROPOSITION) 3. Cumulative and corroborative
a. cumulative  evidence of the same kind and
Factum probans: the evidentiary fact or fact by which the to the same set of facts
factum probandum is to be established. (MATERIALS b. corroborative  additional evidence of a
WHICH ESTABLISH THAT PROPOSITION) different character to the same point
Law of evidence is procedural law so new rules may be 4. Prima facie and conclusive evidence
made applicable to pending cases (no vested right in a. prima facie  evidence which, standing
rules of evidence). Exception: New rule in criminal cases alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
which, if given retroactive effect, may result in an ex post maintain the propositions affirmed
facto conviction. b. conclusive  class of evidence which the law
does not allow to be contradicted.
Some evidentiary rules found in special laws:
1. Anti-Wiretapping Law  prohibits the admission in 5. Primary and secondary evidence
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or a. primary  law regards as affording the
administrative investigation of any communication or greatest certainty of fact in question (BEST EVIDENCE)
spoken word or any information procured by wire- b. secondary  inferior to primary; only allowed
tapping and related means specified in the law except in if best evidence is not available (SUBSTITUTIONARY
cases specially permitted. EVIDENCE)
2. Code of Commerce, Art. 448  provides certain rules
on evidentiary weight of conflicting entries in merchants’ 6. Positive and negative evidence
books a. positive  witness affirms that a fact did or
did not occur i.e. yes/no that happened (entitled to
Also subject to Consti rules on unreasonable searches greater weight)
and seizures, privacy of communication and b. negative  witness states he did not see or know
correspondence, fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. of the occurrence of a fact i.e. I don’t know. (total
disclaimer of personal knowledge)
Right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked in
situations covered by immunity statutes. E.g. RA 1379 – Admissibility determined at the time it is offered to the
grants immunity to witnesses in proceedings for the court. When is evidence offered in court:
forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property; PD 179 – 1. object/real  presented or when party rests his case
grants immunity in bribery and graft cases. and evidence consists of objects exhibited in court
2. testimonial  calling of witness to the stand
Rules on evidence specifically applicable to JUDICIAL 3. documentary  offered before proponent rests his
PROCEEDINGS. In quasi-judicial proceedings, it may case
apply by analogy or suppletory character, except when
the governing law specifically adopts rules of evidence. Objections to admissibility shall be made when evidence
is offered or when inadmissibility becomes apparent,
Other classifications: otherwise waived.
1. testimonial  objection to qualifications of witness o Considered electronic data message/electronic
should be made when he is called to the stand; when document as the functional equivalent of a
objectionable question is asked/after answer is given is written document for evidentiary purposes.
objectionable features became apparent by such answer o Electronic document is equivalent of an original
2. object  when it’s presented/formally offered evidence under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a
printout or output readable by sight or other
Doctrines of admissibility means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
1. conditional admissibility  where evidence at the time o "Electronic Data Message" refers to information
of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless generated, sent, received or stored by
connected with other facts to be subsequently proved, electronic, optical or similar means.
such evidence may be received on condition that the o "Electronic Document" refers to information or
other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise evidence the representation of information, data, figures,
will be stricken out (qualification: no bad faith by symbols or other modes of written expression,
proponent). (APPLIES IN PHILS) described or however represented, by which a
2. Multiple Admissibility  Where evidence is relevant right is established or an obligation extinguished,
and competent for two/more purposes, such evidence or by which a fact may be prove and affirmed,
should be admitted for any or all the purposes for which which is receive, recorded, transmitted, stored,
it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements for processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
its admissibility. o It is not enough that a document was sent
3. Curative Admissibility  Right of party to introduce electronically  should refer to paperless
incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has communications (technically no original copy)
admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the o Fax  not electronic data message
adverse party.
Cases:
Lack of objection to incompetent evidence constitutes Knapp v. State (1907)
waiver against whom it was introduced but does not Knapp claims self-defense saying that he heard that his
deprive the opposing party of his right to object to similar victim had previously killed a man. The prosecution
rebutting evidence. offered evidence that the man actually died of something
else. Knapp contends the said evidence should not have
Documentary evidence, illegally obtained, is been admitted because the issue was whether he heard
inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress. the story, not whether the story was true. The Court held
(Stonehill v. Diokno)  now applies to illegally obtained that the evidence is relevant because was not presented
evidence to show w/n Knapp heard the story but to discredit
Knapp’s testimony (since the story was not true, it was
Collateral matters: matters other than the facts in issue less likely he heard it from someone else). The
and which are offered as a basis for inference into the competency of testimony depends largely on its
existence/non-existence of the facts in issue. tendency to persuade the judgment. To require an actual
o What rules prohibit is evidence of irrelevant connection would exclude all presumptive evidence. The
collateral facts competency of a collateral fact is not determined by the
o When collateral matters are relevant to the fact conclusiveness of the inferences it may afford in
in issue because they tend in any reasonable references to a litigated fact. It is enough if these may
degree to establish the probability or tend, in a slight degree, elucidate the inquiry, or to
improbability of the fact in issue  admissible assist, though remotely, to a determination probably
o Circumstantial evidence: evidence of collateral founded in truth.
facts or circumstances from which an inference
may be drawn as to the probability or State v. Ball (1960)
improbability of the facts in dispute; evidence of Ball’s personal effects consisting of money and other
relevant collateral facts  legal evidence, and if articles were seized and offered in evidence to prove he
sufficient can sustain a judgment robbed a store. Ball objects to the admissibility of the
money claiming that it was immaterial and irrelevant.
Weight given to evidence depends on judicial evaluation The Court held that the mere possession of a quantity of
with guidelines in R133 and jurisprudence. So while money is in itself no indication that the possessor was
evidence might admissible, it may have little/no weight. the taker of the money because in general all money of
the same denomination and material is alike and the
Special rules of evidence regarding electronic hypothesis that the money is the same as the money
documents introduced by “Electronic Commerce Act or taken is too forced and extraordinary to be receivable.
RA 8792” No proof/fair inference the money is connected to the
o Includes text messages (counts as ephemeral crime = immaterial and irrelevant.
electronic communication  proven by
testimony party to communications/has Mamba v. Garcia (2001)
knowledge of the same)
To prove that the policemen and judge in charge of his courts of the world and their seals, the political
case were extorting a bribe from him Bulatao went to the constitution and history of the Philippines, the official
judge’s office with a recording device and marked money acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of
provided with by NBI. The recording was not admitted in the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time,
evidence because according to the Court, the recording and the geographical divisions. (1a)
of private conversations without the consent of the
parties contravenes the provisions of the Anti-Wire Sec. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court
Tapping Law, and renders the same inadmissible in may take judicial notice of matters which are of public
evidence in any proceeding. The law covers even those knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable
recorded by persons privy to the private demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
communications, as in this case. of their judicial functions. (1a)
Marquez v. Desierto (2001) Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. —

Marquez was ordered by the Ombudsman to produce During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on
several bank documents for purposes of inspection request of a party, may announce its intention to take
relative to various accounts at the bank he is managing. judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be
This was for an investigation for an alleged violation of heard thereon.
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, said After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the
order was disallowed by the Court as Sec. 2 of the Law proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a
on Secrecy of Bank Deposits declares bank deposits to party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow
be “absolutely confidential” except: 1. In an examination the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive
made in the course of a special or general examination of a material issue in the case. (n)
of a bank that is specifically authorized by the Monetary
Board after being satisfied that there is reasonable Mandatory Judicial Notice: (TAG CONNED)
ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious irregularity 1. Existence and territorial extent, & political history of
has been or is being committed and that it is necessary states
to look into the deposit to establish such fraud or 2. Forms of government and symbols of nationality
irregularity, 2. In an examination made by an 3. Law of nations
independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct its 4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
regular audit provided that the examination is for audit seals
purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the 5. Constitution and history of the Philippines
exclusive use of the bank, 3. Upon written permission of 6. Official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
the depositor, 4. In cases of impeachment, 5. Upon departments of the Philippines
order of a competent court in cases of bribery or 7. Laws of nature
dereliction of duty of public officials, or 6. In cases where 8. Measure of time
the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of 9. Geographical divisions
the litigation”. In this case, there was no pending case
before any court, only an investigation. Discretionary Judicial Notice: (COP)
1. public knowledge
Ejercito v. SB (2006) 2. capable to unquestionable demonstration
The prosecution requested subpoenas to produce 3. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
several bank documents & statement of accounts. functions
Petitioner claims his bank account were covered by the
Bank Secrecy Law. However, the Court disagreed citing General Rule: what is alleged needs to be proven
the exceptions to the law:1. the examination of bank Exceptions:
accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of 1. Judicial Notice
bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and 2. the 2. Admissions
money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation. Plunder being analogous to bribery, the Notes:
exception to RA 1405 applicable in cases of bribery must Judicial Notice is the cognizance of certain facts which
also apply to cases of plunder. judges may properly take and act on without proof
because they already know them. This is based on
II. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED (Rule 129) considerations of expediency and convenience.
A. Judicial Notice
Sec 1-3, Rule 129 This may be taken by a court on its own motion or when
Sec. 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall it is requested or invited by the parties or either of them
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, to do so.
of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of Judicial Notice of Ordinances:
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
o MTC’s- required to take judicial notice of the parties to be heard thereon
ordinances of the municipality or city wherein if such matter is decisive of
they sit. a material issue in the
o RTC’s- may only take judicial notice case.
a. when required to do so by a statute (example:
Manila); or Class Notes:
b. in a case on appeal before them and wherein 3 ways by which a judge can acknowledge existence of
the inferior court took judicial notice of an a fact:
ordinance involved in said case. 1. Judicial Notice- public knowledge
o Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of 2. Personal knowledge
municipal or city ordinances of facts capable of 3. Presented to the senses of the judge- course of trial
unquestionable demonstration. as evidence
*Only 1 and 3 can be used as evidence
Judicial Notice of Jurisprudence:
o Courts are required to take judicial notice of Not all laws of nature can be the subject of judicial
decisions of appellate courts. notice. Such laws must be sufficiently known.
o They are not required to take judicial notice of
decisions of coordinate trial courts, nor a “Public knowledge” means a matter so notorious, it is
decision or the facts involved in another case beyond dispute.
tried by the same court itself, unless the parties
introduce the same in evidence or where the Sec 1, R129- more notorious than Sec 2
court, as a matter of convenience, may decide to
do so. Cases:
BPI Family Savings Bank v. CTA (2000)
Judicial notice should not be confused with the personal In a case before the SC, BPI attached a copy of a
knowledge of the judge. The fact should be known to decision of the CTA to prove that BPI suffered a net loss
judges because of their judicial functions. for the year 1990. The Court ruled that courts may take
judicial notice of matters ought to be known to judges
Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws: because of their judicial functions. In this case, BPI
Courts may not take judicial notice of foreign laws, attached a copy of the CTA decision.
except where such laws are within the actual knowledge
of the court such as when they are well and generally Manufacturers Hanover Trust v. Guerrero (2003)
known or they have been actually ruled upon in other A claim for damages was filed against the defendant
cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise. Chemical Bank. As a defense, the Bank alleged that the
o To prove a written foreign law, the requirements case is governed by the New York Law and under said
of Sec 24 and 25, Rule 132 must be complied law, claim for damages other than actual is barred. The
with- by an official publication or by a duly Court ruled that it cannot take judicial notice of such law.
attested and authenticated copy thereof. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice and must
o To prove an unwritten foreign law, comply with be alleged and proven.
Sec 46, Rule 130.
o Absent any of the foregoing evidence, the People v. Rullepa (2003)
foreign law is presumed to be the same as that Rullepa was charged with Statutory Rape. According to
in the Philippines, under doctrine of processual the information, he committed the offense against a 3-
presumption. year-old child. Issue arose as to whether or not the age
of the victim was sufficiently proven. The Court ruled that
When Hearing is Necessary for Judicial Notice the process by which a trial court judges a person’s age
When How from his or her appearance cannot be categorized as
During the trial 1. On its own initiative, or judicial notice. It is an examination of the evidence, the
2. On request of a party evidence being the appearance of the person. Such a
process militates against the concept of judicial notice,
may announce its intention which is to do away with the presentation of evidence. A
to take judicial notice of person’s appearance is admissible as object evidence.
any matter and allow the
parties to be heard Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal (2004)
thereon. In a case for just compensation, the trial court used as
After the trial, and before The proper court: basis for determining the valuation of parcels of land
judgment or on appeal 1. On its own initiative or another case pending before it. The Court ruled that the
2. On request of a party use of another case is improper. Courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the
may take judicial notice of records of other cases even when said cases have been
any matter and allow the tried or are pending in the same court or before the
same judge. They may only do so "in the absence of Sec. 4, Rule 129
objection" and "with the knowledge of the opposing Sec. 4 . Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or
party," which are not obtaining here. written, made by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
Pigao v. Rabanillo (2006) The admission may be contradicted only by showing that
A Deed of Assignment over a parcel of land is being it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
assailed here because it was executed without the admission was made. (2a)
consent of People’s Homesite and Housing Corp. To
strengthen their claim, petitioners asked the Court to Judicial admissions may be made in:
take judicial notice of an alleged provision in pro-forma 1. pleadings filed by the parties;
conditional contracts entered into by PHHC with 2. course of the trial either by veral or written
applicants for purchase of its lots which require the manifestations or stipulations; or
latter’s consent for any assignment of rights under the 3. other stages of the judicial proceeding (ex. pre-trial)
contract made by the latter. They submitted a contract
between PHHC and a third party to prove this provision. General Rule: Judicial notice does not require proof.
The Court ruled that it cannot take judicial notice of the Exceptions: May be contradicted by
document because it is not among the documents which 1. showing that it was made through palpable mistake
a court should mandatorily take judicial notice of. It 2. no such admission was made
should have been presented during trial and formally
offered as evidence for the court to consider the same. Notes:
Admissions obtained through depositions, written
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2011) interrogatories or requests for admission are also
In 1987, PCGG filed cases against respondents in the considered judicial admissions.
Sandiganbayan for reconveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution, and damages (the main case). In To be considered as judicial admission, it must be made
an incident case, the Bane deposition was taken. In the in the same case in which it is offered. If made in
main case, the Bane deposition was not included in the another case, the fact of such admission must be proved
Formal Offer of Evidence. To cure this omission, as in the case of any other fact.
petitioner filed an Urgent Motion and/or Request for
Judicial Notice, arguing that since the deposition was Judicial admissions made in one case are admissible at
admitted in an incident case, then it should also be the trial of another case if they are proved and are
admitted in the main case. The Court ruled that it cannot pertinent to the issue involved in the latter, unless:
take judicial notice of such deposition. Courts are not a. the said admissions were made only for purposes of
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the the first case
records of other cases, even when such cases have b. the same were withdrawn with the permission of the
been tried or are pending in the same court, and court therein; or
notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or c. the court deems it proper to relieve the party
are actually pending before the same judge. If the Court therefrom
follows the logic of the petitioner’s argument, it would be
espousing judicial confusion by indiscriminately allowing Judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the
the admission of evidence in one case, which was admitter, unless they were made through palpable
presumably found competent and relevant in another mistake, or no such admission was made, or in the case
case, simply based on the supposed lineage of the of a pre-trial admission in civil cases, to prevent manifest
cases. injustice.
Class notes: Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into

3 types of consolidation: by the parties at the pre-trial constitute judicial
1. True consolidation admissions by them which do not require proof and
2. Quasi-consolidation cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have
3. Consolidation for trial been made through palpable mistake.
Q: Can a court take judicial notice of records of case? When parties in a case agree on what the foreign law
A: depends on the type of consolidation provides, these are admissions of fact which the other
o Actual consolidation- nothing to be subject of parties and the court are made to rely and act upon.
judicial notice; only 1 case Hence, they are estopped to subsequently take a
o Quasi-consolidation- may be subject of judicial contrary position.
notice; same issue, same parties
o Consolidation for trial- cannot be subject of Example of palpable mistake: clerical errors
judicial notice
Sec. 8, Rule 10
B. Judicial Admissions
Sec. 8. Effect of amended pleadings. An amended (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. (3) Any ground for legal separation;
However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be (4) Future support;
received in evidence against the pleader; and claims or (5) The jurisdiction of courts;
defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the (6) Future legitime. (1814a)
amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
Arts. 48 & 60, Family Code
Class Notes: Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of
Superseded pleadings are not judicial admissions. It absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the
must be proved by evidence. prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on
behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion
Sec. 1-4, Rule 126 between the parties and to take care that evidence is not
Section 1. Request for admission. fabricated or suppressed.
At any time after issues have been joined, a party may In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no
file and serve upon any other party a written request for judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or
the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any confession of judgment.
material and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material Art. 60. No decree of legal separation shall be based
and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.
Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the In any case, the Court shall order the prosecuting
request unless copies have already been furnished. attorney or fiscal assigned to it to take steps to prevent
collusion between the parties and to take care that the
Sec. 2. Implied admission. evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. (101a)
Each of the matters of which an admission is requested
shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period Cases:
designated in the request, which shall not be less than
Atillo v. CA (1997)
fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such
further time as the court may allow on motion, the party Petitioner filed this action for collection of sum of money
to whom the request is directed files and serves upon against AMANCOR and Lhuillier. Trial court ordered
the party requesting the admission a sworn statement AMANCOR to pay petitioner but it absolved Lhuillier. On
either denying specifically the matters of which an appeal, petitioner argued that LHUILLIER made a
admission is requested or setting forth in detail the judicial admission of his personal liability in his Answer
reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny wherein he stated that: "In all the subject dealings, it was
those matters. between plaintiff and Lhuillier personally without the
Objections to any request for admission shall be official participation of Amancor, Inc.” The Court ruled
submitted to the court by the party requested within the that said admission cannot be taken against Lhuillier.
period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as Petitioner appears to have taken the admission out of
contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his context. A careful scrutiny of the Answer in its entirety
compliance therewith shall be deferred until such will show that said admission is part of the affirmative
objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made allegations recounting how Lhuillier was persuaded to
as early as practicable. invest in AMANCOR which was previously owned and
managed by petitioner.
Sec. 3. Effect of admission.
Any admission made by a party pursuant to such Herrera-Felix v. CA (2004)
request is for the purpose of the pending action only and In a complaint for sum of money against the Spouses
shall not constitute an admission by him for any other Felix, they filed, through counsel a motion praying for an
purpose nor may the same be used against him in any extension of time to file their answer to the complaint. In
other proceeding. said motion, an admission was made that petitioner was
served with a copy of the complaint as well as the
Sec. 4. Withdrawal. summons. However, no answer was filed and they were
The court may allow the party making an admission declared in default. As a result, judgment was rendered
under this Rule, whether express or implied, to withdraw ordering them to pay. On appeal, petitioner argued that
or amend it upon such terms as may be just. the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the petitioner. The Court ruled that jurisdiction was
properly acquired. The admissions made in a motion are
Arts. 12 & 2035, Civil Code
judicial admissions which are binding on the party who
Art. 12. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to
made them. Such party is precluded from denying the
the rules of evidence. (n)
same unless there is proof of palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.
Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions
shall be valid:
Heirs of Pedro Clemeña v. Heirs of Irene Bien (2006)
(1) The civil status of persons;
This is a case of recovery of possession and ownership under oath and not presented as witness during the
over a land. In his answer, Clemeña alleged that he hearing will still be accepted by the court and used in
owns the land and he is in possession of the same. evaluating the case.
Subsequently the original parties died and were
substituted by their respective heirs. Trial court and CA III. Rules of Admissibility (Rule 130)
both ordered the heirs of Clemeña to pay damages for A. Object (Real) Evidence
depriving the owners of possession of their land. The
Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence
heirs of Clemeña appealed to the SC alleging that they
are those addressed to the senses of the court.
never took possession of the land. The SC ruled that the
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
statement made by Clemeña in his answer were judicial
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. (1a)
admissions which conclusively bind the party making it
and he cannot thereafter contradict it. The heirs are
Requisites for the admissibility of an object (real)
bound by the admission made by Clemeña.
evidence: (FARC)
1. The evidence must be relevant;
Luciano Tan v. Rodil Enterprises (2006)
2. The evidence must be authenticated;
MeTC issued an Order, recognizing an agreement
3. The authentication must be made by a competent
entered into in open court by the parties: that Tan will
witness; and
pay rentals from September, 1997 up to June, 2000; and
he will pay the monthly rentals on or before the 5th day 4. The object must be formally offered in evidence
of each month after June 30, 2000. Petitioner filed a
Motion to Allow Defendant to Deposit Rentals with the Notes:
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses
MeTC, praying that he be allowed to deposit the rentals
of the court.
due as of August 2000, and the subsequent monthly
rentals as it falls due. The Court ruled that these are
Where an object is relevant to a fact in issue, the court
admissions properly appreciated by the lower courts. A
may acquire knowledge thereof:
judicial admission is an admission made by a party in the
1. By actually viewing the object (such object becomes
course of the proceedings in the same case, for
object / real evidence), or
purposes of the truth of some alleged fact, which said
2. By receiving testimonial evidence thereon.
party cannot thereafter disprove.
People v. Lacson (2003) Object as evidence/real evidence are those addressed

A new rule was enacted allowing the revival of the case to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant
to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
by the prosecutor within 2 years from the date of
examined or viewed by the court.
judgment. One of the requisites of this new rule is that
the accused should have agreed to the dismissal of the
Also known as:
case. When asked if the defendant agreed to the
o Autoptic preference (knowledge acquired by the
dismissal, his counsel answered that they did not. The
court from inspection or by direct self-
defendant also admitted that although he did not agree
perception or autopsy of the evidence.)
to the provisional dismissal of the case, neither did he
o Physical evidence (evidence of the highest
file an MR on the dismissal. The Court ruled that the
order)
respondent’s admissions (through counsel) made in the
course of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals are
binding and conclusive on him. The respondent is “Must be relevant”: Relevance is a matter of reasoning
barred from repudiating his admissions absent evidence and the court will draw an inference of the relevancy of
the evidence from the issues of the case. The problem
of palpable mistake in making such admissions.
commonly lies in showing that the object sought to be
Therefore, the new rule does not apply. Sir (based on
admitted is in fact the real thing and not a mere
dissent): mere legal arguments. Even the rules of court
substitute or representation of the real thing (problem of
allows alternative causes of action which are
authentication).
inconsistent with each other
“Formal offer of evidence”: a vital act before the
Nacu v. CSC (2010)
admission of evidence because the court “shall
A preliminary investigation was conducted to determine
whether or not overtime fees were charged, in violation consider no evidence which has not been formally
of a Memorandum Order. during the investigation, Ligan offered.”
attested that overtime fees were charged. Issue arose as
The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked
to the admissibility of this statement, given that it was not
against object evidence (no testimonial compulsion
made under oath and Ligan was not presented as
involved).
witness. The Court held that technical rules on
procedure and evidence are not applied strictly in
Testimonial evidence – What if one has been adduced?
administrative cases. Therefore, the statement of a
person during the preliminary investigation even if not
The court may still view such object to resolve any doubt 2. To determine the thereof.
it may have thereon. age of the paper
used, or the
Ocular inspection (OI): blemishes or
o Auxiliary remedy afforded to the court. alteration thereon (as
o An OI will not preclude a party from introducing where falsification is
other evidence on the same issue. alleged).
o Whether an OI is to be made or not lies in the
discretion of the trial court.
o An OI is invalid when conducted by the judge Physical examination of a person – May be conducted
without notice to or the presence of the parties. by the court, or under its discretion.
Object (real) evidence includes: Categories of object evidence

1. Any article or object which may be known or For purposes of authentication:
perceived by the use of any of the senses. 1. Unique objects – Object that have readily identifiable
2. The examination of the anatomy of a person or of any marks (like serial number of a calibre 45 pistol);
substance taken therefrom. 2. Objects made unique – Objects that are made
3. The conduct of tests, demonstrations, or experiments. readily identifiable (like a typical knife, witness may
4. The examination of representative portrayals of the identify by placing marks on it); and
object in question, such as maps, diagrams or sketches, 3. Non-unique objects – Objects with no identifying
pictures or audio-visual recordings, provided the same marks and cannot be marked (like drop of blood,
are properly authenticated. oil, and drugs, the proponent must establish a
5. Any object which may be known by the senses of chain of custody).
sight (visual), hearing (auditory), touch (tactile), taste
(gustatory), smell (olfactory). Chain of Custody
The third category (non-unique objects) refers to
The Court can refuse the introduction of object (real) those objects which are not readily identifiable, were
evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if: not made identifiable or cannot be made identifiable
1. The exhibition of such object is contrary to public (ex. drops of blood, drugs in powder form, etc.). Under
policy, morals or decency; this situation, the proponent of the evidence must
2. To require its being viewed in court or in an ocular establish a chain of custody.
inspection would result in delays, inconvenience, o The purpose of establishing chain of custody
unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the is to guarantee the integrity of the physical
evidentiary value of such object; evidence and to prevent the introduction of
3. Such object (real) evidence would be confusing or evidence which is not authentic. Exception:
misleading (as when the purpose is to prove the former where the exhibit is positively identified the
condition of the object and there is no preliminary chain of custody of physical evidence is
showing that there has been no substantial change in irrelevant.
said condition); or o There must be links to the chain – the
4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already people who actually handled or had custody of
presented clearly portrays the object in question as to the object. Each link must show: how he
render a view thereof unnecessary. received the object, how he handled it to prevent
substitution; and how it was transferred to
A repulsive or indecent object may be exhibited when another
the same is necessary in the interest of justice. o Each of the handlers of the evidence is a
link in the chain and must testify to make
Photographs, X-ray plates, recordings and motion the foundation complete.
pictures when shown to the court are object (real)
evidence. Interpretations thereof are afforded by Demonstrative evidence represents or demonstrates
ordinary or expert witnesses through testimonial or the real thing. The following question is considered:
documentary evidence. “Does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent
the object it seeks to demonstrate or represent?” If it
Documents are: does, the evidence would be admissible.
Object evidence Documentary
evidence 1. Photographs: Under the electronic evidence rules,
If the purpose is: If the purpose is other photographic evidence of events, acts or transactions
1. To prove their than those mentioned shall be admissible in evidence provided:
existence or condition, under object (real) a. It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the
or the nature of the evidence, i.e., if the court; and
handwritings thereon; purpose is to establish b. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated
or the contents or tenor by either: i. The person who made the recording, or by ii.
Some other person competent to testify on the accuracy [cf. Sec. 1, Rule 11 of Rules on Electronic Evidence]
thereof Rule 11 Audio, Photographic. Video and Ephemeral
Evidence
2. Motion pictures and recordings Section 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio,
o Rules that apply to photographs generally apply photographic and video evidence of events, acts or
to these. transactions shall be admissible provided is shall be
o In the case of tape recordings, the witness shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be
should identify the speakers, state how he identified, explained or authenticated by the person who
recognizes their voices and that the recording made the recording or by some other person competent
was not taken in violation of the Anti-Wiretapping to testify on the accuracy thereof.
Law
o Admissibility requirements for tape recordings: Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communication. –
1. The recording device was capable of Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven
taking testimony; by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
2. The operator of the device was competent; same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence
3. No changes, additions or deletions have or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent
been made; evidence may be admitted.
4. The testimony was elicited and voluntarily
made without any kind of inducement; A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral
5. Establishment of authenticity and correctness electronic communication shall be covered by the
of the recording; immediately preceding section.
6. Identity of the speakers; and If the foregoing communications are recorded or
7. The manner of the preservation of the embodied in an electronic document, then the provisions
recording. of Rule 5 shall apply.
3. Diagrams, models and maps Notes:

o Aside from the requirement of relevance, a Ephemeral electronic communications:
diagram, model or map must be identified by o These forms of communications refer to
a witness who is familiar with what the telephone conversations, text messages,
evidence depicts, and that the same is an chatroom sessions, streaming audio, and
accurate representation of the scene it other forms of electronic communication, the
portrays. The question as to the sufficiency of evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
the authentication is a matter of judicial o Shall be proven by the testimony of a person
discretion. who was a party to the same or by one who
has personal knowledge thereof. In the
4. X-ray pictures absence or unavailability of such witness,
o Admissible when shown to have been made other competent evidence may be admitted.
under circumstances as to assure their
accuracy and where relevant to a material Cases:
issue in the case. People v. Rullepa (2003)
The accused in this case was not given the death
5. Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments penalty because it was not conclusively proven that the
o Matter subject to judicial discretion. In-court re- victim was below 7 years old. When the trier of facts
enactment of material events by witnesses observes the appearance of a person to ascertain his or
has been held permissible to help illustrate the her age, he is not taking judicial notice of such fact;
testimony of a witness. rather, he is conducting an examination of the evidence,
the evidence being the appearance of the person. A
Cases: person’s appearance, where relevant, is admissible as
Sison v. People (1995) object evidence, the same being addressed to the
Marcos loyalists mauled and killed a man. The senses of the court.
prosecution presented documentary evidence including
various photographs taken during the mauling. Beltran v. Samson (1929)
Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be The accused, charged with falsification, was ordered by
identified by the photographer as to its production and the judge to present a sample of his handwriting. The
testified as to the circumstances under which they were Court held the order to be violative of his right against
produced. The correctness of the photograph as a self-incrimination. Writing is not a purely mechanical act
faithful representation of the object portrayed can be – it requires the application of intelligence and attention.
proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the If the petitioner in this case is allowed to be compelled to
photographer or by any other competent witness who provide a writing sample, he is effectively being
can testify to its exactness and accuracy. compelled to furnish evidence against himself.
Note: This is not in the syllabus but Sir asked Kor to (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
report on whether an accused can be compelled to technique;
submit a handwriting sample. He can’t. (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to
produce new information that is relevant to the proper
People vs. Yatar (2004) resolution of the case; and
The accused argues that the blood sample taken from (e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court
him as well as the DNA tests that were conducted may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or
violates his right to remain silent as well as his right integrity of the DNA testing.
against self-incrimination. The Court held otherwise. The This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need
right against self- incrimination is against testimonial of a prior court order, at the behest of any party,
compulsion. It does not apply where the evidence sought including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or
to be excluded is part of object evidence. proceeding is commenced.
[cf. Rule on DNA Evidence] Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. - If the court finds that the
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule, with, the court shall -
the following terms shall be defined as follows: (a) Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be
(a) "Biological sample" means any organic material taken from any person or crime scene evidence;
originating from a person's body, even if found in (b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. designed to protect the integrity of the biological sample,
This includes blood, saliva and other body fluids, tissues, the testing process and the reliability of the test results,
hairs and bones; including the condition that the DNA test results shall be
(b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the simultaneously disclosed to parties involved in the case;
chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the and
body. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the (c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount
individual, except identical twins; that prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing by the
(c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA other or the adverse party and where additional
profiles, results and other genetic information directly biological samples of the same kind can no longer be
generated from DNA testing of biological samples; obtained, issue an order requiring all parties to the case
(d) "DNA profile" means genetic information derived from or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be
DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a conducted.
person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately
originating from that person; executory and shall not be appealable. Any petition for
(e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay
methods which include the extraction of DNA from the implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues
biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and an injunctive order. The grant of a DNA testing
the comparison of the information obtained from the application shall not be construed as an automatic
DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of admission into evidence of any component of the DNA
determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof. chan
the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological robles virtual law library
samples originates from the same person (direct
identification) or if the biological samples originate from Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. - Post-conviction
related persons (kinship analysis); and DNA testing may be available, without need of prior
(f) "Probability of Parentage" means the numerical court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted
estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a
parent compared with the probability of a random match biological sample exists, (b) such sample is relevant to
of two unrelated individuals in a given population. the case, and (c) the testing would probably result in the
reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.
Sec. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. - The
appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA
or on application of any person who has a legal interest evidence. - In assessing the probative value of the DNA
in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such evidence presented, the court shall consider the
order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the following:
parties upon a showing of the following: (a) The chain of custody, including how the biological
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
case; possibility of contamination of the samples;
(b) The biological sample: (b) The DNA testing methodology, including the
(i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
testing now requested; or advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
(ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
results may require confirmation for good reasons; conducting the tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation
by any reputable standards-setting institution and the Sec. 11. Confidentiality. - DNA profiles and all results or
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If other information obtained from DNA testing shall be
the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience confidential. Except upon order of the court, a DNA
of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility profile and all results or other information obtained from
shall be properly established; and DNA testing shall only be released to any of the
(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter following, under such terms and conditions as may be
provided. set forth by the court:
The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the (a) Person from whom the sample was taken;
appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily. (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action
where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or
Sec. 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. - In sought to be offered and presented;
evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
reliable, the court shall consider the following: (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, (e) Other persons as determined by the court.
that is, whether the theory or technique can be and has Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any
been tested; information concerning a DNA profile without the proper
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the
principles or methods; court wherein such DNA evidence was offered,
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods presented or sought to be offered and presented.
by the relevant scientific community; Where the person from whom the biological sample was
(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and taken files a written verified request to the court that
controls to ensure the correctness of data generated; allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference profile of the person and all results or other information
population database; and obtained from the DNA testing, the same may be
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to disclosed to the persons named in the written verified
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA request.
profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical
calculations used in comparing DNA profiles. Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. - The trial court
shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including
Sec. 9. Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. - In all biological samples, DNA profiles and results or other
evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall genetic information obtained from DNA testing. For this
consider the following: purpose, the court may order the appropriate
(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as
evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA follows:
evidence; (a) In criminal cases:
(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the i. for not less than the period of time that any person
totality of the other evidence presented in the case; and is under trial for an offense; or
that ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such
(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from time as the accused has served his sentence; and
paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the (b) In all other cases, until such time as the decision in
value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has
the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as become final and executory.
corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of The court may allow the physical destruction of a
Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable biological sample before the expiration of the periods set
presumption of paternity. forth above, provided that:
(a) A court order to that effect has been secured; or
Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing. Remedy if the (b) The person from whom the DNA sample was
Results Are Favorable to the Convict. - The convict or obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the
the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas DNA evidence.
corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post-
conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. Notes:
In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to Rule on DNA Evidence:
be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of o DNA report is a documentary evidence.
conviction and order the release of the convict, unless o DNA testing order is executory, unless there is
continued detention is justified for a lawful cause. an injunction.
A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of o The Rule on DNA Evidence is the primary rule
Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of to be applied whenever DNA evidence is
said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or offered, used or proposed to be offered or
remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the used as evidence in criminal and civil
appropriate orders. actions and special proceedings.
convict, unless continued detention is justified for a
DNA: lawful cause.
o DNA evidence constitutes the totality of If results show the accused is actually guilty  writ of
the DNA profiles, results and other genetic habeas corpus
information directly generated from DNA testing
of biological samples. The determination of the probative value of the DNA
o DNA testing means verified and credible evidence rests upon the sound judicial
scientific methods which include the extraction of assessment taking into considerations the following
DNA from biological samples, the generation of matters:
DNA profiles and the comparison of the a. The chain of custody, including how the biological
information obtained from the DNA testing of samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
biological samples for the purpose of possibility of contamination of the samples;
determining, with reasonable certainty, whether b. The DNA testing methodology, including the
or not the DNA obtained from two or more procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
distinct biological samples originates from the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure,
same person (direct identification) of if and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
the biological samples originate from conducting the tests;
related persons (kinship analysis). c. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation
by any reputable standards-setting institution and
Application for DNA Testing Order: the qualification of the analyst who conducted the
The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
propio or on application of any person who has a legal experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and
interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. credibility shall be properly established; and
Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to d. The reliability of the testing result, as herein after
the parties upon a showing of the following: provided.
1. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the
case; Can you present DNA evidence without an expert
2. The biological sample: witness?
a. Was not previously subjected to the No. Always necessary when you present DNA evidence.
type of DNA testing now requested; or
b. Was previously subjected to DNA B. Documentary Evidence
testing but the results may require Section 2, Rule 130
confirmation for good reasons; Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as
c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically evidence consist of writing or any material containing
valid technique; letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes
d. The DNA testing has the scientific of written expression offered as proof of their contents.
potential to produce new information that is (n)
relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
e. The existence of other factors, if any, which Documents as evidence consist of (WCW):
the court may consider as potentially 1. Writing or
affecting the accuracy of integrity of the DNA 2. Any material containing letters, words, numbers,
testing. figures, symbols or
This rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, 3. Other modes of written expression offered as proof of
without need of prior court order, at the behest of any their contents.
party, including law enforcement agencies, before
a suit or proceeding is commenced. Case:
Yap vs. Inopiquez Jr. (2003)
Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, A cash bond was posted on March 8 as shown by an
without need of prior court order, to the prosecution or official receipt. The property bond, in substitution of the
any person convicted by final and executory judgment cash bond, was filed on March 10, as shown by the jurat.
provided that: Both Orders of Release were issued on March 6. The
a. a biological sample exists, receipts prove that the respondent judge ordered the
b. such sample is relevant to the case, and release of the accused despite the fact that there was no
c. the testing would probably result in the reversal or bail filed and approved yet. It is a basic rule of evidence
modification of the judgment of conviction. that between documentary and oral evidence, the former
Remedy: The convict or the prosecution may file for a carries more weight.
writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if he results of
the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the
convict. In case the court, after due hearing finds the
1. Best Evidence Rule
Section 3-8, Rule 130
petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify
the judgment of conviction and order the release of the Section 3. Original document must be
produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no evidence shall be Exception/s: (PUNNcD)
admissible other than the original document itself, except 1. Original lost/destroyed/cannot be produced in court
in the following cases: without bad faith on offeror’s part.
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the 2. Original in the custody or under the control of the
part of the offeror; party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice.
control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable 3. Original consists of numerous accounts or
notice; documents which cannot be examined in court
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
other documents which cannot be examined in court established from them is only the general result of the
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be whole.
established from them is only the general result of the a. Voluminous character of the records must
whole; and be established; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of b. Such records must be made accessible to
a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a) the adverse party so that their correctness may be
tested on cross-examination.
Section 4. Original of document. —
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of 4. Original is a public record in the custody of a
which are the subject of inquiry. public officer or is recorded in a public office.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed
at or about the same time, with identical contents, all 5. When it is not being presented for its contents.
such copies are equally regarded as originals. (exception: in criminal cases, where the issue is not
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of only with respect to the contents of the document but
business, one being copied from another at or near the also as to whether such document actually existed)
time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals. (3a) Requirements for Admissibility of Secondary Evidence
(DLR)
2. Secondary Evidence There must be proof by satisfactory evidence of:
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — 1. Due execution of the original. Proven through the
When the original document has been lost or destroyed, testimony of either:
or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of a. The person/s who executed it;
its execution or existence and the cause of its b. Person before whom its execution as
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its acknowledged; or
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some c. Any person who was present and saw it
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in executed and delivered or who thereafter saw it and
the order stated. (4a) recognized the signatures, or one to whom the
parties thereto had previously confessed the
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's execution thereof.
custody or control. — If the document is in the custody
or under the control of adverse party, he must have 2. Loss, destruction, or unavailability of all such
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and originals.
after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to o This may be proved by anyone who, in the
produce the document, secondary evidence may be judgment of the court, had made a
presented as in the case of its loss. (5a) sufficient examination in the places where
the document or papers of similar
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document character are usually kept by the person
is a public record. — When the original of document is in in whose custody the document was and
the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public has been unable to find it, or who has made
office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy any other investigation sufficient to satisfy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a) the court that the document is indeed lost.
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to 3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for
offer it. — A party who calls for the production of a or attempt to produce the original
document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it
as evidence. (6a) Notes:
Original document:
General rule: No evidence shall be admissible other than 1. The original of the document is one the contents of
the original document itself. which are the subject of inquiry.
2. When a document is in two or more copies executed
at or about the same time, with identical contents, all executed; or
such copies are equally regarded as originals. 2. The circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
3. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of execution. (Testimonial evidence or other evidence will
business, one being copied from another at or near the suffice. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise
time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise admissible without need of accounting for the original).
equally regarded as originals. 3, Where the transactions have been recorded in writing
but the contents of such writing are not “the subject of
Document: a deed, instrument or other duly authorized inquiry.”
paper in which something is proved, evidenced or set
forth. When a document is presented to prove its existence or
condition, it is offered as real evidence (not as
Documentary Evidence: furnished by written documentary evidence).
instruments, inscriptions and documents of all kinds. o Parol evidence of the fact of execution is
allowed.
Best Evidence Rule: o However, in criminal cases, where the issue
o Definition: That rule which requires the highest is not only with respect to the contents of the
grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed document but also as to whether such document
fact. actually existed with the participation as imputed
o Purpose: To prevent fraud, perjury, and To to the accused, the original must be
exclude uncertainties in the contents of a produced. (e.g. Libel published in a newspaper
document – A copy of the newspaper must be produced.
o Despite the word “best,” the rule does not Falsification of a document – The original
proclaim itself as the highest and most reliable document involved must be presented)
evidence in the hierarchy of evidence.
o It is the “original document” rule or the “primary Affidavits and depositions:
evidence” rule. Affidavits Depositions
o The only actual rule that the term “best Affidavits are The use of
evidence” denotes is the rule that the original of regulated by the depositions are
a writing must, as a general proposition, be hearsay evidence rule regulated by Section
produced. (Section 26, Rule 130) 4, Rule 23, in
o This rule is based on the theory that the copy of to safeguard the right consideration of the
the original is not as reliable as the latter of cross examination. necessity therefor
because of the possible inaccuracy in the even if the deponent
process of copying and the danger of erroneous had been cross-
transmission of the original. examined.
Best Evidence Rule – Only Applied to Documentary Affidavits and depositions are not best evidence,
Evidence: hence not admissible, if the affiants or deponents are
o Operates as a rule of exclusion available as witnesses.
o Effect of non-production of the original
document: Gives rise to the presumption of The best evidence rule is not involved if the contents of
suppression of evidence (Section 3e, Rule 131) said affidavits or depositions are not the issues in the
o In the case of real evidence, secondary case but are only intended as evidence to establish the
evidence may be introduced without having to issues in controversy.
account for the non-production of such primary
evidence. When “other copies of a document” are considered
originals:
“Original is a public record in the custody of a 1. These include regular entries in journals and ledgers.
public officer or is recorded in a public office”: such 2. A signed carbon copy executed at the same time as
document may be evidenced by an official publication the original is known as a “duplicate original” and may
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the be introduced in evidence without accounting for the
legal custody of the record (Section 24), and in the case non-production of the original.
of an authorized public record of a private writing, the
same may also be proved by a copy thereof Carbon copies as originals:
attested by the legal keeper of the record (Section 27). o Documents prepared in several copies
through the use of carbon sheets are
The Best Evidence Rule is applicable only when the considered originals provided that the writing of
contents of the document is the subject of inquiry. a contract upon the outside sheet, including the
signature of the party sought to be charged
Does not apply when the issue is only as to: thereby, produces a facsimile upon the
1. W/N the document exists or W/N it was actually sheets beneath, such signature being thus
reproduced by the same stroke of the pen, which Intentional destruction of the originals by a party
made the surface or exposed impression. who, however, had acted in good faith doesn’t
o However, even if the signature was made preclude his introduction of secondary evidence of
through separate acts or separate occasions, the contents thereof.
all the carbon copies are regarded as originals if
each copy was intended as a repository of the How is secondary evidence admitted?
same legal act of the party thereto. • Under Section 5, Rule 130, secondary evidence
o Exception: imperfect carbon copies (e.g. those may be admitted only by laying the basis for
wherein the signatures of the parties are its production.
incomplete or which leave something else to be • This requires compliance with the following:
done in order that a document could evidence a 1. Offeror must prove the execution and
binding obligation) are merely secondary existence of the original document.
evidence even if the text was made at the same 2. Offeror must show the cause of its
time as the signed original. unavailability.
3. Offeror must show that the unavailability was
Telegrams and cables: not due to his bad faith.
o On the question as to W/N the dispatch sent or • Note: Burden of proof in establishing loss or
the dispatch received is the best evidence of the destruction of the original is on the proponent
message, the better rule is that it depends on of the secondary evidence.
the issue to be proved. If the issue is:
Issue Best Evidence Intentional destruction of the originals by a party
Contents of the Original dispatch who, however, had acted in good faith doesn’t
telegram as received preclude his introduction of secondary evidence of
received by the the contents thereof.
addressee
Telegram sent by The original is the When the original is outside the court’s jurisdiction,
the sender message received secondary evidence is admissible. (PNB v. Olila)
for transmission.
Inaccuracy of Both telegrams as Where the law specifically provides for the class and
transmission sent and received quantum of secondary evidence to establish the
are originals. contents of a document, or bars secondary evidence
Libel case – Manuscript of a lost document, such requirement is controlling.
Contents of the
articles sent by Section 8, Rule 130:
the accused for No particular form of notice is required, as long as
publication it fairly apprises the other party as to what papers are
Libel case – What A copy of the desired. Even an oral demand in open court for such
was actually newspaper production at a reasonable time thereafter will
published publication. suffice. Such notice must, however, be given to the
adverse party, or his attorney, even if the document is in
A document is collateral in issue when the purpose the actual possession of a third person.
of introducing the document is not to establish its
terms but to show facts that have no reference to its Where receipt of the original of a letter is acknowledged
contents like its existence, condition, execution or on a carbon copy thereof, there’s no need for a notice to
delivery. the other party to produce the original of the letter.
Best evidence rule may be waived if not raised in the The adverse party’s justified refusal or failure to
trial. produce the document doesn’t give rise to the
presumption of suppression of evidence, or create
Applying the best evidence rule: an unfavorable inference, against him. It only
1. Determine the matter inquired into. authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence.
o Procedural compliance: requires presentation of
the original document Rule of production of Rule of production of
o So long as the original is available, no other documents under R130 documents under R27
evidence can be substituted for the original
2. If the original cannot be presented in evidence:
a. Find an adequate legal excuse for the
failure to present the original
b. Present a secondary evidence sanctioned by
the Rules of Court
Procured by mere notice Situation: document is Section 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is
to the adverse party – either assumed to be admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
requirements for such favorable to the party in admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and
notice must be possession thereof or related laws and is authenticated in the manner
complied with as that the party seeking its prescribed by these Rules.
condition precedent for production is not Section 3. Privileged communication. – The confidential
subsequent introduction sufficiently informed of character of a privileged communication is not lost solely
of secondary evidence the contents of the same on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic
by the proponent - Production of such document.
- Presupposes that doc is in the nature of
the doc to be a mode of discovery Rule 4
produced is intended and can be sought BEST EVIDENCE RULE
as evidence for the only by proper motion Section 1. Original of an electronic document. – An
proponent who is in TC, but is electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent
presumed to have permitted only upon of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if
knowledge of its good cause shown it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
contents, secondary means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
evidence thereof Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When
being available in a document is in two or more copies executed at or
case of its non- about the same time with identical contents, or is a
production counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or
E-Commerce Act, Sec. 10 electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or
10. Original Documents. – by other equivalent techniques which accurately
(1) Where the law requires information to be presented reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall
or retained in its original form, that requirement is met by be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
an electronic data message or electronic document if; Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall
(a) the integrity of the information from the time not be admissible to the same extent as the original if:
when it was first generated in its final form, as an (a) a genuine question is raised as to the
electronic data message or electronic document is authenticity of the original; or
shown by evidence aliunde or otherwise; and (b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or
(b) where it is required that information be inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original.
presented, that the information is capable of being
displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented. Cases:
Vda. de Corpuz vs. Brabangco (1963)
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement The cause of action in this case was based on the deed
therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law of sale and one of the proof presented for its existence
simply provides consequences for the information not was the witness testimony of Albeza. It was argued that
being presented or retained in its original form. Albeza’s testimony was invalid because he failed to
recite the contents of the document. The SC ruled that
(3) For the purpose of subparagraph (a) of paragraph Albeza’s testimony was valid. A witness’ recollection of
(1): a document’s contents does not need to be verbatim, it
(a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall be is enough that they state it in substance. It is sufficient if
whether the information has remained complete and witnesses can remember and testify to facts that show
unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement the essential elements of a contract: consent, subject
and any change which arises in the normal course of matter, consideration, and form (in some instances).
communication, storage and display ; and Requiring a verbatim recollection would, in effect,
(b) the standard of reliability required shall be completely prohibit the proving of lost documents
assessed in the light of purposed for which the through recollection.
information was generated and in the light of all the
relevant circumstances. Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Ferrer (1968)
(exception to rule)
Rule on Electronic Evidence Rule 3 & 4 Photostatic copies of ledger entries and vouchers were
Rule 3 entered into evidence. It was contended that no
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS evidentiary value whatsoever should be given to them
Section 1. Electronic documents as functional since “they were merely photostatic copies of the
equivalent of paper-based documents. – Whenever a originals, the best evidence being the originals
rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document, themselves.” The SC ruled that the evidence presented
record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of is admissible. Sec. 5 of Rule 130 provides for the
writing, such term shall be deemed to include an requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence
electronic document as defined in these Rules. when the original is in the custody of the adverse party,
thus: (1) opponent's possession of the original; (2) which should be given greater credence than documents
reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original; testifying merely as to absence of any record of the
(3) satisfactory proof of its existence; and (4) failure or marriage, especially considering that there is absolutely
refusal of opponent to produce the original in court. It is no requirement in the law that a marriage contract needs
not necessary for a party seeking to introduce secondary to be submitted to the civil registrar as a condition
evidence to show that the original is in the actual precedent for the validity of a marriage. The mere fact
possession of his adversary. It is enough that the that no record of a marriage exists does not invalidate
circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are
in his possession or under his control. Neither is it present. Documentary evidence as to the absence of a
required that the party entitled to the custody of the record is quite different from documentary evidence as
instrument should, on being notified to produce it, admit to the absence of a marriage ceremony, or documentary
having it in his possession. Hence, secondary evidence evidence as to the invalidity of the marriage.
is admissible where he denies having it in his
possession. The party calling for such evidence may Lee vs. People (2004)
introduce a copy thereof as in the case of loss. For, (exception to rule)
among the exceptions to the best evidence rule is “when During a trial for estafa, photocopies of charge invoices
the original has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be and of BPI checks were offered in evidence. Two
produced in court.” witnesses were presented by prosecution to establish
that the two checks were lost in a flood. The accused
Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers Union objected to the admission of the photocopies of the
(1977) checks and charge invoices based on the best evidence
The company sued the union for damages for losses rule. The SC ruled that the prosecution mustered the
based on a private auditor’s reports. The Court ruled that requisite quantum of evidence to prove the predicates to
the company’s claim for damages is not sufficiently the admission of the photocopies of the charge invoices
substantiated by evidence. What applies to this case is and checks. The best evidence rule does not apply to
the general rule “that an audit made by, or the testimony proof of facts collateral to the issues such as the nature,
of, a private auditor, is inadmissible in evidence as proof appearance or condition of physical objects or to
of the original records, books of accounts, reports or the evidence relating to a matter which does not come from
like.” The rule which the company rests its case cannot the foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
be applied in this case because it was not established when a party uses a document to prove the existence of
that the records on which the accountants’ reports were an independent fact, as to which the writing is merely
based were voluminous. Another requisite for the collated or incidental. It has been held that where the
application of the rule is that the records should have missing document is the foundation of the action, more
been made available to the adverse party so that the strictness in proof is required than where the document
correctness of the summary may be tested on cross is only collaterally involved.
examination.
Consolidated Bank vs. Del Monte Motor Works
Citibank, N.A. Mastercard vs. Teodoro (2003) (2005)
Citibank presented photocopied sales invoices or charge (exception to rule)
slips in a collection suit. The SC ruled that the Petitioner presented a bank manager who identified a
photocopied sales invoices are inadmissible in evidence. photocopy of the duplicate original of the promissory
In the present case, the existence of the original sales note. The original copy of the PN was nowhere to be
invoices was established by the photocopies and the found, so petitioner sought the admission of the
testimony of Hernandez. Petitioner, however, failed to duplicate original. The SC ruled that it must be admitted.
prove that the originals had been lost or could not be Respondents were not able to specifically deny the
produced in court after reasonable diligence and good allegations in the complaint in the manner required by
faith in searching for them. When more than one original the Rules of Court. As a result, they had, to all intents
copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been and purposes, admitted the genuineness and due
lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before execution of the promissory note. This case also falls
secondary evidence can be given of any one. A under one of the exceptions of the best evidence rule-
photocopy may not be used without accounting for the when the original of the subject document is in the
other originals. possession of the adverse party. As argued by
petitioner, had it been given the opportunity by the lower
Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (2004) court, it would have established that the original of the
A complaint for bigamy was filed against Tenebro so he note was in the possession of respondents.
requested his brother to verify from the Civil Register
whether there was any marriage at all between him and Republic vs. Marcos-Manotoc (2012)
Villareyes, but there was no record of said marriage. The PCGG against the Marcos Estate. Petitioner
However he was still found guilty of bigamy. The presented and formally offered its evidence against
marriage contract presented by the prosecution serves respondents. However, the latter objected to the offer
as positive evidence as to the existence of the marriage primarily on the ground that the documents violated the
best evidence rule as these documents were (2)Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds
unauthenticated; moreover, petitioner had not provided as set forth in this number. In the following cases an
any reason for its failure to present the originals. The SC agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by
ruled that the documents submitted by petitioner should action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum,
not be admitted as evidence. While affidavits may be thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party
considered as public documents if they are charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the
acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a
are still classified as hearsay evidence due to the secondary evidence of its contents:
following reasons: (1) They are not generally prepared (a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be
by the affiant, but by another one who uses his or her performed within a year from the making thereof;
own language in writing the affiant's statements, parts of (b) A special promise to answer for the debt,
which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by default, or miscarriage of another;
the one writing them; and (2) The adverse party is (c) An agreement made in consideration of
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;
When the original document is in the custody of a public (d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels
officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may or things in action, at a price not less than five hundred
be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer pesos, unless the buyer accept and receive part of such
in custody thereof. When the original documents have goods and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them,
been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, of such things in action or pay at the time some part of
the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the purchase money; but when a sale is made by
the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales
part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of book, at the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of
its contents in some authentic document, or by the property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated. purchasers and person on whose account the sale is
made, it is a sufficient memorandum;
2. Parole Evidence Rule (e) An agreement of the leasing for a longer
Section 9, Rule 130 period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the an interest therein;
terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it (f) A representation as to the credit of a third
is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon person.
and there can be, between the parties and their (3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other consent to a contract.
than the contents of the written agreement.
Art. 1405. Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds,
However, a party may present evidence to modify, referred to in No. 2 of Article 1403, are ratified by the
explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to
puts in issue in his pleading: prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefit under
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the them.
written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the Elements: (TWNS)
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; 1. Terms are reduced in writing
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or 2. Contains all the terms agreed upon
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties 3. As between the parties and their successors in
or their successors in interest after the execution of the interest
written agreement. 4. There can be no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)
General Rule: When the terms of an agreement have
i. Express Trust on Immovables been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all
Art 1443, CC the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the
parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of
Art. 1443. No express trusts concerning an immovable
such terms other than the contents of the written
or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence.
agreement.
ii. Statute of Frauds 2
Exception/s: (VOI )
Art. 1403, CC 1. Intrinsic (latent) ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in
Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, the instrument
unless they are ratified: 2. Failure of the instrument to express the true intent and
(1)Those entered into in the name of another person by agreement of the parties thereto
one who has been given no authority or legal 3. Validity of the written agreement
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or agreement was made or to which it relates, or to explain
their successors in interest after the execution of the an intrinsic ambiguity.
written agreement
Woodhouse v. Halili (1953)
Notes: (exception to rule)
Parole evidence = Extrinsic evidence, oral or written, Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract of
which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a partnership for the bottling and distribution of Mission
complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a soft drinks. According to defendant, plaintiff represented
document. that he had an exclusive franchise, when in reality, the
franchise had expired at the time of the execution of the
This rule is based upon the consideration that when the contract, thereby vitiating defendant's consent. In order
parties have reduced their agreement on a particular to prove his allegations, defendant presented prior drafts
matter into writing, all their previous and of their contract of partnership. The Court found these
contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged prior drafts to be admissible because the purpose is not
therein. to vary, alter, or modify the agreement, but to discover
the intent of the parties thereto and the circumstances
What is an example when parties to the case are not surrounding the execution of the contract. Certainly,
parties to a contract yet parole evidence is applicable? plaintiff's acts or statements prior to the agreement are
When they are successors-in-interest. essential and relevant to the determination of the issue.
Such prior drafts reflect how plaintiff induced the
If one of the parties to the case is a complete stranger to defendant to enter into the partnership - to prove the
the contract involved therein, he is not bound by this rule representations or inducements, or fraud, with which or
and can introduce extrinsic evidence against the efficacy by which he secured the other party's consent. These
of the writing. are expressly excluded by the parol evidence rule. Also,
the parol evidence rule allows evidence to be introduced
How must it be put in issue? You must allege it. when the validity of an instrument is put in issue, as in
this case.
Latent ambiguity = clear on its face but there are Note: Sir asked Jantzen to report on whether this is still
circumstances that make the meaning uncertain; you good law. It is. This might be asked in the exam.
can introduce parole evidence to clarify it
Land Settlement Development Corp. v. Garcia
Patent ambiguity = apparent on its face; parole evidence Plantation Co. (1963)
is inadmissible; a contract with patent ambiguities is void (exception to rule)
Plaintiff offered evidence to prove that the document in
Mistake = mistake of fact which is mutual to the parties question did not express the true intent and agreement
of the parties. SC held that this should have been
Imperfection = inaccurate statement in the agreement, or admitted by the lower court since it falls under the
incompleteness in the writing, or the presence of exceptions to the parole evidence rule. When the
inconsistent provisions therein operation of a contract is made to depend upon the
occurrence of an event, which, for that reason is a
Cases: condition precedent, such may be established by parole
Maulini v. Serrano (1914) evidence.
(exception to rule)
Parole evidence was offered to show that no contract of PNR v. CFI of Albay (1978)
indorsement ever existed. The court admitted the same, Counsel of plaintiff asked the latter to testify on the
saying that the prohibition against the introduction of PNR’s promise with respect to the execution of the Deed
parole evidence does not apply where the purpose is to of Donation. Court held that this violated the Parole
show that no written contract ever existed. It did not Evidence Rule. Plaintiffs did not plead or allege that the
vary, alter, modify, or contradict the terms of the contract deed of donation was incomplete or that its execution
of indorsement. was vitiated by mistake or that it did not reflect the true
intention of the parties. For having failed to plead said
Palanca v. Fred Wilson & Co. (1918) exceptions, they could not validly introduce parole
(exception to rule) evidence.
Palanca and Wilson disputed the terms of their
agreement. In resolving the case, the court admitted Lechugas v. CA (1986)
additional evidence showing the circumstances under Petitioner offered parole evidence (testimony of a third
which the agreement was made. It held that the same is person who is not a party to the case) to determine the
permitted when it is necessary to explain intrinsic true intent and agreement of the deed of sale. Court
ambiguity. A written agreement is presumed to contain deemed this inadmissible because the third person was
all the terms; nevertheless, it does not exclude other not a party to the case. Parole evidence may not
evidence of the circumstances under which the properly be invoked where at least one of the parties to
the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the written make a timely objection, it would still be admissible since
instrument in question. it falls under the exceptions. The failure of the deed of
sale to express the true intent and agreement of the
Inciong v. CA (1996) parties, as well as its validity, were clearly put in issue.
Petitioner asserts that since the promissory note is not a
public instrument, parole evidence may overcome the Financial Building Corp. v. Rudlin (2010)
contents of the note. Court denied the same. The parole Rudlin claimed that the contract price stated in the
evidence rule does not specify that the written Construction Agreement was not the true contract price.
agreement be a public document. What is required is This was denied by the Court. Evidence of a prior and
that it be in writing. contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not
admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the operation of
Lapulapu Foundation, Inc. v. CA (2004) a valid contract.
Tan claimed that he had an unwritten agreement with
the bank regarding the payment of the obligation, which
varied the terms of the promissory notes. The Court C. Testimonial Evidence
rejected this. The promissory notes are the law between
the parties; these contained maturity dates which were
1. Qualification of Witnesses
Section 20, Rule 130
clear and explicit. Evidence of a prior and
contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as
admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the operation of provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who
a valid contract. While it is admissible to explain the can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known
meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose perception to others, may be witnesses.
of incorporation into the contract additional Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
contemporaneous conditions, unless there was fraud or case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided
mistake. by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)
Class Notes: Article 821, Civil Code

How to reconcile Lapulapu with Land Settlement? Article 821. The following are disqualified from being
Lapulapu = does not go into the validity of the contract witnesses to a will:
Land Settlement = determines the operation of the (1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines;
contract; nature of prior and contemporaneous (2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a
agreement involved a condition precedent document, perjury or false testimony. (n)
Subsequent/prior and contemporaneous agreements Section 17, Rule 119

GR: subsequent agreements always admissible; prior Section 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness.
and contemporaneous agreements not admissible if it — When two or more persons are jointly charged with
varies the terms of the agreement the commission of any offense, upon motion of the
XPN: prior and contemporaneous agreements prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct
admissible if it does not vary the terms of the agreement one or more of the accused to be discharged with their
consent so that they may be witnesses for the state
Baluyot v. Poblete (2007) when, after requiring the prosecution to present
Parole evidence was offered to prove the existence of evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed
collateral agreements which were entered into by the state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge,
parties who executed the promissory note and real the court is satisfied that:
estate mortgage. Court rejected the same. The PN and (a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
the REM are the law between the parties. Evidence of a accused whose discharge is requested;
prior and contemporaneous verbal agreement is (b) The is no other direct evidence available for the
generally not admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
operation of a valid contract. While it is admissible to testimony of said accused;
explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve (c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially
the purpose of incorporation into the contract additional corroborated in its material points;
contemporaneous conditions, unless there was fraud or (d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;
mistake. and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of
Heirs of Ureta v. Heirs of Ureta (2011) any offense involving moral turpitude.
(exception to rule) Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall
Parties in this case are successors-in-interest. Amparo automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the
Castillo testified as to the terms of the deed of sale. motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his
However, the Heirs of Policronio failed to timely object to sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. (9a)
such testimony and are thus deemed to have waived the
benefit of the parole evidence rule. Granting that they did Requisites:
1. He can perceive; and in perceiving which they are examined and relating them truthfully.
2. He can make known his perceptions to others (19a)
General Rule: All persons who can perceive, and Section 6, R.A. 7610 (Child Witness Rule)
perceiving, can make known their perception to others Section 6. Competency. — Every child is presumed
may be a witness. qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall
conduct a competency examination of a child, motu
Exception/s: (MdMPS) proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that
1. Mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21, Rule 130) substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child
2. Marital Disqualification (Sec. 22, Rule 130) to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth
3. Survivorship Disqualification Rule or Dead Man’s from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in
Statute (Sec. 23, Rule 130) court.
4. Privileged communication (Sec. 24, Rule 130)
(a) Proof of necessity. — A party seeking a
Notes: competency examination must present proof of
Testimonial or oral evidence = Evidence elicited from the necessity of competency examination. The age of the
mouth of the witness as distinguished from real and child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency
documentary evidence examination.
Credibility of witness = weight and trustworthiness or (b) Burden of proof. — To rebut the presumption
reliability of the testimony of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof
lies on the party challenging his competence.
The witness must have personal knowledge of the facts
surrounding the subject matter of his testimony. (c) Persons allowed at competency examination.
— Only the following are allowed to attend a
When should they be able to make known their competency
perceptions? At the time they are produced for
examination in court or when their depositions are taken. (1) The judge and necessary court
personnel;
Can a blind person be an eye witness? It depends. If he (2) The counsel for the parties;
perceived the act before becoming blind, yes. If after, no. (3) The guardian ad litem;
(4) One or more support persons for the
A person who takes the stand as a witness is presumed child; and
to be able to testify. A party who desires to question his (5) The defendant, unless the court
competence must make an objection as soon as the determines that competence can be fully
facts tending to show incompetency are apparent. evaluated in his absence.
Case: (d) Conduct of examination. — Examination of a

Recto v. Republic (2004) child as to his competence shall be conducted only by
The witnesses testified that they had been possessing the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit
the lot in the concept of owner. They were 13 years old questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion, ask
when they became aware of their family’s possession. the child.
The Court ruled that they are competent witnesses. At
13, they were undoubtedly capable and competent to (e) Developmentally appropriate questions. —
perceive their father’s possession in the concept of The questions asked at the competency examination
owner. A person is competent to be a witness if (a) he is shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level
capable of perceiving at the time of the occurrence of the of the child; shall not be related to the issues at trial; and
fact and (b) he can make his perception known. shall focus on the ability of the child to remember,
communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood,
2. Mental Incapacity or Immaturity and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental (f) Continuing duty to assess competence. —
incapacity or immaturity. – The following persons cannot The court has the duty of continuously assessing the
be witnesses: competence of the child throughout his testimony.
(a) Those whose mental conditions, at the time
of their production for examination, is such that they are General Rule: The qualifications and disqualifications of
incapable of intelligently making known their perception witnesses are determined as of the time said witnesses
to others; are produced for examination in court or at the taking of
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to their depositions.
render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting
Exception/s: With respect to children of tender years, render a witness incompetent. Lunatics are admissible
their competence at the time of the occurrence to be as witnesses if they have sufficient understanding to
testified to should be also taken into account. apprehend the obligation of an oath and are capable of
giving correct accounts of the matters that they have
Notes: seen or heard with respect to the questions at issue.
“Unsound mind” includes any mental aberration, whether
organic or functional, or induced by drugs or hypnosis. People v. Macapal, Jr. (2005)
(exception to rule)
Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time the fact Accused contests the testimony of his alleged rape
to be testified occurred affects only his credibility but not victim who is mentally retarded is incompetent to
his competency. As long as the witness can convey establish his identity, as it is not easy to ascertain the
ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent identity of the rapist when the victim is deprived of
answers to questions propounded, s/he is a competent reason. However, the Court held that mental
witness. retardation per se does not affect credibility. A mentally
retarded may be a credible witness. The acceptance of
Unless otherwise provided by law, a person convicted of his or her testimony depends on the quality of his or her
a crime is not disqualified to testify but he must answer perceptions and the manner he or she can make them
to the fact of a previous final conviction or such fact may known to the court.
be shown by his examination or the record of the
judgment. People v. Santos (2006)
Accused contests the weight given to the testimony of
An instance where conviction of a crime disqualifies the his alleged 5-year old rape victim. The Court held that
convict from testifying is in Art. 821 of the Civil Code the testimony of an innocent child whose chastity has
which states that those convicted of falsification of a been abused deserves full credit, as her willingness to
document, perjury, or false testimony are disqualified undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is
from being witnesses to a will and, consequently, cannot an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint. No
testify in the probate thereof. young woman, especially one of tender age, would
concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of
Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses when they can her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being
understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath, can subject to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by
comprehend facts they are going to testify to and can the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed
communicate their ideas to a qualified interpreter. against her.
In case of a child witness, the court in determining his 3. Marital Disqualification

competency must consider his capacity Section 22, Rule 130
(a) at the time the fact to be testified to occurred Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. –
such that he could receive correct impressions thereof During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife
(observation), may testify for or against the other without the consent of
(b) to comprehend the obligation of an oath the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
(recollection), and against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
(c) to relate those facts truly at the time he is offered committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
as a witness (communication). descendants or ascendants. (20a)
The main criteria in in accepting the testimony of a child Requisites: (VSAc)
of tender age is the ability to comprehend an oath. 1. The marriage is valid and existing at the time of the
offer of the testimony.
Unless a child’s testimony is punctured with serious 2. The other spouse is a party to the action.
inconsistences as to lead one to believe that he was 3. Absence of consent from the affected spouse.
coached, if he can perceive and make known his
perception, he is considered a competent witness. Once Notes:
it is established that they understand the nature and Rationale for the rule (Alvarez v. Ramirez)
character of an oath, full faith and credit should be given o Identity of interests between the spouses
to their testimony. o Consequent danger of perjury where one
spouse testifies against the other
Cases: o Legal policy on guarding marital confidences
People v. Deauna (2002) and preventing domestic disunion
(exception to rule) o Danger of punishing one spouse through the
Accused offered as evidence the testimony of a hostile testimony of the other.
psychologist and doctor certifying that the alleged rape
victim is suffering from mental insanity. However, the In a prosecution against the husband for rape against
Court held that unsoundness of mind does not per se her daughter, the wife is not disqualified to testify for the
prosecution since the crime may be considered as 3. The case is upon a claim or demand against the
having been committed against the wife and the conjugal estate of such person who is deceased or of unsound
harmony sought to be protected by the rule no longer mind;
exists. 4. The testimony to be given is on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person or
Cases: before such person became of unsound mind
Lezama v. Rodriguez (1948)
The receiver of a company, owned by a couple and Notes:
which lost in a collection suit, wanted the wife, who is a The purpose of this rule is that if persons having a claim
co-defendant with her husband, to be examined as a against the estate of the deceased were allowed to
witness in order to prove collusive fraudulent acquisition testify as to the supposed statements of the deceased,
of the loan on which is the basis of the collection suit’s many would be tempted to falsely impute statements
cause of action. The Court held that where the wife is a because the deceased can no longer deny or refute
co-defendant in suit charging her and her husband with them. Thus, unjustly subjecting their properties or rights
collusive fraud, she cannot be called as an adverse party to false or unscrupulous claims or demands.
witness. Whether the wife’s testimony will turn out to be
adverse or beneficial to her own interest, the result The exceptions in the rule are found in jurisprudence.
would be to pit her against her husband. Testimony
adverse to the wife's own interests would tend to show Cases:
collusive fraud. There is the possibility, too, that the wife, Tongco v. Vianzon (1927)
in order to soften her own guilt, may testify in a manner (exception to rule)
entirely disparaging to the interests of the husband. In an action by the administrartix to enforce a demand by
the estate to acquire titles to properties in a cadastral
Alvarez v. Ramirez (2005) case, the administratrix objects to the admission of the
(exception to rule) testimony of the wife of the deceased asking for revision
The wife of the accused was allowed to testify against of certain titles belonging to the estate. The Court held
him in a prosecution for arson committed by him on the that the actions were not brought against the
property of his wife’s sister-in-law. The Court upheld the administratrix of the estate nor were they brought upon
allowance of the testimony and disregarded the marital claims against the estate. The Dead Man’s Statute does
disqualification on the ground that the act of arson not apply in an action by the estate.
strained the marital relations the law sought to protect
with the marital disqualification rule. When an offense Mendezona v. Vda. de Goitia (1930)
directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the (exception to rule)
conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the In an action against the estate, the estate objects to the
statute that one shall not be a witness against the other admission of the testimony of the plaintiff’s denial of
except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed facts occurring before the death of the decedent (that
by one against the other. they did not receive money from the deceased). The
Court held that the Dead Man’s Statute does not apply to
4. Dead Man’s Statute a negative testimony. The plaintiffs did NOT testify to a
Section 23, Rule 130 fact which took place before their representative's death,
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or but on the contrary DENIED that it had taken place at all.
insanity of adverse party. – Parties or assignors of
parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is Icard v. Masigan (1941)
prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other (exception to rule)
representative of a deceased person, or against a The estate objects to the admission of the testimony of
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand the son of the deceased enforcing his claim against
against the estate of such deceased person or against estate for 2,000php of his interest in a mining claim
such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any worth over 39k. The Court held that the Dead Man’s
matter of fact occurring before the death of such Statute does not apply if the purpose of the action was to
deceased person or before such person became of prove a lesser claim to avoid prejudice to the estate.
sound mind. (20a)
Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf (1949)
Requisites: (CPAeB) (exception to rule)
1. The witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff, In an action of the corporation against the estate of its
or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose behalf president, the administrator objects to the admission of
a case is prosecuted; the testimony of the other officers of the corporation. The
2. The case is against the executor or administrator or Court held that the Dead Man’s Statute disqualifies only
other representative of a person deceased or of unsound parties or assignors of parties to an action which do not
mind; include officers and stockholders of a corporation.
Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho (1955)
In action against the heirs of the deceased to recover to defendant’s testimony. The Court held that the Dead
properties from the estate of the deceased’s father, the Man’s Statute does not apply because the plaintiff’s filed
plaintiff’s testimony over alleged statements of the a counterclaim.
deceased made to them evidencing fraud to deprive
them of their share was allowed on the ground that this Zeigler v. Moore (1959)
was an action against the heirs in their personal (exception to rule)
capacity, and not against the estate. The Court held that Plaintiff seeks to enforce his claim in a damages case
the heirs’ right and title to the property is not in issue, against the administrator of the deceased. Defendant
rather it is the right of their father (the deceased) in administrator objects to the admission of the testimony
relation to the estate of his predecessor. Therefore, the of plaintiff’s witness, the sheriff who made the accident
heirs are not sued in their personal capacity and the report on the vehicular accident. The Court held that the
Dead Man’s Statute applies. An exception may be Dead Man’s Statute does not apply to disinterested third
carved out if the deceased acted with fraud which, was persons.
not proven in this case.
5. Privileged Communication (Section 24,
Asturias v. Court of Appeals (1963) Rule 130)
(exception to rule)
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
Failure to object to the testimony at the time it is offered
communication. — The following persons cannot testify
waives the application of the Dead Man’s Statute.
as to matters learned in confidence in the following
cases:
Guerrero v. St. Claire's Realty & Co. (1983)
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,
(exception to rule)
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as
In an action between competing claims of plaintiff, an
to any communication received in confidence by one
heir who acquired title by succession, and defendants,
from the other during the marriage except in a civil case
one who acquired title through an alleged fraudulent
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
sale, objection was made to the non-admission of
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
testimony of witnesses for the plaintiff, children of the
descendants or ascendants;
heir. The Court held that the Dead Man’s Statute does
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client,
not apply when the witness is not a party to the action as
be examined as to any communication made by the
in this case. Also, this case is not against the executor
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course
and administrator of the estate. The defendants are
of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can
being sued as claimants of ownership in their individual
an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
capacities.
examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
Goni v. CA (1986)
has been acquired in such capacity;
(exception to rule)
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
Objection was made to the admission of the testimony of
obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of
the plaintiff on matters surrounding the sale made by his
the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment
deceased father, which constitutes a claim against his
given by him or any information which he may have
estate. The Court held that the Dead Man’s Statute does
acquired in attending such patient in a professional
not apply when (1) plaintiff's deposition is taken by the
capacity, which information was necessary to enable him
representative of the estate or when counsel for the
to act in capacity, and which would blacken the
representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to matters
reputation of the patient;
occurring during deceased's lifetime or (2) a
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the
counterclaim was filed against the plaintiff.
person making the confession, be examined as to any
confession made to or any advice given by him in his
Razon v. IAC (1992)
professional character in the course of discipline
(exception to rule)
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest
In an action by the administrator to enforce a claim
belongs;
against plaintiff, objection was made by the administrator
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term
to the admission of the testimony of the plaintiff to prove
of office or afterwards, as to communications made to
that there was already payment thereby extinguishing
him in official confidence, when the court finds that the
the claim. The Court held that the Dead Man’s Statute
public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)
does not apply to a case filed by the administrator.
Sunga-Chan v. Chua (2001) a. Marital communications

(exception to rule) Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
In an action of the defendant against the estate to prove communication. — The following persons cannot testify
the existence of a partnership between the defendant as to matters learned in confidence in the following
and deceased, thereby establishing defendant’s claim cases:
for profits, the plaintiffs, heirs of the deceased, objected
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, confidential communications covered by marital
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as privilege.
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 a criminal case for a crime Cases:
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct US v. Antipolo (1916)
descendants or ascendants; (exception to rule)
The testimony of the wife of the victim as to the victim’s
Requisites: (VaCNcs) dying declaration was excluded from evidence. Such
1. There was a valid marital relation. exclusion was improper. The object of the rule on
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential privileged marital communications is to secure domestic
communication between the spouses during the said happiness by protecting all confidential communications
marriage. between husband and wife. Thus, the wife cannot testify
3. The spouse against whom such evidence is being against her husband as to what came to her from him
offered has not give his or her consent to such confidentially or by reason of the marriage relation.
testimony. (Ncs = no consent of spouse) HOWEVER, this rule does not apply to a dying
communication made by the husband to the wife on the
General Rule: The husband or the wife, during or after trial of the one who killed him. The dying declaration
the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of testified to by the witness was not a confidential
the other as to any communication received in communication made to her because it was meant to be
confidence by one from the other during the marriage told to the police.
Exceptions: People v. Carlos (1925)

1. In a civil case by one against the other In order to prove premeditation by the defendant, a letter
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one written to the defendant by his wife was presented into
against the other or the latter's direct descendants or evidence. The defense argues that the letter was
ascendants. privileged communication and inadmissible into
3. Communication made before marriage. evidence. The court upheld the doctrine that where a
4. When what was conveyed was not intended to be privileged communication from one spouse to another
kept in confidence by the spouse who received the comes into the hands of a third party, whether legally or
same. not, without collusion and voluntary disclosure on the
5. If the communication is overheard or comes into the part of either of the spouses, the privilege is thereby
hands of a third party, whether legally or not. (Exception: extinguished and the communication, if otherwise
rd
collusion/voluntary disclosure to 3 person) competent, becomes admissible. HOWEVER, ultimately,
the court held that the letter in this case was
Notes: inadmissible because the wife was not put on the
Disqualification by Disqualification by witness stand and the letter was not offered to impeach
Reason of Marriage Reason of Marital her testimony. If the defendant either by answer or
Privilege otherwise had indicated his assent to the statements
Can be invoked only if one No need for spouse to be a contained in the letter it might also have been
of the spouses is a party to party to the action. admissible, but such is not the case here; the fact that
the action. he had the letter in his possession is no indication of
Marriage existing at the Can be claimed even after assent on his part. The letter is therefore nothing but
time the testimony is the marriage has been pure hearsay and its admission in evidence violates the
offered dissolved. constitutional right of the defendant in a criminal case to
Total prohibition against Applies only to confidential be confronted with the witnesses for the prosecution and
any testimony for or communications between have the opportunity to cross-examine them. Obiter re:
against the spouse of the the spouses. the admissibility of testimony of a third party as to a
witness conversation between a husband and wife overheard by
the witness: Admissible on the ground that it relates to a
o So even if the communication is between the conversation in which both spouses took part and on the
further ground that where the defendant has the
spouses is not confidential, the spouse who is a
opportunity to answer a statement made to him by his
party to the action can still prevent the other spouse and fails to do so, his silence implies assent.
spouse from testifying against him under the This rule cannot apply where the statement is contained
marital disqualification rule. in an unanswered letter.
o Conversely even if the spouse who is a party to
the action waives marital disqualification by not People v. Juan Francisco (1947)
objecting, he can still prevent disclosure of (exception to rule)
Accused killed his child. He claims his confession was
coerced, so the prosecution offered his wife’s testimony
as a rebuttal. The Court held that such testimony was General Rule: An attorney cannot be examined as to any
admissible as it falls under one of the exceptions to the communication made by the client to him, or his advice
privileged marital communications rule, specifically given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
“where the marital and domestic relations are so strained professional employment, nor can an attorney's
that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined
peace and tranquility of interests disappears and the concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is acquired in such capacity.
non-existent” such as in this case where the issue was
the murder of their child. Also, the Court stressed that Exceptions:
what was involved in this case was not a direct 1. The client consents. (for secretary, etc.: consent of
testimony but only a rebuttal after the accused client and employer)
implicated his wife in the crime. By his act of imputing 2. For communications:
the crime to his wife, is exercising the very right which he a. intended to be made public
would deny to his wife upon the ground of their marital b. intended to be communicated with others.
relations, hence, he must be taken to have waived all c. intended for an unlawful purpose.
objection to his wife’s testimony upon rebuttal (i.e. the d. received from third persons not acting as
rule can be waived). agents of client.
e. made in the presence of third parties stranger
Lacurom v. Jacoba (2006) to the attorney-client relationship.
(exception to rule)
Husband and wife were law partners. The wife was held Notes:
in contempt because of a pleading which the judge The attorney must have been consulted in his
found offensive. To defend herself, she implicated her professional capacity, whether or not he was paid.
husband saying that because she trusted him, she
signed the pleading without reading it. When the Preliminary communications with a view to enter into
husband was made to explain, he invoked the marital atty-client relationship covered by privilege. No intention
privilege rule to exclude his wife’s statements implicating to enter into the relationship = not covered even if lawyer
him. According to the SC, the marital privilege rule, subsequently becomes his counsel.
being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure of the
claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any Protected communication: verbal statements,
conduct that may be construed as implied consent. In documents/papers entrusted to attorney, facts learned
this case, the husband effectively waived this privilege by counsel through act/agency of client.
when he impliedly admitted authorship of the pleading.
Crime committed before, consulted with attorney =
b. Attorney-Client Privilege privileged
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged Crime about to be committed/in aid or furtherance
communication. — The following persons cannot testify thereof = not privileged.
as to matters learned in confidence in the following Attorney himself conspirator = not privileged
cases:
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, Cases:
be examined as to any communication made by the Barton v. Leyte Asphalt (1924)
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course (exception to rule)
of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can A carbon copy of a letter, written by the plaintiff to his
an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be attorney was offered in evidence by the defendant. The
examined, without the consent of the client and his counsel of the plaintiff questioned the manner in which
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which the document had come into the possession of the
has been acquired in such capacity; defendant’s counsel. The trial judge excluded the
document, on the ground that it was a privileged
Requisites: communication between client and attorney. However,
1. There is an attorney and client relation. the Supreme Court held that when papers are offered in
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential evidence a court will take no notice of how they were
communication between them in the course of obtained, whether legally or illegally, properly or
professional employment. improperly; nor will it form a collateral issue to try that
3. The client has not given his consent to the attorney’s question. The law protects the client from the effect of
testimony thereon; or if the attorney’s secretary, disclosures made by him to his attorney in the
stenographer, or clerk is sought to be examined, that confidence of the legal relation, but when such a
both the client and the attorney have not given their document, containing admissions of the client, comes to
consent thereto. the hand of a third party, and reaches the adversary, it is
4. Communication must be for lawful purpose. admissible in evidence. The privilege does not extend to
third persons who obtain knowledge of the
communications. Someone who overhears the
communication or who surreptitiously reads or obtains HOWEVER, an exception to this is when the client’s
possession of a document in original or copy is not name itself has an independent significance, such that
within the protection of the privilege. disclosure would implicate that client in the very activity
for which he sought the lawyer’s advice. Other
Orient Insurance v. Revilla (1930) exceptions: when the content of communication is
(exception to rule) relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on
While the president of the defendant Teal Motors was which the client seeks legal assistance, when disclosure
being examined in court, he stated that he was sent a of client’s identity would open client to civil liability.
letter by the lawyers urging him to file a claim against the The uberrimei fidei relationship between a lawyer and
petitioner. Petitioner’s lawyers wanted the letter to be his client exists not only during the relationship, but
presented in full, but respondent’s lawyers stated that extends even after the termination of the relationship.
the other parts of the letter contained privileged
communication between a client and a lawyer. The Court People v. SB (1997)
held that the privilege primarily refers to communications (exception to rule)
from attorney to client relative to privileged matters. An attorney who helped his client falsify documents
Contracts relating to fees are essentially not of privileged invoked attorney-client privilege to evade responsibility
nature. Even supposing that the matter contained in the for his participation. This was disallowed by the Court.
letter was originally of a privileged nature, the privilege Statements and communications regarding the
was waived by the introduction in evidence of part of the commission of a crime already committed, made by a
letter. Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure making party who committed it, to an attorney, consulted as
the whole of a declaration, conversation, or writing such, are privileged communications. However, the
admissible when part has been given in evidence by one communication between an attorney and client having to
party, makes no exception as to privileged matter. do with the client's contemplated criminal acts, or in aid
or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak of
Upjohn v. Co. (1981) privilege ordinarily existing in reference to
(control test not applicable) communications between an attorney and a client. The
The IRS demanded the production of records including attorney in this case was a conspirator in the
written questionnaires sent by Upjohn’s attorneys to its commission a crime. For the communication to be
employees. Upjohn declined to produce the documents, privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in
claiming these were protected by the attorney-client furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an unlawful
privilege as they constitute the work of attorneys in purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.
anticipation of litigation. Upjohn also claims that the
privilege covers even the non-managers interviewed and Mercado v. Vitriolo (2005)
who answered the questionnaire. The CA applied the (enumerates factors to establish atty-client privilege)
control group test - that only those employees who Vitriolo filed a case against Mercado for falsification.
exercised direct control over the managerial decisions of Mercado wants Vitriolo disbarred for disclosing
the company were covered by the attorney-client confidential facts and information relating to a previous
privilege. The test was rejected because even non- annulment case where Vitriolo was allegedly her
managers may can send the corporation into legal counsel. There was no breach of the privilege in this
difficulties. The Court also discussed the work product case as Mercado was unable to establish the factors
doctrine. The general rule is that forcing an attorney to essential to establish the privilege. Factors essential to
disclose notes and memoranda of witnesses' oral establish the existence of the privilege: 1. There exists
statements is particularly disfavored, because it tends to an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-
reveal the attorney's mental processes. client relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship
However the disclosure of documents and tangible that the client made the communication. 2. The client
things constituting attorney work product may be made the communication in confidence. 3. The legal
permitted upon a showing of substantial need and advice must be sought from the attorney in his
inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship. professional capacity.
Regala v. SB (1996) C. Physician-Patient Privilege

(exception to rule) Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
ACCRA, being Conjuangco’s counsel, has information communication. — The following persons cannot testify
regarding his assets. It also has acted as nominees- as to matters learned in confidence in the following
stockholders of the corporations involved in the cases:
sequestration proceedings herein. ACCRA sought to be (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
excluded from the proceedings invoking attorney-client obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of
privilege. The PCGG opposed saying they cannot the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment
invoke the privilege until they’ve established the given by him or any information which he may have
existence and identity of the client (Danding). The Court acquired in attending such patient in a professional
held that generally, a lawyer may not invoke the privilege capacity, which information was necessary to enable him
and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
to act in capacity, and which would blacken the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to
reputation of the patient; be made. (2)
Requisites: (B-CAP) Section 3. Report of findings. — If requested by the party

1. The physician is authorized to practice medicine, examined, the party causing the examination to be made
surgery or obstetrics shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of
2. The information was acquired or the advice or the examining physician setting out his findings and
treatment given by him in his professional capacity for conclusions. After such request and delivery, the party
the purpose of treating and curing the patient. causing the examination to be made shall be entitled
3. The information, advice, or treatment if revealed, upon request to receive from the party examined a like
would blacken the reputation of the patient. report of any examination, previously or thereafter made,
4. The privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the of the same mental or physical condition. If the party
patient is a party thereto or not. examined refuses to deliver such report, the court on
motion and notice may make an order requiring delivery
General Rule: A person authorized to practice medicine, on such terms as are just, and if a physician fails or
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case be examined refuses to make such a report the court may exclude his
as to any advice or treatment given by him or any testimony if offered at the trial. (3a)
information which he may have acquired in attending
such patient in a professional capacity, which Section 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and
information was necessary to enable him to act in obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by
capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the taking the deposition of the examiner, the party
patient. examined waives any privilege he may have in that
action or any other involving the same controversy,
Exceptions: regarding the testimony of every other person who has
1. Patient consents. examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of
2. Communication not given in confidence. the same mental or physical examination. (4)
3. Communication irrelevant to the professional
employment. Notes:
4. The communication was made for an unlawful Results of physical/mental exams under Rule 28 are not
purpose. (e.g. concealment of crime) privileged because they are intended to be made public.
5. The information was intended to be made public.
6. There was a waiver of the privilege either by Waivers by provisions of law: e.g. Sec. 4 of R28  if
provisions of contract or law. party examined obtains a report on said examination or
7. Results of physical/mental exams under Rule 28. takes deposition of examiner, he waives any privilege
8. Autopsies/postmortem exams intended to be divulged regarding any other exam of said physical/mental exam
in court. conducted or to be conducted on him by any other
physician.
Notes:
Sir: Attorney-client privilege is broader than physician- Waiver by contract: stipulations in life insurance policies
patient privilege.
Sir: The waiver in Sec. 4 refers not to examination done
The creation of the physician-patient relationship need but refers to examinations before or after.
not be voluntary. The treatment may have been given at
the behest of another. Cases:
Lim v CA (1992)
Extends to all forms of communication, advice or (exception to the rule)
treatment and includes information acquired by the The husband wanted to present his wife’s psychiatrist as
physician in his professional capacity. a witness in an annulment case, but only as an expert
witness. This was allowed. The physician-patient
RULE 28 Physical and Mental Examination of Persons privilege is not violated by allowing a physician to give
Section 1. When examination may be ordered. — In an
his or her expert opinion in a lawsuit involving the mental
action in which the mental or physical condition of a
condition of one of his or her patients, provided that such
party is in controversy, the court in which the action is
opinion is only based on hypothetical questions and not
pending may in its discretion order him to submit to a
on any personal professional knowledge he or she may
physical or mental examination by a physician. (1)
have about the patient.
Section 2. Order for examination. — The order for Krohn v. CA (1994)
examination may be made only on motion for good (exception to rule)
cause shown and upon notice to the party to be Wife’s confidential psychiatric report was presented by
examined and to all other parties, and shall specify the her husband in evidence in an annulment case. Wife
time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the invoked the rule on privileged communication between
physician and patient to enjoin her husband from (exception to rule)
disclosing the contents of the report. The wife erred in MB deliberations are confidential but not necessarily
invoking the prohibition because the husband is not one absolute and privileged because there is no specific
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or provision in the Central Bank Act, which prohibits the
obstetrics. Neither can his testimony be considered a courts from conducting an inquiry on said deliberations
circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony when these are relevant or material. The MB also failed
cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the to show that public interest would be affected by
physician who examined the patient and executed the disclosing the said documents. Absent any showing of
report. public interest prejudiced by the disclosure, the privilege
will not be applicable. Public interest means more than a
d. Priest/Minister – Penitent Privilege mere curiosity, it means something in which the public,
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged the community at large, has some pecuniary interest by
communication. — The following persons cannot testify which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
as to matters learned in confidence in the following
cases: See Sec. 16, RA 7653 (New Central Bank Act)
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the Section 16. Responsibility. - Members of the Monetary
person making the confession, be examined as to any Board, officials, examiners, and employees of the
confession made to or any advice given by him in his Bangko Sentral who willfully violate this Act or who are
professional character in the course of discipline guilty of negligence, abuses or acts of malfeasance or
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest misfeasance or fail to exercise extraordinary diligence in
belongs; the performance of his duties shall be held liable for any
loss or injury suffered by the Bangko Sentral or other
Requisites: banking institutions as a result of such violation,
1. Made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the sect negligence, abuse, malfeasance, misfeasance or failure
or denomination where the minister/priest belongs. to exercise extraordinary diligence.
2. Must be confidential and penitential in character.
Similar responsibility shall apply to members, officers,
General Rule: A minister or priest cannot be examined and employees of the Bangko Sentral for: (1) the
as to any confession made to or any advice given by him disclosure of any information of a confidential nature, or
in his professional character in the course of discipline any information on the discussions or resolutions of the
enjoined by the church to which he belongs. Monetary Board, or about the confidential operations of
the Bangko Sentral, unless the disclosure is in
Exception/s: Person making the confession consents. connection with the performance of official functions with
the Bangko Sentral, or is with prior authorization of the
Monetary Board or the Governor; or (2) the use of such
e. State Secrets information for personal gain or to the detriment of the
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged Government, the Bangko Sentral or third parties:
communication. — The following persons cannot testify Provided, however, That any data or information
as to matters learned in confidence in the following required to be submitted to the President and/or the
cases: Congress, or to be published under the provisions of this
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term Act shall not be considered confidential.
of office or afterwards, as to communications made to
him in official confidence, when the court finds that the
Senate v. Ermita (2006)
public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)
(Executive Privilege)
Executive Privilege
Requisites: Executive Privilege exempts the executive from
1. Made to the public officer in official confidence. disclosure requirements where such exemption is
2. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such necessary to the discharge of highly important executive
communication, as in the case of state secrets. responsibilities involved in maintaining governmental
operations. It extends not only to military and diplomatic
General Rule: A public officer cannot be examined secrets but also to documents integral to an appropriate
during his term of office or afterwards, as to exercise of the executive’s domestic decisional and
communications made to him in official confidence, policy making functions. A claim of executive privilege
when the court finds that the public interest would suffer may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to
by the disclosure. justify it and the context in which it is made. Executive
officials are NOT exempt from the duty to disclose
Exception/s: Rule does not apply when no public interest information by the mere fact of being executive officials
would be prejudiced. (i.e. Executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to
specific categories of information and NOT to categories
Cases: of persons.).
Banco Filipino vs. Monetary Board (1986)
Inquiries in aid of legislation v. Question Hour grandparents, except when such testimony is
Inquiries in aid of Question Hour indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by
legislation one parent against the other. (315a)
Aims to elicit information Aims to obtain information
that may be used for in pursuit of Congress’ General Rule: No person may be compelled to testify
legislation oversight function against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or
Compulsory attendance Discretionary Attendance other direct descendants.
The only way for department heads to exempt
themselves from inquiries in aid of legislation, is a valid Exception: Descendant may be compelled to testify
claim of privilege. against his parents and grandparents if such testimony
is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the
Valid Claim of Privilege descendant or by one parent against the other.
A claim of privilege, being a claim of exemption from an
obligation to disclose information, must be clearly Notes:
asserted. The privilege belongs to the government and Sir: FC provision limited as it can only be invoked in
must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed nor criminal cases and applies only to descendants.
waived by a private party. There must be a formal claim
of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which Case:
has control over the matter, after actual personal People v. Invencion (2003)
consideration by that officer. The court itself must (exception to rule)
determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for A son witnesses his father raping his sister. The father
the claim of privilege, and yet do so without forcing a invoked “filial privilege” to prevent his son from testifying
disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to against him. The Court held that the rule was not strictly
protect. However, the Congress must not require the a rule on disqualification– a descendant is not
executive to state the reasons for the claim with such incompetent or disqualified to testify against an
particularity as to compel disclosure of the information ascendant. The rule refers to a privilege not to testify,
which the privilege is meant to protect. Being an which can be invoked or waived like other privileges.
exemption from the obligation to disclose information, The son waived that filial privilege when he voluntarily
the necessity of the privilege must be of such high testified against the accused.
degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing
that obligation. g. Newsman’s Privilege
RA 53 as amended by RA 1477
How to claim privilege Section 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil
The Court finds it essential to limit to the President the and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist or duly
power to invoke the privilege. She may of course accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or
authorize the Executive Secretary to invoke the privilege periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to
on her behalf, in which case the Executive Secretary reveal the source of any news-report or information
must state that the authority is "By order of the appearing in said publication which was related in
President," which means that he personally consulted confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless
with her. So when an official is being summoned by the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that
Congress on a matter which, in his own judgment, might such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.
be covered by executive privilege, he must be afforded
reasonable time to inform the President or the Executive
General Rule: The publisher, editor, columnist or duly
Secretary of the possible need for invoking the privilege.
accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or
If, after the lapse of that reasonable time, neither the
periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to
President nor the Executive Secretary invokes the
reveal the source of any news-report or information
privilege, Congress is no longer bound to respect the
appearing in said publication which was related to him in
failure of the official to appear before Congress and may
confidence.
then opt to avail of the necessary legal means to compel
his appearance.
Exception: Unless the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the
f. Parental & Filial Privilege security of the State.
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person
may be compelled to testify against his parents, other Notes:
direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. Usually invoked in libel cases
(20a)
Sir: It’s a privilege against testifying it does not
Art. 215, Family Code automatically mean the publisher etc. is not culpable. He
Article 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a still has to prove his innocence.
criminal case, to testify against his parents and
Purpose: Divulging confidential sources would seriously of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of
impair newsgathering and the dissemination of news information that: (1) is used in one's business; and (2)
because such information would not be available to the gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an
news media unless the persons who were the sources of advantage over competitors who do not possess the
such information could be entirely certain that their information.
identities would remain secret.
American jurisprudence has utilized the following factors
Case: to determine if an information is a trade secret:
In the Matter of Farber: State vs. Jascalevich (1978)
(exception to Rule) 1. The extent to which the information is known outside
The NYT & Farber were directed to produce certain of the employer's business;
documents and materials relating to Jascalevich’s 2. The extent to which the information is known by
alleged criminal acitivities. Appellants claim a privilege to employees and others involved in the business;
refrain from revealing information sought by the 3. The extent of measures taken by the employer to
subpoenas. The Court held otherwise, stating that guard the secrecy of the information;
newspaper reporters or other media representatives 4. The value of the information to the employer and to
have no privilege deriving from the First Amendment to competitors;
refrain from divulging confidential information and the 5. The amount of effort or money expended by the
sources of such information when properly subpoenaed company in developing the information; and
to appear before a grand jury. The legislative intent in 6. The extent to which the information could be easily or
adopting the Shield Law is to protect the confidential readily obtained through an independent source.
sources of the press as well as information so obtained
by reporters and other news media representatives to Air Phils. Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc. (2007)
the greatest extent permitted by the Constitution. The Petitioner wanted to compel respondent to give a
Sixth Amendment as well as Article 1, 10 of the New detailed list of the ingredients and chemical components
Jersey Constitution provides that in all criminal of the respondent’s lubricants. Respondent argued that
prosecutions the accused shall have the right "to have such info constituted a trade secret which respondent
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” cannot be forced to divulge. The Court agreed stating
The Constitution prevails over the Shield Law. Thus, a that the ingredients sought to be revealed constitute the
defendant in a criminal prosecution has the right to very fabric of respondent’s production and business. To
compel the attendance of witnesses and the production compel its disclosure is to cripple respondent’s business,
of documents and other material for which he may have, and to place it at an undue disadvantage. Obiter: other
or may believe he has, a legitimate need in preparing or privileged matters that are not mentioned by Rule 130.
undertaking his defense. It also means that witnesses Among them are the following: (a) editors may not be
properly summoned will be required to testify and that compelled to disclose the source of published news; (b)
material demanded by a properly phrased subpoena voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they
duces tecum will be forthcoming and available for voted; (c) trade secrets; (d) information contained in tax
appropriate examination and use. census returns; and (d) bank deposits.
Sir: The doctrine in In Re Farber applies in the
Philippines.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
h. Trade Secrets alter the state of facts and evidence.”
General Rule: Trade secrets are privileged. - John Adams
Exception: The trial court may compel disclosure where

it is indispensable for doing justice. However, trade
PART TWO
secrets should receive greater protection from discovery,
because they derive economic value from being
generally unknown and not readily ascertainable by the I. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
public.
A. Admissions Against Interest
Notes: Sec 26 R130
This privilege is created by jurisprudence. Sec. 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, evidence against him. (22)
mechanism or compound known only to its owner and
those of his employees to whom it is necessary to Requisites of Admission: (FACK)
confide it. The definition also extends to a secret formula (a) involve matters of fact, and not of law;
or process not patented, but known only to certain (b) must be categorical and definite;
individuals using it in compounding some article of trade (c) must be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
having a commercial value. A trade secret may consist
(d) must be adverse to the admitter’s interest 6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from
his silence is material to the issue
Notes:
[Sec 26] Sec 13, R132
Admission is any statement of fact made by a party Sec. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of
against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be
which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
alleged by him. statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the
Class Notes: circumstances of the times and places and the persons
Key: “against own interest” present, and he must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the
Admission Confession statements be in writing they must be shown to the
A statement of fact which Involves acknowledgment witness before any question is put to him concerning
does not involve an of guilt or liability them. (16)
acknowledgment of guilt or
liability Notes:
May be express or tacit Must be express A witness is impeached by prior inconsistent statements
May be made by third Can be made only by the by “laying the predicate”:
persons and, in certain party himself amd in some (a) by confronting him with such statements, with the
cases, are admissible instances, admissible circumstances under which they were made
against a party against his co-accused (b) by asking him whether he made such statements;
and
Admissions may be verbal or written, express or tacit, or (c) by giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency
judicial or extrajudicial.
Unless the witness is given the opportunity to explain the
Judicial admission is one made in connection with a discrepancies, the impeachment is incomplete.
judicial proceeding in which it is offered. An extrajudicial However, such defect in the impeachment of the witness
admission is any other admission. is deemed waived if no objection on that ground is raised
when the document involved is offered for admission.
Admission Declaration Against
Interest If the prior inconsistent statement appears in a
Need not be made against Must have been made deposition of the adverse party, and not a mere witness,
the proprietary or against the proprietary or that adverse party who testifies may be impeached
pecuniary interest of the pecuniary interest of the without laying the predicate, as such prior statements
party party are in the nature of admissions of said adverse party.
Made by the party himself Made by a person who is
and is a primary evidence either deceased or unable Where the previous statements of a witness are offered
and competent though he to testify as evidence of an admission, and not merely to impeach
be present in court and him, the rule on laying a predicate does not apply.
ready to testify
Can be made anytime Made ante litem motam Class notes:
Sec 13, R132 is the broader section. It allows for
Sec 32, R130 explanation and there is no necessity for the party to be
Sec. 32. Admission by silence. — An act or declaration a witness. Moreover, the statement is not necessarily
made in the presence and within the hearing or against one’s own interest. Sec 26, R130 does not allow
observation of a party who does or says nothing when explanation.
the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not true, and when proper and Cases:
possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence Philippine Trust Co v. Antigua Botica Ramirez (1932)
against him. (23a) In a case for collection of money, a transcript of
stenographic notes of stockholders meeting was
introduced as evidence. In said meeting the defendant
Requisites:
admitted their obligation to the plaintiff bank. The Court
1. He must have heard or observed the act or
ruled that said statements are inadmissible. Plaintiff
declaration of the other person
should have laid a foundation for the introduction in
2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it
3. He must have understood the statement evidence of said Exhibit EE by calling the attention of the
4. He must have an interest to object, such that he said defendants to their former statements.
would naturally have done so if the statement was not
People v. Paragsa (1978)
true
5. The facts were within his knowledge
A case was filed against Paragsa for allegedly B. Compromises
committing the offense of rape against the alleged victim Sec 1(f), R116
Mirasol. During the trial, Mirasol did not bother at all to Sec. 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. —
rebut the testimony of Paragsa and his witnesses to the (f) The private offended party shall be required to
effect that the accused and Mirasol were actually appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea
sweethearts. The Court ruled that the silence of Mirasol bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other
on the facts asserted by the accused and his witnesses matters requiring his presence. In case of failure of the
may be safely construed as an admission of the truth of offended party to appear despite due notice, the court
such assertion. All the requisites of admission by silence may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a
are present in this case. lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
offense charged with the conformity of the trial
Class Notes: Admission of a party can be an act, prosecutor alone. (cir. 1-89)
omission or declaration
Sec 1 and 2, R118
Rufina Patis Factory v. Alusitain (2004)
This is a case for refusal to pay the retirement benefits of Sec. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. — In all
Alusitain. It is admitted that he tendered his resignation criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
letter in 1991 but only resigned in 1995. The Court held Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
that respondent’s letter of resignation and May 22, 1991 Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal
Affidavit of Separation which he admittedly voluntarily Circuit Trial Court, the court shall after arraignment and
executed constitute admissions against his own interest. within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
Admissions against interest may be refuted by the jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a
declarant. It bears stressing, however, that Alusitain’s shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars
Affidavit of Separation filed with the SSS is a notarial of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to
document, hence, prima facie evidence of the facts consider the following:
expressed therein. Since notarial documents have in
their favor the presumption of regularity, to contradict the (a) plea bargaining;
facts stated therein, there must be evidence that is clear, (b) stipulation of facts;
convincing and more than merely preponderant. In this (c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
case, there was no sufficient evidence to refute the (d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
truthfulness of these documents. (e) modification of the order of trial if the accused
admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and
Class notes: Does the witness need to be under oath? (f) such other matters as will promote a fair and
The rule does not say that the admission is conclusive. It expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the
only says that it is admissible. case. (secs. 2 and 3, cir. 38-98)
If under oath, there is presumption of regularity. Higher
standard is needed to rebut it. Sec. 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or
If the admission is a notarial document, rebutting admissions made or entered during the pre-trial
evidence must be at least a notarial document AND conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
must be clear and convincing. accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used
against the accused. The agreements covering the
Estate of Jesus Yujuico v. Republic (2007) matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
In a complaint for cancellation of title against Castro and approved by the court. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98)
Yujuico, Republic alleged that, when Castro’s application
was granted, the land was part of Manila Bay, hence, Sec 27, R130
unregisterable. However, PEA in an earlier case Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil
involving the same disputed lands stated that: “Your cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of
ownership thereof was acknowledged by PEA when it any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against
did not object to your membership in the CBP-IA the offeror.
Association, in which an owner of a piece of land in
CBP-IA automatically becomes a member thereof.” The In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses
Court ruled that the admissions of PEA which is the real (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
party-in-interest in this case on the nature of the land of compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused
Castro are valid and binding on respondent Republic. may be received in evidence as an implied admission of
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a guilt.
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer
of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in
Class notes: evidence against the accused who made the plea or
PEA is an agent of the Republic and a party to the offer.
compromise agreement involved in the first case.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or which shall be composed of the Commissioner and the
other expenses occasioned by an injury is not four (4) Deputy Commissioners.
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability
for the injury. (24a) (B) Abate or cancel a tax liability, when:
(1) The tax or any portion thereof appears to be
Notes: unjustly or excessively assessed; or
In a civil case, an offer of compromise is not a tacit (2) The administration and collection costs involved
admission of liability and cannot be proved over the do not justify the collection of the amount due.
objection of the offeror, unless such offer is clearly not
only to “buy peace” but amounts to an admission of All criminal violations may be compromised except:
liability. (a) those already filed in court, or (b) those involving
fraud.
In a criminal case, an offer of compromise is an implead
admission of guilt, although the accused may be (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally
permitted to prove that such offer was not made under received or penalties imposed without authority, refund
consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the risks of the value of internal revenue stamps when they are
criminal action against him. returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in
his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that
Criminal cases involving criminal negligence, or the have been rendered unfit for use and refund their
quasi-offenses contemplated in Art 365 of the RPC, are value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of
allowed to be compromised. Hence, an offer of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer
settlement is not an implied admission of guilt. files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit
or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the
An offer to pay or the actual payment of the medical, tax or penalty: Provided, however, That a return filed
hospital or other expenses by reason of the victim’s showing an overpayment shall be considered as a
injuries is not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability written claim for credit or refund.
therefor. Such acts should be encouraged or rewarded,
instead of being discouraged or penalized by being A Tax Credit Certificate validly issued under the
considered as admissions of liability. provisions of this Code may be applied against any
internal revenue tax, excluding withholding taxes, for
Class notes: which the taxpayer is directly liable. Any request for
Civil case- not an admission conversion into refund of unutilized tax credits may be
Criminal case- may be an implied admission except for allowed, subject to the provisions of Section 230 of this
quasi-offences Code: Provided, That the original copy of the Tax Credit
Exception for both: offer to pay medical Certificate showing a creditable balance is surrendered
expenses to the appropriate revenue officer for verification and
Rationale: to encourage people to settle or offer cancellation: Provided, further, That in no case shall a
compromises without implicating the offeror tax refund be given resulting from availment of
incentives granted pursuant to special laws for which no
Sec 204, RA 8424, Tax Reform Act of 1997 actual payment was made.
Sec. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to
Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. – The Commissioner shall submit to the Chairmen of
The Commissioner may - the Committee on Ways and Means of both the Senate
(A) Compromise the payment of any internal revenue and House of Representatives, every six (6) months, a
tax, when: report on the exercise of his powers under this Section,
(1) A reasonable doubt as to the validity of the claim stating therein the following facts and information,
against the taxpayer exists; or among others: names and addresses of taxpayers
(2) The financial position of the taxpayer whose cases have been the subject of abatement or
demonstrates a clear inability to pay the assessed tax. compromise; amount involved; amount compromised or
The compromise settlement of any tax liability shall be abated; and reasons for the exercise of power: Provided,
subject to the following minimum amounts: That the said report shall be presented to the Oversight
For cases of financial incapacity, a minimum Committee in Congress that shall be constituted to
compromise rate equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the determine that said powers are reasonably exercised
basic assessed tax; and and that the government is not unduly deprived of
For other cases, a minimum compromise rate revenues.
equivalent to forty percent (40%) of the basic assessed
tax. Sec 2, 4, 6 and 10, PD 1508
Where the basic tax involved exceeds One million Sec. 2. Subject matters for amicable settlement. The
pesos (P1,000.000) or where the settlement offered is Lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring
less than the prescribed minimum rates, the compromise together the parties actually residing in the same city or
shall be subject to the approval of the Evaluation Board
municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes Secretary or in the minutes of the Pangkat Secretary and
except: shall bar the complainant from seeking judicial recourse
for the same cause of action, and the respondent, from
1. Where on party is the government, or any filing any counterclaim arising out of or necessarily
subdivision or instrumentality thereof; connected therewith.
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee,
and the dispute relates to the performance of his official Willful failure or refusal without justifiable cause on the
functions; part of any Pangkat member to act as such, as
3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 determined by the vote of a majority of all the other
days, or a fine exceeding P200.00; members of the Lupon, whose decision thereon shall be
4. Offenses where there is no private offended party; final, shall result in his disqualification from public office
5. Such other classes of disputes which the Prime in the city or municipality for a period of one year.
Minister may in the interest of justice determine upon
recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the e) Time limit. The Pangkat shall arrive at a
Minister of Local Government. settlement/resolution of the dispute within fifteen (15)
days from the day it convenes in accordance with
Sec. 4. Procedure for amicable settlement. paragraph (c) hereof. This period shall, at the discretion
a) Who may initiate proceedings. Any individual who of the Pangkat, be extendible for another period which
has a cause of action against another individual shall not exceed fifteen (15) days except in clearly
involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon as meritorious cases.
provided in Section 2 may complain orally or in writing,
to the Barangay Captain of the barangay referred to in Sec. 6. Conciliation, pre-condition to filing of complaint.
Section 3 hereof. No complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving
any matter within the authority of the Lupon as provided
b) Mediation by Barangay Captain. Upon receipt of in Section 2 hereof shall be filed or instituted in court or
the complaint, the Barangay Captain shall, within the any other government office for adjudication unless there
next working day summon the respondent/s with notice has been a confrontation of the parties before the Lupon
to the complainant/s for them and their witnesses to Chairman or the Pangkat and no conciliation or
appear before him for a mediation of their conflicting settlement has been reached as certified by the Lupon
interests. If he fails in his effort within fifteen (15) days Secretary or the Pangkat Secretary, attested by the
from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall Lupon or Pangkat Chairman, or unless the settlement
forthwith set a date for the constitution of the Pangkat in has been repudiated. However, the parties may go
accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of this directly to the court in the following cases:
Decree.
1. Where the accused is under detention;
c) Hearing before the Pangkat. The Pangkat shall 2. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of
convene not later than three (3) days from its personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;
constitution, on the day and hour set by the Barangay 3. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as
Captain, to hear both parties and their witnesses, preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal
simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable property and support pendente lite; and
settlement. For this purpose, the Pangkat may issue 4. Where the action may otherwise be barred by the
summons for the personal appearance of parties and Statute of Limitations.
witnesses before it.
Sec. 10. Admissions. Admissions made in the course of
In the event that the party moves to disqualify any any proceedings for settlement may be admissible for
member of the Pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, any purpose in any other proceeding.
interest or any other similar ground/s discovered after
constitution of the Pangkat, the matter shall be resolved Cases:
by the affirmative vote of the majority of the Pangkat Varadero v. Insular Lumber (1924)
whose decision shall be final. Should disqualification be Parties were unable to agree to the price of certain
decided upon, the procedure provided for in paragraph repairs made on a lighter. During the course of
(g) of Section 1 shall be followed. negotiations, the plaintiff expressed his willingness to
accept a certain sum of money. The Court ruled that
d) Sanctions. Refusal or willful failure of any party or amount mentioned by plaintiff can be used as a basis for
witness to appear in compliance with the summons determining the value to be paid. As a general rule, the
issued pursuant to the preceding two (2) paragraphs offer of compromise is inadmissible except where the
may be punished by the city or municipal court as for amount named in the offers appear to have been arrived
direct contempt of court upon application filed therewith at as a fair estimate of value. In this case, the sums
by the Lupon Chairman, the Pangkat Chairman, or by become relevant; thus, they become admissible.
any of the parties. Further, such refusal or willful failure
to appear shall be reflected in the records of the Lupon
Class Notes: no issue of liability here, only the amount system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
that should be paid. hence, the court admitted the (48a)
amount offered during the negotiations.
General Rule: Evidence that one did or did not do a
People v. Godoy (1995) certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
Alleged victim accused his Physics teacher of raping him he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another
in her boarding house. After this incident, victim was also time
brought to a motel where they stayed for 3 days.
Complainant alleged that she was raped therein for 3 Exceptions:
times. When the information for the case was filed, Where the evidence of similar acts may prove:
complainant and her family met with the mother of the a. a specific intent or knowledge;
accused, where the latter gave them P30,000 for the b. identity;
settlement of the case. the Court ruled that this offer of c. a plan, system or scheme;
compromise cannot be deemed an admission of guilt. d. a specific habit; or
No implied admission can be drawn from the efforts to e. established customs, usages, and the like
arrive at a settlement outside the court, where the
accused did not take part in any of the negotiations. Notes:
This is the second branch of the rule of inter alios acta.
Class Notes: The offer of compromise is not an This rule applies to both civil and criminal cases.
admission of guilt because accused was not there.
Accused was not the party who made the offer. Class notes:
The 2 branches of Res Inter Alios Acta Rule:
People v. Lambid (2003) 1. Rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by acts
Information for Rape was filed against the accused committed by another party; cannot be taken against him
wherein the alleged victim is his own daughter. On the (Sec 28, R130)
witness stand, when asked about the truth of her 2. Act of a conspirator may be taken against such
daughter’s complaint, appellant simply stated that if he conspirator but not against a party who did not do such
had committed the crimes of rape against his daughter, act (Sec 34, R130)
he asks for forgiveness because during that time he was
drunk. The Court ruled that this is tantamount to an Cases:
admission of guilt. A plea for forgiveness may be Alvizo v Sandiganbayan (2003)
considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise (exception to rule)
and an offer of compromise by the accused may be Sandiganbayan filed criminal charges for violation of
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against certain
officials and employees. An issue arose because the
C. Res Inter Alios Acta lower court gave evidentiary value to the pleas of guilty
Sec 28, R130 of 3 of the accused, in violation of the res inter alios acta
Sec. 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a rule. The Court held that there was no violation of the
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or rule on res inter alios acta. The pleas of guilty merely
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. confirmed the facts already established by other
(25a) evidence of the prosecution. They were not used by the
Sandiganbayan to convict petitioners, for even if the
General Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced pleas were completely disregarded, the prosecution had
by an act, declaration, or omission of anothe already succeeded in proving petitioners’ guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Exceptions: Where the third person is a partner, agent,
joint owner, joint debtor or has a joint interest with the People v Gaudia (2004)
party (Sec 29), or is a co-conspirator (Sec 30) or a privy Gaudia is accused of raping a 3-year-old child. The
of the party (Sec 31). parents of the accused told the mother of the victim,
“Mal, let us talk about this matter, we will just settle this,
Notes: we are willing to pay the amount of P15,000.00, for the
This is the first branch of the rule of “res inter alios acta crime that my son committed.” The Court ruled that this
alteri nocere non dabet.” The second branch is found in is inadmissible to convict the accused. Following the
Sec 34 of the same rule. principle of res inter alios acta, the actions of the parents
of the accused cannot prejudice the appellant, since he
Sec 34, R130 was not a party to the said conversation, nor was it
shown that he was privy to the offer of compromise
Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one
made by them to the mother of the victim. They cannot
did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
be considered as evidence against appellant.
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another time; but it may be received to
prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan,
D. Exceptions to the Res Inter Alias Acta Article 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an
Rule action in ejectment. (n)
a. Admission by a co-partner or agent
Section 29, Rule 130 4. Solidary Debtors (Article 1222 CC)
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act Article 1222. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by
or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are
scope of his authority and during the existence of the derived from the nature of the obligation and of those
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share.
such party after the partnership or agency is shown by With respect to those which personally belong to the
evidence other than such act or declaration. The same others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that
rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, part of the debt for which the latter are responsible.
joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the (1148a)
party. (26a)
Dissolution of Partnership
Requisites: General rule: Statements made after a partnership has
1. That the partnership, agency or joint interest is been dissolved do not fall within this exception.
established by evidence other that the act or declaration;
2. That the act or declaration is within the scope of the Exception: Where the admissions are made in
partnership, agency or joint interest; and connection with the winding up of the partnership affairs,
3. Such act or declaration must have been made during said admissions are still admissible.
the existence of the partnership, agency or joint interest.
Reason: The partner is acting as an agent of his co-
Notes: partners in said winding up.
Section. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent:
The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party: Joint Debtor
a. Within the scope of his authority and This does not refer to mere community of interest but
b. During the existence of the partnership or agency should be understood according to its meaning in the
common law system from which the provision was taken,
May be given in evidence against such party after the that is, in solidium, and not mancomunanda.
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than
Section 23, Rule 138 Attorneys and Admission to Bar
such act or declaration.
Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. —
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case
owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing,
the party. and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary
judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special
Pertinent Civil Code Provisions: authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive
1. Partners (Article 1803 CC) anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full
amount in cash.
Article 1803. When the manner of management has not
been agreed upon, the following rules shall be observed:
Admissions by counsel
(1) All the partners shall be considered agents and General Rule: Admissions by counsel are admissible
whatever any one of them may do alone shall bind the against the client.
partnership, without prejudice to the provisions of article
1801. Exception: That the same should not amount to a
compromise (Section 23, Rule 138) or confession of
(2) None of the partners may, without the consent of the judgment.
others, make any important alteration in the immovable
property of the partnership, even if it may be useful to Reason: The former acts in representation and as an
the partnership. But if the refusal of consent by the other agent of the client
partners is manifestly prejudicial to the interest of the
partnership, the court's intervention may be sought. Cases:
(1695a) Acenas vs. Sison (1963)
(exception to rule)
Sison and her husband were sued because of an unpaid
2. Agents (Article 1910 CC)
promissory note. The court indicated to the defendant's
Article 1910. The principal must comply with all the
counsel that it would be for the best interest of his clients
obligations which the agent may have contracted within
if the case is terminated by way of judgment on the
the scope of his authority.
pleadings or confession of judgment. Counsel for
defendants asked that confession of judgment by the
3. Co-Owners (Article 487 CC)
defendants be entered. The SC held that spouses
Sison’s counsel did not have authority to bind his clients Exception: Does not apply to testimony given on the
to enter into a confession of judgment. Compromise may witness stand at the trial where the party adversely
not be effected by counsel without special authority, so affected thereby has the opportunity to cross-examine
may not an agreement to permit judgment to be entered the declarant.
against his client be authorized except with the
knowledge and at the instance of the client. Such Notes:
judgment may be set aside or reopened. Section 21 of Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
Rule 127 expressly requires that attorneys have special an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
authority not only to receive anything in discharge of a and decide to commit it.
client's claim but the full amount in cash but also to
compromise their client's litigation. Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of
all. The statement therefore of one may be admitted
Phil. Journalists, Inc., et al. vs. NLRC, et al. (2006) against the other co-conspirators as an exception to the
(exception to rule) rule of res inter alios acta.
The NLRC declared that complainants were illegally
dismissed and that there was no basis for the Requirement that the conspiracy must preliminarily
implementation of petitioner's retrenchment program. be proved by evidence other than the conspirator’s
Thereafter, the parties executed a Compromise admission applies only to extrajudicial admissions.
Agreement, which was approved by the NLRC and the
case was deemed closed and terminated. The Union Existence of conspiracy may be inferred from:
filed another Notice of Strike alleging that other 1. The acts of the accused;
employees were illegally dismissed from employment. 2. The confessions of the accused; or
The SC held that a judgment approving a compromise 3. By prima facie proof thereof
agreement cannot have the effect of res judicata upon
non-signatories since the requirement of identity of Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged
parties is not satisfied. A judgment upon a compromise conspiracy, the extrajudicial confession of an accused
agreement has all the force and effect of any other cannot be used against his co-accused as the res inter
judgment, and, conclusive only upon parties thereto and alios acta rule applies to both extrajudicial confessions
their privies, hence, not binding on third persons who are and admissions.
not parties to it. A compromise agreement is not valid
when a party in the case has not signed the same or General Rule: Extrajudicial admissions made by a
when someone signs for and in behalf of such party conspirator after the conspiracy had terminated and
without authority to do so; consequently, the affected even before trial are not admissible against the co-
employees may still pursue their individual claims conspirator.
against their employer. Exceptions:
1. If made in the presence of the latter who
b. Admission by conspirators expressly or impliedly agreed therein as, in the latter
Section 30, Rule 130 case, it would be a tacit admission under Section 32;
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or 2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed
declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy in the individual extrajudicial confessions made by
and during its existence, may be given in evidence the co-conspirators after their apprehension;
against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown 3. As a circumstance to determine a witness’ credibility;
by evidence other than such act of declaration. (27) or
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
Requisites (Admissible against conspirator when): the latter’s participation in the offense.
1. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde;
2. The admission was made during the existence of In order that the extrajudicial statements of a co-accused
the conspiracy; and may be taken into consideration in judging the
3. The admission relates to the conspiracy itself. testimony of a witness, it is necessary that the
Note: These are not required in admissions during the statements are made by several accused, the same
trial as the co-accused can cross-examine the are all in material respects identical, and there could
declarant and, besides, these are admissions after have been no collusion among said co-accused in
the conspiracy has ended. making such statements.
General Rule: Cases:

The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the People vs. Cabrera (1974)
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in (exception to rule)
evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy The only evidence that would support the judgment of
is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. conviction of appellant Villanueva was the extra-judicial
(Applies only to extrajudicial acts or statements). confession of his co-accused which was read into the
record over the continuing objection of appellant's devisees, legatees,
counsel. The SC held that the extrajudicial confession assigns, voluntary
was inadmissible. An admission by a conspirator may grantees or judgment
only be admitted if it was made during the existence of creditors or
the alleged conspiracy (not after the crime has ceased or purchasers from them
has been consummated). The said statement was not with notice of the
made during the existence of the alleged conspiracy facts.
between her and appellant, but after said supposed
conspiracy had already ceased and when she was Privity in estate – This may have arisen:
already in the hands of the authorities. o By succession;
o By acts mortis causa; or
Preagido, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan (2005) o By acts inter vivos.
(exception to rule)
The COA found out that receipts/documents did not Cases:
match liquidations and itemizations in the financial City of Manila vs. Del Rosario (1905)
statements of the projects of the Tagbilaran City An action to recover the possession of 2 lots was filed
Engineering Office . The Tanodbayan filed Informations against the defendant. Lower court ruled against the
for estafa against 9 public officials and 2 private defendant Jacinto Del Rosario and in favor of the City of
individuals on the basis on conspiracy. Petitioner argues Manila. After the trial, defendant Del Rosario moved for
that assuming that there were admissions from the other the dismissal of the case. His basis was that the City of
co-accused, the alleged conspiracy must first be proven Manila failed to establish the allegations in the
by evidence other than the declaration of a co- complaint. City of Manila introduced documentary and
conspirator citing Section 27 of Rule 130, Rules of Court. oral evidence including the testimony of Lorenzo del
The SC held that the petitioner is guilty of conspiracy in Rosario who testified as to the authenticity of some
committing the crime charged. Section 27 of Rule 130 of documentary evidence introduced by the plaintiff. The
the Rules of Court applies only to extrajudicial acts or SC held that whatever statements Lorenzo made in the
declarations but not to testimony given on the witness 2 documents are not binding on Jacinto del Rosario
stand at the trial where the defendant has the because under Code of Civil Procedure 278, “where one
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. derives title to real property from another, the
declaration, act, or omission of the latter, in relation to
c. Admission by privies the property, is evidence against the former only when
Section 31, Rule 130 made while the latter holds the title.”
Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives
title to property from another, the act, declaration, or Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (2003)
omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to Petitioner sought the declaration of millions deposited in
the property, is evidence against the former. (28) escrow in the PNB as ill-gotten wealth and the forfeiture
of millions in treasury notes. Petitioner alleged that
Requirements to be admissible: respondents’ admission made during the pre-trial that
1. There must be a relation of privity between the party they do not have any interest or ownership over the
and the declarant; funds subject of the action for forfeiture tenders no
2. The admission was made by the declarant, as genuine issue or controversy as to any material fact in
predecessor-in-interest, while holding the title to the the present action, thus warranting the rendition of
property; and summary judgment. The SC granted the motion for
3. The admission is in relation to said property. summary judgment. The individual and separate
admissions of each respondent bind all of them pursuant
Notes: to Sections 29 and 31, R130 of the Rules of Court. The
Privies are persons who are partakers or have an declarations of a person are admissible against a party
interest in any action or thing, or any relation to another. whenever a “privity of estate” exists between the
declarant and the party, the term “privity of estate”
Privity vs. Privies: generally denoting a succession in rights.
Privity Privies Consequently, an admission of one in privity with a party
Privity means mutual Privies are those who to the record is competent.
succession of have mutual or
relationship to the successive E. Confessions
same rights of relationship to the Section 33, Rule 130
property. same right of property Section 33. Confession. — The declaration of an
or subject matter, accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged,
such as personal or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be
representatives, given in evidence against him. (29a)
heirs,
2
Requirements for confession to be admissible: (V ICE) One made before a One made in any other
1. Confession must involve an express and categorical court in which the case place or occasion and
acknowledgment of guilt is pending and in the cannot sustain a
2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal course of legal conviction unless
offense proceedings therein corroborated by evidence
3. Given voluntarily and, by itself, can of the corpus delicti
4. Intelligently made sustain a conviction even (Section 3, Rule 133)
5. No violation of Section 12, Art. III of the 1987 in capital offenses
Constitution
Extrajudicial confession:
General Rule: The extrajudicial confession of an Any form of coercion renders the extrajudicial confession
accused is binding only upon himself and is not inadmissible.
admissible against his co-accused.
Waiver of right to counsel during custodial
Exceptions: investigation must be made with the assistance of
1. Co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said counsel.
confession by not questioning its truthfulness
2. Accused persons voluntarily and independently When the accused was merely told of his
executed identical confessions without conclusion constitutional rights and asked if he understood what
(interlocking confessions), corroborated by other he was told, but he was never asked whether he wanted
evidence and without contradiction by the co-accused to exercise or avail himself of such rights, his
who was present extrajudicial confession is inadmissible.
3. Accused admitted facts stated by confessant after
being apprised of such confession Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made
4. They are charged as co-conspirators of the crime without counsel, but spontaneously made by the
confessed by one of the accused and said accused immediately after the assault, the same is
confession is used only as corroborating evidence admissible not under the confession rule, but as part of
5. Confession is used as circumstantial evidence to the res gestae, aside from the consideration that no
show the probability of participation by the co- custodial investigation was involved.
conspirator
6. Confessant testified for his co-defendant Fruit of the poisonous tree:
7. Co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is o Inadmissible evidence termed as “fruit of the
corroborated by other evidence of record poisonous tree” refers to object, not
testimonial evidence; it also refers to an
Notes: object seized in the course of an illegal search
Confession: a categorical acknowledgment of guilt and seizure.
made by an accused in a criminal case, without any o It does not refer to testimony or a confession
exculpatory statement or explanation. obtained through an illegal arrest.
Confession may be oral or in writing. If in writing: it need Section 3, Rule 133

not be under oath. Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground
for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by an
Confessions are presumed to be voluntary. The onus accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,
is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
for having been obtained by violence, intimidation,
threat or promise of reward or leniency General Rule: An extrajudicial confession made by an
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction.
Why involuntary confessions are inadmissible:
unreliable, humanitarian considerations, legal Exception: Unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
considerations of their being violative of the delicti
constitutional right against self-incrimination
Elements of Corpus Delicti:
Extrajudicial confession while the accused was under 1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the
arrest: The fact that the extrajudicial confession was basis of the criminal charge; and
made while the accused was under arrest does not 2. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of
render it inadmissible where the same was made the act or result (someone criminally responsible)
and admitted prior to the 1973 Constitution. Note: The identity of the accused is not a necessary
element.
Confession – may be judicial or extrajudicial:
Judicial confession Extrajudicial confession Notes:
Corpus delicti – defined:
o Actual commission of someone of the particular and their families.
crime charged.
o Literally means: “the body or the substance of Section 17, Article III Bill of Rights
the crime” Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a
o How Proven: When the evidence on record witness against himself.
shows that the crime prosecuted had been
committed. Cases:
People vs. Compil (1995)
Corpus delicti in theft: Compil and his co-conspirators robbed a store and killed
1. That the property was lost by the owner; and a man. On another date, Compil was frisked and placed
2. That it was lost by a felonious taking. under arrest. Upon being interrogated, Compil readily
Note: The fact of the crime of theft may be established admitted his guilt and pointed to the arresting officers the
even without recovery of the thing stolen. perpetrators of the heist from a picture. He subsequently
executed a sworn statement admitting his participation in
Corpus delicti – in illegal possession of a firearm: the heist as a lookout. The SC held that Compil’s
1. The existence of the firearm; and extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence
2. That it has been actually held with animus possidendi against him. An extrajudicial confession may be admitted
by the accused without the corresponding license. in evidence even if obtained without the assistance of
counsel provided that it was read and fully explained to
Corpus delicti – in murder: confessant by counsel before it was signed. The right to
1. The fact of death counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e.,
2. Note: If there is doubt as to the identity of the cadaver, when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to
then there is no corpus delicti. elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from
respondent/accused xxx to avoid the pernicious practice
Requirement of independent evidence of the corpus of extorting forced or coerced admissions or
delicti: confessions. Any statement obtained in violation of the
o Mere extrajudicial confession uncorroborated by procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or
independent proof of corpus delicti is not inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be in admissible in
sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction. evidence.
o The evidence may be circumstantial, but just the
same, there must be some evidence People vs. Wang Chuen Ming (1996)
substantiating the confession. Customs examiner Gomez discovered bags of a white
o Corpus delicti is not synonymous with the whole crystalline substance placed inside Alpen cereal boxes
charge so as to require that all the elements of among the tour group's baggage. At Camp Crame, the
the crime be established. tour group was made to sign on the bags of shabu. The
• Hence, for a complex crime of robbery with SC held that the RTC wrong to admit the bags of shabu.
murder, corpus delicti of only murder will still The signatures of the tour group amount to an
be admissible although there is no uncounselled extrajudicial confession. This is not
independent evidence of robbery. sanctioned by Art III Section 12 of the Consti. The bags
of shabu are inadmissible as evidence because any
Sections 12 and 17, Article III, 1987 admission obtained from an accused in violation of
Constitution his/her constitutional rights is inadmissible against them.
Section 12.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of People vs. Suarez (1997)
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right (Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions; This case was not
to remain silent and to have competent and independent discussed in class and was cancelled in the syllabus.)
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person Doctrine of interlocking confessions (exception to the res
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be inter alios acta rule and hearsay rule):
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except 1. Although an extrajudicial confession is admissible
in writing and in the presence of counsel. only against the confessant, jurisprudence makes it
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused.
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, 2. Where confession is used as circumstantial
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are evidence to show the probability of participation by
prohibited. an accused co-conspirator, that confession is
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of receivable as evidence against him.
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him. People vs. Base (2000)
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for Accused Base, among others, was convicted with the
violations of this Section as well as compensation to the murder of Luna based on his alleged extrajudicial
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, confession. The SC held that accused’s sworn statement
(extrajudicial confession) is admissible For an appellant’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in
extrajudicial to be admissible, it must be 1. Voluntary 2. evidence. Not having been properly informed of his
Made with the assistance of competent and independent rights prior to questioning and not having waived them
counsel, 3. Express, 4. In writing. either, the alleged confession of appellant is
inadmissible. As such SC holds that the confession must
People vs. Ulit (2004) perforce be discarded as it falls within the exclusionary
The barangay chairman invited Ulit to the barangay hall rules. A confession is admissible in evidence if it is
and asked if he raped the victim and the latter replied satisfactorily shown to have been obtained w/in the limits
that he did. A Sinumpaang Salaysay was prepared in the imposed by the Constitution. The extrajudicial
Office of the Barangay Chairman. He signed this in the confession must also be tested for voluntariness (that
presence of the barangay chairman and tanods. is, if it was given freely by the confessant without
However, he was not assisted by counsel. The SC held any form of coercion or inducement).
that Ulit’s statement to the barangay chairman is
admissible in evidence. The defendant was not under II. Conduct as Evidence
arrest or under custodial investigation when he gave his A. Similar Acts/Unaccepted Offer
statement. A barangay chairman not a law enforcement Sections 34 and 35, Rule 130
officer for purposes of applying Section 12(1 & 3), Art. III
Section 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that
of Constitution.
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
People vs. Tomaquin (2004)
similar thing at another time; but it may be received to
Tomaquin was investigated. After being apprised of his
prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan,
constitutional rights, appellant told police that he was
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
willing to confess and asked for Atty. Parawan to assist
(48a)
him. When Atty. Parawan arrived hours later, he
conferred with appellant and told police that appellant
Section 35. Unaccepted offer. — An offer in writing to
was ready to give his statement. Appellant’s extrajudicial
pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written
confession was taken down completely in the Cebuano
instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected
dialect. He was charged with murder. The SC held that
without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence
and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (49a)
against appellant Tomaquin. Atty. Parawan’s role as a
barangay captain was a peacekeeping officer of his
Article 1256, Civil Code
barangay and therefore in direct conflict with the role of
providing competent legal assistance to appellant who Article 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment
was accused of committing a crime in his jurisdiction. has been made refuses without just cause to accept it,
Thus, Atty. Parawan could not be considered as an the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the
independent counsel of appellant, when the latter consignation of the thing or sum due.
executed his EJC. Neither does Atty. Parawan qualify as Consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the
a competent counsel. By the time he arrived, the following cases:
investigation of the appellant had already started and (1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not
SPO2 Monilar had already asked and elicited appear at the place of payment;
information from appellant. Moreover, he said that he (2) When he is incapacitated to receive the payment at
already suspected appellant as having committed the the time it is due;
crime when the latter was brought to his house by the (3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a
barangay tanods. receipt;
(4) When two or more persons claim the same right to
People vs. Rapeza (2007) collect;
The appellant was brought to the house of Atty. Reyes. (5) When the title of the obligation has been lost. (1176a)
At the house of Atty. Reyes, in the presence of the Vice-
Mayor, two officials of the Sangguniang Barangay, an Similar Acts
SPO2 and an interpreter, SPO2 Gapas proceeded with General Rule: Evidence that one did or did not do a
the custodial investigation of appellant. Appellant certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
contends that the extrajudicial confession suffers from he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another
constitutional infirmity as it was extracted in violation of time.
the due process guidelines: he affixed his thumbmark
through violence and intimidation; he was not informed Exception/s:
of his rights during the time of his detention when he was Where the evidence of similar acts may prove:
already considered a suspect as the police; and 1. specific intent or knowledge
although the Sinumpaang Salaysay states that his rights 2. identity
were read to him, there was no showing that his rights 3. a plan, system, or scheme
were explained to him in a way that an uneducated 4. a specific habit
person like him could understand. The SC held that the 5. established customs, usages, and the like
crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for
Notes: robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as
Second branch of Res Inter Alias Acta where it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator of
the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at
Must the similar act or omission be prior to the the scene or in the vicinity of the crime, or when it is
commission of the crime or offense? No, it can also refer evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime.
to acts or omissions made after.
Nicolas v. Enriquez (1955)
Unaccepted Offer This is a case for concubinage. The wife wanted show
General Rule: An offer in writing to pay a particular sum that her husband was having illicit relations with his ex-
of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific girlfriend by offering testimonies of witnesses saying that
personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, her husband and his ex have a son. Court deemed this
equivalent to the actual production and tender of the inadmissible for being irrelevant and immaterial. The fact
money, instrument, or property. that a boy was born to a couple 5 years before the
marriage is far removed in point to show that the couple
Notes: continued having sexual relations during the husband’s
Merely an evidentiary complement to the rule on tender subsequent marriage.
of payment.
Boston Bank v. Manalo (2006)
The offer of payment must be in writing. Xavierville Estate Inc’s conduct with respect to other lot
buyers was offered in evidence relative to respondent
If there is an accepted offer, it gives rise to consignation. spouses. Court deemed this inadmissible. The bare fact
that other lot buyers were allowed to pay the balance of
Cases: the purchase price of lots purchased by them in 120 or
U.S. v. Pineda (1918) 180 installments does not constitute evidence that
(exception to Similar Acts Rule) Xavierville also agreed to give the respondents the same
Santos bought potassium chlorate from Pineda’s mode and timeline of payment. The offering party must
pharmacy, but later it was found to contain barium allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that might
chlorate. Subsequently, two chemists also bought constitute evidence of habit. It must be numerous
potassium chlorate from Pineda, and again it contained enough to base on inference of systematic conduct.
barium chlorate. The testimonies of the two chemists
were admitted by the Court. As a general rule, the III. HEARSAY RULE
evidence of other offenses committed by a defendant is A. Testimonial Knowledge
inadmissible; however, there are exceptions. In this Section 36, Rule 130
case, the purpose was not to convict the accused of a
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal
second offense. The purpose was to ascertain Pineda’s
knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness can testify
knowledge and intent, and to fix his negligence. If the
only to those facts which he knows of his personal
defendant has on more than one occasion performed
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
similar acts, accident in good faith is possible excluded,
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
negligence is intensified, and fraudulent may be
(30a)
established.
People v. Asinas (1929) General Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts
Testimonies from different people, relating to separate which he knows of his personal knowledge.
incidents of attempts to kill their father, were offered to
prove the guilt of the two accused. The Court rejected Exception/s:
the same. As a general rule, evidence is not admissible 1. Dying Declaration (Sec, 37, Rule 130)
which shows, or tends to show, that the accused in the 2. Declaration Against Interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130)
criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent 3. Pedigree (Sec. 39, Rule 130)
of the offense for which he is on trial. 4. Family Tradition (Sec. 40, Rule 130)
5. Common Reputation (Sec. 41, Rule 130)
People v. Irang (1937) 6. Res Gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130)
(exception to Similar Acts Rule) 7. Entries in the Course of Business (Sec. 43, Rule 130)
Individuals with white stripes on their faces (one of them 8. Official Records (Sec. 44, Rule 130)
had pockmarks and a scar on the left eyelid) robbed the 9. Commercial Lists (Sec. 45, Rule 130)
house of the victims and killed one of them. That same 10. Learned Treatises (Sec. 46, Rule 130)
night, men with white stripes likewise robbed the house 11. Prior Testimony (Sec. 47, Rule 130)
of Juana de la Cruz, and one of them had pockmarks
and a scar on the left eyelid. Her testimony was used to Notes:
corroborate the testimony of the first victims. Court held Hearsay Evidence Rule = Any evidence, whether oral or
that such was admissible. While the evidence of another documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not
based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the rule on independently relevant statements. A report
the knowledge of some other person not on the witness made by a person is admissible if what is sought to be
stand. proved is the fact that the same had been made, not its
truth or falsity.
Why is hearsay evidence excluded? The party against
whom it is present is deprived of his right and B. Specific Exceptions
opportunity to cross-examine the persons to whom the 1. Dying Declaration
statements or writings are attributed. Section 37, Rule 130
Section 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a
Why do we have exceptions? Necessity and reliability
dying person, made under the consciousness of an
impending death, may be received in any case wherein
Where a statement is not offered for the truth of the
his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
contents of the conversation or instrument, but only to
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
show that it was made, then the statement is not
(31a)
hearsay.
Doctrine of independently relevant statements = Requisites:

independent of whether the facts stated are true or not, 1. Death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of
they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are the fact
circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue 2. The declaration refers to the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death
A witness may testify to the statements made by a 3. The declaration relates to facts which the victim is
person if, for instance, the fact that such statements competent to testify to
were made by the latter would indicate the latter’s 4. The declaration is offered in a case wherein the
mental state or physical condition. declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry
Newspaper clippings or facts published in newspapers Notes:

are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless Also known as ante mortem statement or a statement in
substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of articulo mortis.
said facts.
Does the person need to die? Yes. His death must be
Cases: the subject of inquiry. If he doesn’t die, it may still be part
Estrada v. Desierto (2001) of res gestae.
(exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule)
Estrada alleges that reliance on the Angara diary to In what form may it be made? Oral or written
decipher his intent to resign violates the hearsay rule.
Also, he alleges that reliance on newspaper accounts Is the intervening time (from the declaration until the
also violates the hearsay rule. Court rejected his actual death) material? No, as long as the declaration
arguments. As to newspaper accounts, the events was made under the consciousness of impending death.
reflected therein are well-established and cannot be
refuted. These facts are within judicial notice. As to the It is the belief in impending death at the time the
Angara diary, it is not an out-of-court statement; it is part statement was made and not the rapid succession of
of the pleadings in this case. Evidence is hearsay when death that renders the dying declaration admissible.
its probative force depends, in whole or in part, on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than However, the time interval between the declaration and
the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. Reasons the death of the declarant may be taken into account
for excluding hearsay evidence: (1) absence of cross- where the declaration is ambiguous as to whether the
examination (2) absence of demeanor evidence (3) declarant believed that his death was imminent when he
absence of the oath. The Angara Diary contains direct made such decision.
statements from Estrada which can be categorized as
admissions of a party. Can it be used in a civil case? Yes
Lea Mer Industries v. Malayan Insurance Co. (2005) Rationale: No person aware of his impending death
(exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule) would make a careless and false accusation.
Malayan presented the survey report of Jesus Cortez,
which showed that the barge was not seaworthy. Court Cases:
held that this was admissible as an independently People v. Sabio (1981)
relevant statement. As a general rule, a witness must be (exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule)
examined and presented during the trial, and their The victim made an ante-mortem statement saying that
testimonies must be confined to personal knowledge Sabio was perpetrator. The victim died 3 days later.
derived from his own perception. An exception to this is Court held that the ante-mortem statement was properly
admitted. The circumstances show that the victim must
have known that his end was inevitable. That death did declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be
not ensue ‘til 3 days after the declaration was made received in evidence against himself or his successors in
does not alter its probative force since it is not interest and against third persons. (32a)
indispensable that a declarant expires immediately after.
It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid Requisites:
succession of death that renders the dying declaration 1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify
admissible. 2. It relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant
3. At the time he made said declaration the declarant
People v. Laquinon (1985) was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid
Remonde made a dying declaration accusing defendant interest
of the crime. Court held that this was inadmissible since 4. The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed
the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die such declaration to be true
or not. The declaration fails to show that the deceased
believed himself to be in extremist, at the point of death Notes:
when every hope of recovery is extinct. It may be Why is it necessary to have a rule on declaration against
admitted, however, as part of res gestae. interest? Because the declarant is unable to testify.
People v. De Joya (1991) Distinguished from Admissions against interest:

The victim, before dying, uttered, “Si Paqui.” The Court Declarations against Admissions against
did not admit the same. A dying declaration to be interest interest
admissible must be complete in itself. It should be a full Those made by a Those made by a
expression of all that he intended to say. person who is neither party to a litigation or
a party nor in privity by one in privity with or
People v. Comiling (2004) with a party to the suit. in legal interest with
(exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule) They are secondary such party.
The victim made a dying declaration stating that evidence but constitute
Galingan shot him. Court admitted the same. 4 an exception to the
requisites: (1) it must concern the crime and surrounding hearsay rule.
circumstances of the declarant’s death (2) at the time it Admissible only when Admissible whether or
was made, the declarant was under the consciousness the declarant is not the declarant is
of impending death (3) the declarant was competent as unavailable as a available as a witness.
a witness (4) the declaration is offered in any criminal witness.
case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the
declarant was the victim. All these requisites were Cases:
present. Viacrucis v. CA (1972)
Marturillas v. People (2006) The lower court admitted the testimony of Mrs. Costelo,
(exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule) stating that she recognized Orais as the owner of the
The victim made a dying declaration stating that the disputed land. Viacrucis claims that this violated the
captain shot him. The Court admitted the same. It hearsay evidence rule. The Court held that the testimony
satisfied the 4 requisites of a dying declaration. While he was properly admitted. The testimony of Mrs. Costelo
made no express statement showing that he was constitutes a declaration against her interest, which is
conscious of his impending death, the law does not admissible in evidence. Previous recognition by a party
require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of in physical possession of the property in dispute of the
the inevitability of death. This may be established from ownership in another constitutes a declaration against
the surrounding circumstances. the interest of the former and may be received in
evidence not only against such party who made the
People v. Salafranca (2012) declaration or his successors-in-interest but also against
(exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule) third persons.
The victim made a dying declaration stating that
Salafranca stabbed him. The Court admitted the same. Fuentes, Jr. v. CA
All the requisites were satisfied in this case. Fuentes allegedly confessed that he stabbed the victim.
The Court did not admit the same because of its patent
2. Declaration Against Interest unworthiness. To be admissible, a declaration against
Section 38, Rule 130 interest must have been made by a declarant who is not
Section 38. Declaration against interest. — The available to testify, concerning a fact cognizable by the
declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to declarant, and that the circumstances render it
testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is improbable that a motive to falsify existed. In this case,
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made there was no showing that Zoilo is dead, mentally
so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a incapacitated or physically incompetent. Mere absence
reasonable man in his position would not have made the
from jurisdiction does not make him unavailable within satisfied the 4 requisites. The general rule is that when a
the meaning of such a term in Sec. 38, Rule 130. claimant seeks recovery against a common relative, the
relationship of the common relative to the declarant
Parel v. Prudencio (2006) cannot be proved by the declaration alone. This does not
(exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule) apply, however, when recovery is sought against the
Florentino declared that while he is the occupant of the declarant or his estate. In this case, Corazon seeks to
residential building, he is not the owner of the same as it recover from the estate of the declarant herself, thus
is owned by respondent. The Court admitted the same. It further evidence aside from Teodora’s 1946 declaration
is safe to presume that he would not have made such is no longer necessary.
declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is
prejudicial to himself as well as to his children’s interests 4. Family Tradition
as his heirs. A declaration against interest is the best Section 40, Rule 130
evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding
in dispute. pedigree. — The reputation or tradition existing in a
family previous to the controversy, in respect to the
3. Pedigree pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in
Section 39, Rule 130 evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity.
act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts,
testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be
related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in received as evidence of pedigree. (34a)
evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and
the relationship between the two persons is shown by Requisites:
evidence other than such act or declaration. The word 1. The witness testifying thereto must be a member, by
"pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where subject.
these fast occurred, and the names of the relatives. It 2. Such reputation or tradition must have existed in that
embraces also facts of family history intimately family ante litem motam.
connected with pedigree. (33a)
Notes:
Requisites: Distinguished from Pedigree (Sec. 39)
1. The actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify Pedigree (Sec. 39) Family Tradition
2. The act or declaration is made by a person related to (Sec. 40)
the subject by birth or marriage Only 1 perceiver is More than 1 witness
3. The relationship between the declarant or actor and needed; actor or who knows the family
the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declarant must be tradition is necessary
declaration dead or unable to
4. The act or declaration was made ante litem motam or testify; must be proved
prior to the controversy by other evidence
Cases: Cases:
Gravador v. Mamigo (1967) Ferrer v. de Ynchausti (1918)
(exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule) (exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule)
To prove his age, Gravador offered in evidence the The day book of deceased Viademonte was offered in
verified answer of his deceased brother in a cadastral evidence to prove filiation. The Court admitted the same.
proceeding. It is stated therein that Gravado was 23 Evidence may be given upon trial of monuments and
years old at that time. The Court found this to be inscriptions in public places as evidence of common
admissible. A declaration made by a deceased relative reputation; and entries in family Bibles or other family
in a prior proceeding as to one’s age may be admitted in books or charts; engravings on rings, family portraits and
evidence. Also, although a person can have no personal the like, as evidence of pedigree. The law does not
knowledge of the date of his birth, he may testify as to require that the entries in the said booklet be made at
his age as he had learned it from his parents and the same time as the occurrence of those events.
relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion
of a family tradition. People v. Alegado (1991)
Tison v. CA (1997) The testimonies of the prosecution witness, the victim
(exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule) herself, and her maternal grandfather as to the victim’s
Corazon’s testimony that Teodora (declarant) age were admitted in evidence. According to the Court, it
categorically declared that she was her niece is falls within the exceptions of the hearsay rule. The
considered a declaration about pedigree. It is admissible requisites for its admissibility are the following: (1) that
because it is an exception to the hearsay rule, and it there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of
the members of a family (2) that the reputation or not that which acquires the character of common
tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed reputation. Common reputation must be equivalent to
previous to the controversy (3) the witness testifying to universal reputation.
the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the
person must be a member of the family of said person. 6. Res Gestae
All these conditions are present. Pedigree testimony is Section 42, Rule 130
admitted because it is the best that the nature of the Section 42. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made
case admits and because greater evil might arise from by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place
the rejection of such proof than from its admission. prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part
5. Common Reputation of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
Section 41, Rule 130 equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
Section 41. Common Reputation. — Common reputation significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of (36a)
public or general interest more than thirty years old, or
respecting marriage or moral character may be given in Requisites of res gestae referring to spontaneous
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places statements in connection with a startling occurrence:
may be received as evidence of common reputation. 1. The principal act, the res gestae, be a startling
(35) occurrence
2. The statement was made while the event is taking
Notes: place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto
Common reputation is admissible to prove (a) facts of 2. The statements forming part thereof were made
public or general interest more than thirty years old, (b) before the declarant had the opportunity to contrive a
marriage, and (c) moral character. falsehood
3. The statements refer to the occurrence in question
Common reputation is the definite opinion of the and its attending circumstances
community in which the fact to be proved is known or
exists; it means the general or substantially undivided Requisites of res gestae referring to verbal acts to be
reputation, as distinguished from a partial or qualified admissible:
one, although it need not be unanimous. 1. The res gestae or principal act to be characterized
must be equivocal
Matters of public interest are those of national interest 2. Such act must be material to the issue
are those affecting inhabitants of particular region or 3. The statements must accompany the equivocal act
community. 4. The statements give a legal significance to the
equivocal act
Character refers to the inherent qualifies of a person,
while reputation is the opinion of him by others. Notes:
Res gestae refers to (a) spontaneous statements in
Common reputation may be established either by the connection with a startling occurrence relating to that
testimonial evidence of competent witnesses, by fact and in effect forming part thereof, and (b)
monuments and inscriptions in public places, or by statements accompanying verbal acts, on the theory that
documents containing statements of reputation. they are the verbal parts of the act to be explained.
With respect to matters of public or general interest, Res gestae in connection with a homicidal act may be
such matters must be more than 30 years old. The distinguished from dying declarations in that:
common reputation of such matters must also be more
than 30 years old and, therefore, can be established only Dying Declarations Res Gestae
by persons who have had knowledge of the fact for such Can only be made by the Can be made by the killer
length of time, or by monuments and inscriptions existing victim or a third person
for that length of time. Can be made only after The statement may
the homicidal attack has precede, accompany or
Common reputation regarding marriage or moral been committed be made after the
character is not required to be more than 30 years old. homicidal act was
committed
Cases: The trustworthiness is The trustworthiness is
City of Manila v. Del Rosario (1905) based upon its being based upon the
(exception to rule) given under an spontaneity of the
Claim between the City and a private person over a awareness of impending statement
parcel of land. The City presented a witness who death
testified on what he had learned from the oldest
residents of the city. The Court held that the testimony is
Cases: 2. The entries were made at or near the time of the
People v. Lungayan (1988) transactions to which they refer;
(exception to rule) 3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated
The defense in a rape case emphasized the lack of in the entries;
involuntariness on the part the victim’s testimony. The 4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or
Court held that the victim had enough time to make a in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual,
decision on the nature of her story; she took a walk and moral, or religious; and
did not immediately go home after the rape. Her 5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
testimony cannot be categorized as part of the res course of business or duty.
gestae.
Notes:
People v. Latayda (2004) Generally, if the person who made the entry is available
Immediately after having acquired stab wounds, the as a witness, the entries will not be admitted as an
victim was able to converse with a witness calmly telling exception to the hearsay rule. However, the entries may
him the identity of the accused and asking him for help necessarily be availed of by the person as a
to be brought to hospital. The victim was brought to the memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on
hospital where he conversed with his wife again the transactions.
identifying the accused. He was also able to thumbmark
his ante-mortem statement written by another person. Cases:
He died hours after. The Court held that the victim’s Canque v. C.A. (1999)
testimony were correctly admitted as part of the res Defendant seeks to collect the value of materials it
gestae as it fell squarely on all the requisites. supplied the plaintiff to conduct its construction projects.
Defendant bases its claim on its books of account to
DBP Pool of Accredited Companies v. Radio which plaintiff objects on the ground the person who
Mindanao Network (2006) made the entries had no personal knowledge of the facts
(exception to rule) constituting the entries. The Court held that the entries
Defendant seeks to recover fire insurance but was did not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule on the
denied due to the event falling under an excepted risk in ground that the person who made the entries admitted to
the policy – that the fire was started by the NPA. The having no personal knowledge on the facts thereof.
insurance companies presented testimonies of its However, the Court held that the entries may be used as
witnesses, police officers, who were not present when a memorandum to refresh the memory of the witness
the fire occurred and whose testimonies were limited to under Sec. 10, Rule 132.
the fact that an investigation was conducted and in the
course of the investigation they were informed by Sadagnot v. Reiner Pacific International Shipping,
bystanders heavily armed men perpetrated the fire and Inc. (2007)
shouted “Mabuhay ang NPA!” afterwards. These Defendant fired plaintiff for insubordination. Defendant
bystanders were not presented as witnesses. The Court used as basis the entries in the ship’s logbook detailing
held that the statements were not part of res gestae. plaintiff’s refusal to follow orders. The Court held that the
Although the statements could have been made during a entries made in a ship’s logbook by a person performing
startling occurrence, it cannot be said however, that a duty required by law are prima facie evidence of the
these utterances were made spontaneously by the facts stated in the logbook. The logbook is the official
bystanders and before they had the time to contrive or record of the ship’s voyage which its captain is obligated
devise a falsehood. Note that the statements are by law to keep.
however admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to
the fact that they had been thus uttered. 8. Entries in Official Records
7. Entries in the Course of Business Section 44. Official Records. — Entries in official records
Section 43, Rule 130 made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of
Section 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a
made at, or near the time of the transactions to which duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence
they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, of the facts therein stated. (38)
who was in a position to know the facts therein stated,
may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person Section 24, Rule 132
made the entries in his professional capacity or in the Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of
performance of a duty and in the ordinary or regular public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section
course of business or duty. (37a) 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced
by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by
Requisites: the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in
unable to testify; 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 secretary by law are prima facie evidence. They are not
of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice conclusive. The police had no personal knowledge and
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign the only information he has was acquired from an
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country eyewitness who cannot be categorized as official
in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal information because in order to be classified as such the
of his office. (25a) persons who made the statements not only must have
personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have
Section 25, Rule 132 the duty to give such statements for the record.
Section 25. What attestation copy must state. —
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for Escobar v. Luna (2007)
the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state in Defendant contests that the title of the plaintiffs to the
substance, that they copy is a correct copy of the land were fraudulently obtained. Defendant presented as
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. evidence certification from the Register of Deeds
The attestation must be under the official seal of the confirming the plaintiffs fictitious title. The lower court
attesting officer, if there by any, of if he be the clerk of a dismissed the evidence as hearsay because it was not
court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a) supported by testimonial evidence of the officer who
furnished the record. However, the Court held that
Requisites: certification issued by government offices, without
1. The entries were made by a public officer in the testimony of the person giving the certification, is
performance of his duties or by a person in the sufficient and competent evidence which is an exception
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; to the hearsay rule. Sec. 44, Rule 130 should be read in
2. The person making the entry had personal knowledge conjunction with Sec. 28, Rule 132, which allows the
of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by admission of such documents.
him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to
submit the same; and 9. Commercial Lists
3. Such entities were duly entered in a regular manner in Section 45, Rule 130
the official records. Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. — Evidence of
statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in
Additional Notes: an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or
Compared with the requisites of entries in the course of other published compilation is admissible as tending to
business, in this exception there is no requirement that prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
the person who made the entry must be dead or unable compilation is published for use by persons engaged in
to testify. that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by
them therein. (39)
Entries in official records may be proved and evidenced
in the manner provided by Secs. 24 and 25 of Rule 132. Requisites:
1. The entries were made at, or near the time of the
Cases: transactions referred to;
U.S. v. Que Ping (1919) 2. Such entries were made in the regular course of
Sureties of a bail bond asks that they be relieved of their business;
obligation on the ground that the accused is dead. As 3. The person making the entries was in a position to
evidence, they presented a death certificate and a know the facts stated in the entries;
certificate from the Bureau of Health on the cause of his 4. The person making the entries did so in his
death. The Court held that while public records, made in professional capacity, or in the performance of duty and
the performance of their duty by public officers of the in the regular course of business; and
Philippine Islands, are prima facie evidence of the facts 5. The person making the entry is dead or unable to
therein stated, such documents, however, are not testify
conclusive evidence. Their probative value may either be
substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence. Cases:
In this case, the testimony of the officers who executed P.N.O.C. Shipping v. C.A. (1998)
the documents admitted to not having seen the body of (exception)
the accused. Plaintiff objects the admission of price quotations
presented by defendant to establish its claim for
People v. San Gabriel (1996) damages for maritime collision on the ground that such
Accused was charged with murder based from Advance price quotations are hearsay and do not constitute
Information Sheet prepared by the police who had no commercial lists. The Court held that the price
personal knowledge of the incident and whose only quotations are hearsay because they are mere private
information on the incident came from an eyewitness. writings which should have been proffered along with the
The Court held that Entries in official records made in testimony of the authors thereof. These quotations are
the performance of his duty by a public officer or by a not published in any list, register, periodical, or other
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined compilation on the relevant subject matter. Neither are
these “market reports or quotations” within the purview part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the
of “commercial lists” as these are not “standard rules of evidence, may be used against any party who
handbooks or periodicals, containing data of everyday was present or represented at the taking of the
professional need and relied upon in the work of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, accordance
occupation.” with any one of the following provisions:
10. Learned Treatises (a) Any deposition may be used by any party for
Section 46, Rule 130 the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony
Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, of deponent as a witness;
periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law,
science or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth (b) The deposition of party or of any one who at
of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director,
notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that or managing agent of a public or private corporation,
the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or partnership, or association which is a party may be used
pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as by an adverse party for any purpose;
expert in the subject. (40a)
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a
Requisites: party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the
1. The Court takes judicial notice of the learned treatise court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) that the
2. The learned treatise is testified to by an expert witness resides one hundred (100) kilometers from the
witness place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines,
unless it appears that his absence was procured by the
Notes: party offering the deposition; or (3) that the witness is
The difference between judicial notice under this rule unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness,
and the judicial notice taken up earlier, is under this rule, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering
the deposition has been unable to procure the
attendance of the witness by subpoeana; or (5) upon
Judicial Notice under Judicial Notice
application and notice, that such exceptional
Sec. 46, Rule 130
circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the
Judicial notice of the fact Judicial notice of the fact
interest of justice and with due regard to the importance
that the author of the itself
of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open
treatise is an authority on
court, to allow the deposition to be used; and
the fact
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in
Cases:
evidence by a party, the adverse party may require him
Estrada v. Noble (1952)
to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part
Plaintiff contests the application of the Ballantine Scale
introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.
of Values in determining the redemption price of the land
(4a, R24)
in litigation. The Court held that The Ballantine Scale of
Values was embodied in a bill the President sent to
Congress for enactment in 1945. It has been repeatedly Requisites:
applied by Philippine courts in numerous cases. Thus, it 1. The witness is dead or unable to testify
is an official document whose publication constituted a 2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former
leading event of general interest and whose provisions case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between
are widely known and have played an important part in the same parties or those representing the same
the contemporary political history of the country, of which interests;
courts could take judicial cognizance. 3. The former case involved the same subject as that in
the present case, although on different causes of action;
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial
11. Prior Testimony is the same issue involved in the present case; and
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former examine the witness in the former case
proceeding. – The testimony or deposition of a witness
deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or Notes:
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second
parties and subject matter may be given in evidence trial, or hostility since testifying at the first trial, does not
against the adverse party who had the opportunity to amount to an inability to testify. Such inability should
cross-examine him. (41a) proceed from a grave cause, almost amounting to death.
Section 4, Rule 23 Cases:

Section 4. Use of depositions. – At the trial or upon the Manliclic v. Calaunan (2007)
hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, an
In a case for damages, the court received in evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
transcripts of stenographic notes of testimonies of the comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
defendants in a prior related criminal case for writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
negligence. While the admission of the prior testimonies against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
did not conform to Sec. 47, Rule 130, the testimonies genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
were validly admitted as evidence because of the failure
to raise a timely objection. General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not admissible.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2011) Exceptions: The opinion of a witness is admissible in

In the main consolidated case for reconveyance of ill- evidence in the ff. instances:
gotten wealth, the PCGG seeks to have admitted as 1. On a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
evidence a deposition from a different but incident case experience or training which he possesses, that is, when
to the main action. The Sandiganbayan did not admit the he is an expert thereon.
deposition as it failed to conform to the requisites of Sec. 2. Regarding the identity or handwriting of a person,
47, Rule 130. The PCGG argues that the rule to be used when he has knowledge of the person or handwriting,
to measure the admissibility of the deposition is Rule 23 whether he is an ordinary or expert witness. (Sec. 22,
(Depositions pending action) since there was a R132)
consolidation, there was no longer a former proceeding 3. On the mental sanity of a person if the witness is
to speak of, hence Sec. 47, Rule 130 becomes sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the latter is
inapplicable. The Court held that while the several an expert witness.
actions are ordered to be tried together (consolidation for 4. On the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of
trial), there is no merger of the suits in a single cause of a person which he has observed and
action. Each case retains its separate character and 5. On ordinary matters known to all men of common
requires the entry of a separate judgment. Thus, the perception, such as the value of ordinary household
Sandiganbayan was correct in not admitting the items. (Galian v. State Assurance)
deposition as it did not conform to the requirements of
Sec. 47, Rule 130. Requisites for Expert Evidence:
1. The matter to be testified is one that requires
expertise.
IV. OPINION RULE 2. The witness has been qualified as an expert.
Sections 48-50, Rule 130
Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is Expert Witness Ordinary Witness
not admissible, except as indicated in the following On a matter requiring
sections. special knowledge, skill,
experience or training
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of which he possesses
a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, Regarding the identity or handwriting of a person, when
experience or training which he shown to posses, may he has knowledge of the person or handwriting
be received in evidence. (43a) On the mental sanity of a On the mental sanity of a
person if the witness is an person if the witness is
Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The expert sufficiently acquainted with
opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may the former
be received in evidence regarding — On the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate person which he has observed and
knowledge; On ordinary matters known to all men of common
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; perception, such as the value of ordinary household
and items.
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted. Notes:
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the Expert witness: one who belongs to the profession to
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who
possesses special knowledge on questions on which he
Section 22, Rule 132 proposes to express an opinion.
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. —
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any No definite standard to determining degree of skill or
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such knowledge expert witness should possess. It is sufficient
person because he has seen the person write, or has the ff. are present:
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness 1. training and education
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired 2. particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence case.
3. presentation of authorities or standards upon which A party seeking the admission in evidence of a tape
his opinion is based. recording bears the burden of producing sufficient
evidence showing that the recording is an accurate
Courts not bound by the expert’s findings. Expert reproduction of the recorded conversation.
evidence usually regarded not as conclusive, but purely
advisory in character. The testimony of a witness skilled in the unwritten law of
a foreign country is not necessarily binding on the court.
Value of expert testimony: depends largely on the extent
of the experience or studies of the witness. Rule on DNA Evidence
(law reproduced on pp. 11-14, in-depth discussion on
Whether or not courts are bound by the testimony of an pp. 13-14)
expert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject of Notes:
the inquiry. The more technical the topic, the more the Herrera v. Alba: Courts must require at least 99.9% as
court must depend and rely on expert evidence. the minimum numerical estimate for the likelihood or
probability of paternity. If less than 99.9% = merely
Conflicting expert evidence have neutralizing effect on corroborative evidence, If 99.9% or higher = there is
contradictory conclusions. refutable presumption of paternity.
Expert evidence on handwriting is, at best, weak and Requirement to submit to DNA evidence is not violative
unsatisfactory. of rights against privacy and against self-incrimination.
As a rule, the opinions of handwriting experts are not Class Notes:

necessarily binding upon the courts, more so where the You always need an expert witness when presenting
expert was not presented as a witness to give the party DNA evidence.
adversely affected by his opinion the opportunity to
cross-examine him. Exception: Where the question of Post-Conviction Order:
similarity or dissimilarity can be clearly determined by a If favorable to accused  remedy is habeas corpus
mere comparison of the existing signatures, a If it shows accused’s guilt  you cannot file a case again
handwriting expert is not necessary. because it is barred by double jeopardy.
NBI expert examination of documents by private litigant What is Chain of Custody? See p. 9
does not nullify the examination made.
Are DNA tests only for criminal cases? No. It may be
Paraffin tests are not conclusive and are unreliable. used for both criminal and civil cases E.g. In Herrera v.
Alba, it can be used in a compulsory recognition case.
A negative paraffin test is not conclusive evidence that
the accused did not fire a gun. He may have worn gloves Cases:
or washed his hands. People vs. Duranan (2001)
(exception to the rule)
Blood tests are admissible and: Accused argues that an essential element for the
1. Conclusive on the non-paternity of a person. prosecution for rape of a mental retardate is a
2. Inconclusive to affirm paternity (only shows possibility psychiatric evaluation of the complainant’s mental age
of that fact). and that only in cases where the retardation is apparent
due to the presence of physical deformities symptomatic
Evidence obtained by sound recording admissible where of mental retardation can the mental evaluation be
the proper foundation has been laid to guarantee its waived. It was held that the opinion of a witness
genuineness. regarding the mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted may be received in evidence. The
Requisites for Admissibility of Tape Recordings: mother of an offended party in a case of rape, though
There must be adequate showing that: not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental
1. The recording device was capable of taking testimony. condition of the victim, how she was born, what she is
2. The operator of the device was competent. suffering from, and what her attainments are, is
3. No changes, additions, or deletions have been made. competent to testify on the matter.
4. The testimony was elicited and voluntarily made
without any kind of inducement. Ilao-Quianay vs. Mapile (2005)
5. The establishment of the authenticity and correctness The handwriting experts were presented by both parties.
of the recording. The experts had conflicting testimonies so the trial court
6. The identity of the speakers. had no choice but to rule the deed of sale in issue was
7. The manner of the preservation of the recording. genuine. The SC agreed with the TC and held that as a
rule, courts are not bound by expert testimonies. The
problem of the evaluation of expert testimony is left to
the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is
not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that Section 14, Rule 132
discretion. Considering that the conflicting testimonies Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. —
were disregarded, the validity of the sale should be Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
recognized because the only allegation against its admissible until such character has been impeached.
validity, that it’s a forgery, was not proved. (17)
People vs. Umanito (2007) Section 6, R.A. No. 8505

The SC ordered a DNA test to find out whether the Section 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions for rape,
accused was guilty of rape. Should the RTC find the evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion
DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it shall order the thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted
same, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules. The unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that
RTC shall determine the institution to undertake the DNA such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
testing and the parties are free to manifest their
comments on the choice of DNA testing center. After the
Rules:
DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the
1. In Criminal Cases
parties who wish to avail of the same to offer the results
GR: May not at outset prove the bad moral
in accordance with the rules of evidence. The RTC, in
character of the accused which is pertinent to the
evaluating the DNA results upon presentation, shall
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
assess the same as evidence in keeping with Sections 7
XPN: If the accused, however, in his defense
and 8 of the Rules. In assessing the probative value of
attempts to prove his good moral character, then the
DNA evidence, the RTC shall consider, among other
character can introduce evidence of accused’s bad
things, the following data: how the samples were
moral character at the rebuttal stage.
collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in
2. In Criminal Cases
analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards
GR: The good or bad moral character of the
and procedures were followed in conducting the tests,
offended party may always be proved by either party
and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the
as long as such evidence tends to establish the
tests. The TC must also ensure that the proper chain of
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
custody in the handling of the samples submitted by the
XPN: In rape cases, evidence of complainant's
parties is adequately borne in the records, i.e.: that the
past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her
samples are collected by a neutral third party; that the
reputation shall not be admitted. (Rape Shield)
tested parties are appropriately identified at their sample
XPN to XPN: Unless, and only to the
collection appointments; that the samples are protected
extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material
with tamper tape at the collection site; that all persons in
and relevant to the case.
possession thereof at each stage of testing thoroughly
inspected the samples for tampering and explained his
3. In Civil Cases
role in the custody of the samples and the acts he
GR: The moral character of either party
performed in relation thereto.
cannot be proved.
XPN: Unless it is pertinent to the issue of
IV. CHARACTER AS EVIDENCE character involved in the case.
Section 51. Character evidence not generally 4. In Both Civil and Criminal Cases
admissible; exceptions: — GR: The bad moral character of a witness
(a) In Criminal Cases: may always be proved by either party but not evidence
(1) The accused may prove his good moral of his good character.
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in XPN: When witness’ good moral character has
the offense charged. been impeached, his good character may be proved.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not (Sec. 14, R132)
prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged. Kind of Party Nature/Substance of
(3) The good or bad moral character of the Character Evidence
offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in Accused Pertinent to the moral trait
any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of involved in the offense
the offense charged. charged (e.g. estafa =
(b) In Civil Cases: moral trait involved is
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is honesty)
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character Offended Person May establish in any
involved in the case. reasonable degree the
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, probability or improbability
(46a, 47a)
of the offense charged. sufficient to support a conclusion)
(e.g. rape = chastity of 5. Administrative and Quasi-judicial bodies – substantial
victim may be questioned) evidence
XPN: Proof of bad Who Has Burden of Proof:

character of the victim not 1. Civil Cases – on the party who would be defeated if
admissible: no evidence were given on either side.
1. In murder charge, when 2. Criminal Cases – always on the prosecution.
committed through
treachery or premeditation. What Need Not Be Proved:
2. In a rape case if the 1. Facts which are presumed. (R131)
crime was committed by 2. Facts which are of judicial notice. (R129)
violence or intimidation. 3. Facts which are judicially admitted. (R129)
Witnesses Must refer to his general
reputation for truth, Notes:
honesty, or integrity, that Burden of proof/onus probandi is the obligation imposed
is, affecting his credibility. upon a party who alleges the existence of facts
In civil cases, for character The issue must be necessary for the prosecution of his action or defense to
evidence of a party to be character e.g. damages establish the same by the requisite quantum of
admissible from libel, slander or evidence.
seduction
In civil cases, burden of proof usually on:
Notes: 1. Plaintiff – with respect to his complaint
Rationale for disallowing accused’s bad character to be 2. Defendant – with respect to his counterclaim
introduced into evidence at the outset  he might get 3. Cross-claimant – with respect to his cross-claim
convicted not because he’s guilty of the crime, but
because he’s a bad person. Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
Does not shift (remains Shifts from party to party
with party upon whom it is depending on the
“Don't accept your dog's admiration as imposed) exigencies of the case in
conclusive evidence that you are wonderful.” the course of trial
- Ann Landers Generally determined by Generally determined by
the pleadings filed by the the developments at trial or
party by the provisions of the
substantive law or
PART THREE procedural rules
I. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS Burden of Evidence

A. Burden of Proof Civil Case Criminal Case
Sec. 1, Rule 131 Burden with the party who asserts an affirmative
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the allegation
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue Thus: Thus:
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the Plaintiff – has to prove Prosecution – has to prove
amount of evidence required by law. (1a, 2a) affirmative allegations in affirmative allegations in
the complaint the indictment regarding
Quantum of Evidence Required for: the elements of the crime
1. Civil Cases – preponderance of evidence Defendant – has to prove as well as the attendant
2. Criminal Cases – affirmative allegations in circumstances
a. Issuance of Warrant of Arrest – Probable his counterclaim, and his
Cause (reasonable ground to believe that the accused affirmative defenses Defese – has to prove
has committed an offense) affirmative allegations
b. Filing of Information – prima facie evidence regarding the existence of
c. Conviction – guilt beyond reasonable doubt. justifying or exempting
d. Preliminary Investigation – after determining circumstances, absolutory
whether a crime has been committed, probable cause causes, or mitigating
that the accused was guilty thereof circumstances
3. Judges – GR: Negative allegation need not be proved
a. Misconduct - clear and convincing evidence
b. Removal – beyond reasonable doubt XPN: when negative XPN: when negative
4. Agrarian Cases – substantial evidence (only such allegations are essential allegations are essential
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as parts of the cause of ingredients of the offense
action, defenses in a civil in a criminal case or the ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action, but is one
case defenses thereto which, if established, will be a good defense, he has the
XPN to XPN: even if the burden of proving said defenses.
negative allegation is an Thus:
essential part of the cause e.g. illegal possession of People vs. Macalaba (2003)
of action/defense, it does firearms, prosecution (exception to rule)
not need to be proved if it needs to prove absence of There was a negative allegation saying that the accused
is only for the denial of the license had no license or authority to possess shabu. Generally
existence of a document if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative
which should properly be allegation, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
in the custody of the charge. However, this case falls under an exception,
adverse party specifically, where the negative allegation does not have
any direct proof, or where the facts are more
Thus: immediately within the knowledge of the accused. In this
e.g. breach of contract – case, Abdul could have easily disproved the charge of
plaintiff needs to prove the illegal possession of shabu against him by presenting a
defendant did not comply doctor’s prescription or a copy of his license/authority to
with obligation possess shabu but he did not.
GR: If the criminal charge
is predicated on a negative People vs. Florendo (2003)
allegation or a negative The accused raised insanity as a defense. The onus
avernment is an essential probandi rests upon the party who invokes insanity as an
element of a crime, exempting circumstance, and he must prove it by clear
prosecution has burden of and convincing evidence. An inquiry into the mental
proving the charge. (see state of an accused should relate to the period
People v. Pajenado) immediately before or at the very moment the felony is
committed.
XPN: When negative of an
issue does not permit Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. vs. Trans-
direct proof or facts are Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. (2006)
more immediately within The party which alleges a fact as a matter of defense
the knowledge of the has the burden of proving it; In the course of trial in a
accused, the onus is on civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in
him. his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to
defendant to controvert plaintiff’s prima facie case,
Cases: otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.
People v. Pajenado (1970) TransAsia, as the TC plaintiff had the burden of proof to
It is not incumbent upon a person charged with illegal show proof of loss, which it was able to do. Thereafter,
possession of firearm to prove the issuance of a license the burden of evidence shifted to Prudential to counter
to possess the firearm. Sec. 2, R131 provides that in TransAsia’s case, and to prove its special and
criminal cases the burden of proof as to the offense affirmative defense that TransAsia was in violation of the
charged lies on the prosecution and that a negative fact particular condition on the contract.
alleged by the prosecution must be proven if it is an
essential ingredient of the offense of charged. The B. Presumptions
burden of proof was with the prosecution in this case to
Notes:
prove that the firearm used by appellant in committing
the offense charged was not properly licensed. Presumption – an inference of the existence or non-
existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw
Sambar vs. Levi Strauss & Co (2002) from proof of other facts.
(exception to rule)
CVSGIC was sued by Levi’s for infringing their Presumptions v. Judicial Notice v. Judicial Admissions
trademark arcuate design. Sambar presented an Presumptions Judicial Judicial
affirmative defense saying that while he owned the
copyright to the said arcuate design used by CVSGIC, Notice Admissions
he did not allow CVSGIC to use it. The Court held that Proponent still has to Proponent does not have to
Sambar had the burden to prove that he was not introduce evidence introduce any evidence.
connected to CVSGIC and that he did not authorize of the basis of the
anyone to use the design because he was the one who presumption (he has
raised the said issues as an affirmative defense, not to present evidence
Levi’s. If the defendant, in his answer, alleges an
of the existence/non-
affirmative defense, which is not a denial of an essential
existence of facts Presumption ”(e) That evidence willfully suppressed
from which the would be adverse if produced” will not arise when:
presumption arises) 1. Suppression is not willful.
2. Evidence withheld is merely
corroborative/cumulative/unnecessary.
Classifications 3. Evidence is at the disposal of both parties.
1. Presumption of Law 4. Suppression is an exercise of a privilege.
o Certain inference must be made whenever the
facts appear which furnish the basis of the (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the
inference. latter;
o Reduced to fixed rules and form part of (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to
the latter;
jurisprudence system
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has
a. Conclusive (or absolute) been paid;
b. Disputable (or rebuttable) (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a
2. Presumption of Fact receipt for the later one is produced;
o A discretion is vested in the tribunal as to the
drawing of the inference. Notes:
o Derived solely from circumstances of the Par. i is similar to Art 1176 of the CC which lays down
particular case. the presumption that interest has been paid if the
principal is received by the creditor without reservation.
Sections 2, 3 and 4, Rule 131 (j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
are instances of conclusive presumptions: doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over,
omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to are owned by him;
believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such Requisites for inference of guilt arising from possession
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it: of recently stolen good:
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his The ff has to be proved by prosecution:
landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of 1. The crime was actually committed.
landlord and tenant between them. (3a) 2. The crime was committed recently.
3. The stolen property was found in the possession of
Conclusive Presumptions: the accused.
1. The fact which the party in estoppel has represented 4. The accused is unable to satisfactorily explain his
to be true is conclusively presumed against him to be possession thereof.
true and he is not permitted to introduce evidence to the
contrary. Requisites to conclusively prove possession:
2. The ownership of the landlord at the start of the 1. The possession must be unexplained by any innocent
tenancy relation is conclusively presumed as against the origin.
tenant and the latter is not permitted to dispute such fact. 2. Possession must be fairly recent.
3. Possession must be exclusive.
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may Notes:
be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: Similar to (j): If a person has in his possession a falsified
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; document and he made use of it, taken advantage of it
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful and profited thereby, the presumption is that he is the
intent; material author of the falsification.
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of
his voluntary act; Cases:
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns; Mabunga vs. People (2004)
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse (exception to par. [j])
if produced; Accused was seen carrying a box with a stolen item. The
presumption that he was the taker because he was
Requisites for presumption ”(e) That evidence willfully found in possession of a stolen good was not applied
suppressed would be adverse if produced” to arise: because the prosecution failed to prove beyond
1. Evidence is material. reasonable doubt that appellant was caught in exclusive
2. The party had opportunity to produce the same. possession of the recently stolen good. While
3. That the said evidence is available only to said party. possession need not mean actual physical control over
the thing for it may include constructive possession, it is when the document was notarized, the petitioner did not
still necessary that for possession to be deemed appear before the notary public. Hence, the notary public
constructive the accused knowingly has the power and did not witness the petitioner affixing his signature on the
the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or document.
control over a thing, either directly or through another
person. The box was not concealed and everyone had Surtida vs. Rural Bank of Malinao (2006)
access to it as it was placed in a very accessible place. Petitioners raised the defense of lack of consideration.
A presumption cannot be founded on another The presumption that a contract has sufficient
presumption. Accused had no constructive possession consideration cannot be overthrown by the bare
because the exercise of exclusive dominion or control is uncorroborated and self-serving assertion of the
absent. petitioners that it has no consideration. To overcome the
presumption of consideration, the alleged lack of
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself consideration must be shown by preponderance of
for the payment of the money, or the delivery of evidence. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden.
anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly; (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly the regular course of the mail;
appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed; Requisites for (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the was received in the regular course of the mail:
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful 1. It must be proved that the letter was properly
exercise of jurisdiction; addressed with postage pre-paid and
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case 2. That is was actually mailed.
were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in 3. If said letter was not returned to sender, it is
like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a presumed that it was received by the addressee.
dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the
arbitrators and passed upon by them; Notes:
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; Sec. 10, R13  service of pleadings:
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been 1. by mail - complete upon expiration of 10 days after
followed; mailing unless the court otherwise provides.
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a 2. by registered mail – complete upon actual receipt by
contract; the addressee but if he fails to claim his mail from the
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed post office within 5 days from the date of first notice, the
for a sufficient consideration; service is complete at the expiration of such time.
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was However, there must first be conclusive proof that first
made before the instrument was overdue and at the notice was sent to the addressee (e.g. postmaster’s
place where the instrument is dated; certification).
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being
Cases: unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is
People vs. Magbanua (2004) considered dead for all purposes, except for those of
(exception to par. [m]) succession.
A government doctor was subpoenaed for an autopsy he The absentee shall not be considered dead for the
conducted four years prior. He merely relied on his purpose of opening his succession till after an absence
notes. The court held that while it is true that a of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-
government doctor's post-mortem examination is five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in
presumed by law to have been regularly performed order that his succession may be opened.
pursuant to Sec. 3 (m), R131, this rebuttable The following shall be considered dead for all purposes
presumption cannot be successfully invoked in the including the division of the estate among the heirs:
present case, where the examining doctor was remiss in (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
the performance of his duties as a medico-legal officer. voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not been
heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or
Pilipinas Bank vs. Glee Chemical Labs (2006) aircraft;
(exception to par. [m]) (2) A member of the armed forces who has
Petitioner contends that there should no longer be any taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for
doubt as to the due execution of notarized document four years;
which has been registered with the Register of Deeds. (3) A person who has been in danger of death
However, the Court held that the presumption that under other circumstances and whose existence has not
official duty has been regularly performed is not been known for four years;
conclusive. In this case, the testimony of petitioner’s own
witness destroyed this presumption by admitting that
(4) If a married person has been absent for four (2) A child born after one hundred eighty days
consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is
subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief considered to have been conceived during such
that the absent spouse is already death. In case of marriage, even though it be born within the three
disappearance, where there is a danger of death the hundred days after the termination of the former
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of marriage.
only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any Notes:
case, before marrying again, the spouse present must Par. (dd) was taken from Art. 259 of the CC and Art. 168
institute a summary proceedings as provided in the of the FC.
Family Code and in the rules for declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to (ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues
the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. as long as is usual with things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
Notes: (gg) That a printed or published book, purporting
Taken from 390-391 of the CC. to be printed or published by public authority, was so
printed or published;
A view is held that with respect to: (hh) That a printed or published book, purporting
1. ordinary absence (7/10/5 years) - absentee is contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
presumed to have died at the end of the said period. country where the book is published, contains correct
2. qualified absence (danger of death) – Absentee reports of such cases;
presumed to have died at the time he was exposed to (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it
such danger of peril i.e. at the start of the 4 year period was to convey real property to a particular person has
stated therein. actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is
necessary to perfect the title of such person or his
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the successor in interest;
thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary (jj) That except for purposes of succession,
course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life; when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who
a contract of copartnership; died first, and there are no particular circumstances from
(aa) That a man and woman deporting which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the
lawful contract of marriage; age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the
woman who are capacitated to marry each other and older is deemed to have survived;
who live exclusively with each other as husband and 2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger
wife without the benefit of marriage or under void is deemed to have survived;
marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above
or industry. sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the
a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if
and who have acquire properly through their actual joint the sex be the same, the older;
contribution of money, property or industry, such 5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the
contributions and their corresponding shares including other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have
joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are survived.
equal.
Requisites for Presumption of Survivorship:
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the 1. Deaths occurred in a calamity.
mother contracted another marriage within three 2. There are no particular circumstances which it can be
hundred days after such termination of the former inferred that one died ahead of the other. (e.g. 1 day old
marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of child v. 61 year old man, it cannot be presumed that the
proof to the contrary: 1 day old child died)
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days
after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is (kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or
considered to have been conceived during such more persons who are called to succeed each other, as
marriage, even though it be born within the three to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of
hundred days after the termination of the former one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the
marriage. absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died
at the same time. (5a)
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak,
Notes: or the questions calls for a different mode of answer, the
Par. (kk) Par. (jj) answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)
It is not required that the Applies only when deaths
parties perished in a occurred during a calamity. Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. — The entire
calamity proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions
Only applies in questions Applies to cases not propounded to a witness and his answers thereto, the
of successional rights involving successional statements made by the judge or any of the parties,
rights. (e.g. insurance counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall
cases) be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by
Provides a presumption of Provides for presumptions other means of recording found suitable by the court.
simultaneity in the deaths of survivorship. A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by
of the persons called to the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
succeed each other. certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a
correct statement of such proceedings. (2a)
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Elements of Sec 1:

— There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child born 1. Done in open court.
after three hundred days following the dissolution of the 2. Under oath or affirmation.
marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever 3. Answers of witness shall be given orally.
alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must
prove his allegation. (6) General Rule: The answers of the witness shall be given
orally.
Notes: Exception:
Exact copy of Art. 261 of the CC. 1. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
questions calls for a different mode of answer.
Applies when the dissolution of the marriage is by 2. Judicial Affidavit Rule
reasons other than the death of the husband.
Class Notes:
Separation may be legal separation or separation de Q: How did the Judicial Affidavit Rule change Sec 1,
facto. R132?
rd
A: Only on the 3 element; submission of affidavits in
lieu of oral testimonies
Cases:
Ong vs. Sandiganbayan (2005) Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
Sec. 2 of RA 1379 states that property acquired by a Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all
public officer or employee during his incumbency in an actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the
amount which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary reception of evidence before:
as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful
income and the income from legitimately acquired (1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
property shall be presumed prima facie to have Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal
unlawfully acquired. (Note: Burden of proof then shifts to Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but
the defendant.) RA 1379 is constitutional. No shall not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-
constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing
SC;
that proof by the State of some material fact or facts
shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and the
burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of (2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District
showing that such act or acts are innocent and Courts;
committed without unlawful intention.
The State, having the right to determine what acts are (3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the
criminal, has a right as well to state what proof shall Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate Courts;
constitute prima facie evidence of guilt.
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by
II. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the
A. Examination of Witnesses Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
Sec 1 and 2, R132
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The (5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the
shall be done in open court, and under oath or Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of
procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, (1) Show the circumstances under which the
quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
uniformly referred to here as the "court."
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant
Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits to the issues that the case presents; and
in lieu of direct testimonies. - (a) The parties shall file
with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally (3) Identify the attached documentary and object
or by licensed courier service, not later than five days evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance
before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the with the Rules of Court;
scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents,
the following: (e) The signature of the witness over his printed name;
and
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall
take the place of such witnesses' direct testimonies; and (f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who
administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by
(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if any, law to administer the same.
which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and
marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The
complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the
so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant. end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or
supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep that:
the original document or object evidence in his
possession, he may, after the same has been identified, (1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the
marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his questions he asked and the corresponding answers that
judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to the witness gave; and
such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that
original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or
original document or object evidence for comparison
assisting him coached the witness regarding the latter's
during the preliminary conference with the attached
answers.
copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter
shall not be admitted.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer
mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary
evidence in place of the original when allowed by
existing rules. Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness, who is neither the
witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness,
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by
documents, or other things under his control available for
a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the
copying, authentication, and eventual production in
following:
court, the requesting party may avail himself of the
issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
occupation of the witness; governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in
this case shall be the same as when taking his
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit
or supervises the examination of the witness and the shal1 be understood to be ex parte.
place where the examination is being held;
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his
questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so witness in place of direct testimony shall state the
under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for purpose of such testimony at the start of the
false testimony or perjury; presentation of the witness. The adverse party may
move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his or any of the answers found in it on ground of
corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that: inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the
motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any
excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the
initials of an authorized court personnel, without court within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and
prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under serve a copy of each on the public and private
Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. prosecutor, including his documentary and object
evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so
Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of
affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to the accused and his witnesses when they appear before
cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the court to testify.
the exhibits attached to the same. The party who
presents the witness may also examine him as on re- Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial
direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in Affidavit Rule. - (a) A party who fails to submit the
examining the witness to determine his credibility as well required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be
as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that deemed to have waived their submission. The court
it needs for resolving the issues. may, however, allow only once the late submission of
the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the
Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00
a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence nor more than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in
their chronological order, stating the purpose or (b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of
purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit. any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing
of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to
adverse party shall state the legal ground for his have waived his client's right to confront by cross-
objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall examination the witnesses there present.
immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits affidavits that do not conform to the content
form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and requirements of Section 3 and the attestation
authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
simply cited by their markings during the offers, the however, allow only once the subsequent submission of
objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing
description of each exhibit. or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would
not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided
further, that public or private counsel responsible for
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. - (a)
their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less
This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
than P1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court.
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does
not exceed six years;
Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent
rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court and the
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial rules of procedure governing investigating officers and
affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence are repealed or modified insofar as these are
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
whatever the penalties involved are.
The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.
affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before
the pre-trial, serving copies if the same upon the Section 12. Effectivity. - This rule shall take effect on
accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall January 1, 2013 following its publication in two
attach to the affidavits such documentary or object newspapers of general circulation not later than
evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing
B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, cases.
documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the
trial.
Rule on the Conduct of Pre-Trial (AM No. 03-1-09-SC)
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his RE: PROPOSED RULE ON GUIDELINES TO BE
defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the OBSERVED BY TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his CLERKS OF COURT IN THE CONDUCT OF PRE-
judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the
TRIAL AND USE OF DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for
MEASURES good cause shown);
THE CONDUCT OF PRE-TRIAL AND USE OF e. A manifestation of their having availed or their
DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY MEASURES intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or
referral to commissioners; and
The use of pre-trial and the deposition-discovery
measures are undeniably important and vital f. The number and names of the witnesses, the
components of case management in trial courts. To substance of their testimonies, and the approximate
abbreviate court proceedings, ensure prompt disposition number of hours that will be required by the parties for
of cases and decongest court dockets, and to further the presentation of their respective witnesses.
implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 A copy of the Notice of Pre-trial Conference is hereto
and except as otherwise specifically provided for in other attached as Annex "B."
special rules, the following guidelines are issued for the
observance and guidance of trial judges and clerks of
The rule on the contents of the pre-trial brief must strictly
court:
be complied with.
I. PRE-TRIAL
The parties are bound by the representations and
A. Civil Cases statements in their respective pre-trial briefs.
1. Within one day from receipt of the complaint:
3. At the start of the pre-trial conference, the
1.1 Summons shall be prepared and shall contain a judge shall immediately refer the parties and/or their
reminder to defendant to observe restraint in filing a counsel if authorized by their clients to the PMC
motion to dismiss and instead allege the grounds thereof mediation unit for purposes of mediation if available. If
as defenses in the Answer, in conformity with IBP-OCA mediation fails, the judge will schedule the continuance
Memorandum on Policy Guidelines dated March 12, of the pre-trial conference. Before the continuance, the
2002. A copy of the summons is hereto attached as Judge may refer the case to the Branch COC for a
Annex "A;" and preliminary conference to assist the parties in reaching a
1.2 The court shall issue an order requiring the settlement, to mark the documents or exhibits to be
parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 presented by the parties and copies thereof to be
and request for admission by adverse party under Rule attached to the records after comparison and to consider
26 or at their discretion make use of depositions under such other matters as may aid in its prompt disposition.
Rule 23 or other measures under Rules 27 and 28 within
five days from the filing of the answer. A copy of the During the preliminary conference, the Branch
order shall be served upon the defendant together with COC shall also ascertain from the parties the undisputed
the summons and upon the plaintiff. facts and admissions on the genuineness and due
execution of the documents marked as exhibits. The
Within five (5) days from date of filing of the proceedings during .the preliminary conference shall be
reply, the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the recorded in the "Minutes of Preliminary Conference" to
case be set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to be signed by both parties and/or counsel, the form of
file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC which is hereto attached as Annex. "C".
shall issue a notice of pre-trial.
2. The parties shall submit, at least three (3) days The minutes of preliminary conference and the
before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs containing the exhibits shall be attached by the Branch COC to the
:
following case record before the pre-trial.
a. A statement of their willingness to enter into an
4. Before the continuation of the pre-trial
amicable settlement indicating the desired terms thereof
conference, the judge must study all the pleadings of the
or to submit the case to any of the alternative modes of
case, and determine the issues thereof and the
dispute resolution;
respective positions of the parties thereon to enable him
b. A summary of admitted facts and proposed to intelligently steer the parties toward a possible
stipulation of facts; amicable settlement of the case, or, at the very least, to
help reduce and limit the issues. The judge should not
c. The issues to be tried or resolved; allow the termination of pre-trial simply because of the
d. The documents or exhibits to be presented, manifestation of the parties that they cannot settle the
stating the purpose thereof. (No evidence shall be case. He should expose the parties to the advantages of
allowed to be presented and offered during the trial pre-trial. He must also be mindful that there are other
in support of a party's evidence-in-chief other than important aspects of the pre-trial that ought to be taken
those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked up to expedite the disposition of the case.
The Judge with all tact, patience, impartiality and respective positions thereon. If only legal issues are
with due regard to the rights of the parties shall presented, the judge shall require the parties to submit
endeavor to persuade them to arrive at a settlement of their respective memoranda and the court can proceed
the dispute. The court shall initially ask the parties and to render judgment;
their lawyers if an amicable settlement of the case is h. Determine the propriety of rendering a
possible. If not, the judge may confer with the parties summary judgment dismissing the case based on the
with the opposing counsel to consider the following: disclosures made at the pre-trial or a judgment based on
the pleadings, evidence identified and admissions made
a. Given the evidence of the plaintiff presented in during pre-trial;
his pre-trial brief to support his claim, what manner of i. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates
compromise is considered acceptable to the defendant for continuous trial in accordance with Circular No. 1-89
at the present stage? dated January 19, 1989; adhere to the case flow chart
determined by the court, which shall contain the different
stages of the proceedings up to the promulgation of the
b. Given the evidence of the defendant described
decision and use the time frame for each stage in setting
in his pre-trial brief to support his defense, what manner
the trial dates. The One-Day Examination of Witness
of compromise is considered acceptable to the plaintiff at
Rule, that is, a witness has to be fully examined in one
the present stage? (1) day only, shall be strictly adhered to subject to the
courts' discretion during trial on whether or not to extend
If not successful, the court shall confer with the the direct and/or cross-examination for justifiable
party and his counsel separately. reasons. On the last hearing day allotted for each party,
he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after
If the manner of compromise is not acceptable, the the presentation of his last witness and the opposing
judge shall confer with the parties without their counsel party is required to immediately interpose his objection
for the same purpose of settlement. thereto. Thereafter, the Judge shall make the ruling on
the offer of evidence in open court. However the judge
5. If all efforts to settle fail, the trial judge shall: has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing
in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132;
a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference j. Determine the most important witnesses to be
heard and limit the number of witnesses (Most Important
as part of the pre-trial proceedings and confirm markings
Witness Rule). The facts to be proven by each witness
of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on
and the approximate number of hours per witness shall
the genuineness and due execution of documents;
be fixed;
b. Inquire if there are cases arising out of the
k. At his discretion, order the parties to use the
same facts pending before other courts and order its
affidavits of witnesses as direct testimonies subject to
consolidation if warranted;
the right to object to inadmissible portions thereof and to
c. Inquire if the pleadings are in order. If not,
the right of cross-examination by the other party. The
order the amendments if necessary;
affidavits shall be based on personal knowledge, shall
d. Inquire if interlocutory issues are involved and
set forth facts as would be admissible in evidence, and
resolve the same;
e. Consider the adding or dropping of parties; shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to
f. Scrutinize every single allegation of the testify to the matters stated therein. The affidavits shall
be in question and answer form, and shall comply with
complaint, answer and other pleadings and attachments
the rules on admissibility of evidence;
thereto and the contents of documents and all other
l. Require the parties and/or counsel to submit to
evidence identified and pre-marked during pre-trial in
the Branch COC the names, addresses and contact
determining further admissions of facts and documents.
numbers of the witnesses to be summoned by
To obtain admissions, the Court shall ask the parties to
subpoena;
submit the depositions taken under Rule 23, the answers
m. Order the delegation of the reception of
to written interrogatories under Rule 25 and the answers
evidence to the Branch COC under Rule 30; and
to request for admissions by the adverse party under
n. Refer the case to a trial by commissioner
Rule 26. It may also require the production of documents
or things requested by a party under Rule 27 and the under Rule 32.
results of the physical and mental examination of
During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to
persons under Rule 28;
ask questions on issues raised therein and all questions
g. Define and simplify the factual and legal
or comments by counsel or parties must be directed to
issues arising from the pleadings. Uncontroverted
the judge to avoid hostilities between the parties.
issues and frivolous claims or defenses should be
eliminated. For each factual issue, the parties/counsel
6. The trial judge shall schedule the pre-trial in the
shall state all the evidence to support their positions
afternoon sessions and set as many pre-trial
thereon. For each legal issue, parties/counsel shall state
conferences as may be necessary.
the applicable law and jurisprudence supporting their
7. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded. settlement of the civil aspect of the case, mark the
The minutes of each pre-trial conference shall contain documents to be presented as exhibits and copies
matters taken up therein more particularly admissions of thereof attached to the records after comparison,
facts and exhibits and shall be signed by the parties and ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and
their counsel. admissions on the genuineness and due execution of
documents marked as exhibits and consider such other
8. The judge shall issue the required Pre-Trial Order matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the case.
within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial. The proceedings during the preliminary conference shall
Said Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters be recorded in the Minutes of Preliminary Conference to
not disposed of and control the course of the action be signed by both parties and counsel. (Please see
during the trial. A sample Pre-Trial Order is hereto Annex "B")The Minutes of Preliminary Conference and
attached as Annex "D." the exhibits shall be attached by the Branch COC to the
However, the Court may opt to dictate the Pre-Trial case record before the pre-trial.
Order in open court in the presence of the parties and
their counsel and with the use of a computer, shall have 4. Before the pre-trial conference the judge must
the same immediately finalized and printed. Once study the allegations of the information, the statements
finished, the parties and/or their counsel shall sign the in the affidavits of witnesses and other documentary
same to manifest their conformity thereto. evidence which form part of the record of the preliminary
investigation.
9. The court shall endeavor to make the parties agree to
an equitable compromise or settlement at any stage of 5. During the pre-trial, except for violations of the
the proceedings before rendition of judgment. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the trial
judge shall consider plea-bargaining
B. Criminal Cases arrangements. Where the prosecution and the offended
1. Before arraignment, the Court shall issue an party agree to the plea offered by the accused, the court
order directing the public prosecutor to submit the record shall:
of the preliminary investigation to the Branch COC for a. Issue an order which contains the plea
the latter to attach the same to the record of the criminal bargaining arrived at;
case. b. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil
Where the accused is under preventive aspect of the case; and
detention, his case shall be raffled and its records c. Render and promulgate judgment of
transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled conviction, including the civil liability or damages duly
within three days from the filing of the complaint or established by the evidence.
information. The accused shall be arraigned within ten
days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial of his case 6. When plea bargaining fails, the Court shall:
shall be held within ten days after arraignment unless a a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference
shorter period is provided for by law. as part of the pre-trial proceedings, confirm markings of
exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on
2. After the arraignment, the court shall forthwith the genuineness and due execution of documents and
set the pre-trial conference within thirty days from the list object and testimonial evidence;
date of arraignment, and issue an order: (a) requiring the b. Scrutinize every allegation of the information
private offended party to appear thereat for purposes of and the statements in the affidavits and other documents
plea-bargaining except for violations of the which form part of the record of the preliminary
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and for investigation and other documents identified and marked
other matters requiring his presence; (b) referring the as exhibits in determining farther admissions of facts,
case to the Branch COC, if warranted, for a preliminary documents and in particular as to the following:
conference to be set at least three days prior to the pre- 1. the identity of the accused;
trial to mark the documents or exhibits to be presented 2. court's territorial jurisdiction relative to the
by the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the offense/s charged;
records after comparison and to consider other matters 3. qualification of expert witness/es;
as may aid in its prompt disposition; and (c) informing 4. amount of damages;
the parties that no evidence shall be allowed to be 5. genuineness and due execution of
presented and offered during the trial other than those documents;
identified and marked during the pre-trial except when 6. the cause of death or injury, in proper cases;
allowed by the court for good cause shown. A copy of 7. adoption of any evidence presented during
the order is hereto attached as Annex "E". In mediatable the preliminary investigation;
cases, the judge shall refer the parties and their counsel 8. disclosure of defenses of alibi, insanity, self-
to the PMC unit for purposes of mediation if available. defense, exercise of public authority and justifying or
exempting circumstances; and
3. During the preliminary conference, the 9. such other matters that would limit the facts in
Branch COC shall assist the parties in reaching a issue;
old, took the stand. Accused argued that Angela could
c. Define factual and legal issues; not have understood the nature of an oath. She was
d. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates merely 6 y/o; not sure if she could distinguish from right
and adhere to the flow chart determined by the court or wrong, or if she was telling the truth. The Court ruled
which shall contain the time frames for the different that the trial court correctly found Angela a competent
stages of the proceeding up to promulgation of decision witness and her testimony entitled to full probative
and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial weight. Any child, regardless of age, can be a competent
dates; witness if she can perceive and perceiving, can make
e. Require the parties to submit to the Branch known to others, and that she is capable of relating
COC the names, addresses and contact numbers of truthfully facts for which she is examined.
witnesses that need to be summoned by subpoena; and
f. Consider modification of order of trial if the B. Rights of a Witness
accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful Sec 3, Rule 132
defense. Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A
witness must answer questions, although his answer
7. During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is
to ask questions on issues raised therein and all the right of a witness:
questions must be directed to him to avoid hostilities (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
between parties. questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
8. All agreements or admissions made or require;
entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced (3) Not to be examined except only as to matters
in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, pertinent to the issue;
otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him
The agreements covering the matters referred to in to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by
Section 1 of Rule 118 shall be approved by the court. law; or
(Section 2, Rule 118) (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a
9. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But
recorded, the transcripts prepared and the minutes a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
signed by the parties and/or their counsels. conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)
10. The trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order Notes:

within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial Q: Can a witness refuse to answer a question if it will
setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial establish a claim against him?
conference, the facts stipulated, the admissions made, A: No, but he can refuse to answer on the ground of: (1)
evidence marked, the number of witnesses to be right against self-incrimination; or (2) right against self-
presented and the schedule of trial. Said Order shall degradation.
bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of
and control the course the action during the trial. Right against self-incrimination- if the answer will tend to
subject him to punishment for an offense
Cases: Right against self-degradation- if the answer will have a
People v. Go (2002) direct tendency to degrade his character, unless (1) such
2 accused were charged with the crime of rape. After the question is directed to the very fact at issue or to a fact
st
1 accused was convicted, trial for the other was held. from which the fact at issue would be presumed, or (2) it
Mother of the complainant was called to the witness refers to a previous final conviction for an offense.
stand and the prosecutor started rereading the questions
and answers as recorded in the transcript of her As regards to the accused in criminal cases, he may
st
testimony at the trial of the 1 accused. She was then refuse to take the stand altogether, but in other cases or
asked by the prosecutor if she affirmed all her answers proceedings, a party may be compelled to take the stand
appearing in the TSN’s, to which she answered yes. The although he may object to incriminating questions.
Court held that such questioning violated Sections 1 & 2
of Rule 132, which requires that the testimonies of Right against self-incrimination is granted only in favor of
witnesses be given orally. Citing Sacay v individuals. A corporation cannot invoke such privilege.
Sandiganbayan, the court said that the witness/es
should have been examined directly on the statements Right against self-incrimination extends to administrative
in their affidavits. proceedings with a criminal or penal aspect.
People v. Bisda (2003) Sec 8, RA 1379

Accused were charged with the kidnapping of a 5-year
old Angela. During trial, Angela, who was then 6 years
Section 8. Protection against self-incrimination. Neither information and/or testimony is false and malicious or
the respondent nor any other person shall be excused made only for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in
from attending and testifying or from producing books, any way prejudicing the public officer denounced. In
papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records such a case, the public officer so denounced shall be
on the ground that the testimony or evidence, entitled to any action, civil or criminal, against said
documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to informant or witness.
incriminate him or subject him to prosecution; but no
individual shall be prosecuted criminally for or on Section 3. All preliminary investigations conducted by a
account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning prosecuting fiscal, judge or committee, and all
which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege proceedings undertaken in connection therewith, shall
against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, be strictly confidential or private in order to protect the
documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so reputation of the official under investigation in the event
testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and that the report proves to be unfounded or no prima facie
conviction for perjury or false testimony committed in so case is established.
testifying or from administrative proceedings.
Class Notes:
PD 749 The right against self-incrimination (right to refuse to
GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION TO answer any particular incriminatory question) is
GIVERS OF BRIBES AND OTHER GIFTS AND TO accorded to every witness in a civil, criminal or
THEIR ACCOMPLICES IN BRIBERY AND OTHER administrative proceeding. Such right can only be
GRAFT CASES AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS claimed when the specific question, incriminatory in
character, is actually put to the witness.
Section 1. Any person who voluntarily gives information
about any violation of Articles 210, 211, and 212 of the
Revised Penal Code; Republic Act Numbered Three General rule: The right to refuse to take the witness
Thousand Nineteen, as amended; Section 345 of the stand is only accorded to an accused in a criminal case.
Internal Revenue Code and Section 3604 of the Tariff
and Customs Code and other provisions of the said Exception: a party who is not the accused may refuse to
Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the take the witness stand in administrative cases or
public officials concerned; and other laws, rules and proceedings that partake of the nature of a criminal
regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption and other proceeding or analogous to criminal proceedings and in
forms of official abuse; and who willingly testifies against civil cases which are criminal in nature. In other words, if
any public official or employee for such violation shall be the action is criminal in nature, such exception applies. It
exempt from prosecution or punishment for the offense is not the character of the suit involved, but the nature of
with reference to which his information and testimony the proceeding that controls.
were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such
information and testimony in bar of such prosecution:
Provided; that this immunity may be enjoyed even in Cases:
cases where the information and testimony are given Galman v. Pamaran (1985)
against a person who is not a public official but who is a The Agrava Board was created to investigate the killing
principal, or accomplice, or accessory in the commission of Sen. Ninoy Aquino. Several witnesses appeared
of any of the above-mentioned violations: Provided, before the Board. Subsequently, a case was filed before
further, that this immunity may be enjoyed by such the Sandiganbayan and the testimonies of witnesses
informant or witness notwithstanding that he offered or before the Board were adopted as evidence in the case
gave the bribe or gift to the public official or his filed. Witnesses General Fabian Ver objected to the
accomplice for such gift or bribe-giving; and Provided, admission of such testimonies, contending his right
finally, that the following conditions concur: against self-incrimination. The Court ruled that such
1. The information must refer to consummated violations testimonies are inadmissible. The right not to be
of any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules compelled to testify against himself is applicable in this
and regulations; case. Such right can be invoked not only in criminal
2. The information and testimony are necessary for the proceedings, but in all other proceedings as well, such
conviction of the accused public officer; as before the Agrava Board.
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the
possession of the State; Herrera v. Alba
4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated This is a case for compulsory recognition and support.
on its material points; and To prove their claims, a motion for DNA paternity testing
5. The informant or witness has not been previously was filed by the respondents. This was opposed by
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. petitioner (the alleged father), arguing that it will violate
his right against self-incrimination. The Court ruled that
Section 2. The immunity granted hereunder shall not the right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on
attach should it turn out subsequently that the the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant,
not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of
may be material. a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court
Rosete v. Lim (2006) will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the
This is a petition for annulment, specific performance interests of justice may require. (14)
and damages. A motion was filed to take the deposition
of petitioners. They refused because, as a criminal case Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A
was pending concerning the same facts, the taking of question which suggests to the witness the answer
their deposition would amount to be violative of their which the examining party desires is a leading question.
right against self-incrimination, as it may incriminate It is not allowed, except:
them on the criminal case. The Court ruled that they (a) On cross examination;
cannot invoke such right in this civil case. In order for (b) On preliminary matters;
petitioners to exercise the right to refuse to take the (c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and
witness stand and to give their depositions, the case intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a
must partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding. Like child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-
an ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against mute;
self-incrimination only when the incriminating question is (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
actually asked of them. Only if and when incriminating (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
questions are thrown their way can they refuse to director, or managing agent of a public or private
answer on the ground of their right against self- corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
incrimination. adverse party.
C. Order of Examination A misleading question is one which assumes as true a

Section 4-10, Rule 132 fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that
Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual which he has previously stated. It is not allowed. (5a, 6a,
witness. — The order in which the individual witness and 8a)
may be examined is as follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent; Notes:
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent; American Rule- cross-examination must be confined to
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent; the matters inquired about in the direct examination.
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4) English Rule- a witness may be cross-examined not only
upon matters testified to by him on his direct
Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is examination, but also on all matters relevant to the
the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party issue.
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (5a)
The rule in our jurisdiction is more in accord with the
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — English Rule. A witness may be cross-examined by the
Upon the termination of the direct examination, the adverse party not only as to the matters stated in the
witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as direct examination but also as to any matter connected
to many matters stated in the direct examination, or therewith.
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom
to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from However, if the witness is an unwilling or hostile witness
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important so declared by the court or is an adverse party, the
facts bearing upon the issue. (8a) cross-examination shall only be on the subject matter of
his examination-in-chief.
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent.
— After the cross-examination of the witness has been Leading question is one which suggests to the witness
concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling the answer desired. Misleading question is one which
him, to explain or supplement his answers given during assumes facts not in evidence or without sufficient basis
the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination, or which assumes testimony or proof which has not been
questions on matters not dealt with during the cross- given.
examination, may be allowed by the court in its
discretion. (12) Q: When can you ask leading and misleading questions?
(trick question ni sir)
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the A: Misleading questions are not allowed to be asked in
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse any case. Leading questions can only be asked in cases
party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters provided in Sec 10, R 132.
stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such
other matters as may be allowed by the court in its Section 1(d), Rule 115. Rights of accused at the trial.
discretion. (13) Section 1. — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be entitled to the following rights:
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of
subject to cross-examination on matters covered by inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be
direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
prejudice him. statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the
Case: circumstances of the times and places and the persons
Capitol Subdivision v Province of Negros Occidental present, and he must be asked whether he made such
(1956) statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the
Ownership of a parcel of land is being disputed in this statements be in writing they must be shown to the
case between a subdivision developer and a provincial witness before any question is put to him concerning
government. During the trial, the President of the them. (16)
petitioner testified that petitioner did not know of the
expropriation or deed of sale when it bought the land. Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. —
The fiscal’s efforts to cross-examine him on those Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
matters were frustrated by Plaintiff’s counsel’s objections admissible until such character has been impeached.
and the trial court’s rulings sustaining those objections, (17)
ruling that Mr. Montelibano was then on the stand
as Plaintiff’s own witness and could not be questioned in Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. —
such a way as to make him to the Defendant’s witness. On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the
The Court ruled that an adverse party may cross- court any witness not at the time under examination, so
examine a witness to elicit all important facts bearing that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses.
upon the issue. The adverse party may cross-examine a The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate
witness for the purpose among others, of eliciting all and to be prevented from conversing with one another
important facts bearing upon the issue. From this until all shall have been examined. (18)
provision it may clearly be inferred that a party may
cross- examine a witness on matters not embraced in A party can impeach the adverse party’s witness
his direct examination. But this does not mean that a according to Sec. 11:
party by doing so is making the witness his own. 1. contradictory evidence
2. evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty
D. Impeachment of Witness or integrity is bad
Sections 11-15, Rule 132 3. prior statements inconsistent with present testimony
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. —
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom A party can impeach his own witness by:
he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence (a) evidence contradictory to his testimony; or
that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity (b) evidence of prior inconsistent statements
is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but A witness in impeached by prior inconsistent statements
not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it by “laying the predicate” that is:
may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the (a) by confronting him with such statements, with the
record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an circumstances under which they were made
offense. (15) (b) by asking him whether he made such statements;
and
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — (c) by giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency
Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party General Rule: Impeachment is incomplete unless the
producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his witness is given an opportunity to explain the
credibility. discrepancies.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only
if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his Exception: However, such defect is deemed waived if no
adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his objection is raised when the document involved is
having misled the party into calling him to the witness offered for admission.
stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or Notes:
the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached A party can impeach the adverse party’s witness by:
by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had 1. contradictory evidence
been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of 2. evidence of prior inconsistent statements
his bad character. He may also be impeached and 3. evidence of bad character; and
cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross- 4. evidence of bias, interest, prejudice
examination must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)
Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony of the orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used;
same witness, or other evidence presented by him in the and
same case, but not the testimony of another witness. (d) If only part of a deposition is offered in
evidence by a party, the adverse party may require him
Prior inconsistent statements refer to statements, oral or to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part
documentary, made by the witness sought to be introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.
impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he (4a, R24)
is testifying.
The power of exclusion applies only to witnesses, and Case:

not to parties, in a civil case. This is so because parties Office of the Court Administrator v Morante (2004)
have a right to be present at the trial either by In a case of grave and serious misconduct against
themselves or by their attorneys. Morante, a clerk of court, Olavare testified to prove the
claims against Morante. Respondent wants to weaken
If the witness violates the order of exclusion, the court the weight of Olavare’s testimony by pointing out the
may bar him from testifying or give little weight to his inconsistencies in the former’s testimony. The Court
testimony, aside from his liability for contempt. ruled, however, that in order to impeach Olavare’s
testimony to be inconsistent, such inconsistency should
Class Notes: have been shown to the witness and allowed to give an
What’s new in the Judicial Affidavit Rule  striking out. explanation on the apparent inconsistency. In this case,
Normally before it can only be objected when the issue this was not done, hence, the respondent cannot benefit
was raised from the supposed contradiction in Olavare’s statement.
JAR: With respect to exclusion of witnesses  no E. Reference to Writing

changes Sections 16-18, Rule 132
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum.
Section 4, Rule 23. Use of depositions — A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
Section 4. — At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by
or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a himself or under his direction at the time when the fact
deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
evidence, may be used against any party who was when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the
present or represented at the taking of the deposition or same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case
who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one the writing or record must be produced and may be
of the following provisions; inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses,
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in
the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such
of deponent as a witness; writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or
at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, record correctly stated the transaction when made; but
director, or managing agent of a public or private such evidence must be received with caution. (10a)
corporation, partnership, or association which is a party
may be used by an adverse party for any purpose; Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a given in evidence, the remainder, the remainder
party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the admissible. — When part of an act, declaration,
court finds: conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by
(1) that the witness is dead, or one party, the whole of the same subject may be
(2) that the witness resides at a distance more inquired into by the other, and when a detached act,
than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in
or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation,
that his absence was procured by the party offering the writing or record necessary to its understanding may
deposition, or also be given in evidence. (11a)
(3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify
because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment, or Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness. —
(4) that the party offering the deposition has Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be
been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by inspected by the adverse party. (9a)
subpoena; or
(5) upon application and notice, that such Kinds:
exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, 1. revival of present memory
in the interest of justice and with due regard to the 2. revival of past recollection
importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses
Notes:
The first sentence of Sec 16 is known in American of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
jurisprudence as the rule on “revival of present memory” and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
and the second sentence as “revival of past foreign country;
recollection.” (b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public
except last wills and testaments; and
Revival of present memory is applied if the witness (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
remembers the facts regarding his entries and is entitled documents required by law to the entered therein.
to greater weight.
Revival of past recollection is applied where the witness All other writings are private. (20a)
does not recall the facts involved and is entitled to a
lesser weight. Requisites for the admissibility of a copy of a foreign
official document:
Sec 16 applies only when it is shown beforehand that 1. It must be attested by the officer having legal
there is a need to refresh the memory of the witness. custody of the records or by his deputy; and
2. It must be accompanied by a certificate of the
The memorandum used to refresh the memory of the Philippine diplomatic or consular representative
witness cannot be used as evidence because the to the foreign country certifying that such
witness has the same to testify on the basis of the attesting officer has the custody of the
refreshed memory. The witness cannot be more credible document.
just because he supports his open-court declaration with
written statements of the same facts, unless the proper General Rule on Public Documents: Admissible in
predicate of his failing memory was laid down. evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof as to
its authenticity and due execution
Cases:
Canque v CA (1999) Exception: Except where a special rule of law requires
Canque refused to pay for the alleged materials proof thereof despite its being a document
delivered because respondent failed to submit the acknowledged in accordance with Sec. 30 (As in the
delivery receipts showing the actual weight in metric tons case of the probate notarial wills where the testimony of
of the items delivered. Respondent offered as evidence the attesting witnesses are still required for its probate).
its Book of Collectible Accounts to prove its claim.
Private respondent claims that although the entries Notes:
cannot be considered an exception to the hearsay rule, Document classification in RPC is different from rules of
they may be admitted under Rule 132, Sec. 10. However evidence:
the Court held that the memorandum used to refresh the o RPC classification: Public, Commercial, Private
memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and o Under the rules of evidence:
may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that Public Documents Private Documents
the witness has just the same to testify on the basis of Official documents (Sec. Commercial Documents
refreshed memory. 19)
Private Documents
People v Dela Cruz (2002) Those acknowledged
Dela Cruz was charged with rape committed against a before persons authorized
mentally deficient woman. When the complainant was to administer oaths
put in the stand, she testified to the correctness of the
Sinumpaang Salaysay she made, with the help of her Private Documents
aunt. The Court ruled that the prosecution’s referral to required by law to be
the Sinumpaang Salaysay to refresh her memory was entered into public records
reasonable. The purpose of refreshing the recollection of (subject to Sec. 27)
a witness by referring to such writing is to enable both
the witness and her present testimony to be put fairly
and in their proper light before the court. 1. Public documents
Generally include notarial documents
III. Authentication and Proof of Documents
A document, to be public, must be an official written act
of a public officer (Section 19 (a), Rule 132, Rules of
A. Public Documents Court).
Sections 19, 23-30, Rule 132
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public
of their presentation evidence, documents are either record, its record, its recordation, or its incorporation into
public or private. the public record becomes a public document. But that
does not make the private writing itself a public
Public documents are: document so as to make it admissible without
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts
authentication. attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court
having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
2. Foreign judgment
A claim for the enforcement of a foreign judgment can be Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public
brought only before the regular courts and not in an record, an official copy of which is admissible in
administrative agency. evidence, must not be removed from the office in which
A foreign decision purporting to be the written record of it is kept, except upon order of a court where the
an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country inspection of the record is essential to the just
is, therefore: determination of a pending case. (27a)
o a public writing under Section 19(a), Rule
132; and Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An
o must be proved in accordance with Sections authorized public record of a private document may be
24 and 25, Rule 132. proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof,
attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp. vs. NLRC, et al: appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
The translation thereof to English from Arabic must be (28a)
made by an official court interpreter of the Philippine or
foreign governments or by a competent and accurate Section 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written
translator. statement signed by an officer having the custody of an
official record or by his deputy that after diligent search
3. Public record no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in
Cannot be removed from the office in which it is kept the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as
without a court order such as a subpoena duces tecum. above provided, is admissible as evidence that the
records of his office contain no such record or entry. (29)
Even the court cannot order its removal therefrom
except when essential to the just determination of the Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any
pending case judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a)
want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b)
However, this rule refers only to a public record an collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party
official copy of which could be made available to the offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (30a)
interested party and is admissible in evidence.
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as
Documents consisting of entries in public records made provided by law, may be presented in evidence without
in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of or document involved. (31a)
the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the
date of the latter. (24a) Section 201, RA 8424 (Tax Reform Act)
Section 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of Document. - An instrument, document or paper which is
public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section required by law to be stamped and which has been
19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being
by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any
the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be
his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in admitted or used in evidence in any court until the
the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in cancelled.
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, Public documents may be proved by:
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in 1. The original copy;
the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the 2. An official publication thereof; or
foreign country in which the record is kept, and 3. A certified true copy thereof.
authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)
What attestation of copy must state:
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — 1. That the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for specific part thereof.
the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in 2. The attestation must be under the official seal of the
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a
or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
3. Must have the documentary stamp affixed thereto in record of birth in the civil registry or appearing in a final
order to be admissible (see Section 201, R.A. 8424) judgment, an admission thereof in a public or private
unless specifically exempted therefrom, as in the case of handwritten document signed by the parent concerned,
baptismal or birth certificates of contracting parties to a open and continuous possession of such status by the
marriage (Article 12, Family Code). child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and special laws such as a child’s baptismal certificate;
Notes: judicial admission; or any of the non-official kinds of
Section 24, Rule 132: Lays down the requirements for proof under Rule 130.
the admissibility in evidence of a foreign public
document. Death certificate: A death certificate is not proof of the
cause of death. Its probative value is confined only to the
Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal fact of death and the statement therein contained
custody of the records and the certificate to that effect by regarding the duration of illness and the cause of death
a Philippine foreign service officer, a mere copy of the are mere hearsay. However, it has been held that a
foreign document is not admissible as evidence to prove death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of
the foreign law. the deceased at the time of death.
Judicial record: The record of judicial proceedings. Article 408, Civil Code
Includes official entries or files, official acts of a Article 408. The following shall be entered in the civil
judicial officer, and judgment of the court. register:
(1) Births;
Certified True Copy: It is presumed that the requisite (2) marriages;
stamps have been affixed to the original copy of a (3) deaths;
document where only the carbon copies thereof are (4) legal separations;
available. (5) annulments of marriage;
(6) judgments declaring marriages void from the
Special Power of Attorney: Executed and acknowledged beginning;
before a notary public or other competent officer in a (7) legitimations;
foreign country. It cannot be admitted in evidence in (8) adoptions;
Philippine courts unless it is certified as such in (9) acknowledgments of natural children;
accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of this (10) naturalization;
Rule. (11) loss, or
(12) recovery of citizenship;
Public instruments – probative value: Even public (13) civil interdiction;
instruments do not have uniform probative value (14) judicial determination of filiation;
(Section 23, Rule 132). The probative value of public (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and
instruments depends on the kind of document that is (16) changes of name.
presented in evidence. (326a)
Baptismal certificates: Only baptismal certificates issued Cases:

by the priests during the Spanish regime are considered Pacific Asia Overseas v. NLRC (1988)
public documents. However, a baptismal certificate Rances filed a complaint with the POEA to enforce a
issued after the Spanish regime is a private document foreign judgment of a Dubai court. He attached: (1) a
and cannot even be considered as prima facie evidence purported original copy of the Dubai court’s decision in
of the fact that gave rise to its execution, that is, the fact Arabic with an English translation by an unknown
of baptism and the date thereof, and is therefore hearsay translator; and (2) a copy of a transmittal letter signed by
and inadmissible evidence even as to the date of the a titled Honorary Consul for the Philippines. The Dubai
baptism unless the priest who performed the baptismal decision was not properly proved before the POEA
rites and made the certificate is produced. because Rances failed to submit any attestation issued
by the proper Dubai official having legal custody of the
Baptismal certificates are not sufficient to prove: original of the decision of the Dubai. The attestation
1. Paternity; or must furthermore be authenticated by a Philippine
2. Voluntary recognition of a child Consular Officer having jurisdiction in Dubai. The
But may be used to show a rape victim’s minority: While transmittal letter signed by the Honorary Consul for
recognizing the primacy of a birth certificate as proof of Philippines' does not comply with the said requirements.
the victim’s age, the SC held that, in the absence of such Also, the document which purports to be an English
evidence, the victim’s minority may be proved by other translation of the decision is legally defective. Sec. 34 of
documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate; R132 requires that documents written in a non-official
or other authentic records. language shall not be admitted as evidence unless
accompanied by a translation into English or Spanish or
Filiation of legitimate children is established by the Filipino.
Class Notes: Sir - THIS IS WRONG. Not necessary an possession is invalid. Though public documents by
official court interpreter cf. Sec. 33 themselves may be adequate to establish the
presumption of their validity, their probative weight must
People v. Lazaro (1999) be evaluated not in isolation but in conjunction with other
(exception to rule) evidence adduced by the parties in the controversy,
A certification by the Chief of the Firearms and more so where the contents of a copy thereof
Explosives Office (FEO) at Camp Crame was presented subsequently registered for documentation purposes is
in court by the public prosecutor, stating that accused- being contested.
appellant is not a licensed or registered firearm holder of
any kind or caliber. Accused-appellant contends that the Delfin v. Billones (2006)
prosecution failed to prove the absence of a license as Documents consisting of entries in public records made
the prosecution merely marked in evidence the in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima
certification without presenting the person who issued facie evidence of the facts therein stated. A duly-
the certification himself. Either the testimony of a registered death certificate is considered a public
representative of, or a certification from, the PNP document and the entries found therein are presumed
Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a person is correct, unless the party who contests its accuracy can
not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove produce positive evidence establishing otherwise.
beyond reasonable doubt the second element of Nevertheless, this presumption is disputable and is
possession of illegal firearms. The Certification issued by satisfactory only if uncontradicted, and may be
the Commanding Officer of the PNP-FEO, which is the overcome by other evidence to the contrary. The
repository of all records regarding firearms in the documents presented by respondents were mere
Philippines, is competent and admissible evidence to certifications and not the certified copies or duly
prove that accused-appellant is not a licensed holder or authenticated reproductions of the purported death
possessor of a firearm of any kind or caliber. certificates. They are not the public documents referred
Class Notes: Sir - *mumble mumble Another problematic to by the Rules of Court, nor even records of public
case mumble mumble* Make sure all documents are documents; thus, they do not enjoy the presumption
attached to affidavit. granted by the Rules. A document or writing which is
admitted not as an independent evidence but merely as
Monteverde vs. People (2002) part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute
Is a sales invoice a public and/or commercial document? proof of the facts related therein. Clearly then, the
Yes, a sales invoice is a public and/or a commercial certifications cannot be given probative value, and their
document within the meaning of “falsification” as defined contents cannot be deemed to constitute proof of the
under the RPC. A private document acquires the facts therein stated.
character of a public document when it becomes part of
an official record and is certified by a public officer duly Sevilla vs. Cardenas (2006)
authorized by law. If the document is intended by law to Sevilla claims that he never applied for a marriage
be part of the public or official record, the preparation of license nor obtained a marriage license from any Civil
which being in accordance with the rules and regulations Registry. A Registration Officer in the local registry also
issued by the government, the falsification of that testified that their office failed to locate the book where
document, although it was a private document at the the said marriage license may have been registered.
time of its falsification, is regarded as falsification of The SC held that the certifications from the Local Civil
public or official document. The Sales Invoice is also a Registrar were insufficient to declare the marriage null
commercial document. Commercial documents or and void ab initio. The logbook’s absence is not
papers are those used by merchants or businessmen to conclusive proof of the non-issuance of the marriage
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions. These license, since it can just mean that it cannot be found.
documents are not mere scraps of paper bereft of Since no diligent effort was shown to have been exerted
probative value but vital pieces of evidence of to search for the logbook, the logbook’s absence cannot
commercial transactions. They are written memorials of mean the non-existence of the marriage license. The
the details of the consummation of contracts. logbook’s absence is not conclusive proof of the non-
issuance of the marriage license, since it can just mean
Soriano v. Galit (2003) that it cannot be found.
Petitioner was the highest and only bidder during a
public auction. A certificate of sale was issued to him B. Private Documents
listing the properties bought. Petitioner caused the Sections 20-22, 32-33, Rule 132
registration of the Certificate of Sale with the Registry of Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any
Deeds. However, the said certificate of sale includes at private document offered as authentic is received in
the dorsal portion an entry which was not found in the evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
copy of the certificate of sale in the possession of the proved either:
sheriff. Petitioner moved for the issuance of a writ of (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
possession, which followed the listing in the registered written; or
certificate of sale. The SC held that the writ of (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker. 2. A witness familiar with such handwriting (Section 22)
Any other private document need only be identified as and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion
that which it is claimed to be. (21a) being an exception to the opinion rule (Section 50(b),
Rule 130);
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private 3. A comparison by the court of the questioned
document not necessary. — Where a private document handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof
is more than thirty years old, is produced from the (Section 22); and
custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, 4. Expert evidence (Section 49, Rule 130).
and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances
of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need Class Notes:
be given. (22a) How else to offer private document aside from ancient
documents (according to foreign jurisprudence)
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — 1. Rule of authentication of the adverse party/reply letter
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any rule – reply of adverse party affirms document
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such 2. Rule on Self-Authentication
person because he has seen the person write, or has
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness Notes:
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired Doctrine of self-authentication - Where the facts in the
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence writing could only have been known by the writer.
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with Rule of authentication of the adverse party- Where the
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be transmittal to him and his receipt of the letter in question,
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a) a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence.
Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference Section 22, Rule 132 merely enumerates the methods of
between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar proving handwriting but does not give preference to a
as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a) particular method.
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial Official languages:

language. — Documents written in an unofficial The official languages are Filipino and, until otherwise
language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless provided by law, English, with the regional languages as
accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. auxiliary official languages in the region. (Sec. 7, Art.
To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their XIV, 1987 Constitution)
attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared
before trial. (34a) P.D. 155 (March 15, 1973): Provides that “the Spanish
language shall continue to be recognized as an official
Authentication of a document is not required when: language in the Philippines while important documents in
1. The writing is an ancient document (under the government files are in the Spanish language and not
requisites of Section 21); translated into either English or Pilipino language.”
2. The writing is a public document or record (under
Section 19); Cases:
3. It is a notarial document acknowledged, proved, Bartolome vs. IAC (1990)
or certified (in accordance with Section 30); or An incomplete and unsigned deeds of sale was
4. The authenticity and due execution of the presented in trial. In order to have it admitted into
document has been expressly or impliedly evidence, the deed was claimed to be ancient document.
admitted by a failure to deny the same under The SC agreed that the first two requirements ordained
oath (as in the case of actionable documents by Sec. 22 (now Sec. 21) are met by the deed of sale: 1.
under Section 8, Rule 8). It was more than 30 years old when it was offered in
evidence. 2. It was presented in court by the proper
Modes of authenticating a private document: custodian thereof who is an heir of the person who
Must be proved by - would naturally keep it. However, the third requirement,
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or that no alterations or circumstances of suspicion are
written; or present was not conformed with. On its face, it appears
2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or unmarred by alteration. However, its missing page has
handwriting of the maker. affected its authenticity because it allegedly bears the
signature of the vendor of the portion of the lot in
Such handwriting is proved by: question and therefore, it contains vital proof of the
1. A witness who actually saw the person writing the voluntary transmission of rights over the subject of the
instrument (Section 20(a)); sale. Without that signature, the document is incomplete.
Necessarily, since the deed is not an ancient document, handwriting. Sec. 22 of Rule 132 explicitly authorizes the
proofs of its due execution and authenticity are vital. court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed
handwriting “with writings admitted or treated as genuine
Cequeña vs. Bolante (2000) by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
Petitioners contend that it was unnecessary to present a proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.”
witness to establish the authenticity of the affidavit in
question because 1. It was a declaration against interest Dabu v. Judge Kapunan (2011)
2. it was a self-authenticating ancient document & 3. It Records were being falsified and made to appear that a
was a necessary and trustworthy document. A prosecutor was present during the supposed hearings of
declaration against interest is not admissible if the the annulment cases. Judge Kapunan claimed that his
declarant is available to testify as a witness, as in this signatures appearing in the records of the cases were
case. The affidavit was also not considered as an forgeries. The SC held that evidence was insufficient to
ancient document. An ancient document must on its face establish that Judge Kapunan’s signature in the case
appear to be genuine. In this case there was doubt records were forgeries. Forgery cannot be presumed
because it was signed by a woman who was supposedly and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
illiterate. Lastly, not all notarized documents are evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party
exempted from the rule on authentication. Thus, an alleging forgery.
affidavit does not automatically become a public
document just because it contains a notarial jurat. Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Furthermore, the affidavit in question does not state how Appeals (2006)
the ownership of the subject land was transferred. By Capistrano maintains that his spouse’s signature on the
itself, an affidavit is not a mode of acquiring ownership. Marital Consent to sell a land is a forgery. The SC held
Note: Sir especially asked this case. that the requirement of proof of the authenticity of the
Marital Consent was adequately met. A notarized
Malayan Insurance Co., .Inc. vs. Philippine Nails and document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon
Wires Corporation (2002) it with respect to its due execution, and it has in its favor
Respondent’s lone witness made the summary of the the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted
weight of steel billets based on the bill of lading and the by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to
SGS report. Petitioner avers that the witness failed to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate.
properly authenticate respondent’s documentary Absent such, the presumption must be upheld. The
evidence. The SC held that the summary of steel billets burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due
actually received had no proven real basis (bill of lading execution of a notarial document lies on the one
was unauthenticated), and that the witness’ testimony on contesting the same. Furthermore, an allegation of
this point could not be taken at face value. forgery must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of
Before a private document is admitted in evidence, it proving the same. The presumption of regularity does
must be authenticated either by the person who not hold true with respect to the Marital Consent which is
executed it, the person before whom its execution was a private writing. It is subject to the requirement of proof
acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it under Section 20, Rule 132. The fact that it contains a
executed, or who after its execution, saw it and jurat, not an acknowledgment, should not affect its
recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the genuineness or that of the related document of
parties to the instruments had previously confessed conveyance itself, the Deed of Absolute Sale. In this
execution thereof. instance, a jurat suffices as the document only embodies
the manifestation of the spouse’s consent, a mere
Jimenez vs. Commission on Ecumenical Mission appendage to the main document. The use of a jurat,
(2002) instead of an acknowledgement does not elevate the
Petitioners claim that their parents never sold the Marital Consent to the level of a public document but
disputed lot and that their purported signatures on the instead consigns it to the status of a private writing.
impugned Deed of Sale have been found to be forgeries
by government handwriting experts. Petitioners C. Alteration in Documents
presented handwriting experts of NBI and Phil. Section 31, Rule 132
Constabulary who declared that the signatures as Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. —
forgeries. It is a hornbook doctrine that the opinions of The party producing a document as genuine which has
handwriting experts, even those from the NBI and the been altered and appears to have been altered after its
PC, are not binding upon courts. This principle holds true execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
especially when the question involved is mere must account for the alteration. He may show that the
handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be alteration was made by another, without his
determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the concurrence, or was made with the consent of the
questioned signatures with those of the currently existing parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or
ones. Resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the
indispensable to the examination or the comparison of
meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows:
that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
(32a) (a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a system
capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of a
Cases: private key for creating a digital signature, and a public
Cabotaje vs. Padunan (2004) key for verifying the digital signature.
The heirs signed a “Confirmatory Deed of Sale” (CDS) in
which they undertook to sell Lot 2. The document was (b) "Business records" include records of any business,
notarized by the notary public who kept 2 copies. Neither institution, association, profession, occupation, and
copy was sent to the Register of Deeds (RD). An altered calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit,
CDS was registered at the RD, stating that the 2 lots or for legitimate or illegitimate purposes.
were sold by the heirs. The heirs offered to redeem the
property but was rebuffed. After 19 years, the heirs filed (c) "Certificate" means an electronic document issued to
a complaint for recovery of possession and property support a digital signature which purports to confirm the
after they found out that the title to the properties were identity or other significant characteristics of the person
transferred to the spouses after an apparent sale by who holds a particular key pair.
them. Tubal from the RD testified that the TCT was
issued on the basis of a CDS, which deed, on its face, (d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected
contained intercalations and alterations. The SC held device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-
that the original copy of the CDS is null and void. While it mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means with
is true that a notarized deed of sale is a public document the same function, can receive, record, transmit, store,
and has in its favor the presumption of regularity and process, correlate, analyze, project, retrieve and/or
that to contradict the same, there must be evidence that produce information, data, text, graphics, figures, voice,
is clear and convincing; the evidence on record in this video, symbols or other modes of expression or perform
case is, however, so clear and convincing in support of any one or more of these functions.
the finding that the assailed copy of the Confirmatory
Deed of Sale has been altered and is, in fact, null and (e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic signature
void. consisting of a transformation of an electronic document
or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or
Cirelos vs. Hernandez (2006) public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial
Cirelos claim that the the SPA presented by respondent untransformed electronic document and the signer's
was tampered with. Under Rule 132, Section 31 of the, public key can accurately determine:
the party producing a document as genuine which has
been altered, in a part material to the question in dispute i. whether the transformation was created using the
must account for the alteration. Since it is the private key that corresponds to the signer's public key;
respondent who presented the SPA, the burden is on and
him to account for the alterations. Hernandez was able
to show, by convincing evidence, that the insertions in ii. whether the initial electronic document had been
the SPA were already existing when it was given to him altered after the transformation was made.
by plaintiffs.
(f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document or
D. Rule on Electronic Evidence electronic data message bearing a digital signature
verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
Rule 1
COVERAGE
(g) "Electronic data message" refers to information
Section 1. Scope. – Unless otherwise provided herein,
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical
these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic
or similar means.
document or electronic data message, as defined in
Rule 2 hereof, is offered or used in evidence.
(h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
Section 2. Cases covered. – These Rules shall apply to
all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial other modes of written expression, described or however
and administrative cases. represented, by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be
proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
Section 3. Application of other rules on evidence. – In all
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
matters not specifically covered by these Rules, the
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and
Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statutes
any print-out or output, readable by sight or other
containing rules on evidence shall apply.
means, which accurately reflects the electronic data
message or electronic document. For purposes of these
Rule 2
Rules, the term "electronic document" may be used
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
Section 1. Definition of terms. – For purposes of these interchangeably with "electronic data message".
admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
(i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and
and defends sensitive information that crosses over related laws and is authenticated in the manner
public channels into a form decipherable only with a prescribed by these Rules.
matching electronic key.
Section 3. Privileged communication. – The confidential
(j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, character of a privileged communication is not lost solely
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic
representing the identity of a person and attached to or document.
logically associated with the electronic data message or
electronic document or any methodology or procedure Rule 4
employed or adopted by a person and executed or BEST EVIDENCE RULE
adopted by such person with the intention of Section 1. Original of an electronic document. – An
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent
message or electronic document. For purposes of these of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if
Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures. it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
(k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to
telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When
sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other a document is in two or more copies executed at or
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which about the same time with identical contents, or is a
is not recorded or retained. counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or
(l) "Information and communication system" refers to a electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or
system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
otherwise processing electronic data messages or reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall
electronic documents and includes the computer system be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
or other similar devices by or in which data are recorded
or stored and any procedure related to the recording or Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall
storage of electronic data messages or electronic not be admissible to the same extent as the original if:
documents.
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
(m) "Key pair" in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the original; or
the private key and its mathematically related public key
such that the latter can verify the digital signature that (b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable
the former creates. to admit the copy in lieu of the original.
(n) "Private key" refers to the key of a key pair used to Rule 5
create a digital signature. AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person
(o) "Public key" refers to the key of a key pair used to seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal
verify a digital signature. proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in
the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 2. Construction. – These Rules shall be liberally
construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just, Section 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any
expeditious, and inexpensive determination of cases. private electronic document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by
The interpretation of these Rules shall also take into any of the following means:
consideration the international origin of Republic Act No.
8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act. (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same;
Rule 3
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS (b) by evidence that other appropriate security
Section 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
of paper-based documents. – Whenever a rule of Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic
evidence refers to the term writing, document, record, documents were applied to the document; or
instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing,
such term shall be deemed to include an electronic (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability
document as defined in these Rules. to the satisfaction of the judge.
Section 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is Section 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. –
A document electronically notarized in accordance with EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC
the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be DOCUMENTS
considered as a public document and proved as a Section 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. – In
notarial document under the Rules of Court. assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic
document, the following factors may be considered:
Rule 6 (a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES was generated, stored or communicated, including but
Section 1. Electronic signature. – An electronic signature not limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests
or a digital signature authenticated in the manner and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic
prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the data message or document, in the light of all the
functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a circumstances as well as any relevant agreement;
written document.
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator
Section 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. – An was identified;
electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the
following manner: (c) The integrity of the information and communication
system in which it is recorded or stored, including but not
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to limited to the hardware and computer programs or
establish a digital signature and verify the same; software used as well as programming errors;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or (d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made
the entry with the communication and information
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as system;
establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature.
(e) The nature and quality of the information which went
Section 3. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic into the communication and information system upon
signatures. – Upon the authentication of an electronic which the electronic data message or electronic
signature, it shall be presumed that: document was based; or
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to (f) Other factors which the court may consider as
whom it correlates; affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic
document or electronic data message.
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person
with the intention of authenticating or approving the Section 2. Integrity of an information and communication
electronic document to which it is related or to indicate system. – In any dispute involving the integrity of the
such person's consent to the transaction embodied information and communication system in which an
therein; and electronic document or electronic data message is
recorded or stored, the court may consider, among
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify others, the following factors:
the electronic signature operated without error or fault.
(a) Whether the information and communication system
Section 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital or other similar device was operated in a manner that did
signatures. – Upon the authentication of a digital not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and
signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to those there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the
mentioned in the immediately preceding section, that: integrity of the information and communication system;
(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct;
(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or
(b) The digital signature was created during the stored by a party to the proceedings with interest
operational period of a certificate; adverse to that of the party using it; or
(c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or (c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or
revocable; stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a
person who is not a party to the proceedings and who
(d) The message associated with a digital signature has did not act under the control of the party using it.
not been altered from the time it was signed; and,
Rule 8
(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION TO THE
authority indicated therein. HEARSAY RULE
Section 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. – A
Rule 7 memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by Rule 11
electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO, AND EPHEMERAL
time of or from transmission or supply of information by a EVIDENCE
person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular Section 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio,
course or conduct of a business activity, and such was photographic and video evidence of events, acts or
the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be
record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be
similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony identified, explained or authenticated by the person who
of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted made the recording or by some other person competent
from the rule on hearsay evidence. to testify on the accuracy thereof.
Section 2. Overcoming the presumption. – The Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communications. –

presumption provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven
be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
source of information or the method or circumstances of same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence
the preparation, transmission or storage thereof. or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent
evidence may be admitted.
Rule 9
METHOD OF PROOF A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral
Section 1. Affidavit evidence. – All matters relating to the electronic communication shall be covered by the
admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic immediately preceding section.
document may be established by an affidavit stating
facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based If the foregoing communications are recorded or
on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively embodied in an electronic document, then the provisions
show the competence of the affiant to testify on the of Rule 5 shall apply.
matters contained therein.
Rule 12
Section 2. Cross-examination of deponent. – The affiant EFFECTIVITY
shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in Section 1. Applicability to pending cases. – These Rules
open court and may be cross-examined as a matter of shall apply to cases pending after their effectivity.
right by the adverse party.
Section 2. Effectivity. – These Rules shall take effect on
Rule 10 the first day of August 2001 following their publication
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES before the 20th of July 2001 in two newspapers of
Section 1. Electronic testimony. – After summarily general circulation in the Philippines.
hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules,
the court may authorize the presentation of testimonial Notes:
evidence by electronic means. Before so authorizing, the Meaning of electronic evidence and electronic data
court shall determine the necessity for such presentation message
and prescribe terms and conditions as may be Electronic evidence is that which use of
necessary under the circumstances, including the electronic data message as evidence.
protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses
concerned. Electronic data message refers to information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
Section 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. – When optical or similar means.
examination of a witness is done electronically, the
entire proceedings, including the questions and answers, Electronic documents as functional equivalent of
shall be transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypist or paper-based documents. Whenever a rule of evidence
other recorder authorized for the purpose, who shall to the term of writing, document, record, instrument,
certify as correct the transcript done by him. The memorandum or any other form of writing, such term
transcript should reflect the fact that the proceedings, shall be deemed to include an electronic document.
either in whole or in part, had been electronically
recorded. Electronic document refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
Section 3. Storage of electronic evidence. – The other modes of written expression, described or however
electronic evidence and recording thereof as well as the represented, by which a right is established or an
stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be
case. Such transcript and recording shall be deemed proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
prima facie evidence of such proceedings. transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically.
o It includes digitally signed documents and any The person seeking to introduce an electronic document
print-out or output, readable by sight or in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving
other means, which accurately reflects the its authenticity.
electronic data message or electronic document.
o The term “electronic document” may be used Before any private electronic document offered as
interchangeably with electronic data message. authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity
must be proved by any of the following means:
Probative value of electronic documents or evidentiary 1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
weight; method of proof: person purported to have signed the same;
An electronic document is admissible in evidence 2. By evidence that other appropriate security
if it complies with the rules on admissibility procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
prescribed by the Rules and related laws and is Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic
authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Rules on documents were applied to the document; or
Electronic Evidence. 3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability
to the satisfaction of the judge.
In assessing the evidentiary weight of an
electronic document, the following factors may be A document electronically notarized in accordance
considered: with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall
1. The reliability of the manner or method in which it be considered as a public document and proved as a
was generated, stored or communicated, including notarial document under the Rules of Court.
but not limited to input and output procedures, controls,
tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the An electronic signature or a digital signature
electronic data message or document, in the light authenticated in the manner prescribed hereunder
of all the circumstances as well as any relevant is inadmissible in evidence as the functional equivalent
agreement; of the signature or a person on a written document.
2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was
identified; An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of
3. The integrity of the information and the following manner:
communication system in which it is recorded or 1. By evidence that a method or process was utilized
stored, including but not limited to the hardware and to establish a digital signature and verify the same;
computer programs or software used as well as 2. By any other means provided by law; or
programming errors; 3. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as
4. The familiarity of the witness or the person establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature.
who made the entry with the communication and
information system; Upon the authentication of an electronic signature,
5. The nature and quality of the information which went it shall be presumed that:
into the communication and information system upon 1. The electronic signature is that of the person to whom
which the electronic data message or electronic it correlates;
document was based; or 2. The electronic signature was affixed by that person
6. Other factors which the court may consider as with the intention of authenticating or approving
affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic the electronic document to which it is related or to
document or electronic data message. indicate such person‘s consent to the transaction
embodied therein; and
Methods of Proof: 3. The methods or processes utilized to affix or
1. affidavit of evidence verify the electronic signature without error or fault.
All matters relating to the admissibility and
evidentiary weight of an electronic document may be Upon the authentication of a digital signature, it
established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal shall be presumed, in addition to those mentioned in
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. the immediately preceding section, that:
The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence 1. The information contained in a certificate is
of the affiant to testify on the matters contained correct;
therein. 2. The digital signature was created during the
2. cross-examination of deponent operational period of a certificate;
The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the 3. The message associated with a digital signature
affidavit in open court and may be cross-examined as a has not been altered from the time it was signed; and
matter of right by the adverse party. 4. A certificate had been issued by the certification
authority indicated therein.
Authentication of electronic documents and electronic
signatures: Electronic documents and the hearsay rule:
An electronic document shall be regarded as the
equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by forms of communication the evidence of which is not
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data recorded or retained.
accurately.
Cases:
General Rule: When a document is in two or more Aznar v. Citibank, N.A. (2007)
copies executed at or about the same time with Aznar claims that his credit card was not honored in
identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the some establishments abroad. To prove that Citibank
same impression as the original, or from the same blacklisted his Mastercard, he presented a computer
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by print-out, denominated as On-Line Authorization Foreign
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques Account Activity Report, issued to him by the travel
which accurately reproduces the original, such agency. The SC held that the On-Line Authorization
copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the Foreign Account Activity Report is insufficient to
equivalent of the original. establish Aznar’s claims. The person seeking to
introduce an electronic document in any legal
Exceptions: Copies or duplicates shall not be proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in
admissible to the same extent as the original if the manner provided in the rule. Before any private
1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of electronic document offered as authentic is received in
the original; or evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the
2. In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable following means: (a) by evidence that it had been
to admit a copy in lieu of the original. digitally signed by the person purported to have signed
the same; (b) by evidence that other appropriate security
A memorandum, report, record or data compilation procedures or devices as may be authorized by the SC
of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, or by law for authentication of electronic documents
made by electronic, optical or other similar means were applied to the document; or (c) by other evidence
at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of
regular course of conduct of a business activity, and the judge.
such was the regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by Vidallon-Magtolis vs. Salud (2005)
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are Atty. Madarang (clerk of court) received a call from
shown by the testimony of the custodian or other Lagua’s relative, asking how much more they had to give
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay to facilitate Lagua’s provisional liberty. Apparently they
evidence. were being aided by a certain Rhodora Valdez. When
Atty. Madarang was able to get the mobile number
The presumption may be overcome by evidence of the (turned out to be Salud’s), he represented himself as
untrustworthiness of the source of information of Lagua’s relative and exchanged text messages with
the method or circumstances of the preparation, respondent for a possible pay-off. The SC held that the
transmission or storage thereof. admission of text messages as evidence does not
constitute a violation of right to privacy of the accused.
Audio, photographic, video and ephemeral evidence: Text messages have been classified as “ephemeral
Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, electronic communication” under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of
acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and “shall be proven
shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the same or has personal knowledge thereof.”
person who made the recording or by some other person
competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. MCC Industrial . vs. Ssangyong Corp. (2007)
(faxes not electronic evidence)
Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven Ssangyong filed for damages against MCC due to
by the testimony of a person who was a party to the breach of contract. All their letters were sent via fax. The
same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence SC held that printout and/or photocopies of facsimile
or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent transmissions are not electronic evidence and
evidence may be admitted. inadmissible as such. RA 8792’s definition of “electronic
data message” could not have included facsimile
If the foregoing communications are recorded or transmissions, which have an original paper-based copy
embodied in an electronic document, then the provisions as sent and a paper-based facsimile copy as received.
of Rule 5 (authentication of electronic documents) shall Therefore, it cannot be considered as electronic
apply. evidence. Facsimile transactions are not paperless, but
are paper-based. It is essentially an image scanner, a
Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone modem and a computer printer combined. As held in
conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, Garvida v Sales, Jr, “A facsimile is not a genuine and
streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy
preserving all the marks of an original. Without the
original, there is no way of determining on its face
whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the
and was originally signed by the party and his counsel.” testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the
time the witness is called to testify.
Torres v. PAGCOR (2011) Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after
(faxes not electronic evidence) the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such
Petitioner Torres claims that the sending of documents offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to
through electronic data message, which includes be done in writing. (n)
facsimile, is sanctioned under the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000. The SC denied the petition. The mode used General Rule: The court shall consider no evidence
by petitioner in filing his reconsideration is not which has not been formally offered.
sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service. The motion for Exception: Evidence not formally offered can be
reconsideration may be filed only in two ways, either by admitted by the court if the following requirements are
mail or personal delivery. A facsimile transmission is not present:
considered as an electronic evidence under the 1. The same must have been duly identified by
Electronic Commerce Act. It has been held that the testimony duly recorded.
terms "electronic data message" and "electronic 2. The same must have been incorporated in the records
document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce of the case. (Ramos v. Dizon)
Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile
transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission When formal offer of evidence is not required:
cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not 1. Summary proceeding (no full-blown trial)
the functional equivalent of an original under the Best 2. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic notice of
evidence. 3. Documents, affidavits used in deciding quasi-
judicial or administrative cases
Class Notes: 4. Lost objects previously marked, identified,
Differentiate between digital signature and electronic described in the record, and testified to by
signature (See rule.) witnesses who had been subjects of cross-
examination in respect to said objects
What is "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem"? (See
rule.) Notes:
The formal offer of evidence is necessary to enable the
Electronic documents: functional equivalent of paper- court to intelligently rule on any objection to the
based documents. questions asked.
• Does this rule cover criminal cases? The proponent must show its relevance, materiality, and
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC (effective 2002): Rule shall competence, and the adverse party must promptly raise
apply to all criminal and civil actions and quasi- any objection thereto.
judicial and administrative cases.
• However, in Ang v. CA (2012): SC, as obiter, Class Notes:
stated that the rule does not apply to criminal Please take note how this portion has been modified by
cases Sections 6 and 8 of the JAR.
• Prof. San Pedro: What's binding is the
resolution. What is a continuing objection?
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of
Paper documents vs. Electronic documents the examination of a witness that the questions being
Paper documents: readable by sight in its original form propounded are of the same class as those to which
Electronic documents: not readable by sight in its objection has been made, whether such objection was
original form (use of binary code, etc.) sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse
For e-documents: look into origin of the document, find party to record his continuing objection to such class of
out when the meeting of minds was made (whether print questions.
or electronic evidence).
Tender of excluded evidence  If a party’s offered
IV. Offer and Objection documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may
Sections 34-35, Rule 132 move or request that it be attached to form part of the
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall record of the case. If the excluded evidence is oral, he
consider no evidence which has not been formally may state for the record the name and other personal
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
must be specified. (35) proposed testimony.
objections. There is no compelling need to specify the
Sections 36-40, Rule 132 ground if the ground for exclusion should have been
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered obvious to the judge or counsel.
orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the An objection may be formal or substantive:
oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as 1. Formal = one directed against the alleged defect in
the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. the formulation of the question (ambiguous,
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within argumentative, etc.)
three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a different 2. Substantive = objections made and directed against
period is allowed by the court. the very nature of the evidence (irrelevant, incompetent,
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be etc.)
specified. (36a)
Parties who offer objections are entitled to a ruling at the
Section 37. When repetition of objection time the objection is made, unless they present a
unnecessary. —When it becomes reasonably apparent question with regard to which the court desires to inform
in the course of the examination of a witness that the itself before making its ruling.
question being propounded are of the same class as
those to which objection has been made, whether such A ruling should always be made during the trial. The
objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be failure of the court to make such ruling should be
necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for brought to its attention; otherwise, the case cannot be
the adverse party to record his continuing objection to reopened for a new trial on that ground.
such class of questions. (37a)
Trial courts should permit all exhibits presented,
Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be although not admitted, to be attached to the records so
given immediately after the objection is made, unless the that the appellate court may examine the propriety of
court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on their rejection.
the question presented; but the ruling shall always be However, where documentary evidence was rejected
made during the trial and at such time as will give the and the offeror did not move that the be attached to the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the record, it cannot be considered by the appellate court.
situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
need not be stated. However, if the objection is based on specified because such evidence may be admissible for
two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on several purposes under the doctrine of multiple
one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose
relied upon. (38a) and not for another.
Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness Identification distinguished from formal offer:
answer the question before the adverse party had the Identification of Formal offer of
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and documentary documentary
such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall evidence evidence
sustain the objection and order the answer given to be Made in the course of Only when the
stricken off the record. the trial and marked as proponent rests his
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking exhibits. It may be case and formally
out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or withdrawn before offers the evidence
otherwise improper. (n) formal offer thereof or that an objection
may not at all be thereto may be made.
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If offered as evidence.
documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by
the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or The repetition of objections to the same class of
made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, evidence is not required. The party may just enter a
the offeror may state for the record the name and other general and continuing objection to the same class of
personal circumstances of the witness and the evidence and the ruling of the court shall be applicable
substance of the proposed testimony. (n) to all such evidence of the same class.
Notes: An erroneous admission or rejection of evidence by the

An objection must point out the specific ground of the trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the
objection, and if it does not do so, no error is committed decision if there are other independent evidence to
in overruling it. sustain the decision, or if the evidence, if it had been
admitted, wouldn’t have changed the decision.
A specific object is always preferred over a general one. Otherwise, a new trial is warranted.
However, it does not impose an absolute ban on general
Sections 6 & 8, Judicial Affidavit Rule offered. The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial objections to its materiality should be avoided. Even
affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his assuming that the documents would eventually be
witness in place of direct testimony shall state the declared inadmissible, the trial court was not then in a
purpose of such testimony at the start of the position to make a declaration at that point in time.
presentation of the witness. The adverse party may
move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit Valencia v. Sandiganbayan (2005)
or any of the answers found in it on ground of Petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence, claiming that the
inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the Joint Stipulation of Facts is inadmissible. The Court held
motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any that the same was premature because the prosecution
excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the had yet to formally rest its case. Also, when the motion
initials of an authorized court personnel, without was filed, the prosecution had not yet marked nor
prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under formally offered the Joint Stipulation of Facts as
Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. evidence. Until such time that the prosecution closed its
evidence, the defense cannot be considered to have
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) seasonably filed a demurrer to evidence.
Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness,
a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence Parel v. Prudencio (2006)
of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in Petitioner argues that while he failed to make a formal
their chronological order, stating the purpose or offer of his documentary evidence, the same was duly
purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit. marked. The Court held that it was still inadmissible. A
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of the
party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if any, judge to rest his findings and his judgment only and
to its admission, and the court shall immediately make strictly upon the evidence offered. The mere fact that a
its ruling respecting that exhibit. particular document is identified and marked does not
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of mean that it has already been offered as part of the
the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate evidence of a party.
them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by
their markings during the offers, the objections, and the Ramos v. Dizon (2006)
rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit. (exception to the rule)
Petitioner sustains that the court should not consider
Cases: evidence which has not been offered in evidence. The
Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan v. Comorposa Court disagreed. While that is the general rule, an
(2003) exception must be made if the following requirements
(exception to the rule) are present: first, the same must have been duly
Petitioners contend that the CENR Certification must not identified by testimony duly recorded; and second, the
be given credence since it was not formally offered in same must have been incorporated in the records of the
evidence. The Court disagreed. As a general rule, case. The requirements have been satisfied in this case.
neither the rules of procedure nor jurisprudence would
sanction the admission of evidence that has not been Tan v. People (2006)
formally offered during the trial. However, this is Tan claims that the demand letter should not be given
applicable only to ordinary trials, not to cases covered by evidentiary weight since it was never presented during
the rule on summary procedure – cases in which no full- trial for proper identification. Prosecution, on the other
blown trial is held. hand, argues that Tan failed to timely object to its
admissibility. The Court agreed with Tan. Objection to
Cabugao v. People (2004) the admissibility of evidence, if not made at the time
The OSG claims that the documentary evidence such evidence is offered, shall be deemed waived.
presented by the defense is hearsay and should not be However, in all cases where said rule has been applied,
admitted. The Court disagreed. The OSG failed to raise the assailed testimonial or object evidence had been
such ground for objection when the documents were duly presented during the course of the trial. In this case,
offered in evidence. The prosecution simply objected on the demand letter was never presented during trial.
other grounds (immaterial, irrelevant). It did not object on
the ground of hearsay. Catacutan v. People (2011)
Petitioner argues that he was deprived due process
Yu v. CA (2005) when the trial court rejected a CA decision in a previous
The trial court declared petitioner’s insurance application administrative case. The Court disagreed. It is well within
and insurance policy irrelevant and inadmissible even the court’s discretion to reject the presentation of
before they were formally offered. SC held that the TC evidence which it judiciously believes irrelevant and
abused its discretion. While trial courts have the impertinent to the proceeding on hand. In this case, the
discretion to admit or exclude evidence, such power is court rejected the CA records because the result of the
exercised only when the evidence has been formally administrative case is not relevant to the criminal
proceeding. Even assuming that the court erroneously 7. Their interest or want of interest
rejected the CA decision, petitoner’s recourse should 8. Personal credibility so far as it may legitimately
have been to attach the exhibit to the records of the case appear upon the trial
(Sec. 40, Rule 132). 9. Number of witnesses
V. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence It is the trial judge that can weigh testimony in light of the
A. Civil Cases defendant’s behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at
Section 1, Rule 133 the trial.
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.
Facial expressions are not necessarily indicative of one’s
— In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof
feelings. The trial court should have made it appear in
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
the record and allowed the witness the opportunity to
In determining where the preponderance or superior
explain why he was showing such an expression on his
weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court
face.
may consider all the facts and circumstances of the
case, the witnesses manner of testifying, their
The failure of a party to present merely corroborative or
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or
facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts
unfavorable presumption.
to which they testify, the probability or improbability of
their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also
Credibility of a witness – his integrity, disposition and
their personal credibility so far as the same may
intention to tell the truth in the testimony he has given.
legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also
This is to be distinguished from the credibility of his
consider the number of witnesses, though the
testimony.
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater
number. (1a)
A witness may be competent, but not credible. Courts
allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given
Quantum of evidence for civil cases: preponderance of matter because he is competent but may thereafter
evidence decide whether or not to believe his testimony.
General Rule: Findings of the judge who tried the case The demeanor, emphasis, gestures, and inflection of the
and heard and observed the demeanor of the witnesses voice of a witness, while testifying, are potent aids in the
are not to be disturbed on appeal proper evaluation of his credibility.
Exception/s: When a witness makes two sworn statements which
1. Unless there are substantial facts and circumstances contradict each other, the court cannot accept either
which have been overlooked and which, if properly statement. The witness by his own act of giving false
considered, might affect the result of the case. testimony impeaches his own testimony.
2. If the issue is on the identification of the accused or
the credibility of the witness, and one judge heard the Bias – that which excites the disposition to see and
testimony of the witness but a different judge penned the report matters as they are wished for rather than as they
decision. are. A witness may be said to be biased when his
relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has
General Rule: The number of witnesses should not in an inventive to exaggerate or give false color to his
and by itself in and by itself determine the weight of statements, or to suppress or pervert the truth, or to
evidence state what is false.
Exception/s: In case of conflicting testimonies of When witnesses on both sides are equally biased,
witnesses, the numerical factor may be given certain especially if there is no numerical preponderance on
weight either side, bias ceases to be a consideration in
determining where the weight of evidence rests. Credit
Notes: should be given to the one whose demeanor and
Factors which the court may take into consideration in manner of testifying convinces the court of his credibility.
determining the weight to be given to testimonial
evidence; this also applies to criminal cases: The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to
1. All facts and circumstances of the case produce conviction if it appears to be trustworthy and
2. The witnesses manner of testifying reliable. The testimony must also be clear and
3. Their intelligence convincing.
4. Their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying The testimony of the offended party is not essential to
5. The nature of the facts to which they testify convict an accused if there are already other evidence to
6. The probability or improbability of their testimony prove the guilt of the latter.
o This doctrine is merely considered as evidentiary
The prosecution is not obliged to present each and every or in the nature of a procedural rule. It does not
person who witnessed the occurrence but only a dispense with the requirement of proof of
sufficient number to prove the commission of the negligence.
offense.
Cases:
Inconsistencies or contradictions on mere details in the Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc
testimony of a witness do not materially impair the (2005)
credibility of such witness. Such contradictions indicate In an action for forcible entry, plaintiff contends that
veracity rather than prevarication, and tend to bolster the defendant has not adduced the requisite preponderance
probative value of the testimony. On the other hand, the of evidence to establish that the complaint was filed
perfect dovetailing of several witnesses’ testimonies within the 1-year prescription period. “Preponderance of
generates the suspicion that the material circumstances evidence,” means that the evidence adduced by one
testified to by them were integral parts of a fabricated side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight
story. than that of the other. Where the evidence presented by
one side is insufficient to ascertain the claim, there is no
The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and preponderance of evidence. Among the facts and
disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative circumstances to be considered by the court in
evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the determining which of the presented evidence has
case. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false superior weight is the witnesses’ means and opportunity
in one, false in all) deals only with the weight of to know the facts to which they testify. The testimony of
evidence. defendant’s witness, being its real property manager, is
given greater weight considering it was his task to know
Where an equiponderance of evidence results such that about matters involving the latter’s properties. In
the scales stand upon an equipoise, and nothing in contrast, plaintiff’s witness, being his mere employee,
evidence inclines it to either side, the court will find for could not be deemed competent and credible because it
defendant. was not explained how he could be so; mere relationship
will not by itself determine the true worth of one’s
Affirmative testimony is stronger than negative testimony.
testimony.
Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Wan Choi (2007)
Delay of a witness in revealing to the authorities what he A demurrer with leave of court was granted in a criminal
knows about a crime does not render his testimony case for bouncing checks. Complainant appealed the
false. civil aspect of the judgment. A court may not deny the
demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at the same time
The mere relationship of the witness to the victim does grant the demurrer as to the civil aspect, for if the
not impair his positive and clear testimony nor render the evidence is not insufficient to prove the crime beyond
same less worthy of credit, unless there is a showing of reasonable doubt, then the same evidence is likewise
improper motive on the part of said witness. not insufficient to establish civil liability by mere
preponderance of evidence. On the other hand, if the
Affidavits are generally subordinate in importance to evidence is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable
open court declarations because they are oftentimes doubt, it does not follow that the same evidence is
executed when the affiant is at a high pitch of excitement insufficient to establish a preponderance of evidence.
and when his mental faculties are not in such a state as The only recognized instance when an acquittal on
to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect is
incident which has just transpired. when there is a finding that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise did not exist. If demurrer
This rule does not apply where the omission in the is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, the
affidavit refers to a very important detail such that the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil
affiant would not have failed to mention it, or the self- aspect of the case unless the court also declares that
contradictions and inconsistencies are on very material the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
and substantial matters. did not exist. In this case, the lower court granted the
demurrer and dismissed the case without any finding
Flight is evidence of guilt and of a guilty conscience. The that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
converse, however, is not true. arise did not exist. Given the factual conflicting claims, a
remand is proper.
Res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself
o The fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken Sps. Sevilla v. CA (2010)
with surrounding circumstances, may permit an In a civil case for damages instituted by the defendant for
inference or raise a presumption of negligence, the death of her husband, the Court affirmed the ruling of
or make out plaintiff’s prima facie case. appellate court finding that its decision is supported by
preponderance of evidence enumerating 8 factual instances same less worthy of credit, unless there is a showing of
which supported defendant’s claim. "Preponderance of improper motive on the part of said witness.
evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be Affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to
synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" open court declarations because they are executed
or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance when the affiant is at a high pitch of excitement and
of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means when his mental faculties are not in such a state as to
probability of the truth.6 It is evidence which is more afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is
incident which has just transpired.
offered in opposition thereto.
An affidavit is only prima facie evidence of weak
B. Criminal Cases probative force and should be received with caution.
Section 2, Rule 133
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a Generally, an affidavit is not prepared by the affiant
criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, himself but by another who uses his own language in
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. writing the affiant’s statements. Omissions and
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, particularly under circumstances of hurry or impatience.
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is The infirmity of affidavits as a species of evidence is
required, or that degree of proof which produces much a matter of judicial experience.
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)
Section 3, Rule 133 The fact that the prosecution used as witnesses persons
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground who were accomplices without including them in the
for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by an information and afterward asking for their exclusion does
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, not render their testimony inadmissible, although it is
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3) weak and usually needs corroboration.
Section 4, Rule 133 Conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence

but it must be proved with as much certainty as the
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — crime itself, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
The circumstances qualifying or aggravating the act
(b) The facts from which the inferences are
must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner.
derived are proven; and
They must be proved as conclusively as the acts
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is
constituting the offense.
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. (5)
Alibi may be considered only when established by
positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence. It must not
Notes: only appear that the accused interposing the same was
The non-production of corroborative witness without any at some other place but also that it was physically
explanation, weakens the testimony of the witness who impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the
named that corroborating witness in his testimony. time of its commission. The defense becomes weaker if
Corroboration, however, is not required in rape which, as uncorroborated; worse still if it could have been
a rule, is committed without anybody else being present corroborated by other persons mentioned by the
except the rapist and the victim. accused but such corroborative testimony has not been
presented.
Affirmative testimony is stronger than negative
testimony. In weighing contradictory declarations and Alibi, however, acquires strength where no positive and
statements, greater weight is given to the positive proper identification has been made by the witnesses of
testimony of the prosecution witnesses than to the denial the offender.
of defendant.
Where one accused withdraws his appeal after realizing
Delay of a witness in revealing to the authorities what he the futility of his defense, and the other escapes from
knows about a crime does not render his testimony confinement thereby causing the dismissal of his appeal,
false, for the delay may be explained by the natural said acts are unmistakable signs of guilt.
reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get
involved in a criminal case. There is also the inherent Generally, motive of the accused in a criminal case is
fear of reprisal. immaterial, not being an element of a crime. However, it
is relevant in the following cases:
The mere relationship of the witness to the victim does 1. Where the identity of the assailant is in question.
not impair his positive and clear testimony nor render the 2. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal
act or the sanity of the accused. injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may
3. To determine from which side the unlawful permit an inference or raise a presumption of
aggression commenced, as where the accused negligence, make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and
invoked self-defense. present a question of fact for the defendant to meet with
4. To determine the specific nature of the crime an explanation. This rule is merely evidentiary in nature.
committed. The application of the rule does not dispense with the
5. Where the evidence is circumstantial or requirement of proof of negligence.
inconclusive and there is a doubt whether a
crime has been committed or whether the On extrajudicial confessions:
accused has committed it. Mere voluntary extrajudicial confession uncorroborated
by independent proof of the corpus delicti is not sufficient
Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, cannot to sustain a judgment of conviction. There should be
sustain a conviction if there is no other evidence some evidence apart from the confession tending to
establishing the guilt of the accused. show the commission of the crime.
Totality of circumstances test on the admissibility and The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by
reliability of out-of-court identification of suspect: someone of the crime charged.
1. The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at 2 elements:
the time of the crime; 1. Existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of
2. The witness’ degree of attention at that time; the criminal charge
3. The accuracy of any prior description given by 2. Existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act
the witness; or result
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the
witness at the identification; Corpus delicti literally means the body or substance of
5. The length of time between the crime and the the crime, but applied to a particular offense, it means
identification; the actual commission by someone of the particular
crime charged.
The suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
On circumstantial evidence:
12 danger signals that the identification may be In order to convict a person of a crime based on
erroneous even though the method used is proper: circumstantial evidence alone, the prosecution must
1. The witness originally stated that he could not present such circumstantial evidence which will and
identify anyone; must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused
2. The witness knew the accused before the crime is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt,
but made no accusation against him when excluding all and each and every reasonable hypothesis
questioned by the police; consistent with his innocence.
3. A serious discrepancy exists between the
witness’ original description and his actual Prior and coetaneous actuations in relation to the crime,
description of the accused; as well as acts or conduct subsequent thereto can be
4. Before identifying the accused at the trial, the considered as circumstantial evidence of guilt.
witness erroneously identified some other
person; Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction even
5. Other witnesses of the crime fail to identify the in capital offenses, except when the law specifies the
accused; species of quantum of evidence, e.g., treason, bigamy.
6. Before trial, the witness sees the accused but
fails to identify him; Generally, the motive of the accused is immaterial in a
7. Before the commission of the crime, the witness criminal case because it is not an element of the crime,
had limited opportunity to see the accused; however, such motive becomes important when
8. The witness and the person identified are of evidence of the crime is purely circumstantial.
different racial groups;
9. During his original observation of the offender, When the evidence on a question of fact is in issue or
the witness was unaware that a crime was there is doubt on which side the evidence
involved; preponderates, the prosecution, as the party having the
10. A considerable time elapsed between the burden of proof consequently loses.
witness’ view and his identification of the
accused; Cases:
11. Several persons committed the crime; Ungsod v. People (2005)
12. The witness failed to make a positive trial Accused was convicted of homicide based on
identification. circumstantial evidence, most particularly the
testimonies of two witnesses. Circumstantial evidence
Res ipsa loquitur – the fact of the occurrence of an has been defined as that which “goes to prove a fact or
series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in with the presentation in court of the substance seized as
issue.” Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when evidence. In this case, PO1 Rana, being the poseur-
to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to buyer, was the most competent person to testify on the
setting felons free. The standard in appreciating fact of sale and he did so to the satisfaction of both the
circumstantial evidence is: that the circumstances trial court and the appellate court.
proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads
to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the People v. Del Mundo (2006)
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty Accused contends that the non-presentation before the
person. From all the circumstances, there should be a trial court of the informant and witnesses other than the
combination of evidence which in the ordinary and buy-bust agents militates trustworthiness of the
natural course of things, leaves no room for reasonable prosecution's theory. The Court held that it is clear from
doubt as to his guilt. Where the inculpatory facts and the testimonies of the buy-bust agents that their
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, narration of events was positive, probable and in accord
one of which is consistent with innocence and the other with human experience. The presumption of regularity in
with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral the performance of official duties has not been
certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused. The controverted; hence, the Court is bound to uphold it.
testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the
those of Batoy and Reyes, indubitably confirm the part of the police authorities to falsely impute a crime.
culpability of petitioner. The testimonies of the On the non-presentation of the informant, the rule is that
prosecution’s witnesses relating to the occurrences prior his presentation in an illegal drugs case is not essential
to and after the lethal gunshot was heard were for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful
noticeably straightforward and consistent with one prosecution because his testimony would merely be
another; mere denials are only self-serving negative corroborative and cumulative. Informants are generally
evidence which cannot outweigh circumstantial evidence not presented in court because of the need to hide their
clearly establishing his active participation in the crime. identity and preserve their invaluable service to the
police. Here, the agents directly testified regarding the
Marturillas v. People (2006) entrapment, and the testimony of the informant would
Accused contends that the testimony of the prosecution merely have been corroborative.
witness materially contradicted the witness’ Affidavit. Sir emphasized this case.
Taken ex parte, affidavits are considered incomplete and
often inaccurate. They are products sometimes of partial People v. Padua (2007)
suggestions and at other times of want of suggestions Accused convicted of rape with homicide contend that
and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be there was no direct evidence and that the court erred on
unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary basing its conviction on circumstantial evidence. Direct
for accurate recollection. In this case, the Court held that evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only
there was no inconsistency. According to accused, the matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion
witness said in her testimony that she had immediately and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial
recognized her husband as the victim of the shooting; court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
but in her Affidavit she stated that it was only when she conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that
had approached the body that she came to know that he evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from
was the victim. Although the witness stated in her which the facts in issue may be established by inference.
testimony that she had recognized the victim as her Conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be
husband through his voice, it cannot necessarily be upheld, provided the circumstances proven constitute an
inferred that she did not see him. unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of
People v. Villanueva (2006) all others, as the guilty person. Accused also contend
Accused contests his conviction for possession and sale that the prosecution’s principal witnesses credible as
of illegal drugs on the ground of insufficiency of the they did not actually witness the commission of the
prosecution’s evidence relying on the testimony of a crime. The Court held that in this case, the Court does
single witness. When the prosecution has succeeded in not have the facility of hearing the victim’s testimony as
discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence she did not survive the brutality of her assailants. Hence,
sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the the prosecution had to rely on the testimonies of its
allegations in the information or has established a prima principal witnesses. Despite rigorous cross-examination
facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence by no less than three defense counsels, their testimonies
shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon him to remained unshaken.
adduce evidence. To sustain a conviction under a single
prosecution witness, such testimony needs only to C. Administrative Cases
establish sufficiently: 1) the identity of the buyer, seller, Section 5, Rule 133
object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment thereof. What is material is proof
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that
deemed established if it is supported by substantial a person is responsible for the misconduct complained
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or
reasonable mind accept as adequate to justify a even preponderant. The failure to present Ligan as
conclusion. (n) witness did not result to a violation of due process. It is
settled that in administrative proceedings, technical rules
Cases: of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. The
Reyes v. Mangino (2005) measure of due process to be observed by
Plaintiff filed an administrative case against Judge administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of
Mangino for gross ignorance of the law. The Court held latitude as long as fairness is not compromised. It is
that the ground for the removal of a judicial officer therefore not legally objectionable for an administrative
(misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, or agency to resolve a case based solely on position
incompetence) should be established beyond papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by
reasonable doubt, meaning the general rules in regard to the parties, as affidavits of witnesses may take the place
admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply. In the of their direct testimony.
absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a
judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to D. Credibility of Witnesses
disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous.
In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not Cases:
to file an administrative complaint against the judge but People v. Domingcil (2003)
to elevate the error to the higher court for review and In a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs, accused
correction. Respondent Judge cannot be held contends that he was instigated to buy drugs contrary to
administratively liable on that ground but the Court finds the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Court
that he is liable for gross ignorance of the law in not held that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
requiring the presence of the accused during the complement each other, giving a complete picture of
promulgation of the decision in criminal case. how the accused’s illegal sale of the prohibited drug
transpired, and how the sale led to his apprehension in
Ramos. Vda. De Brigino v. Ramos (2006) flagrante delicto. All the persons who obtained and
Plaintiff’s contest the ruling of the Provincial Agrarian received the confiscated stuff did so in the performance
Reform Adjudicators (PARAD) holding that there was an of their official duties. Unless there is clear and
implied tenancy in favor of defendants as well as an convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust
absence of fraud on defendant’s procurement of team were inspired by any improper motive or were not
contracts over the lot in dispute, despite a finding by the properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the
NBI that the signature of such defendants on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. It is
contracts were forged. The PARAD decision was axiomatic that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it
affirmed by the DARAB and CA. The Court held that the must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
question whether there was an implied tenancy are witness but must also be credible in itself such that
questions of fact and the findings of the CA and the common experience and observation of mankind lead to
Boards are entitled to respect and nondisturbance, as the inference of its probability under the circumstances.
long as they are supported by substantial evidence. And In criminal prosecution, the court is always guided by
substantial evidence has been defined to be such evidence that is tangible, verifiable and in harmony with
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as the usual course of human experience and not by mere
adequate to support a conclusion and its absence is not conjecture or speculation. Testimonies that do not
shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on adhere to this standard are necessarily accorded little
record, direct or circumstantial, and where the findings of weight or credence. Besides, instigation, or the
facts of the agrarian court are supported by substantial accused’s claim of a frame-up, is a defense that has
evidence, such findings are conclusive and binding on been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor
the appellate court. because the same can easily be concocted and is a
common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for
Nacu v. Civil Service Commission (2010) violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) filed an
administrative complaint against Nacu for illegally People v. Alcantara (2004)
charging overtime fees from its employees. During the In a prosecution for homicide, accused contests the
preliminary investigation, Ligan, a co-employee, attested credibility of the witness for giving inconsistent
to Nacu’s acts. Nacu contests PEZA’s finding that he is testimonies and for not being able to name such
guilty on the ground that Ligan was not presented as a accused when she was first asked by the police
witness during the hearing and was not subject to cross- regarding the identity of the assailant. The Court held
examination. The Court held that the statements made that a truth-telling witness is not always expected to give
by Ligan during the preliminary investigation and the an error-free testimony, considering the lapse of time
PNP Crime Lab findings amounted to substantial and treachery of human memory. Honest
inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to minor in his motion for bail which the court denied. In his
strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a motion for reconsideration, he attached a certified copy
witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to of his birth certificate. Judge Borja refused to take
conscience and numbing to senses. cognizance of Bravo’s minority allegedly because the
certificate of birth was not offered in evidence. The Court
E. Termination of Presentation of Evidence held that evidence of Bravo’s minority was already a part
Section 6, Rule 133 of the record of the case. It was properly filed in support
Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — of a motion. It would be a needless formality to offer it in
The court may stop the introduction of further testimony evidence.
upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is
already so full that more witnesses to the same point People v. Montero (1990)
cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally In a prosecution for the violation of the SSS law,
persuasive. But this power should be exercised with accused invokes the defense of prescription. Since the
caution. (6) defense was not apparent on the face of the information,
the burden of proof that the crime had prescribed fell on
the accused. While the court may rule upon motions
Notes:
solely on the basis of affidavits and counter-affidavits, if
The court has the power to stop the introduction of
the affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact, the
testimony which will be merely cumulative.
court can have no basis to make its findings of facts and
the prudent course is to subject the affiants to cross-
Cases:
examination so that the court can decide whom to
People v. Subida (2006)
believe. The trial court resolved the motion merely on the
In a prosecution for illegal possession of ammunitions
basis of the amended information, the motion to quash
and homicide, the RTC held that the accused rested his
and the opposition thereto. These were insufficient
case after 2 absences from his counsel and an overall
bases for the findings of fact needed to justify the grant
delay of 2 months. The Court held that its powers to stop
of the motion. The trial judge did not require submission
further evidence must be exercised with caution and it
of affidavits and counter-affidavits or hold a preliminary
prohibits cumulative evidence, or evidence of the same
hearing to inform himself of the date when the
kind to the same state of facts and not corroborative
prescriptive period was supposed to have commenced.
evidence or additional evidence of a different character
to the same point. Regardless of the character or nature
of the evidence to be presented by petitioner, the focal - FIN -
issue here is whether he was deemed to have waived its
presentation. Counsel’s negligence, without any
participatory negligence by the accused concerned,
justifies the courts in making a more liberal interpretation
of the rules in favor of the accused.
F. Evidence on Motion
Section 7, Rule 133
Section 7. Evidence on motion. — 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. (7)
Notes:
While the court may hear and rule upon motions solely
on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits, if the
affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact, the
court can have no basis to make its findings of fact and
the prudent course is to subject the affiants to cross-
examination so that the court can decide whom to
believe.
Cases:
Bravo, Jr. v. Boria (1985)
To avail of the mitigating circumstance of minority in his
prosecution for murder, Bravo alleged that he was a

A2015 - San Pedro - Evidence Reviewer

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

A2015 - San Pedro - Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec. 12, Art.

EVIDENCE own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of

REVIEWER (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any

Marquez v. Desierto (2001) Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. —

Class notes: Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into

People v. Lacson (2003) Object as evidence/real evidence are those addressed

Object (real) evidence includes: Categories of object evidence

3. Diagrams, models and maps Notes:

Class Notes: Article 821, Civil Code

Subsequent/prior and contemporaneous agreements Section 17, Rule 119

Case: (d) Conduct of examination. — Examination of a

In case of a child witness, the court in determining his 3. Marital Disqualification

Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho (1955)

Sunga-Chan v. Chua (2001) a. Marital communications

Exceptions: People v. Carlos (1925)

Regala v. SB (1996) C. Physician-Patient Privilege

Requisites: (B-CAP) Section 3. Report of findings. — If requested by the party

Exception: The trial court may compel disclosure where

General Rule: Cases:

Confession may be oral or in writing. If in writing: it need Section 3, Rule 133

Doctrine of independently relevant statements = Requisites:

Newspaper clippings or facts published in newspapers Notes:

People v. De Joya (1991) Distinguished from Admissions against interest:

Section 4, Rule 23 Cases:

Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2011) Exceptions: The opinion of a witness is admissible in

As a rule, the opinions of handwriting experts are not Class Notes:

People vs. Umanito (2007) Section 6, R.A. No. 8505

XPN: Proof of bad Who Has Burden of Proof:

I. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS Burden of Evidence

Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Elements of Sec 1:

10. The trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order Notes:

People v. Bisda (2003) Sec 8, RA 1379

C. Order of Examination A misleading question is one which assumes as true a

The power of exclusion applies only to witnesses, and Case:

JAR: With respect to exclusion of witnesses  no E. Reference to Writing

Baptismal certificates: Only baptismal certificates issued Cases:

Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial Official languages:

Section 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is Section 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. –

Rule 6 (a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it

Section 2. Overcoming the presumption. – The Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communications. –

Notes: An erroneous admission or rejection of evidence by the

Section 4, Rule 133 Conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence

You might also like