EVIDENCE the contrary, and

Atty. Dulay 2. Disputable (juris tantum) – is that which is

the law permits to be overcome or
Rule 131
contradicted by proofs to the contrary;
Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of otherwise the same remains satisfactory.
evidence. – Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The
following are instances of conclusive
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to presumptions:
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary (a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own
to establish his or her claim or defense by the declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
amount of evidence required by law. Burden deliberately led another to believe a particular
of proof never shifts. thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. falsify it; and (ESTOPPEL in Pais)
Burden of evidence may shift from one party (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title
to the other in the course of the proceedings, of his or her landlord at the time of the
depending on the exigencies of the case. commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them. (ESTOPPEL by Deed)
BP - never shifts
BE - shifts from litigant to another depending A disputable presumption has been defined
on the progress of the trial as a species of evidence that may be accepted
and acted on where there is no other evidence
BP to uphold the contention for which it stands, or
1. Criminal cases - upon the prosecutor since, one which may be overcome by other
the accused is innocent until proven guilty evidence. Presumption of Death

2. Civil cases - one who alleges has the burden For Succession:

of proof by preponderance of evidence a. If the person is absent for 7 years, he is

presumed dead, except for purposes of
3. Administrative cases - complainant succession
b. If the person is absent for 10 years, he is
presumed dead for purposes of succession
1. But if his age was 75, and is absent for 5
years, he is presumed dead for purposes of
succession

PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW; Classifications

1. Conclusive (juris et de jure)- which is a
presumption of law that is irrebuttable and
not permitted to be overcome by any proof to
c. If the person is absent for 4 years, he shall be
presumed dead for all purposes, including the
division of the estate among the heirs if the
following circumstances are present:
1. He was on board a vessel lost during a sea
voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who
has not been heard of for four years since the
loss of the vessel or aircraft;
2. He was a member of the armed forces who
has taken part in armed hostilities, and has
been missing for four years;
3. He has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not
been known for four years
For Remarriage
a. 4 years, if there has been a well founded
belief that the absent spouse is already dead
b. 2 years, if there is danger of death under the
circumstances mentioned in Rule 131, Sec 3(w)
RULE 132
Sec. 1. Examination to be done in open court.
— The examination of witnesses presented in a
trial or hearing shall be done in open court,
and under oath or affirmation. Unless the
witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
questions calls for a different mode of answer,
the answers of the witness shall be given
orally.
The old and new provisions are the same
except for amendments to address gender
sensitivity.
Requisites:
1. Examination must be done in open court;
2. Examination shall be done under oath or
affirmation; and
3. Examination is for the purpose of eliciting
answers that shall be given orally.
Exceptions:
1. Incapacitated to speak;
2. Questions calls for a different mode of
answer;
3. When the testimonies of witnesses may be
given in affidavits is under the Rule on
Summary Procedures (civil cases); or
4. Depositions (RIANO, supra at 220-221).
Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. —
A witness must answer questions, although his
or her answer may tend to establish a claim
against him or her. However, it is the right of a
witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him or her to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his or her reputation, unless it to be
the very fact at issue or to a fact from which
the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his or her
previous final conviction for an offense.
Self-Incrimination
Acts not covered by the prohibition against
self-incrimination
1. Woman accused of adultery was ordered to
submit her body for exam of competent
doctors to determine whether she is pregnant
or not, without the use of torture of force
(Villaflor v Summers, G.R. No. 16444,
September 8, 1920).
2. Where a person accused of acts of desires is a leading question. It is not allowed,
lasciviousness against a girl, who was except:
consequently infected with gonorrhea, was
(a) On cross-examination;
stripped off his clothing and from his body
(b) On preliminary matters;
was taken a portion of a substance which
(c) When there is difficulty in getting direct
revealed that he was suffering from gonorrhea
and intelligible answers from a witness who is
(US v Tan Teng, G.R. No. 7081, September 7,
ignorant, a child of tender years, is of feeble
1912).
mind, or a deaf-mute;
3. Accused was forced to discharge morphine
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
against his mouth and used as evidence
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an
against him (US v Ong Siu Hong, G.R. No. L-
officer, director, or managing agent of a public
12778, August 3, 1917)
or private corporation [,] or of a partnership or
4. Accused was required to put on a pair of
association which is an adverse party.
pants to determine whether they fitted him
(People v Codilla, G.R. No. 100720-23, June 30, A misleading question is one which assumes
1993) as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness,
Waiver; Self-Incrimination or contrary to that which he or she has
The right against self-incrimination is not self- previously stated. It is not allowed.
executing or automatically operational. It must
A leading question is one that is framed in
be claimed; otherwise, the protection does not
such a way that the question indicates to the
come into play. Moreover, the right must be
witness the answer desired by the party asking
claimed at the appropriate time, or else, it may
the question.
be deemed waived. In the present case, it does
not appear that petitioner invoked her right
against self-incrimination at the appropriate
It is usual and proper for the court to permit
time, that is, at the time she was asked to
leading questions in conducting the
provide samples of her signature. She is
examination of a witness who is:
therefore deemed to have waived her right
against self-incrimination (Nacu v CSC, G.R. 1. immature;
No. 187752, November 23, 2010).
Waiver of Witness-Accused 2. aged and infirm;
If the witness is the accused, he may totally 3. in bad physical condition;
refuse to take a stand. A mere witness cannot
altogether refuse to take the stand. Before he 4. uneducated;
refuses to answer, he must wait for the
5. ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court
incriminating question (Bagadiong v Gonzales,
proceedings;
94 SCRA 906).
6. inexperienced;
Section 10. Leading and misleading
questions. – A question which suggests to the 7. unsophisticated;
witness the answer which the examining party
8. feeble-minded;
9. of sluggish mental equipment; XPN: but not by evidence of particular
wrongful acts,
10. confused and agitated;
XPN2dXPN: except that it may be shown by
11. terrified;
the examination of the witness, or record of the
12. timid or embarrassed while on the stand; judgment, that he or she has been convicted of
an offense.
13. lacking in comprehension of questions
asked or slow to understand; Other Modes of Impeachment
1. By involving him during cross examination
14. deaf and dumb;
in contradiction;
15. or unable to speak or understand the 2. By showing the impossibility or
English language or only imperfectly familiar improbability of his testimony;
therewith (People v. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 135022, 3. By proving action or conduct of the witness
July 11, 2002). inconsistent with his testimony

Leading Questions to a Child Witness 4. By showing bias, interest, or hostile feeling

As to child witnesses, Section 10, Rule 132 of against the adverse party
the Rules of Court should be deemed modified
Section 12. Impeachment by evidence of
by Sec. 20 of Rules on Examination of a Child
conviction of crime. – For the purpose of
Witness. Under the said rule, the court may
impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she
allow leading questions in all stages of
has been convicted by final judgment of a
examination of a child under the condition that
crime shall be admitted if:
the same will further the interest of justice.
Under the Rules of Court, a leading question (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in
may be asked of a child only if there is excess of one [(1)] year; or (exceeding 1 year)
difficulty of eliciting from said child a direct
(b) the crime involved moral turpitude,
and intelligible answer (RIANO, supra at 130).
regardless of the penalty.
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s
XPN: However, evidence of a conviction is not
witness. – A witness may be impeached by the
admissible if the conviction has been the
party against whom he or she was called:
subject of an amnesty or annulment of the
1. by contradictory evidence, conviction.

2. by evidence that his or her general Sec. 13

reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is
General Rule: A party is forbidden to impeach
bad, or
his own witness
3. by evidence that he or she has made at other Exceptions:
times statements inconsistent with his or her 1. Witness required by law;
present testimony, (prior inconsistent In the probate of a will, if the will is contested,
statements) the requires that the proponent should present
all the attesting witnesses to the will if they are
still alive. If any or all of them testify against
the due execution of the will or do not
remember having attested to it or
otherwise of doubtful credibility,
proponent can start impeaching
witnesses (ROC, RULE 76, Sec. 11)
2. Witness is an adverse party; or
3. Witness is an unwilling or hostile witness.
- applies only in civil cases
- cannot apply in criminal cases due to
privilege against self-incrimination
IMPEACHMENT by inconsistent statements
Requisites:
1. Prior statements of witness must be
materially inconsistent with his testimony;
2. Such inconsistent statement must have a
reasonable tendency to discredit the testimony
on a material fact; and
3. To impeach by extrinsic proof or prior
inconsistent statements, such must have as
their subject:
a. Facts relevant to the issue of the case;
b. Facts which are themselves provable by
the extrinsic evidence to discredit the
witness
Laying a Predicate
Effectively impeaching a witness by prior
inconsistent statements requires laying the
proper foundation for the impeachment.
Laying the foundation, commonly referred to
as “laying the predicate”, is a preliminary
requirement before the impeachment process
prospers (RIANO, supra at 235).
A witness is impeached by prior inconsistent
statements by “laying the predicate”:
1. By confronting him with such statements,
with the time, place, and circumstances under
which they were made;
2. If the witness admits the making of such
contradictory statements, the accused has the
are benefit of the admission, while the witness has
the the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if
these he can; and
3. If the witness denies. The accused has the
right to prove that the witness did not make
such a statement.
If the predicate is not laid, the impeachment is
not laid, the impeachment is not complete and
the witness has not been impeached effectively
(People v. Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, January
29,2002).
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of
witnesses. – The court, motu proprio or upon
motion, shall order witnesses excluded so that
they cannot hear the testimony of other
witnesses.
XPN; This rule does not authorize exclusion
of:
(a) a party who is a natural person,
(b) a duly designated representative of a
juridical entity which is a party to the case,
(c) a person whose presence is essential to the
presentation of the party’s cause, or
(d) a person authorized by a statute to be
present.
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept
separate and to be prevented from conversing
with one another, directly or through
intermediaries, until all shall have been
examined.
Others
5. An accused in a criminal case as it is his
constitutional right to be present at all stages of
the proceedings;
6. Parties to the litigation will generally not be
excluded, their presence usually being
necessary to a proper management of the case;
7. Party in interest though not a party to the
record and an agent is necessary;
8. Officers and complaining witness are
customarily excepted from the rule unless the
circumstances warrant otherwise; and
9. Expert witness are not excluded until
production of evidence bearing upon the
question or subject as to which they have been
called or unless liable to be influenced by the
testimony of other witnesses
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or
record given in evidence, the remainder
admissible. — When part of an act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is
given in evidence by one party, the whole of
the same subject may be inquired into by the
other, and when a detached act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given in
evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
Rule of Completeness or Rule of
Indivisibility
1. When part of an act, declaration,
conversation, writing, or record is given in
evidence by one party, the whole of the same
subject, at be inquired into by the other; and
2. When a detached act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given in
evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
The Rule Applies to Confessions document is writing
Confessions must be considered in their admissible must be
entirety including inculpatory and exculpatory in evidence, proved
statements; however, portions may be rejected without relative to
if improbable, false or unworthy of credit (6 further its due
HERRERA, supra at 253-254). proof of its execution
genuineness and
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the
and due genuineness
purpose of their presentation in evidence,
execution before it
documents are either public or private.
may be
Public documents are:
received in
a) The written official acts, or records of the
evidence.
sovereign authority, official bodies and
Persons A public A private
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
bound instrument writing
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
is evidence binds only
b) Documents acknowledged before a notary
even the parties
public except last wills and testaments;
against who
c) Documents that are considered public
third executed it
documents under treaties and conventions
persons of or their
which are in force between the Philippines and
the fact privies,
the country of source; and
which gave insofar as
d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
rise to its due
private documents required by law to be
due execution
entered therein.
execution and date of
All other writings are private.
and to the the
date of the document
latter. are
concerned.
Validity of Certain
Certain transactions
Transactions must be in a
public
document,
otherwise,
its not valid

Section 20. Proof of Private Documents. —

Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due
Document PUBLIC PRIVATE execution and authenticity must be proved by
Authenticity A public A private any of the following means:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed 3. Certified copies of public records (Heis of
or written; Ochoa v. G&S Transport Corp., G.R. No. 170071,
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the July 16, 2012).
signature or handwriting of the maker; or Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of
c) By other evidence showing its due execution private document not necessary. — Where a
and authenticity. private document:
Any other private document need only be 1. is more than thirty years old,
identified as that which it is claimed to be. 2. is produced from the custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine, and
When authentication of a private document is
3. is unblemished by any alterations or
required
circumstances of suspicion,
Where the private document is offered in
no other evidence of its authenticity need be
evidence as authentic, there is a need to prove
given.
its due execution and authenticity. If the
document or writing is not offered as
authentic, it only needs to be identified as that
which it is claimed to be (Franco v. People, G.R.
No. 191185, February 1, 2016).

When authentication of private document is

not required
The requirement of authentication of a private
document is excused only in four instances,
specifically:
a) when the document is an ancient one within
the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court;
b) when the genuineness and authenticity of
an actionable document have not been
specifically denied under oath by the adverse
party;
c) when the genuineness and authenticity of
the document have been admitted; or
d) when the document is not being offered as
genuine.
Self-authenticating Documents
These are documents that are prima facie
evidence of their own authentication.
Examples of these documents are:
1. Official records under seal,
2. Notarized Documents, and
Section 22. How Genuineness of Handwriting
Proved. — The handwriting of a person may
be proved by any witness:
1. who believes it to be the handwriting of
such person because he or she has seen the
person write, or
2. has seen writing purporting to be his or hers
upon which the witness has acted or been
charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of
the handwriting of such person.
3. Evidence respecting the handwriting may
also be given by a comparison, made by the
witness or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom
the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
Under the foregoing rule, the genuineness of
a handwriting may be proved:
1) by any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of such person because:
a) he has seen the person write; or
b) he has seen writing purporting to be his
upon which the witness has acted or
been charged;
2) by a comparison, made by the witness or the
court, with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party, against whom the
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge (Heirs Of Amado
Celestial v. Heirs Of Editha G. Celestial, G.R. No.
142691, August 5, 2003).
Sec. 22 of Rule 132 does not require expert
testimony to prove the handwriting of a
person (RIANO, p. 171).
Courts are not bound to give probative or
evidentiary value to the opinion of
handwritten experts, as resort to handwriting
experts is not mandatory (Domingo v. Domingo,
G.R. No. 150897, April 11, 2005).