RULE 128 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

 What is “evidence”?

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact.

 What is the scope of the rules of evidence?

The rules of evidence are the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise
provided by law or these rules.

 When is evidence admissible?

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the
law or these Rules.

 When is evidence relevant?

Evidence must have relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence.

 Evidence on collateral matters.

Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

Ex. Evidence as to age of a person who has been raped is relevant to qualify the offence as
statutory rape.

 Meaning of “collateral matters”

They are matters other than the fact in issue and are offered as a basis of inference to the
existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.

 Proof v evidence

Proof, result or effect of evidence

Evidence, mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings

 Kinds of evidence

1. Direct and circumstantial evidence

a. Direct evidence – proves the fact in dispute without aid of any inference or
presumption
Direct evidence can be a witness testifying about their direct recollection of events. This can
include what they saw, what they heard or anything they observed with their senses.

“I saw him inserting his penis inside the victim’s vagina.”

“I saw him stab the victim”

b. Circumstantial evidence – if taken collectively, the existence of a particular

fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence

Circumstantial evidence is when a witness cannot tell you directly about the fact that is intended
to be proved. Instead, the witness presents evidence of other facts that based on a reasonable
inference would conclude the fact finder to believe the intended fact to be proved.

In case of rape. “I saw them together enter a room. They then turned off the lights. When the
lights turned on and the accused left, I asked the girl what did the accused do. She said she could
not recall, but her genitals are sore.”

“I saw him holding a knife while the victim is on the floor dead.”

2. Positive evidence and negative evidence

a. Positive evidence – Witness affirms that a certain state of facts did exist or
that a certain event happened

b. Negative evidence – Witness states he/she did not see or does not know of the
occurrence of a fact

3. Competent and credible evidence

a. Competent evidence - Not excluded by the Constitution, the law, or the Rules

Not competent evidence

A deposition is not a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. If
the witness is available to testify, he should be presented in court to testify. If available to
testify, a party’s or witness’ deposition is inadmissible in evidence for being hearsay.

Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition on search and seizure.

“No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after the examination under oath/affirmation of the
complaint and the witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the things/persons to be seized”

b. Credible evidence – One that has convincing weight or probative value

Testimony of individuals who saw the alleged crime or event actually occur, or they may be law
enforcement officers or other officials who witnessed the aftermath.
A video recording of the accident.
 Burden of proof in civil and criminal cases

In civil, the plaintiff with respect to his complaint, the defendant to his counterclaim, and the
cross-claimant with respect to his cross claim

In criminal, on the prosecution

RULE 129. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

 What is judicial notice?

Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without
proof because these facts are already known to them. Put differently, it is the assumption by a
court of a fact without need of further traditional evidentiary support.

 When is judicial notice mandatory?

1. Existence and territorial extent of states

2. Their political history
3. Forms of government and symbols of nationality
4. Law of nations
5. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals
6. The political constitution and history of the Philippines
7. Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the government
8. Laws of nature
9. Measure of time
10. Geographical divisions
 When is judicial notice discretionary?

A court may take judicial notice of matters which are:

1. Of public knowledge
2. Those capable of unquestionable demonstration
3. Those ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

 When is judicial notice offered to the court?

During the Pre-Trial and the Trial The court, motu proprio, or upon motion, shall hear the parties
on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.

After the Trial and Before Judgment or on Appeal The court, motu proprio or upon motion, may
take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case.

 Judicial admissions
Judicial admissions, oral or written, does not require proof. But it may be contradicted by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the admission was not in fact made.

RULE 130. RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

 What is object evidence?

Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.

When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court.

 What is documentary evidence?

Documents as evidence consist of:

1. Writings
2. Recordings
3. Any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their
equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents
4. Photographs

 What does photographs include?

Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
videos.

 Original document Rule

It states that, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a:
1. Document
2. Writing
3. Recording
4. photograph or other record
5. No evidence is admissible other than the original document.

Exceptions to the original document rule:

1. Original document is lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court without bad faith
2. Original document is in the custody or under the control of the part against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the
original document cannot be obtained by local or judicial process
3. Original consists of numerous accounts or documents that cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established is only a general result of
the whole
 4. Original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office
5. Original is not closely related to a controlling issue

 What is an original document?

An original document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect
by a person executing or issuing it.

An original of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom.

If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or
other means, shown to reflect data accurately is an original.

 What is a duplicate?

A duplicate is a counter part produced by:

1. The same impression as the original

2. From the same matrix
3. By means of photography, including the enlargements and miniatures
4. By mechanical or electronic re-recording
5. By chemical reproduction or
6. By other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original

 Is a duplicate admissible?

A “duplicate” is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless:

1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or
2. In the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the
original

 Alternative to the original document

When the original document has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror,

upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
his or her part,

may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

 When original document is in the custody or control of adverse party?

If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he or she must have
reasonable notice to produce it.

If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the
document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.

 When the contents of documents, records, photographs or numerous accounts are

voluminous?

When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts are voluminous
and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established
is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in the
form of a chart, summary or calculation.

The original shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a
reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.

 Evidence admissible when original document is a public record

When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
thereof.

 No obligation to offer as evidence when party called for inspection of document

A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer
it as evidence.

 Parole evidence rule

When the terms of an agreement (including wills) have been reduced to writing, it is considered
as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement

 Parole evidence

Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a
complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document

 No evidence of a written agreement other than the written agreement itself

When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all
the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
  When can a party present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the
written agreement?

A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if
he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading:

1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

2. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
3. The validity of the written agreement; or
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after
the execution of the written agreement.

The term “agreement” includes wills.

Interpretation of Documents

 How is a writing interpreted?

The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place
of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise.

 Instrument is construed to give effect to all provisions

In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars, such a
construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.

Section 13. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions – In the
construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a
general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former.
So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.

Section 14. Interpretation according to circumstances – For the proper construction of an

instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the
subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in
the position of those whose language he or she is to interpret.

Section 15. Peculiar signification of terms – The terms of a writing are presumed to have
been used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that
they have a local, technical or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and
understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed
accordingly.

Section 16. Written words control printed – When an instrument consists partly of written
words and partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the
latter.
Section 17. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings – When the
characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language
is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the
characters, or who understand the language is admissible to declare the characters or the
meaning of the language.

Section 18. Of two constructions, which preferred – When the terms of an agreement have
been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail
against either party in which he or she supposed the other understood it, and when
different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken
which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.

Section 19. Construction in favor of a natural right – When an instrument is equally

susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the
former is to be adopted.

Section 20. Interpretation according to usage – An instrument may be construed according

to usage, in order to determine its true character.

Testimonial Evidence

Section 21. Witnesses; their qualifications – All persons who can perceive and perceiving
can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime,
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.

Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge – A witness can testify only to those
facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is which derived from
his or her own perception.

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage – During their marriage, the husband or
the wife cannot testify against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except
in a civil case by one against the other or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication – The following persons

cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without
the consent of the other as to any communication 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 committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants.
(b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in
the practice of law cannot, without the consent of the client be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon
in the course of or with a view to professional employment nor can attorney’s
secretary, stenographer or clerk or other persons assisting the attorney be examined
without the consent of the client and his or her employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity, except in the following
cases:
a. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of the lawyer were
sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit
what the client knew or reasonable should have known to be a crime or
fraud;
b. Claimants through the same deceased client. As to a communication relevant
to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client,
regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos
transaction;
c. Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a communication relevant to an
issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to
his or her lawyer
d. Document attested by the lawyer. As to communication relevant to an issue
concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness;
e. Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest
between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them
to a lawyer retained or consulted in common when offered in an action
between any of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise
(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to be
authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, be examined as to any confidential communication made for
the purpose of diagnosis, or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or emotional
condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient and his or her
physician or psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons, including
members of the patient’s family who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment
of the patient under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist.
A psychotherapist is:
a. A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment
of a mental or emotional condition;
b. Aa person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly
engaged.
(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so cannot, without the consent
of the affected person, be examined as to any communication or confession made to
or any advice given by him or her, in his or her professional character, in the course
of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her tenure as to
communications made to him or her in official confidence, when the court finds that
the public interest would suffer by disclosure.
 (f) The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who
may have obtained the information, provided that the original parties to the
communication took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality.

Testimonial Privilege

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege – No person shall be compelled to testify against his
or her parents, other direct descendants, children or other direct descendants, except when
such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one parent against the
other.

Section 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets – A person cannot be compelled to testify
about any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work
injustice. When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the
interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance of justice
may require.

Admissions and Confessions

Section 27. Admission of a party – The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a

relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.

Section 28. Offer of compromise not admissible – In civil cases, an offer of compromise is
not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations admissible
except evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose, such as proving
bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort
to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

In criminal cases, except as those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those

allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense
is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. Neither is any
statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not result
in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn admissible.

An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an

injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.

Section 29. Admission by third party – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.

Section 30. Admission by co-partner or agent – The act or declaration of a partner or agent
authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject or within the scope of
his or her authority, and during the existence of the party or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint
owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.

Section 31. Admission by conspirator – The act or declaration of a conspirator in

furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the
co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.

Section 32. Admission by privies – Where one derives title to property from another, the
latter’s act, declaration or omission in relation to the property, is evidence against the
former if done while the latter was holding the title.
Section 33. Admission by silence – An act or declaration made in the presence and within
the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration
is each as naturally to call for action or comment if not true and when proper and possible
for him or her to do so, may be given in evidence against him or her.

Section 34. Confession – The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of
the offense charged or any offense necessarily included therein may be given in evidence
against him or her.

Section 35. Similar acts as evidence – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he or she 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, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like.

Section 36. Unaccepted offer – An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to
deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valud
cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument or
property.

Section 37. Hearsay – Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at a trial or hearing offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A
statement is an oral or written assertion or a non-verbal conduct of a person if it is
intended by him or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as
otherwise provided in these rules.

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to
cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with the
declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial,
hearing or other proceeding or in a deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant’s
testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of
recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or (c) one of identification of a person
made after perceiving him or her.
Logical Fallacies
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your
argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are
often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these
common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of
others.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then

eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too,
basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to
occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the
government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is
not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In

other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.

Example:
Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.
In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first
day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To
make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several
classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others
who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a
conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after
'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

Drank water that person A gave. I am now sick. A must have poisoned the water.
Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person,
idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:
The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.
In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the
people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the
claim. Example:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the
very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant
banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and
polluting."
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it.
Example:
George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.
In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence
used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence
such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his
points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.
Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only
two sides or choices. Example:
We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.
In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author
ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-
sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to
discourage daily driving.
Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her
opinions or arguments. Example:
Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.
In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has
suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author
attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.
Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people,
or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on
the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.
Example:
If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever
vehicle they want.
In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want
to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any
vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.
Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding
opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:
The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their
families?
In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and
talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one
issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues
because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that
hollow argument.
People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.
In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's
position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and
sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the
author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.
Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities,
suggesting that both are equally immoral.
That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.
In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person
doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and
inaccurate.