130-EVIDENCE-RIANO 2022 02-Oct-2022 21-16-32

Chapter IV
OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Classification of evidence under the Rules of Court

1. As the means of ascertaining ina judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact, evidence under the Rules
of Court,(mnay be dbjectydocumentary)
jectydocumentaryor testimonial (Tabuada
v. Tabuada, G.R. No. 196510, September 12, 201 8).
2. Significantly, the rules on evidence do not declare
which among tlthe’ three Major t‘types of evidence _ is the most
Aanab a A LE NBD
superior or has the most probative vvalue. The better view

is to consider such types as com plementing each other. For
instance, bothidocumen ary)and (object evidence) being offered
as authentic, before
re being admitted in evidencee, have to
to
be identified and “authenticated. “A document or an object,
however, can. neither identify nor authenticate itself. A pistol,
for example, cannot speak for and identify itself. Neither
can a document, like a deed of sale. Both identification and
authentication of the evidence need a natural person called a
witness. When a witness is presentedin court, his statements
constitute testimonial evidence. For purposesof identification
and ‘authentication, ‘both documentary and object. evidence
—
need to be “sponsored” bya witness.
While testimonial evidence may stand alone even without
a documentary or ‘object.
ct evidence, the credibility of ‘the
testimony may be reinforced ¢and enhanced when | consistent
with the document and the object. When the witness testifies
that she was strangled witha rope by the accused and the
physical evidence, as found by a medico-legal officer, matches
with the testimony, the< credibility. of the _testimony is Petetem
bolstered. However, common reason suggests that when the
117
118 EVIDENCE
(The Bar Lectures Series)
testimonial evidence conflicts with the documentary oor object

es ee oe ee
evidence,testimonial evidence cannot prevail since it can Feeney
easily be fabricated. When the witness asserts, for instance,

that he never sold his land to the plaintiff, but the defendant
offers in evidence a duly notarized deed of sale executed by the
plaintiff, the testimonial evidence loses its credibility. When
the alleged victim testifies that he was shot in the left arm
by the victim, but upon examination, no scar is found, the
testimony will, inevitably, crumble.
3. Since there are several categories of evidence
not the only evidence ofa ‘fact.

It is not correct, for geet to say that legal relationship
can be proven only by documentary evidence. Jurisprudence
holds’ that competent proof of a legal relationship between
individuals is not limited to documentary evidence. Object and
testimonial evidence may be admitted for the same purpose.
The relationship may be established by all the relevant facts
and circumstances that constitute preponderance of evidence
(Ibid.).
(4). Under Seé: 60) of Rule 7 of the Riilés of Court, as
amended, every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses
must state the documentary 7aiand object evidence i in support of
Dy AR eS NRT RN TO
the allegations contained ‘therein.
AL Object Evidence oes

(Hale a
Nature of object. evidence

1. Object: or real evidence, as defined by F Rule 130 of:
the Rules of Court, refers to evidence that iIs addressed to the
senses of the court.
“SECTION 1. Object as evidence. — - Objects 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.”
C HAPTER Iv — OBJ ECT AND DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE 119
A. Object Evidence (Rule 130)
the(2) 00 — evidence does not refer to the perception of

reconstriciidiy , r recollection of that perception. It is not a
stand. Real os OF past events as related by a witness on the
something “Te ject evidence is not_a verbal description of
something. Ob 18 Not’ a: replica or a mere representation of
suggests. ‘Tt ont OF real evidence is exactly what its name
the oats he real thing itself like the knife used to slash
S ed throat, the ring actually stolen by the accused, the
bull et extract
from the victim’s chest, the mangled fender
of a truck that was rear-ended by a bulldozer, or the blood
splattered on the wall of the room where the victim was found.
It consists of tangible things like a gun, a broken glass, a piece
of bloody clothing or the defective ladder that caused the, fall
of the' plaintiff. ~ peti A ngs
Object or real evidence appeals directly to the senses of the.

court. Instead of relying
on the recollection
of the witness, an
will enable the court to have its own firsthand
object evidence
perception
of the evidence. If the.court wants to know whether
or not the bolo used in the crime is long or short, big or small,
sharp or blunted, the object evidence would be the bolo itself.
_ 8. -Object-evidence could have a very persuasive effect
on the part of the court. A display of one’s injury is very
powerful. No one can dispute a missing arm or a severed leg.
No other evidence is necessary to establish the injury.
Even a human being may be a form of real evidence.
Where the racial characteristics of a party are at issue, the
court may, at its discretion, view the person concerned. In a
criminal case where the complaining witness avers that he
the court may inspect
was stabbed in the arm by the accused,
his arm. The absence of any scar in the spot where the injury
was allegedly inflicted may convince the court that the witness
ie
was untruthful in his testimony.
The court may, likewise, allow the exhibition of the
weapon allegedly used in- attacking the victim, the: bloody: oS
like a-glove, left
garment of the victim or the personal effect,
by the supposed assailant in the scene of the crime... .., a
A
120 EVIDENCE
4. Object evidence could provide a dramatic ‘end to

a case. In one sensational American double murder cage
committed in 1994 involving the football great, O.J. Simpson,
the court allowed the prosecution to have the accused Simpson
try on a glove which the prosecution claimed to have been left
by the murderer in the crime scene. After a few breathless
moments, gasps from the audience broke the silence in the
courtroom when the glove did not fit the hand of the accused.
During the oral arguments before the jury, the defense
repeatedly chanted an argument that proved powerful and
effective: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” O.J. Simpson was
acquitted.
(5) Object evidence is not visual alone. It covers - the
entire range of human. senses: Che hearing} asta uel and
(touch; In a case where the issue is infringement of a musical
composition, the court may listen to the composition involved.
The court may not only look at but also touch the blade of
a knife to know whether or not it’ could have: produce the
incision characteristic of sharp blades:
6. Physical evidence is a ‘mute. but eloquent
manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy
of trustworthy evidence—where the physical evidence runs
counter to the testimonial evidence, the physical evidence
should prevail (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, 544
SCRA 206).
Requisites for admissibility of object evidence

1. The admissibility of object _or real evidence, like
any other evidence, requires that the object be both relevant
and competent. To be relevant, the evidence must have a
relationship to the _fact_in issue. ‘To be competent, it must
not be excluded by the rules or by law. The egal. basis of this
requirement is Sec. 3 of Rule 128: “Evidence is admissible
when it is. relevant to ‘the- issue-and is not excluded. by ibe.
Constitution, the law. or. these Rules.”
een ete meer
2. For the object not to be excluded by the Rules, the

same must pass the test of authentication. The threshold
122 EVIDENCE
5. Object evidence is not taken in isolation, It is weighed

in relation to the testimony of a witness. Also, in giving credence
to a testimony, the court takes into consideration the physical
evidence. If the testimony bears a striking similarity with
the physical evidence, the testimony becomes worthy of belief
(People v. Larrariaga, 463 SCRA 652). For example, physical
evidence of lacerations in the private parts of an alleged rape
victim may corroborate testimonies that the victim was raped
oe v. Divinagracia, Sr., G.R. No. 207765, July 26, 2017).
6.) When the truth or falsity of a fact in issue may be
explained by the presentation . of
| an object, the same may|be
exhibited before the court. If the witness wants to show the
condition of a:particular article -or substance, his testimony
will be enhanced by -the. presentation of said: article or
substance. More often than not, the presentation of. object
evidence supplements the-credibility of the:testimony of a
witness when the object has:a clear relevance to the 1 issue of
the case.
Cutting through all the legal foliage, the Court finds the
following as the basic requisites for the admissibility of an
object or real evidence:
(a) The evidence must be relevant;
mn neers eee enn netic Aceh aces apnea aeAene
(b) The evidence must be authenticated; aeeeemneertirsmant

nt
~(c) The authenticati

must be made
on by a
competent witness; and _
._(d) The object must be formally offered in evidence.
The authentication of the object by a competent witness te ge ee
is to comply with the element of competence as an 1 essential

ingredient of admissibility. After its authentication, t the object
needs: to ) be offered i in evidence at the
pe ARR A PETE um ya pene
appropriate time.
ae
As a rule, the formal offer ofevidence is particularly a ae
vital act before the _admission of evidence because the court

“shall consider no evidence _vwhich has not. been _ formally At ar se me eee eed
offered” (Sec. 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court).

CHAPTER IV — OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 123
The requirements of relevance by the testimony of a

competent witness rarely pose a problem. Relevance is a
matter of reason
and the ing
court will draw an inference
of the relevancy of the evidence from the issofues
the case.
Also, ‘almost no “party: would-offer-a witness who has no
personal knowledge: of- the object: to be authenticated. The
problem commonly. lies in showing. that the object sought
to be admitted is, in fact, the real thing and not a mere
substitute or representation of the real thing. This problem of
authentication is commonly called ‘laying the foundation” for
the evidence. _
(a. Object evidence, when offered in accordance with
the ‘requi admissibility, becomes evidence of the
for itssites
and speaks more eloquently than witnesses put
highest order
of the victim’s ravished body in a.deep
together. The presence
ravine. with handcuffs on. her wrist-is a-physical evidence that
bolsters the testimony ‘ofthe witness (People v. Larrafiaga,
463 SCRA 652). In contrast, in another case, the absence
of external injuries in the body of the alleged victim belies
her claim that she was dragged to the bushes by the accused
(People v. Ganduma, 160 SCRA 799). ©
Object evidence.and the right against self-incrimination (Bar

2010)
The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked
~~ — ae er an A oy
against object evidence.

In one early case, the accused-appellant argued that the
her with its
admission as evidence of the victim’s wallet, toget
contents, viz., (1) his residence certificate; (2) his ident ification
card: and (3) bunc h violated his right against: self-
of keys,
incrimination.
The Court held that the right against self-incrimination,
guaranteed under the fundamental law, had no\ wasapplicati on
in this case pecause no testimonial compulsion involved”
(People v. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167).
concise
part IORI ny
124 EVIDENCE
Demonstrative evidence
1. Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but
it is referred to as “demonstrative” ‘because it;represents or
“demonstrates: the real thing. Tt i is dhobstrictly “ “real” evidence
because it i is not the very thing involved in the case. A map, a
diagram, a photograph, and a model, fall under this category.
This category of evidence is not separately defined in the
Rules of Court and appears to have been incorporated under
the general term “object” evidence.
2. The admissibility of this type of evidence largely
depends on_laying the proper foundation for the evidence.
The rule boils down to one basic question: Does the evidence
sufficiently and accurately represent the object it- seeks to
demonstrate or represent? If it does, the evidence would be
admissible.
f 3.) Photogronis — Photomanhe of persons, ine and

places, when instructive to the understanding of the case, will
be admitted in evidence. For a still photograph to be admitted,
the same must be (relevant nd competent. }It is competent
when it is properly authénticated by a witness who is familiar
with the scene or person portrayed, and who testifies that the
photograph faithfully.represents what it depicts...
Some courts insist on requiring the photographer to
testify but this view has been eroded. by the tendency of
modern courts to admit as a witness one who has familiarity
with the scene portrayed (Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58, 75).
Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, photographic
evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible in
evidence provided that:
(a) It shall be presented, displayed and shown to.
_the.court; ‘and
(b) It shall be identities explained or authenticated
by either: ,
(i) The person who made the eee or
CHAPTER Iv — OBJ ECT AND DOCUME
NTARY EVIDENCE 125
(ii) Some other person competent to testify

on the accuracy thereof (Sec.
Electronic Evidence) 1, Rule 11, Rules on
,
+ oo Acmissibility of photographs is within the discretion
testa Court, and its ruling in this respect will not be
— ered with, except upon a clear showing of an abuse of
discretion. In determining whether photographs should be
admitted, a trial judge must determine whether they are
relevant, and whether a proper foundation has been laid
(29A
Am Jur Evidence, 2d $960).
‘Example:
_@: Where do you work Mr. Witness?

_ A: “IT work in National Bank of the Philippines, Sir.
Q@: Where is the bank where you work located?
A: It is located in the corner of Guess and Rado
_ Sts. in St. Jude Village.
How long have you worked in that bank?
Oe
For the past ten years, Sir.

I am-showing you a. photograph. Could you
identify this. photograph?
Of course, Sir. This is a picture of the corner of
be
Guess and Rado Sts. in St. Jude Village.

"How do you recognize it?
>
I’ve worked in this area for the past ten years

and I have seen this corner almost every day.
Q: How accurate is this photograph?
A: Itis an exact depiction of the place, Sir.
(4) Motion pictures: and. recordings — The rules that

to photographs generally apply to motion pictures
= nee emcee oe crane
eON OTTO
apply
and recordings. Because _of the possibility of tampering :
and distortion, courts have traditionally required a stricter
126 EVIDENCE
standard for laying the foundation for motion Pictures and

tape recordings. Courts then would require detailed testimony
as to the qualifications of the operator, a detailed description
of the equipment used, and the conditions under which the
photograph and-the recordings weretaken: ~ -
Modern courts, however, have taken judicial notice of how
motion cameras and tape recorders work and their general
reliability and prevalent use. Court practices regarding
motion pictures and tape recordings have been liberalized
and the testimony of a person present when the activities of
taking the picture and recording have been held sufficient. He
must testify that the motion picture accurately and faithfully
represents the place or person it purports to portray.
In the case of tape recordings, the witness should identify
the speakers, state how he recognizes their voices and that the
recording was not taken in violation of the Anti-Wiretapping
Law (R.A. No. 4200).
The modern approach to motion pictures and recordings
is reflected in local rules. Under the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, the authentication process need not involve the
person who actually made-the recording. Under the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, audio, photographic and video evidence
of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided
it. shall. be shown; presented or displayed to the court and
shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person
who made the recording or by some other person competent
to testify on the accuracy thereof. Hence, authentication can
be done by some other person other than by the person who
made the recording or took the photograph as long as he can
testify as to its accuracy (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic
Evidence). ote oo ee
(5) Diagrams, models and_maps — These types of

demonstrative
evidence are presented to indicate the relative
of objects and persons. Aside from the
locations. or_pgsitions
requirement of relevance, a diagram, model or map must_be
identified by a witness who is familiar with what the evidence
depicts, and that the same is an accurate representation of

the scene it portrays. Like any other exhibit, the touchstone
for admissibility of maps, diagrams and models is the ability
of the witness to authenticate the exhibit. Some courts may
require that the model, diagram or map be made or drawn to
scale. If not drawn to scale, the court must be so informed. The
question as to the sufficiency of the authentication is a matter
of judicial discretion (29A Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §§989, 990).
X-ray pictures — X-ray pictures, also referred

to_as ““skiagraphs” or “radiographs,” are ad:
admissible when,
shown. to have been made under circumstances as to assure
their aaccuracy and relevancy to a material i issue in the case.
Authenticated x- -rays are normally involved in personal ininjury
cases to show the location and extent of the injury. X-rays
are properly authenticated by the x-ray technician or the
physician who testifies to the competence of the person taking
it, the procedure taken and that the x-ray picture shown is
that of the person, the anatomical part or the object involved
in the case (T.C. Young Construction Co. v. Brown [Ky] 372
SW2d 670, 99 ALR3d 288). Because the science of taking x-ray
pictures is now well-founded and generally recognized, almost
all courts no longer require testimony as to the reliability of
an THe machine (29A Am Jur. 2d,. Evidence,.§§977),
Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments —
sake issue of refusing or granting requests ffor : demonstrations,
experiments and tests in open court isa matter subject to
judicial discretion (Cleary, McCormick On Evidence, 3rd Ed.,
676 citing Spaak uv, Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 231
pooe 279 [7th Cir. 1956]).
(3 Text messages — Text messages are to be proved
by the testimony of a Person. who was a party 1 to the same
or has personal knowledge
of them (People v. Enojas, G.R.
renee NNEC ON Ime CAREY
No. 204894, March 10, 2014). This rule applies to telephone

conversations and other ephemeral electronic communication,
neato car 1 eae Sonn ey RINE Ota
In the absence or unavailability of the required witnesses,

other competent evidence may be admitted (Sec. 2, Rule 11,
Rules on Electronic Evidence).
128 EVIDENCE...
View of an object or scene

1. UnderSec. 1 of Rule 130, when an object is relevant
to the fact in issue, it may be ‘exhibited t‘to, examined or Viewed
by the ‘court. In this sense, object evidence has been referred
to as “autoptic” evidence.
2. Courts have recognized that there are times when

a party cannot bring an object to the court for viewing in the
courtroom. In such a situation, the court may take a view
of an object. The court may make an ocular inspection of a
contested parcel of land to resolve questions of fact raised
by the parties. It may inspect a crime scene to clarify itself
with certain matters raised by the litigants. It may view the
conditions of vehicles involved in a civil case for damages.
Going out of the courtroom to observe places and objects is
commonly termed as “view.”
The “view” is expressly authorized by Sec. 1 of Rule 130
but even without this express provision, it is well-recognized
that the court has an inherent power to order a view when
there is a need to do so (See Sec. 5, Rule 135, Rules of Court).
3. The inspection may be made inside or outside the
courtroom. An inspection or_view outside the courtroom
should be madei in the presence of the parties or at least with
previous notice to ‘them. It is error for the judge, for example,
to go alone to the land in question;-or-to the. place.where.the
crime was committed and take a.view without the previous
knowledge of the parties. Such inspection or view is part. of
the trial since evidence is thereby being received (Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 5, pp. 78-79 1980). |
Um ane. objucks
Categories of object evidence + DO jcz G made Un rque
Novi ~VN Aue
1. For purposes of authentication of an object or for
laying the foundation for the exhibit, object evidence may be
classified into the following (29A Am Jur, §§945-947):
* (a) Objects _that_ have readily identifiable marks oC
(unique objects); a eae
CHAPTER Iv — OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE 129
made readily identifiable

Objects
objects made unique); and
x (b) that are
eek.
ide iad
(6) ObijbeJdjts ects orth no45 ide EG
' ne
.
objects), Jects h
wit ntifying marks (non-unique,
2. If the object has a unique characteristic, like the
seria!’ n
serial number of a caliber .45 pistol, it becomes readily
identifiable. So long as the witness testifies that the object
has a unique characteristic, he saw the object on the relevant
date, remembers its. characteristics, asserts that the object
shown to him in court is the-same or substantially in the
same condition as when he first saw it and alleges that those
characteristics are those of the object he is identifying in court,
the authentication requirement is satisfied.
3. Ifthe object does not have a unique characteristic,
like the typical kitchen knife that has no serial number, is
commonplace, and identical with a lot of knives of the same
kind and quality, the witness may be able to identify the
same in court if he claims that he made the thing acquire a
unique characteristic like placing identifying marks on it. All
he has to do in court is to testify as to what he did to make
the object identifiable and that the object presented to him for
identification in court has the characteristics he made on the
object.
Chain of.custody.in general. -.. se ankians ty

1. The third category of object evidence refers to those
which are not readily identifiable, were not made identifiable
or cannot be mae iden tier Like(arops of blood) orfoil) (drugs
in_ powder of si
(fibep, Grains and similar objects.)
These objects are easily tampered, altered or contaminated,
intentionally or unintentionally. Under this situation, the
proponent of the evidence must establish a chain of custody to
authenticate the object in court. _
The rule-requiring establishing:the chain of custody.is
not a new rule. It is merely a product of the rule that object
evidence requires authentication. As the Supreme Court puts
it: “[It] is but a variation of the principle that real evidence
EVIDENCE
130 (The Bar Lectures Series)
must be authenticated prior to its admission x x x” (People vy,

Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018; See also People v,
Pascua, G.R. No. 227707, October 8, 2018; People v. Jimenez,
G.R. No. 230721, October 15, 2018; People v. Seferes, G.R.
No. 231008, November 5, 2018; People v. Malana, G.R. No.
233747, December 5, 2018).
2. Inanutshell, the chain of custody means, that it must
be established that the item subject of the offense is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit (See People v. Pundugar,
G.R. No. 214779, February 7, 2018; People.v. Alvarado, G.R.
No. 234048, April 23, 2018). The evidence exhibited must be
the very same substance recovered from the accused (People v.
Cornel, G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018; People v. Asjali, G.R.
No. 216430, September 3, 2018; People v. Cabezudo, G.R. No.
232357, November 28, 2018).
In layman’s language, the purpose of the chain of custody
is to prove that the object found or confiscated in the crime
scene is the very same object offered in evidence in court.
Towards this end, the prosecution must show that there was
no planting, adulteration, switching or contamination of the
evidence from the time of its confiscation to its presentation
in court.
In the language of the Court: “The chain of custody rule
takes primary impotortan
ascertain that
cethe integrity and
identity of the seized item are preserved with moral certainty”
(People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, Septem20,
ber 2017).
Hence, the prosecution must establish by records or
testimony of the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from
the time it came into the possession of the police officers,
until it was tested in the laboratory and all the way to
the
time it was offered in evidence in court (People v. Mendoz
a,
G.R. No. 220759, July 24, 2017). In establishing the chain of
custody, it must be shown that the integrity and
evidentiary
value of the seized items are preserved to dispel unnecessary
doubts as to the identity of the evidence (Ibid. See also People
v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 219955, February 5 a
8 : ’ , , 2018; Peoplev.
Seneres, G.R. No. 231008, November 5, 2018) , yo
3.° In drug cases, the chain of custody also means that

the identity of the dangerous drugs should be established
beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court
were the same substance involved in the buy-bust operation.
The chain of custody performs the function of ensuring that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed (See People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January
12, 2015; People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 228141, June 6, 2016;
People v. Tumangong, G.R. No. 227015, November 26, 2018).
4. Jurisprudence further explains:
“The chain of custody is established _by testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would be able to describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened. to it while
in the witness’ possession, the condition it was received,
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and no opportunity
for someone not in the chain to have possession” (People
v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, September 20, 2017; For
further readings, see also People v. Alvarado, G.R. No.
234048, April 23, 2018).
5. It needs to be stressed that establishing the chain of
custody is not necessary at all times. It is not required when
an object. possesses distinguishing characteristics that would
enable a-witness to.readily identify the evidence in court. .
Illustrations: ~~. ,
A. The fact situation is a criminal case. The police
investigator is testifying that he found a gun in the crime
scene. Se) Voee oe e
Q: . Officer, you said you found a gun on the bed
-.of the victim in the morning of September 15,
2012 at around 9:00 A.M.?
182 EVIDENCE
I did, Sir.
> Would you please describe the weapon you saw?
It was a .46 ACP, Colt Gold Cup Series, a five.
inch barrel, blue finish, a black handle with
wrap around grooves, and with the initials
“PM.” on the lower left hand side of its handle,
(After other questions) Would you be able to
recognize the gun if shown to you right now?
I would be able to recognize it, Sir.
=
I would like to show you this gun. Will you

please examine it? (Witness examines the gun.)
What relationship does this gun have to the
gun you said you found on the victim’s bed?
It is the very same gun, Sir.
How are you able to recognize this as the very
same gun?
It has the same characteristics as the gun I
found in the crime scene. The initials “P.M.”
are still here. Besides, it has the same serial
number in the barrel as the one I recorded in —
my notebook and as I wrote in my official report. —
(Counsel now proceeds to have the exhibit _
appropriately marked, Note, however, that
exhibits, under current rules, are to be marked
during tthe pre-trial.)
B. If the object found by the pdliée investigator —
was a knife that has no distinguishing features, the —
examination would go something like the following: -
@: . Officer, you said you saw a knife in the victim’s ; ;
bedroom?
A: I did, Sir.
A, Object Evidence (Rule 130)
Would you please describe the knife you saw?

2)
A: It was of the kind you normally buy in a wet

market. It had a brown wooden handle and a
four-inch non-stainless blade.
What did you do with the knife you found?
>.
With my own Swiss knife, I scratched my

initials on the handle of the knife then placed
it inside the evidence plastic bag I always carry
with me.
(The witness is then shown a knife and
~~ asked to’identify it.) The wittiess answers:
A: It is the same knife, Sir. I can see the initials I
made. You can see them yourself.
(Counsel seeks permission of the court for
the marking of the knife as exhibit.)
In the above examples, showing the chain of custody

is not necessary since the witness could readily identify
the exhibit through its characteristics. However, where
the object is not readily identifiable, a chain of custody
must be shown. To avoid gaps in the chain of custody and
prevent further evidentiary objections, ideally, all the
persons who handled the object should be called to the
stand.
In the next illustration, the prosecution has to
establish the chain of custody since the substance
involved has no identifying: characteristics. Assume
then that the fact situation is a murder:case committed
allegedly by poisoning the victim. During a judicially
authorized search of the house of the accused, the police
found ten grams of what appears to be a toxic substance
in powder form inside a plastic sachet kept in‘ the closet
of the accused. The police investigator who found the —
substance is called first to testify. The following would be __
the general thrust of the examination in the absence of a
law or rule providing for the contrary. fo
EVIDENCE
184
Officer, after finding the substance you said you

saw in the closet of the accused, what did you
do?
I immediately placed the substance inside g
plastic evidence bag then sealed it with a sealer
which our office provides for the purpose. The
evidence bag has in its opening a special non-
detachable paper where you can write on after
sealing the bag. I wrote my name on it, the
date, the name of the accused, his address, and
the time I found it. In other words, Sir, I made
the proper markings on the evidence.
Who were present if any, when you made the
markings on the evidence?
The accused, Sir and his parents.
So. 2
What did you do with the evidence after that?

Following our internal procedures, I logged the
evidence in our evidence log book and handed it
to the chemist in our crime laboratory. He gave
me a receipt for it.
Q: In what condition was the evidence bag when

you handed it to the chemist?
A:
It was sealed, Sir.
Ideally, the next witness would be the chemist who

would testify to having personally received the evidence bag
described by the investigator. The chemist would further
testify having removed the powdery substance or a portion
of it from the bag for examination by making an opening in
the bag without disturbing the previously sealed portion of
the bag, that after putting back the remainder in the bag and
sealing the portion of the bag which he had opened, he wrote
thereon the appropriate markings and put the evidence in
a locker safe. The chemist would testify, too, that, from the
time he kept the evidence, it was never handled by
anyone
CHAPTER IV — oBJ ECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 135
else and that, as it is shown in court, there appear no signs

of
tampering.
_, Note: It has been held, however, that the forensic chemist,

if a public officer, need not testify to identify and describe how
the report was made. This is because the chemistry report isa
public document. As such, “it is admissible in evidence without
further proof of its due execution and genuineness” (Kummer
v. People, G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013). While the
chemist need not testify as to how his report was made, it would
be better practice to put the chemist on the stand to testify as to
his receipt of the substance, how he handled the evidence and
that the process. he followed prevented the tampering of the
same. This practice would avoid any unnecessary evidentiary
objections from the adverse counsel.
Chain of custody in drug cases (Bar 2011)

1. In the Philippines, the confiscation and seizure of
drugs require a stringent specific procedure to establish the
chain of custody. The required procedure is embodied in Sec.
21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
2. Section 1(b) of ‘the Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (in relation to Sec. 81fb] of
R.A. No. 9165), which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines
“chain of custody” as follows:
“b. ‘Chain ofCustody’ means the duly recorded

authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicalsor plant sources of dangerous drugs _
or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the timeof
seizure/confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratoryto _
safekeepingto presentationin court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall _
include the identity and signature of the person who held -
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody were made in the course _
of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, andthe final sy
disposition” (People v. Gayuso, G.R. No, 206590, March ts
27, 2017; See also Casona v. People, G.R. No. 179757,
EVIDENCE
otiok, Jr., G.R. No.

September 13, 2017; People v. Bob
237804, July 4, 2018).
3. Showing compliance with the rule on the chain of

n—from
custody involves testimony of every link in the chai
the forensic
the confiscation of the illegal drugs to its receipt in
It is necessary that
laboratory up to its presentation in court.
describe how and
every person who touched the seized items
happened
from whom he or she received it; where and what
condition when
to it while in the possession of the witness; its
in
received and at the time it was delivered to the next link
the chain (People v. Gajo, G.R. No. 21 7026, January 22, 2018).
Procedure in the handling of seized drugs to establish the

chain of custody
1. The specific procedures to be followed in the custody
and handling of seized dangerous drugs are provided for in
Sec. 21, Art. Ilof R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
In summary form, the procedure requires the following: |
** (a) The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the dangerous drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and photograph the same.
“ (b) The inventory and photograph shall be taken
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel,-with an elected public official
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service
or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
(c) The physical inventory and photograph shall —
be conducted at the place where the search warran
t is | ]
served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest
ae A the apprehending officer/team, whichever is _
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. o
~* @) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon the
confiscation or seizure of the drugs, the same shall _
Cc HAPTER IV — OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE 187
b ;
te to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a
ative and quantitative examination.
oe. The forensic laboratory examiner is required
"of tke yen twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt
fence Tugs, a certification of the forensic laboratory
mination results which shall be done under.
K (f) After the filing of the criminal case, the court
shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular
mspection of the confiscated drugs, and through the
PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours proceed with
the destruction of the same in the presence of the accused
or the person from whom such drugs were confiscated,
his r epresentative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected
public official. |
% (g) The Dangerous Drugs Board shall then issue a

sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning
of the substances. The certification shall be submitted to
the court. Also to be submitted are the representative
samples of the substances in the custody of the PDEA.
Such samples shall be of a minimum quantity as
determined by the Board. ?
2. Note that the law requires the apprehending
team
having initial custody of the drugs to conduct _a physical
inventorof
acts are toy the drugs as well as to photograph the same. Such
be. done. immediately
SO no AE AR
and in the presence of the
eg a ge
persons enumerated in the law as witnesses. Such persons are

required to ‘sign the copies of the inventory and shall each be
:
,
given a copy of the same. © © ~~
As to when the physical inventory and photography
between
shall be conducted, the Court made a distinction
R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
warrants, the physical
(IRR). In seizures covered by search _
conducted at the place
inventory and photograph must be
where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in a
case of warrantless seizures, such as a buy-bust operation, _
138 EVIDENCE
the physical inventory and photography shall be done at the

nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/
team, whichever is practicable (People v. Ramirez, G.R. No.
925690, January 17, 2018; See also People v. Bobotiok, Jr.,
G.R. No. 237804, July 4, 2018; For further readings, see People
vy. Jamila, G.R. No. 206398, November 5, 2018);
3. The alleged offender or his/her representative or
counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above
proceedings. His presence shall not constitute an admission of
guilt. However, after having been duly notified in accordance
with law and said alleged offender or accused refuses or
fails to appoint a representative within 72 hours before the
actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question,
the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public
attorney’s office to represent the former (Sec. 21/6], R.A. No.
9165; See also Valleno v. People, G.R. No. 192050, January
9, 2013; For further readings, see People v. Ceralde, G.R. No.
228894, August 7, 2017; People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890,
April 18, 2018).
Links in the chain of custody
1. Since it is called a chain, there must be links to
the chain. The links are the people who actually handled or
had custody of the object. Each of the links in the chain must
show how he received the object, how he handled it to prevent
substitution, and how it was transferred to another: Each of
the handlers of the evidence is a link in the chain and must
testify to make the foundation complete. This is the ideal way
to show the chain of custody.
2. Jurisprudence identified the links that the
prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-
bust situation to be as follows: ens
/ First, the seizure and marking of the confiscated
drugs recovered from the accused, if practicable, by the
apprehending officer; 1
Me Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
EVIDENCE
140
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end. of the
criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or
contamination of evidence” (People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196,
January 12, 2015; People v. Gayuso, G.R. No. 206590, March
27, 2017; See also People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 225690, January
17, 2018; See also People v. Veedor, Jr., G.R. No. 223525,
June 25, 2018). The marking upon confiscation or recovery of
the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the
preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value (People
v. Asjali, G.R. No. 216430, September 3, 2018; For additional
readings, see People v. Balles, G.R. No. 226148, November 21,
2018).
2. R.A. No. 9165 is silent on when marking should be
done. The Court, however, ruled that the marking should be
done in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately
upon confiscation to truly ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain of custody (People v. Ramirez, G.R. No.
225690, January 17, 2018; For further readings, see also
People v. Torio, G.R. No. 225780, December 3, 2018).
The immediate marking upon confiscation or recovery of
the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the
preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value (People
v. Jamila, G.R. No. 206398, November 5, 2018; For further
readings, see also People v. Veedor, Jr., G.R. No. 223525, June
25, 2018).
Effect of non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as

amended; prosecution has burden of proof
1. As a rule, non-compliance with the requirements
of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A.
No. 10640
casts doubt on the integrity of the seized items
and Graniet
reasonable doubt on the guilt of. the accused (People U
Binasing, G.R. No. 221439, July 4, 2018).
Such clicurmstance
shall, most likely, lead to the acquittal of the
accused.
2. However, non-compliance with the proced
ures set by
Sec. 21 would not ipso facto render the seiz
ure and custody
over the drugs as void and invalid. The relevant pro
vision
declares that “x x x [Nloncompliance of these requirements

under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such Seizures and custody over said items x x x."
Case law also holds that the failure to comply with the
required procedures does not necessarily render the arrest
of the accused illegal or the items seized/confiscated from
him inadmissible. What is essential is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
(See People v. Pundugar, G.R. No. 214779, February 7, 2018;
See also People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018;
People v. Jamila, G.R. No. 206398, November 5, 2018; People
v. Balles, G.R. No. 226143, November 21, 2018; See also People
v. Torio, G.R. No. 225780, December 8, 2018).
The prosecution bears the burden of proof to show a valid
cause for non-compliance with. the procedure laid down in
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. Its failure to follow the
procedure must be adequately explained and must be proven
as a fact (People v. Sefieres, G.R. No. 231008, November 5,
2018; People v. Balles, G.R. No. 226143, November 21, 2018).
3. By way of summary, for the seized items to be
admissible despite non-compliance with the chain of custody
mandated by law, the law requires the prosecution to establish
the following:
(a) the non-compliance must be because of
justifiable grounds; and. ++. ~~ sees eee
(b) the apprehending officer/team must have
properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items (See also People v. Flor, G.R. No. 216017,
January 19, 2018; See also People v. Suarez, G.R. No.
223141, June 6, 2018; People'v. Bales, G.R. No. 226143,
November 21, 2018; See also People v. Malana, G.R. No.
233747, December 5, 2018).
4. The above rule is a result of the recognition that
strict adherence to the chain of custody is not always possible
142 EVIDENCE
and, as such, is not always expected. As the Court put it: “A

testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard ag
it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain”
(People v. Cutara, G.R. No. 224800, June 7, 2017).
For instance, there may be times when the making
of an immediate physical inventory and photograph of the
confiscated items may be justified when (1) their attendance
was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area;
(2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory
action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/
her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved
in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest
efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses within
the period required under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code
prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who
face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or
(5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations,
which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the
law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required
witnesses even before the offenders could escape (People
v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018). Common reason
suggests that, in such situations, the seizure and custody
of the dangerous substances should not be rendered void or
invalid by the non-compliance with the legal requirements.
However, for this rule to apply, the State is required, first,
to tender a credible explanation for any non-compliance
of the affirmative safeguards required by Sec. 21 of the
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. “A sheer statement that
representatives were unavailable without so much as an
explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to
look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to
be regarded as a flimsy excuse” (People v.. Ramos, G.R. No.
233744, February 28, 2018).
If it does not discharge such obligation, then the evidence
of guilt is necessarily suspect. Proving that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved by the
CHAPT
ER IV — OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 143
eae officers will not come into play if the seizing

- ei id not offer justifications for the lapses committed
(See Casona v. People, G.R. No. 179757, September 18, 2017;
For further readings, see People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596,
January 10, 2018). In which case, the prosecution loses the
benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity (See People
v. Asjali, G.R. No. 216430, September 3, 2018). (Bar 2011)
The lack of any justification tendered by the arresting officers
for any lapses in the documentation of the chain of custody
of confiscated dangerous drugs warrants the acquittal of the
accused on the ground of reasonable doubt (People v. Calates,
G.R. No. 214759, April 4, 2018; For further readings, see People
v. Torio, G.R. No. 225780, December 8, 2018). Judicial reliance
on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the
agents of the law is fundamentally flawed because the lapses
themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity (People v.
Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018).
5. Jurisprudential pronouncements have emphasized
that, “The State, not the accused, has the heavy burden
of justifying at the trial, the lapses or gaps in the chain of
custody. Without the justification, the chain of custody is not
shown to be unbroken; hence, the integrity of the evidence
of the corpus delicti was not preserved. The acquittal of the
accused should follow” (People v. Geronimo, G.R. No. 180447,
August 28, 2017; People v. Veedor, Jr., G.R. No. 223525, June
25, 2018).
DNA evidence
1. Inacase where the admissibility of DNA testing as
a means for determining paternity has become the focal issue
in controversy for the first time, the Supreme Court described
wre
DNA in the following words:
that. *~
“DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a molecule
organisms. > »-
encodes the genetic information in all living it does
A person’s DNA is the same in each cell and
not change throughout a person's lifetime; the DNA in
EVIDENCE
is the same as the DNA found in his

a person’s blood
earwax,
saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair,
mucus, urine, skin tissue and vaginal or rectal cells. Most
importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic
structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with
the notable exception of identical twins” (Agustin v. Court
of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315).
9. Agustin has its roots in an action for support filed

by a mother and her son against the latter’s alleged biological
father who denied having sired the child. The plaintiffs then
moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties
to submit themselves to DNA testing pursuant to Rule 28
(Physical and Mental Examination of Persons) of the Rules
of Court. The defendant opposed the motion by invoking his
constitutional right against self-incrimination. He, likewise,
moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of a cause
of action. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and
ordered the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity
testing. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the trial court.
The Supreme Court, in upholding the order of the trial
court and the Court of Appeals requiring the petitioner to
submit himself for DNA testing, had the occasion to reiterate
its earlier yet novel stand that DNA testing is a valid means of
determining paternity. In Agustin, the Supreme Court briefly
sketched its past decisions on DNA testing which the Court
initially considered as not as accurate and authoritative as the
scientific forms of identification evidence such as fingerprints
(People v. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54). The Supreme Court
admitted in Agustin that, in early cases, “[The Court’s] faith
in DNA testing . . . was not quite so steadfast in the previous
decade.”
Earlier, in Pe Lim v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 1, also
a case for support filed by the mother in behalf of her child
against the supposed natural father, the Court cautioned
against the use of DNA evidence because, as a relatively new
science, it has not yet been accorded official recognition by
Philippine courts and held that paternity would still have
to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant
incriminating acts, verbal and written, by the putative father.

Consistent with the rulings of the era, the Court, as well as
the lower courts, decided against the defendant-father on
the basis of the incriminating letters written by him and
not
because of any DNA testing or similar procedure.
3. In 2001, however, the Supreme Court showed signs
of opening up to DNA evidence, in Tijing v. Court of Appeals,
354 SCRA 17, when it recognized the existence of the facility
(UP-NSRI DNA Analysis Laboratory) and expertise in using
DNA test for identification and parentage testing. Although
acknowledging that the test is still open to challenge being
a novel scientific technique, the Supreme Court, in Tijing,
categorically declared that “eventually, courts should not
hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence...
courts should apply the results of science when competently
obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said
result is to deny progress. Though it is not necessary in this
case to resort to DNA testing, in the future, it would be useful
to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and
identity issues.”
4. One year after Tijing, in what could be considered as
a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in People v. Vallejo,
382 SCRA 192 (2002), a rape-slay case of a nine-year old girl,
admitted in evidence the DNA samples of the victim which
were found in the bloodstained garments of the accused.
Vaginal swabs taken from the victim were also admitted and
were found to show the DNA profile of the accused who was
subsequently convicted. Vallejo is considered by the Court
to be the “first real breakthrough of DNA as admissible and
authoritative evidence in Philippine jurisprudence.” From
a mere recognition of the existence of DNA testing, Vallejo
moved towards an open use of DNA evidence in deciding cases.
Vallejo adopted the following guidelines to be used by courts
in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: ca
(a) How the samples were collected;
(b) How they were handled;
(c) The possibility of contamination of the samples; :
146 EVIDENCE
(d) The procedure followed in analyzing the

samples;
(e) Whether the proper standards and procedure
were followed in conducting the tests; and
(f) The qualification of the analyst who conducted
the test. (Bar 2009, 2010)
In People v. Janson, 400 SCRA 584, the importance of
DNA evidence was, likewise, recognized although the accused,
who was charged with rape, was acquitted because of doubts
as to who the real malefactor was. Here, the Court lamented
the lack of DNA evidence as a means to still the Court’s doubts.
In Tecson v. COMELEC, 424 SCRA 277, the Court
acknowledged the weight of DNA evidence when the Court
was faced with the issue of filiation of Fernando Poe, Jr. Any
doubt as to filiation or paternity, according to the Court,
would have been cleared up by a positive match through DNA
testing.
5. Following the trail blazed by Vallejo, the Supreme
Court in 2004 in People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504, May 19, 2004,
relied on evidence, including DNA evidence, in affirming the
conviction of the accused for rape with homicide when the
test showed that a match existed between the DNA profile
of the semen found in the victim and the DNA profile of the
blood sample given by the accused. Yatar also made a lengthy
discussion on DNA, the process of DNA testing and the
reasons for its admissibility. Yatar significantly upheld the
constitutionality of compulsory DNA testing and rejected the
contention that it would infringe on the constitutional right
against self-incrimination. The case significantly and clearly
recognized DNA testing and the admissibility of its results as
evidence.
6. Aclear acknowledgment of the importance of DNA
evidence is exemplified in the later case of In re Estate of
Rogelio Ong v. Diaz, 540 SCRA 480. The case originated in
a complaint for compulsory recognition and support filed by
a minor represented by her mother. The defendant, Rogelio
Cc HAPTER IV — OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
147
Ong, died
protestation of t¢ g the
pendency of his appeal. Amidst the
durin
he estate-petitioner for DNA testing because

of the death
of the defendant, the Court, invoking the newly-
promulgated may
rules on DNA evidence, held that the test
provide the definit ive key to the resolution of the issue and
even if the
sales « refendant had already passed away, biological
death of Ea be obtained for the testing. “. . . [E]ven [the]
g ogelio cannot bar the conduct of DNA testing.” The
Pee ren re Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals
remanding the case to the trial court for DNA testing.
Rules on DNA evidence
1. The Rule on DNA Evidence (referred to in this work

as RDE) was promulgated by the Supreme Court through
A.M. 06-11-05-SC and, in accordance with Sec. 14 thereof,
took effect on October 15, 2007, following publication in a
newspaper of general circulation.
2. In what situation does the Rule on DNA Evidence
apply?
The Rule on DNA Evidence is the primary rule to be
applied whenever DNA evidence is offered, used, or proposed
to be offered or used as evidence in:
(a) criminal actions;
(b) civil actions; and
(c) special proceedings (Sec. 1, RDE).
When a matter is not specifically governed by the Rule
on DNA Evidence, the Rules of Court and other pertinent
provisions of law on evidence shall apply (Sec. 2, RDE). ce
3. Whatis (a) DNA? (b) DNA profile? (c) DNA evidence?

(a) DNA refers to deoxyribonucleic acid which is
the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of
the body (Sec. 3/b/, RDE).
derived
(b) DNA “profile” is the genetic information
m DNA test ing of biol ogic al samples obtained from a
fro
EVIDENCE
~ (The Bar Lectures Series)
person where such biological sample is clearly identifiable

3/d], RDE) .
as originatingfrom that person (Sec.
(c)_ The totality of the DNA profiles, results and
other genetic information directly generated from
the DNA testing of biological samples is called “DNA
evidence” (Sec. 3c], RDE).
4. What is the significance of DNA?
The significance lies in the uniqueness of the totality of
the DNA of a person. It is a scientific fact that the totality of
an individual’s DNA is unique for the individual, except for
identical twins (Sec. 3[b], RDE).
5. How may an order for a DNA testing be obtained?
A person who has a legal interest in the litigation may file
an application for DNA testing order before the appropriate
court, at any time (Sec. 4, RDE).
The order for a DNA testing shall not, however, be issued
as a matter of course and from the mere fact that the person
requesting for the testing has a legal interest in the litigation.
For the order to be issued, there must be a further showing
that:
(a) A biological sample exists that has relevance to
the case;
(b) The biological sample (i) was not previously
subjected to the DNA testing requested; or (ii) if it was
previously subjected to DNA testing, the results may-
require confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically-valid |
technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potentia
l to
produce new information that is relevant to
resolution of the case; and
the prop er ©
proper
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the

court may consider as potentially affecting
the accuracy
and integrity of the DNA testing (Sec. 4, RDE).
CHAPT
lied
F
with, Finding
the courtha t th e above requirements have been compli
‘
(a) take bio] t shall now issue an order, if appropriate, to

evidence: me Bical Samples from any person or crime scene
> and (b) impose reasonable conditions on the testing
the test one
feof Scan integr
result ity of the biological sample and the liability
s (Sec. 5, RDE).
Note: The court may motu proprio order a DNA
testing
(Sec. 4, RDE).
6. Isa court order always
alw 1 d before undert
require aking
ertakin
a DNA testing?
It is not always required. The last paragraph of

Sec. 4 of
the RDE allows a testing without a prior court order if done
before a suit or proceeding is commenced at the request of
any party, including law enforcement agencies. This also
means that a litigation need not exist prior to DNA testing.
Thus, a court order shall be required only if there is a pending
litigation, but not before the litigation.
7... Is the order of the court granting a DNA testing

appealable?
It is not appealable and is immediately executory. Section
5 of the RDE clearly provides that, “An order granting the
DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be
appealable...”
8. What then is the remedy against the court order.if it
is not appealable? | ge
The remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule

65 of the Rules of Court but under Sec: 5 “any petition for
certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, ‘stay
the implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues lan
injunctive order” (Sec. 5, RDE). ida!
9. Isthere an automatic admission of the DNA evidence

er s
obtained in the testing?
There is none. By the terms of Sec. 5 of the RDE, the
grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed
150 EVIDENCE
as an automatic admission into evidence of any component

of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result of the
testing. This necessarily means that the court will still have to
evaluate the probative value of the proposed evidence before
its admission.
The determination of the probative value of the DNA
evidence rests upon sound judicial assessment taking into
consideration the following matters:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the
biological samples were collected, how they were handled,
and the possibility of contamination of the samples;
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including
the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
compliance with the scientifically-valid standards in
conducting the tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including its
accreditation and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the test; if the laboratory is not accredited,
the court shall consider the relevant experience of the
laboratory in forensic casework and its credibility shall
be properly established; and
(d) The reliability of the testing result (Sec. 7,
RDE). 3
10. Ifa person has already been convicted under a final
and executory judgment, may he still avail of DNA testing?
(Bar 2012)
He maystill have DNA testing. The test after his conviction
is termed a “post-conviction” DNA testing. Significantly, Sec.
6 of the RDE allows a post-conviction DNA testing. It may be
available to (a) the prosecution, or (b) the person convicted by
a final and executory judgment, provided that the following
requirements are met:
|
48,
(a) a biological sample exists;
(b) such sample is relevant to the case; and ; tay
CHAPT ER Iv —
OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 151
(c) the testing would probably result in the reversal

RDB) wation of the judgment of conviction (Sec. 6,
11. Is a court order required for a post DNA testing?

Section 6 of the RDE is clear. It may be available “without
need of prior court order.”
eas 12. What remedy is available to the convict if the results
of the post DNA testing are favorable to him?
If the results of the DNA testing are favorable to the
convict, he may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with
the court of origin. The court shall then conduct a hearing and
in case the court finds, after due hearing, that the petition
is meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of
conviction and order the release of the convict, unless his
detention is justified for a lawful cause (Sec. 10, RDE).
The petition shall be filed with the court of origin as a

rule. However, the rule also allows the petition to be filed
either with the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court, or
with any member of said courts. A hearing may be conducted
by the latter courts or by any member thereof or instead of
conducting a hearing, may instead remand the petition to the
court of origin and issue the appropriate orders (Sec. 10, RDE).
Note that under Sec. 10, the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus may also be filed by the prosecution. 4
13. Are the DNA profiles of a person open to public

scrutiny? :
They are not. DNA profiles and all the results or other
information obtained from DNA testing are confidential.
Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any
information concerning a DNA profile without the proper
court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court
wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought
to be offered and presented (Sec. 11, RDE).
EVIDENCE
— (The Bar Lectures Series)
Except upon order of the court, the DNA profiles and

other results shall only be released to any of the following:
(a) The person from whom the sample was taken;
(b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or
action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented
or sought to be offered and presented;
(c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal
action;
(d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
(e) Other persons as determined by the court (Sec.
11, RDE).
The person from whom the biological sample was taken
may also request that his DNA profile and all results or other
information obtained from the DNA testing be disclosed to the
person designated in his request. This request, however, must
be in writing, verified and filed with the court that allowed the
DNA testing (Sec. 11, RDE).
14. The trial court is mandated to preserve the DNA
evidence in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA
profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from
DNA testing in accordance with Sec. 12 of the RDE.
Paraffin tests
1. > Paraffin tests, in general, have been considered as
inconclusive by the Court because scientific experts concur in
the view that paraffin tests have proved extremely unreliable
in use. The tests can only establish the presence or absence
of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, but the tests alone cannot
determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was
the discharge of a firearm.
— The presence of nitrates should be taken only
as an
indication of a possibility, or even a probability, but not of
infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates are
also admittedly found in substances other than gunpowder.
A person who tests positive may have handed one or more
substances with the same positive reaction for nitrates such
a explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco
and leguminous plants. The argument that the negative
result of gunpowder nitrates from the paraffin test conducted,
shows an absence of physical evidence that one fired a gun,
's untenable as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be
negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are
washed before the test (People v. Cajumocan, 480 SCRA 311;
People v. Baconguis, 417
SCRA 66).
A Person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite
deposits on his hands since these substances are present in
the products of combustion of tobacco (Revita v. People, 570
SCRA 356).
2. The negative findings of a paraffin test do not
conclusively show that a person did not discharge a gun, if
he fired a gun with a glove on, or if he thoroughly washed
his hands thereafter. Besides, a paraffin test is not conclusive
owing to several factors like wind direction, firing at a hard
object, using a long barrel or a low caliber gun and profuse
perspiration (People v. Baltazar, 852 SCRA 678; People v.
Galvez, 519 SCRA 521; People v. Buduhan, 561 SCRA 337).
Polygraph tests (Lie detector tests)

1. A polygraph test operates on the principle that
stress causes physiological changes in the body which can be
measured to indicate whether the subject of the examination is
telling the truth. During an examination in which a polygraph
is used, sensors are attached to the subject so that the
polygraph can mechanically record the subject’s physiological
responses to a series of questions.
2.) ly uniformly, reject the results
Courts, accordingand
e
of
of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the purpose
establis hing the guoril t e of one accused of a crim
innocenc
because ined
it has not yet atta tific ptance
scien acce as a
reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or dece ption
(U.S. v. Tedder, [CA4 SC] 801 F2d 1437; 939A Am Jur 8d
EVIDENCE
oi (The Bar Lectures Series)
- People v. Reanzares, 3 34 SCRA 624; People v. Adoviso,

sig
309 SCRA 1; People v. Carpo,
356 SCRA 248).
B. Documentary Evidence
(Rule 130)
)
Meaning of documentary evidence (document as evidence
1. Another category of evidence is documentary
refer to
evidence. Documents, as evidence, do not exclusively
writings. They may refer to any other material like objects as
long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression and offered as proof of their
contents. There are, therefore, two categories of documents as
evidence, namely:
(a) writings;.or .--
(b) any other material containing modes of written
expressions.
The relevant provision provides:
“SEC. 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as

evidence consist of writings, recordings. photographs
or any material containing letters, words. sounds,
numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other
modes of written expression offered as proof of their
contents. Photog
include still
rappictures,hs
drawings,
2. Under the first category are those instantly

recognizable documents like written contracts and wills. Under
the second category are those which are not traditionally
considered as writings but are actually objects which contain
modes of written expression.
However, being writings or materials containing modes
of written expression do not ipso facto make such
materials
documentary evidence. For such writings or materials to be
deemed documentary evidence, the same must be offered _
as proof of their contents. If offered for some other purp
ose,
CHAPT
B. Documentary Evidence (Rule 130)
the writi .
— denne oe or materials would not be deemed documentary
© Sut merely object evidence.
ae €n a contract is presented in court to show that it
rove jts Simply to establish its condition, it is not offered to
contents: . The contract, therefore, is not considered
d‘a ocumentary evidence, but object or real evidence.
3.) Under the 9019 amendments, _ recordings, |
photographs, or any material containing sounds or the
equivalent of numbers, figures and or symbols
were included
in the enumeration of what is considered
to be documentary
evidence. Further, photographs _encompass_ still
pictures,
drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
videos, which were traditionally considered
as object evidence.
a under the Rules on Electronic Evidence (Bar
1. Section 1(h), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic

Evidence defines an ‘electronic document’ as follows:
“(h) ‘Electronic document’ refers to information or

the representation of information, data, figures, symbols
or other modes of written expressions, described or
however 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,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents
and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other
means, which accurately reflects the electronic data
message or electronic document. For purposes of these ©
Rules, the term ‘electronic document’ may be used
interchangeably with ‘electronic data message.’ ”
2\. An electronic document, also known as electronic

data message (Sec. 1[h], Rule 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence),
does not only
refer
to the information itself. It also refers to
the representation
of that information. Whether it be the
information itself or its representation, for the document
to be deemed ‘electronic,’ it is important that it be received,
EVIDENCE —
156
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced

electronically. (Bar 2012)
It is submitted that the rule does not absolutely require
that the electronic document be initially generated or
produced electronically. A contract, for instance, prepared
through the traditional written way, may be converted to
an electronic document if transmitted or received or later
recorded electronically.
The rule also emphasizes that an electronic document is
one that may be used for any of the following purposes:
x (@) To establisha right;
X (b) ..To extinguish an obligation;or
X (© To prove or affirm
a fact (Sec. 1h], Rule 2, Rules
on Electronic Evidence).
3. Electronic documents are the functional equivalents
of paper-based documents. Sec. 1 of Rule 3 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence provides:
“Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of

writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or
any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed
to include an electronic document as defined in these
Rules.”
Since an electronic document is the functional equivalent

of a paper-based document, whenever a rule of evidence
makes reference to the terms of a writing, document, record,
instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such
terms are deemed to include electronic documents (Sec. 1 , Rule
3, Rules on Electronic Evidence). It is, therefore, but logica
l to
consider the rules on evidence in the Rules of Court, including
statutes containing rules on evidence, to be of suppletory
application to the Rules on Electronic Evidence in all matters
not specifically covered by the latter (Sec. 3, Rule 1, Rules‘on
Electronic Evidence). (Bar 2003, 2010) ae
Cc HAPTER Iv _. OBJECT AND
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 157
4.
Evidence ae Sec. 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic
prove it 8 >authent icity, offering the document has the burden to
the person
Thus:
the SECTION 14. Burden of proving authenticity. —

Person Seeking to introduce an electronic document
i
aie, ~ gal Proceeding has the burden of proving its
enticity in the manner provided in this Rule.”
aa The manner of authentication of an electronic

Electrment is outlined under Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Rules on
onic Evidence as
follows:
__ SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. — Before any

Private electronic document offered as authentic
is
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved
by
any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed
air person purported to have signed the same; (Bar
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security

procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic
documents were applied to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.” s
Notice that the aforementioned rigorous requirements for

the authentication of an electronic document do not apply to
all electronic documents. Sec. 2 of Rule 5 will obviously apply
only when the document is a private electronic document and
the same is offered as an authentic document.
If the electronic document is offered simply for what it
is or for what it is claimed to be without regard to whether
or not it is authentic, Sec. 2 of Rule 5 finds no relevance. In
such a case, the electronic document has only to be identified
pursuant to the suppletory application of Sec. 20 of Rule 132
of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, under the said provision,
158 EVIDENCE
“Any other private document need only be identified as that

which it is claimed to be.”
6. When, for instance, a document is electronically
notarized, the manner of authentication under Sec. 2 of Rule
5 will not likewise apply. When so notarized, it is transformed
into a public document and is to be proved not in accordance
with the Rules on Electronic Evidence but in accordance with
the Rules of Court. The tenor of Sec. 3, Rule 5 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence is enlightening:
“SEC. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document.

— A document electronically notarized in accordance
with the Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall
be considered as a public document and proved as a
notarial document under the Rules of Court.”
Sec. 30 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides for the

manner of proving notarial documents. In distinct terms, the
provision categorically states that, “Every instrument duly
acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may
be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate
of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution
of the instrument or document involved” (Italics supplied).
Evidentiary concepts involved in the presentation of

documentary evidence
To be admissible, documentary evidence, like any other
evidence, must be relevant and competent. It is also subject
to general exclusionary rules such as the rule on hearsay,
original document (formerly best evidence) rule, and parol
evidence rule.
Thus, depending upon the specific purpose for which
the contents of the document is offered, there are certain
inevitable issues which may arise in connection with the
admissibility of the document aside from the issue of relev
ance.
Has the document been authenticated? Is it relevant?
Is it the
original document? Is it a mere parol evidence and so must
be excluded? Is it hearsay and, therefore, must be rejected?
It would, therefore, be critical to remember that whenever a

documentary evidence is involved, the original document rule,
parol evidence rule, and hearsay rule, or any one of these rules
may come into play. However, where the evidence is offered
as object evidence, the original document rule, parol evidence
rule, and hearsay rule find no application.
Requisites for admissibility of documentary evidence

The following are the requisites for the admissibility of
documentary evidence:
(a) The document must be relevant;

(b) The evidence must be authenticated;
(c) The document must be authenticated by a
competent witness; and
(d) The document must be formally offered in
evidence.
1. Original Document Rule

(formerly Best Evidence Rule)
Meaning of the Original Document Rule, formerly “Best

Evidence Rule”
1. The original document rule, formerly known as the
“best evidence” rule, as embodied in Sec. 3 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, as amended, provides:
“SEC. 3. Original document must be produced;

exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the—
contents of a document, writ
no evidence shall be admissible other:
than the original document itself, except in the following.
cases: as
al is los t, or destroyed, ns
(a) When the origin
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the.
part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under :
the control of the party against whom the evidence is
160 EVIDENCE
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable

notice, or the original cannot be
iudicial . obtained by jocai
(c) When the original consists of numerous

accounts or other documents which cannot be examined
in court without great loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is only the general result of
the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office.
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a
controlling issue.”
2. The term “best evidence,” as used prior to the term

“original document,” is a misnomer and has been a source of
misconception. It has often been misunderstood and given
a meaning it does not deserve. Despite the word “best,” the
rule does not proclaim itself as the highest and most reliable
evidence in the hierarchy of evidence. The term “best”
has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value in
relation to other types of evidentiary rules. It is not intended
to mean the “most superior” evidence. The only actual rule
that the “best evidence rule” denotes is the rule requiring the »
production of the original writing. More accurately, it is the
“original document” rule or the “primary evidence” rule. ‘In
order to address this misconception, the 2019 Amendments to
the Rules on Evidence have replaced the term “best evidence”
with “original document.”
3. The original document rule does not apply to all types _

of evidence. It does not comprehend object and testi
evidence. It only applies when the evidence isdocumentary.
Also, it does not apply just because a document is offered in
evidence. The rule only covers situations in which the subject
of inquiry is the contents of the document. Subject to certain
exceptions, under the original document rule, when the
subject of inquiry relates to the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself. In other words, one who wants to prove the contents of

a document need to present the original document. Where the
purpose of the offeror is one other than to prove the contents
of a document, compliance with the original document rule
is not necessary. The key, therefore, to the understanding of
the original document rule is simply to remember that the
rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of a writing is the
subject of judicial inquiry, in which case, the best evidence 18
the original writing itself.
4. An early case ruled:
“x x x the rule-applies only where the content

of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where
the issue is the execution or existence of the document
or the circumstances surrounding its execution, the
[original document] rule does not apply and testimonial
evidence is admissible.” (Arceo v. People, 495 SCRA 204;
Underscoring supplied).
5. The RTC, in one case, was sustained for admitting

in evidence mere copies of certain deeds. As held, the original
document rule applies only when the content of such
document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is
only as to whether such document was actually executed, or
existed, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the original document rule does not apply and even
testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary
evidence is, likewise, admissible without need to account for
the original (Chua Gaw v. Chua, 551 SCRA 505).
6. Ina prosecution for ill-gotten wealth, the Republic
offered in evidence photocopies of certain documents. to
prove the contents thereof which would implicate the
respondents. The Court categorically ruled that such offer
of mere photocopies violate the “best evidence” [now original
document] rule, which mandates that the evidence must be
the original document itself. The Republic, observed the Court,
did not even make an attempt to provide a plausible reason
why the originals were not presented and why the photocopies
162 EVIDENCE
should be admitted as secondary evidence (Republic y,

Marcos-Manotoc, 665 SCRA 367, 386, February 8, 2012). In
a similar vein, a mere photocopy of the Kasunduan cannot be
admitted to prove the contents thereof. The original document
rule requires that the highest available degree of proof must
be produced and for a documentary evidence, its contents
are best proved by the production of the evidence itself to the
exclusion of secondary or substitutionary evidence (Berboso v.
Cabral, G.R. No. 204617, July 10, 2017).
7. In an action against a taxpayer, the best evidence
obtainable under the then Sec. 16 of the 1977 NIRC, as
amended, does not include mere photocopies of records and
documents. The copies presented have no probative weight
and are mere scraps of paper. The copies cannot prove any
deficiency in the taxes of the taxpayer (Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Hantex Trading Co., Inc., 454 SCRA 301).
This is because inquiry as to the contents of the documents is
inevitable to prove the deficiency.
8. Where the issue is the contents of the document, such
contents are best proved by the production of the document
itself to the exclusion of secondary or substitutionary evidence
(Berboso v. Cabral, G.R. No. 204617, July 10, 2017).
9. In a disbarment case against a lawyer, where
the main charge depends on the accuracy, completeness
and authenticity of the documents submitted in evidence,
compliance with the original document rule cannot be
dispensed with (Goopio v. Maglalang, A.C. No. 10555, July
31, 2018). Although disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
are sui generis and not, in the strict sense, ordinary actions
where trials are held and the rules of procedure apply, the
rules on evidence cannot be shunted aside considering that
the exercise of one’s profession is at stake (Concepcion v. Atty.
Fandio, Jr., A.C. No. 3677, June 21, 2000).
10. Taking into account the revised definition of
documentary evidence, the first paragraph of Sec. 3 of Rule |
130 now includes “writing, recording, photograph or other —
record.” Paragraph (b) thereof was also amended to include

a situation where the original cannot be obtained by local
judicial Processes or procedures, such as through a motion for
the production of a document or for the issuance of a subpoena
duces tecum. Under the new paragraph (e), presentation of
a original may be dispensed with if the same is not closely
related toa controlling issue in
the case.
Purpose of the rule (Bar 1994, 1998)
1. The rationale behind the rule is the avoidance of

dangers
of mistransmissions and inaccuracies
of the contents
of the document (Goopio v. Maglalang, A.C. No. 10555, July
31, 2018). “The [original document] rule ensuresthat the
exact contents of a document are brought before the court. In
deeds, wills, and contracts, a slight variation in words may
mean a great deal of difference in the rights and obligations
of the parties. A substantial hazard of inaccuracy exists in
the human process of making a copy by handwriting or
typewriting x x x. The [original document] rule, likewise, acts
as an insurance against fraud. If a party is in the possession
of the best evidence in its place, the presumption naturally
arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent
purposes that its production would expose and defeat. The -
rule, likewise, protects against misleading inferences resulting
from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected
portions of a larger set of writings” (Republic v. Mupas, G.R.
No. 181892, September 8, 2015). ,
-9.- The theory, therefore, is that the copy of the original

is not as reliable as the latter because of possible inaccuracy
in the process of copying and the danger of erroneous
transmission of the original.
The above principle is reiterated, thus: The only actual
rule that the term “best evidence” denotes is the rule requiring _
proposition,
that the original of a writing must, as a general
v. BF
be produced (EDSA-Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc.
oe
Corporation, 556 SCRA 29)..
164 EVIDENCE
Waiver of the rule

The original document rule may be waived if not raised |
‘marriage hoenss, and other pieces of documentary evidence

were only photocopies, the fact that these have been examined
and admitted by the trial court, with no objections having
been made as to their authenticity and due execution, means
that these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts
contained therein (Sy v. Court of ss sn 330 SCRA 550).
When document is merely collaterally in issue —

yf” \S
( 14) When a document is involved in the inquiry but the

document is only collaterally in issue or.is not.closely-related
to a controlling issue, the original document rule does not
apply. A document is collaterally in issue when the purpose
of introducing the document is not to establish its terms, but
to show facts that have no reference to its contents like its
existence, condition, execution or delivery.
2.
Ifa witness testifies that the victim was writing a
letter when he was shot by the accused, the judge would likely
rule against the party who insists on the presentation of the
letter because it is not the subject of an important issue in the
case and, hence, merely collateral.
Also, if a witness testifies that he actually saw the debtor
tender payment of his obligation to the crcreditor, he need not
be required to produce the original promissory note evidencing
the debt because it is the act of payment which is the focal
point of the testimony, not the document. The document need
not be, likewise, presented when the witness merely testifies
to the delivery of a deed of sale by X to Y because proving
the contents of the document itself is not the purpose of the
testimony.
ew to apply the original document rule

1.) | The first step in applying the original docunmiat
rule is to determine the matter inquired into. If the inquiry |
involves a document, and its contents are the subject of that
Cc HAPTER IV — OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 165
same inquiry,
and must,
therefore, be the original document rule applies
nce of
the rule requi complied with. The procedural complia
and not a co tes the presentation of the original document,
available by of that document. So long as the original is
» no other evidence can be substituted for the original
b
ecause the °riginal is‘ the “best evidence” an
4
d not the mere
copies or substitutes the
reof.
whe arate, the original document rule applies only
Where as contents of the document is the subject of inquiry.
€ issue 1s only as to whether such document was
actually executed, or exists, the original document rule does
not apply. In fact, testimonial evidence may be admissible
(Skunac Corp. v. Sylianteng, G.R. No.205879, April 23, 2014;
Bank of the Philippine Islands’ v: Mendoza, G.R. No. 198799,
March, 20,201 Fir. 0 3 picts eek, Conreeee, Bp enayiee
(2) Now what is to be done if, for one reason or another,

the original cannot be presented in evidence? If this happens,
the second step now comes into play. This step involves two
stages: (1) finding an adequa tefor the failure to
legal excuse
present the original; and (2) presenting a secondary evidence
allowed by the Rules of Court.
If the rule were to be restated into a simple formula,
the rule would be: “Present the original, except when you can
justify its unavailability in the manner provided for by the
Rules of Court.”
Illustrative applications of the original document rule
Illustration No. 1
In a case where counsel wants to show that a
marriage ceremony took place between H and W, the
following questions were asked:
Q@: Mr. Witness, where were you on September 26,
2015 at around 7:30 in the evening? ,
A: Iwas in the Manila Cathedral attending the
wedding of H and W where I stood as a principal
sponsor.
EVIDENCE
Q: Can you tell this Court what happened when

you were there?
A: There was a marriage ceremony officiated by
the parish priest for the marriage of H and W.
Opposing counsel objects at this stage:
“Objection, Your Honor! The original document
is the marriage contract!”
Should the court sustain the objection? No! The original
document rule does not apply. For the original document rule
to apply, two requisites must concur:
involve a document;
mustter
(a) The subject mat
and "4
(b) The subject of the inquiry is the contents of the
document.
The subject of the inquiry and response in the illustration
does not even involve a document. The evidence is purely
testimonial. Where the contents of a document are not in
issue, the original document rule cannot be invoked and
more so when the evidence does not involve a document. The
illustration merely involves an inquiry into an activity that
occurred in the presence of the witness. Thus, a witness may
testify as to an event he perceived. The wedding ceremony is an
event or a fact with an existence independent of any writing.
The ceremony was observed and perceived by the witness,
and one’s perception, if relevant to an issue in the case, is a
legitimate subject of a testimony. Thus, a witness may testify
that Pedro died in his presence without presenting a death
certificate. He may also testify that he traveled to Los Angeles
without necessarily presenting the plane ticket and that his
father gave him a car without presenting a deed of donation.
Illustration No. 2
Q: After the wedding ceremony Mr. Witness, what
happened, if any?
A: Thepriest asked all sponsors to sign a document.
Did you and the other sponsors sign the

© document?
We all did, Sir.
> OeP
How about H and W?

= OP.
They also signed, Sir.

How about the priest?
He signed the document, Sir.
By the way, what document did all of you sign?
The marriage contract, Sir.
The Opposing counsel objects: “Objection, Your Honor!

The original document is the marriage contract. Counsel
should show the marriage contract.”
Should the objection be sustained? No! As in the first
illustration, the original document rule does not apply. While
it is conceded that a document is involved in the question and
response, the inquiry involved the existence and execution of
the marriage contract. An inquiry into these matters does not
bring the original document rule into operation, there being
no inquiry as to the contents of the document. In the words
of the Rules of Court, the original document rule applies only
when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document (Sec.
3, Rule 130, Rules of Court). Thus, a witness may be asked
whether or not he sold his land in writing to another, and.an
objection that the deed of sale is the best evidence of the sale,
is improper because the testimony made no reference to the
contents of the deed.
It is always vital to remember that the original document —
purpose is to. establ
theen
rule applies only wh ishs
the content
ns .somé.
of a writing./ When the evidence introduced concerexecuti
writingtlike its existen
external fact aba ou ce, on
to its terms, the rule eo
or delivery, “without_reference
192 SCRA 28; 4 Wigmore on
be invoked (People v. Tandoy,
Evidence, §1178, 1188; People v. Bago, 330 SCRA 115)because
the writing is not a documentary evidence but a mere object eo
168 EVIDENCE
evidence. The original document rule does not apply to an

object evidence. Hence, the original need not be presented,
The existence or condition of that writing may be proved by
any other evidence, like oral testimony (People v. Tandoy, 192
SCRA 28).
Illustration No. 3
Assume that we are continuing the hypothetical
involving the testimony of a sponsor of the wedding:
Q: Mr. Witness, you testified that you, the other
sponsors, as well as both H and W, signed the
marriage contract. Is that right?
That is correct, Sir.
o>
You also testified that you read the contract

before you signed it. Is that correct?
That is correct, Sir.
o>
What did the marriage contract contain as to

the name of the officiating priest?
Opposing counsel objects: “Objection, Your
Honor! Counsel should present the marriage
contract under the original document rule!”
Should the objection be sustained? It should. In this
illustration, the original document rule is properly invoked.
Here, counsel is trying to prove some contents in the marriage
contract through oral testimony without producing the
original document.
Meaning of “original” (Bar 1997, 2001)

1. Section 4 of Rule 130 elucidates on the concept of the
term “original,” and was originally worded thus:
“SEC. 4. Original of document. —

(a) The original of adocument is one the contents
of which are the subject of inquiry.
B, Documentary Evidence (Rule 130)
(b) When ad ocument is in two or more copies

executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents, all Such copies are equallyly regarded
reg as
Originals,
(C) When an entry is repeated in the he regular

reg
rourse of business, one being copied from another at
a near the time of the transaction, all the entries are
ewise equally regarded as originals.”
Wit h the 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised

Fi
Rules on Evidence, Sec. 4 of Rule 130 now reads:
“SEC. 4. Original of document. —
_ (a) An “original” of a document is the document
itself or any counterpart intended to have the same
3. Thelayman’s concept refers to the original as the first

one written and from which mere copies are made, transcribed
or imitated. Accordingly, from this perspective; there can only
be one original. This is not, however, so under the Rules of
Court where there are instances when subsequent documents
EVIDENCE
ies)
(The Bar Lectures Ser
are also regarded as originals. Under Section 4(a) of Rule

130, any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a
person executing or issuing it is also an original. For instance,
when a lawyer writes a pleading in two or more copies which
are executed at the same time, with identical contents,
each document is an original. So are writings with identical
contents made by printing, mimeographing, lithography and
other similar methods executed at the same time. Thus, each
newspaper sold in the stand is an original in itself.
4. American authorities declare that where a document
is executed in duplicate or multiplicate form, each one of the
parts is primary evidence of the contents of the document, and
the other need not be produced. In such a case, each is deemed
an original (Anglo-American Packing & Provision Co. uv.
Cannon, 31 Fed. 318 cited in Jones on Evidence, §209). The rule
observed in the Philippines is the same. Thus, where carbon
sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing so
that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including
the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces a
facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus
reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the surface
or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are
regarded as originals and either of them may be introduced
in evidence without accounting for the nonproduction of the
others (Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. v. Traveller Kids, Inc., 736
SCRA 489).
5. Under the Rules of Court, as amended, “the original
of a document is the document itself or any counterpart
intended to have the same effect by a person executing or
issuing it.” (Sec. 4/a], Rule 130, Rules of Court). Thus, when the
rule speaks of an “original,” it obviously does not refer to the
original of an object evidence but an original of a documentary
evidence. The amended definition of an original under Sec.
4(a) of Rule 130 also provides that the original of a photograph
includes the negative or any print therefrom: Further, if data
is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other
output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the
data accurately, is an original.
6. A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document

executed at the same time as the original is known a8 4
duplicate original and maybe introduced in evidence without
accounting for the non-production of the original. When a
document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as Originals (Skunac Corp. v. Sylianteng, G.R. No.
205879, April 23, 2014).
7. Inasuit against the telegraph company for failure to
transmit a message, the original is the message submitted to
the company for transmission (Jones on Evidence, §210 citing
Conyers v. Postal Cable Co., 92 Ga. 619, 19 S.E. 253 Am. St.
Rep. 100). If the suit is for damages by the sender against
the telegraph company because of delay in transmission, the
original would be the message as received by the recipient
(Jones on Evidence, §210 citing Collins v. Western Union Tel.
Co., 145 Ala. 412 41 So. 160, 8 ann. Cas. 268).
8. The new paragraph (c) is a virtual reproduction
of Sec. 2, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence which
provides when a duplicate cannot be treated to the same
extent in terms of admissibility as an original, i.e., (1) when
a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original, or (2) when under the circumstances, it is unjust or
inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
Originals under the Rules on Electronic Evidence (Bar 2003)

1. Under Sec. 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, the original of the electronic document is its
printout or output readable by sight or other means, provided
it is shown to reflect the data accurately (Sec. 1, Rule 4,
Rules on Electronic Evidence; MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v.
Ssangyong Corp., 586 SCRA 408). cen.
“SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document.

— 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 sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately.”
172 EVIDENCE
2. Thecopies of the printout or output readable by sight

referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph are algo
deemed originals where the copies were executed at or about
the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart
produced by the same impression as the original or from
the same matrix, or by other means and which accurately
reproduces the original (Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules on Electronic
Evidence).
“SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. —

When a document is in two or more copies executed
at or about the same time with identical contents, or is
a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall
be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
x X x.”
3. For the court not to consider the copies mentioned

in the immediately preceding paragraph as having the same
effect as originals, a genuine question as to the authenticity of
the original must be raised, or that the circumstances would
make it unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the
original (Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules on Electronic Evidence). The
applicable rule provides:
“SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. —

x XX
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or
duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as
the original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the

authenticity of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or
inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original.”
Original printout of facsimile transmissions (Bar 2012)

1. Isa printout of a facsimile transmission an electronic
data message or electronic document?
This question was answered by the Supreme Court in
oe Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., 536 SCRA
408.
The Court, in this case, concluded that the terms

“electronic data message” and “electronic document,” as
defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not
include a facsimile transmission and cannot be considered
as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent
of an original under the original document rule and is not
admissible as electronic evidence.
Accordingly, the congressional deliberations on the
Electronic Commerce Act show that when Congress formulated
the term “electronic data message,” it intended the same
meaning as the term “electronic record” in the Canada law
which excludes telexes or faxes, except computer-generated
faxes from the term, “electronic data message.”
The Court explained that since a facsimile transmission is
not an “electronic data message” or an “electronic document,”
and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court,
with greater reason is a photocopy of such fax transmission
not electronic evidence.
2. In Garvida v. Sales, Jr., 271 SCRA 767, the Court
explained the unacceptability of filing pleadings through fax
machines. In so doing, the Court ruled:
“
° .. A facsimile
is not a genuine and authentic
mark nor
174 EVIDENCE
Excuses for not presenting the original document (Bar 1992,

1997)
The excuses for the non-production of the original
document refer to the instances when the original does not
have to be produced even when the contents of the document are
the subjects of inquiry. These instances are those mentioned
in Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended, namely:
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under
the control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures;
(c) When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot be examined
in court without great loss of time and the fact. sought to
be established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
(d)) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a
controlling issue.
2. Secondary Evidence
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence in

case of loss, destruction, or unavailability of the original
(Bar 2019)
1. Secondary evidence refers to evidence other than
the original instrument or document itself (EDSA Shangri-La
Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. BF Corp., 556 SCRA 25).
Secondary evidence, like a copy of the original, is

admissible as an exception if the original writing has been lost,
destroyed or cannot be produced in court without bad faith

on the par t of the party offering the secondary evidence. This
exception does not only cover loss or destruction but also other
reasons for the failure to produce the original in court even if
the original is not lost or destroyed, as when the original is
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court (Reynolds on
Evidence, 2nd Ed., §61; PNB v. Olila, 98 Phil. 1002).
2. Under Sec. 5 of Rule 130, secondary evidence
aA be admitted only by laying the basis for its production.
Specifically, laying such basis requires pn compliance with the
Serene ci eet
following:
By
_((@)) The offeror must prove the execution or
existence
of the original document;
f (>) The _ offeror must show the cause of its
unavailability such_as the loss or destruction of the
original; and
(c)) ‘The offeror must show that the unavailability
was hot due to his bad faith (See also Republic v. Mupas,
G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015; See also Republic v.
Cuenca, G.R. No. 198398, April 4, 2018).
(@ ) The offeror must show that due diligence had

been-exercised in searching for it (Citibank v. Teodoro,
411 SCRA 577).
After complying with the requirements for laying the
basis for the introduction of secondary evidence, the offeror
may now be allowed to prove the contents of the documents by
secondary evidence.
3. Based on the Rules, the presentation of secondary
evidence should be in the following order:
((a)) a copy of the original;

in some
of the contents of the document
(@)) a recital
authentic document; or_
(©) by the testimonyof witnesses (Sec. 5, Rule 130,
Rules of Court).
EVIDENCE
me
Accordingly, the correct order of proof is as follows:

at the sound
existence, execution, loss and contents although,
ary
discretion of the court, this order may be changed if necess
577).
(Citibank v. Teodoro, 411 SCRA
d to be
4. One case, involving two women who claime
rative.
the legal spouse of the same man, is illust
for the
In the case, the respondent filed an action
declaration of nullity of the second marriage of her husband to
the petitioner. The respondent alleged in her complaint that
she had married her husband in- 1942. ‘The petitioner, on the
other hand, claimed to be the legal wife of the same man on the
basis of her marriage to him in 1979. She alleged, by way of
defense, that the man she married was not the legal husband,
but only the common law husband, of the respondent.
The respondent, who had no original marriage certificate
to prove the marriage, offered in evidence the certifications
from both the civil registrar of the place of marriage and the
National Statistics Office, attesting to the destruction of all
records of marriage during the Second’ World War: Since
there was no copy of the record of marriage, she submitted the
following secondary evidences: (a) certificate of her marriage
to her husband issued by the parish priest of the place where
the marriage was solemnized; (b) birth certificates of her
children by her husband; (c) certificate of baptism of one child
indicating that he was born to respondent and her husband;
(d) the testimony of respondent herself; and (e) the testimony
of the sister of her husband as to the fact of marriage.
The Court ruled that the pieces of evidence offered
established the fact of marriage of respondent to
the man she
claimed to be her husband. The marriage of peti
tioner to the
same man, was declared null and void (See
Macua Vda. de
Avenido v. Avenido, G.R. No. 173540, January
22, 201 4).
Citing precedents, the Court, in the
same case, declared:
“While
a marriage certificate is con
sidered the
primary evidence of a marital union, it is not
as
regarded
the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage.
Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be

proven as relevant evidence other than the marriage
certificate. Hence, even a person’s birth certificate may
be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage
between his parents.”
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence

when the original is in the custody or control of the adverse
party, or cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures
1. A showing that the original document is in the
custody or under the control of the adverse party does not
ipso facto authorize the introduction of secondary evidence to
prove its contents. The party who seeks to present secondary
evidence must first lay the basis for its introduction. Laying
the basis requires proof of the following: :
(a) that the original exists;
NA NE le BOERNE ONE AI AE BE ER
) that said document = tech

is.under the
theese tna census Leet
custody _or
eaeianeeD
control
=. of the adverse
a party; :
(©) that the proponent of secondary evidence has
given the adverse party reasonable notice to produce the
original document; and’ oe
((d)) that the adverse party failed to produce the

srictmal document despite the reasonable notice, or
Sed 3
(()) that the original cannot b
or se
judicial oces
pr ses.
procedur
2. Inonecase, the Supreme Court emphasized that the
mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or
control of the party against whom it is offered does not warrant
the admission of secondary evidence. The offeror must prove
that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by
giving notice to the said party to produce the document. The
notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the
original, or made in open court in the presence of the adverse
party, or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party —
178 EVIDENCE
in custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the

same. When such party has the original of the writing and
does not voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce
it, secondary evidence may be admitted (Magdayao v. People,
436 SCRA 677).
3. After the foundational requirements for the
introduction of secondary evidence have been complied with,
secondary evidence may now be presented as in the case of
loss (Sec. 6, Rule 130, Rules of Court). This means that the
contents of the document may now be proven by a copy of the
document, a recital of its contents in some authentic document,
or by testimony of witnesses in the order stated (Sec. 5, ibid.).
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when

the original consists of numerous accounts
1. Under this exception, secondary evidence is
admissible: |
(a) ; if the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents;
(b) , such accounts or documents cannot be examined
in court without great loss of time; and
() \ the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole (Sec. 3/cj, ibid.).
2. The main reason for this exception lies in the
determination by the court that production of the original
writings and their examination in court would result in great
loss of time considering that the evidence desired from the
voluminous accounts is only the general result of the whole
like a summary of the accounts. Under this exception, “a
witness may be allowed to offer a summary of a number
of
documents, or the summary itself may be admitted,
if the
underlying documents are so voluminous and intrica
te as to
make an examination of all of them impracticable.
They may
also be presented in the form of charts or calculations (29A
Am Jur, Evidence, §§1059-1060). bs
CHAPTER Iv — OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
179
3. The trial court may admit a summar

y of the
voluminous original documents, in lieu of original docume nts,
if the party has shown that the underlying writings are
numerous and that an in-court examination of these docu-
ments would be inconvenient. In other words, the
rule does
away with the item-by-item court identification of voluminous
exhibits which would only be burdensome and tedious for the
parties and the court (See Republic v. Mupas, G.R. No. 181892,
September 8, 201 5).
For example, an accountant’s written summary of some
150,000 sales invoices for goods sold by the plaintiff may
be allowed under this exception despite the objection of the
defendant that the sales invoices constitute the original
documents and should be presented (Compania Maritima v.
Allied Free Workers Union, 77 SCRA 24).
As a condition precedent to the admission of a summary
of numerous documents, the proponent must lay a proper
foundation for the admission of the original documents on
which the. summary is based.- This:means that- the source
documents must be shown to be original and not secondary
and must be made accessible to the opposing party so that the
correctness of the summary may be tested on cross-examination
or may be refuted in pleadings. A proper foundation for
the introduction of a summary. may.be established through
the testimony of the person responsible for the summary’s
preparation, or the person who supervised the preparation
of the summary (See Republic v.. Mupas, No. 181892,
G.R.
September 8, 2015).
4. Under Sec. 7 of Rule 130, as amended, the presen-
tation of the contents of numerous accounts or documents may
be in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. However,
the originals shall be available for examination or copying,
or both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and place.
Further, the court may order that they be produced in court.
This provision may be read in connection with Sec. 3(c) of
Rule 130 which states that the production of the original may
be excused when the same consists of numerous accounts or:
other documents which cannot be examined in court without
EVIDENCE _
great los s of time and the factt of

sought to be established from
the whole.
them is only the general resul
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when

the original document is a public record
There are instances when the original of a document is a
public record or is recorded in a public office (Sec. 3/dj, Rule
130, Rules of Court). Public records are generally not to be
removed from the places where they are recorded and kept
(Sec. 26, Rule 132, ibid.). For this reason, the proof of the
contents of a document which forms part of a public record
may be done by secondary evidence. This evidence is a certified
true copy of the original. This certified copy is to be issued by
the public officer in custody of the public records (Sec. 8, Rule
130, ibid.).
Effect of not offering a document in evidence after calling

for its production and inspection
If the party who calls for the production of a document
does not offer the same in evidence, no unfavorable inference
may be drawn from such failure. This is because under Sec. 9
of Rule 130, as amended, a party who calls for the production of
a document is not required to offer it. The pertinent provision
states:
“SEC. 9. Party who calls for document not bound

to offer it. — A party who calls for the production of a
document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer
it as evidence.”
3. Parol Evidence Rule

(Rule 130)
Contracts and the parol evidence rule
1. Among the various evidentiary rules, it is the
parol evidence rule that has direct application to
the law on
contracts. The rule, however, applies only to contract
s which
the parties have decided to set forth in writing beca
use Sec.
SR TE a
CHAPT
ao amenredu
Pe ave asbeen “When the terms of an
ded,cedprovtoides: ng.”
writi Hence, when the
agreement is merely o
be applied. y oral, the parol evidence rule should not
= i ae met is a “meeting of the minds” between
cides oe This is how a contract is described
aati: of the Civil Code. The Civil Code does not
€ a contract as a document, a deed, or an instrument.
The document, deed, or instrument is merely the tangible
evidence of a contract. It is the meeting of the minds betwe
en
the parties that constitutes the contra
ct.
3. Before executing a written agreement, the parties
normally engage in preliminary oral negotiations. They may
even exchange letters or notes constituting offers and counter-
offers which, of course, are not intended to be contracts in
themselves but are merely parts of the negotiation process.
When the minds of the parties finally agree on the object and
cause or consideration, a contract is born. In legal parlance,
a contract is perfected. The perfected contract may be oral
or written, or partly oral and partly written. The form of
the contract, as.a rule, does not matter..As long. as there
is a “meeting of the minds,” there. is a.perfected.contract.
Even a purely oral agreement does not negate the existence
of a contract because under this jurisdiction, even an oral
agreement gives rise to a contract. There is a contract because
there is a meeting of the minds (See Arts. 1305 and 1315, Civil
Code of the Philippines). -
4. The decision of the parties to reduce the agreement

in written form is critical to the application of the parol
evidence rule. When they execute a written contract, the parol
evidence rule ipso facto comes into play. Under Sec. 10 of Rule
an agreement have been
130, as amended, “When the terms of
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” (Carganillo v.
People, G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014). es
aad EVIDENCE
Application of the parol evidence rule (Bar 1978, 1981, 1983

2012)
1. The “parol evidence rule” is embodied in Sec, 19
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:
“SEC. 10. Evidence of written agreements. — 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.
However, 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 averified pleading:
(a) Anintrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after the execution
of the written agreement.
The term “agreement” includes wills.”
2. The term “parol” evidence means something “oral”

or verbal but, with reference to contracts, it means extraneous
evidence or evidence aliunde (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.,
pp. 1008, 1006).
As used in the Rules of Court, the term refers not only
to oral but also to written evidence which are outside of or
extraneous to the written contract between the parties.
3. The parol evidence rule becomes operative when the
issues in the litigation are the terms of a written agreement..
In clear-cut language, the basic question that would bring
the parol evidence rule into play is: “What have the parties
agreed upon?” The appropriate answer would be: “Look into
the written agreement and not elsewhere because only the

contents of the written agreement are admissible in evidence.”
There is no need to look into any other source because such
sources are barred by the rule. They are barred because, as
Sec. 10 of Rule 130 provides, the writing “... is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon...”
4. Sec. 10 of Rule 130 considers the written agreement
as the embodiment of all the terms agreed upon by the parties,
L.e., a total integration of said agreement. Because the writing
1s considered as containing all the terms of said agreement, the
traditional distinction between partial and total integration
observed in traditional American jurisprudence appears
irrelevant to the application of the parol evidence rule in a
Philippine setting. In American jurisprudence (29A Am Jur
2d §§1116-1120), when a writing is on its face incomplete, said
writing is only a partial integration of the agreement of the
parties; hence, parol evidence is not barred to prove matters
not covered by the writing. Parol evidence is, however, barred
when the writing is a total integration of the agreement.
Under the Rules of Court, the written agreement is
already “considered to contain all the things agreed upon.”
If this be so, the written agreement already represents the
final expression of the agreement of the parties on the subject.
Being the final agreement, any extraneous or “parol” evidence
is inadmissible for any of the following purposes: (a) modify,
(b) explain, or (c) add to the terms of the written agreement.
5. The parol evidence rule, therefore, forbids any
addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show
that different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying
the purport of the written contract (Seaoil Petroleum Corp.
v. Autocorp Group, 569 SCRA 387). Whatever is not found in
the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned
(Edrada v. Ramos, 468 SCRA 597). We
6. In general, the parol evidence rule is designed to

give certainty to written transactions, preserve the reliability
and protect the sanctity of written agreements.
184 EVIDENCE
The rationale behind the foregoing rule was explained tn

Ortariez v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 561, thus:
“Spoken words could be notoriously undesirable

unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform
language. Thus, under the general rule in Section 9 [now
Section 10] of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the
terms of an agreement were reduced to writing, as in this
case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon
and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other than
the contents thereof’ (See also Spouses Paras v. Kimwa
Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No.
171601, April 8, 2015).
7. Be it noted again that the parol evidence rule does
not apply to oral agreements. For the said rule to apply, there
must be a writing. Not all writings, however, will trigger the
application of the parol evidence rule. That writing must
embody an agreement. The tenor of Sec. 10 clearly uses the
following words: “When the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing...”
There is only one writing which, although not legally
an agreement, is considered to be one for purposes of the
application of the parol evidence rule. This writing is a
will. The last paragraph of Sec. 10 of Rule 130 confirms this
observation, thus: “The term ‘agreement’ includes wills”
(Italics supplied).
8. Should the “writing” that embodies the agreement of
the parties be in a particular form? Note that Sec. 10 of Rule
130 only makes reference to a “writing,” not a public writing
or a private writing.
One case particularly well illustrates the answer to the
question. In this case, the petitioner contends that since the
promissory note is not a public instrument with the formalities
prescribed by law but a mere commercial paper, parol evidence
may “overcome” the contents of the promissory note.
C HAPTER Iv — OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE 185
merit. = Pera Court did not view the argument with

agreement re that the rule does not specify that the written
nt be a public document. The Court stated in the case:
aa fag 1s required is that the agreement bein writing

seditece, as in fact founded on ‘long experience that
than that Bae is so much more certain and accurate
ona which rests in fleeting memory only, that it
uld be unsafe, when parties have expressed the terms
of their contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence to
control and vary the stronger and to show that the parties
intended a different contract from that expressed in the
writing signed by them.’ Thus, for the parol evidence rule
to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular
form, or be signed by both parties. As a general rule, bills,
notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not
subject to be varied or contradicted by parol or extrinsic
evidence” (Inciong, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
96405, June 26, 1996, 247 SCRA 578).
Application of the rule only to parties and their successors

in interest
1. The parol evidence rule does not apply to persons
who are not parties to a deed and do not base their claim on it
(Eagleridge Development Corp. v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset
Management, Inc., 741 SCRA 557).
2. Only the parties and successors in interest are
bound by the parol evidence rule. The rule that the terms
of an agreement are to be proven only by the contents of
the writing itself refers to suits between “parties and their
successors in interest” (Sec. 10, Rule 130, Rules of Court). The
rule does not bind suits involving strangers to the contract. It
applies only to the parties to a written agreement and those
who are privy to a party or successors in interest (29A Am
Jur, Evidence, §1096). Thus, a total stranger to the writing is
not bound by its terms and is allowed to introduce extrinsic or
parol evidence against the efficacy of the writing (Lechugas v.
Court of Appeals, 22 Phil. 310, August 6, 1986, citing Horn v.
Hansen, 57 N.W. 315). me
EVIDENCE
ai sao
to wills
Application of the rule
ev id en ce ru le applieess to contractua
ar ol
n e l by th e ex”pl ic it provision of Sec. 10 of
: bli Ls a m e
rn A the term “agreeme nt includes wills. There can,
no ev id en ce of th e te rm s of the will other than
chenedlies: be
the contents of the will itself.
s to wills, an
29. While the parol evidence rule applie
erest therein
express trust concerning an immovable or any int e of
may not be proved by parol evidence (Art. 1443, Civil Cod
the Philippines).
Illustration:
Mr. Seller and Mr. Buyer entered into a written

contract for the sale of a house and lot. The deed of sale
mentions a purchase price of P25 million, a down payment
of 70%, and the balance payable within one year from the
tender of the down payment although the actual period
agreed upon orally was two years. The oral agreement
between them also considered the air conditioners inside
each room of the house as part of the purchase price, but
this fact was inadvertently not mentioned in the written
agreement.
Under the parol evidence rule, Mr. Buyer would

not be allowed to show that the purchase price incl
uded
the air conditioners and that the payment period
for the
balance was two years. He would not be
allowed to do so
because of the rule that the only evidence of
the terms of
the agreement between the parties shall
be the contents
of the written agreement itself. Any extrinsic
evidence
therefore, that would modify, explain
or add to the writing
would be deem ed “parol” evidence and hence, barred
Parol evidence is inadmissible to
establish sti sulations
other than those contained in the Writing,
Thus, all other
eviden
de ce of the contents of the writin
are t i :
This is the general rule. .
. ne ne :
When and how to introduce parol evidence

1. Therule prohibiting parol evidence is not absolute. A
party may present evidence when he desires to modify, explain
or add to the terms of the written agreement (Carganillo v.
P eople, G.R. No. 1 82424, September 22, 2014) by putting in
issue In the pleadings any of the following:
_ _ (a) Anintrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto
(Saberola v. Suarez, 558 SCRA 185);
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after the execution
of the written agreement (Sec. 10, Rule 130, Rules of
Court).
2. Introducing parol evidence means offering extrinsic
or extraneous evidence that would modify, explain or add to the
terms of the written agreement, but parol evidence may only
be allowed if, any of the matters mentioned above (from “a” to
“d”) is put in issue in the pleadings (Carganillo v. People, G.R.
No. 182424, September 22, 2014; Philippine National Bank
v. Cua, G.R. No. 199161, April 18, 2018). Without complying
with this requirement, i.e., putting in issue in the pleadings,
parol evidence cannot be introduced.
Stated another way, where parol evidence is allowed
by the Rules, parol evidence can serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous
conditions, which are not mentioned at all in the writing (See
Felix Plazo Urban Poor Settlers Community Association, Inc.
v. Lipat, Sr., G.R. No. 1 82409, March 20, 2017).
Example: Seller sues Buyer for P300,000.00, an amount
representing the unpaid balance of the price of a car bought -
by and duly delivered to the latter. Although the deed of sale
stipulated a contract price of P700,000.00, the actual oral
188 EVIDENCE
agreement was only for Buyer to pay a price of P400,000.00

an amount already paid. The amount as written in the deed
of sale was actually a result of mere inadvertence. If Buyer
wants to prove during the trial that the true price as agreed
by the parties is P400,000.00, Buyer must allege in his answer
to the complaint that there was a mistake in the writing and
it does not reflect the true agreement of the parties. Such
allegations would put such matters in issue in the pleading,
opening the door to the introduction of parol evidence.
3. Where it appears that the plaintiff has signed
a promissory note in favor of a bank but the receipt of the
proceeds of the loan has been denied by said plaintiff contrary
to the terms of the note, the presumption that the plaintiff had
received the proceeds of the loan in accordance with the tenor of
the promissory note must be overcome by a parol evidence that
is clear and convincing. The mere uncorroborated testimony
of the plaintiff that he had the practice of pre-signing loan
applications with the bank for the purpose of having a standby
loan or ready money available at any time, is not sufficient to
overcome the terms of the note. A promissory note is a solemn
acknowledgment of a debt and a formal commitment to repay
it according to its terms. A person who signs a promissory note
is bound to honor it as a legitimate obligation duly assumed
by him through the signature he affixes thereto as a token of
his good faith. Indeed, no reasonable and prudent man would
acknowledge a debt if the same does not exist (See Philippine
National Bank v. Cua, G.R. No. 199161, April 18, 2018).
4. To reiterate, the parol evidence rule does not per se
bar the introduction of parol evidence as long as the pleader
puts in issue in the verified pleading any of the matters set
forth in the rule such as the mistake or imperfection of the
writing, its failure to express the true agreement of the parties
or the existence of subsequent agreements. The key words
are “putting in issue” in the pleading. Unless duly pleaded, a
party will be barred from offering extrinsic evidence over the
objection of the adverse party.
Thus, it was clearly declared: “Provided that a party
puts in issue in its [verified] pleading any of the four (4) items
CHAPTER IV — OBJ ECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 189
enumerated in the second paragraph of Sec. 9 [now Sec. 10},

Rule 130, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or
add to the terms of the agreement” (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa
Construction and Development Corp., G.R. No. 171601, April
8, 2015).
5. In an action to recover from an insurance policy, the
plaintiff wanted to put forth a witness who would testify as
to the actual terms of the contract of insurance as allegedly
agreed upon despite contrary provisions in said policy. The
testimony was not allowed. The Supreme Court sustained
both the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the basis of
Sec. 9 [now Sec. 10] of Rule 130.
The Court ruled that Sec. 9 [now Sec. 10], Rule 130 of
the Revised Rules of Court expressly requires that for parol
evidence to be admissible to vary the terms of the written
agreement, the mistake or imperfection thereof or its failure to
express the true agreement of the parties should be put in issue
in the pleadings. As correctly noted by the appellate court,
the plaintiff failed to raise the issue of an intrinsic ambiguity,
mistake or imperfection in the terms of the insurance policy;
or the failure of said contract to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto in its complaint. There was,
therefore, no error on the part of the appellate court when it
affirmed the RTC’s order disallowing the witness to testify as
to the alleged terms of the contract (Pilipinas Bank v. Court of
Appeals, 341 SCRA 527).
Prior, contemporaneous, and subsequent agreements

1. The traditional rules limit the inadmissibility of
parol evidenceorextrinsic evidenceto prioror contemporaneous
stipulations. Hence, if a written agreement was executed by
the parties on December 22, 2015, agreements before (prior)
that date or even on the same date (contemporaneous)
which modify, alter, or contradict the stipulations written
into the December 22 agreement are not admissible since
these constitute parol evidence. But assuming that the
Same parties entered into another agreement on January 5,
2016 which modifies some of the terms of the December 22
EVIDENCE
_ (The Bar Lecture? Series)
5 agreement be admisgip)
Slble
t, would the January
eat
without-violating the parol evidence iblon ubsequent
the agreem ent wou ld be admiss e beca
rules, par dennce rule.e
ol eviide
not bar red by the
agreements are
Citing American s ources, the eminen
t authority, Moran,
writes: “The parties to a written agreement may show by paro}
evidence that, subsequent to the execution of such written
agreement, they have entered into an oral contract tending
to waive, dissolve, or annul the former agreement, or in any
manner to add to, or subtract from or vary or qualify the terms
thereof’ (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court 1980, 112),
2. Therule forbidding the admission of evidence aliunde
or extrinsic evidence did not prohibit proof of an agreement
entered into after the written instrument was executed,
notwithstanding that such agreement may have the effect of
adding to, changing or modifying the written agreement of the
parties (Canuto v. Mariano, 37 Phil. 840). This is in fact the
rule in American jurisprudence (Jones on Evidence, 6th Ed.,
Vol. 3, §16.10). Parol evidence on subsequent agreements may
be admitted (29a Am Jur, Evidence, §1133). This means that
the existence of another agreement after the execution of the
original written agreement may be introduced without first
complying with the requirement of putting the subsequent
agreement in issue.
3. Sincetherules provide that “ subsequent agreements’
are among those matters that
: need to be put in issue, this
signifies that befo
re evidence may be introduced that the
Intrinsic ambiguity in th
e writing
1. Aninstance :
may be allowed to Mie evidence aliunde or parol evidence
> &xplain or even add to the writte?
agreement is when an intrinsic ambiguity exists in the

written agreement. It must be emphasized, however, that the
mere existence of an intrinsic ambiguity will not authorize
the admission of parol evidence. It is very important that the
intrinsic ambiguity be put in issue in the party’s pleading. It is
the raising of the issue of intrinsic ambiguity in the pleading
which will authorize the introduction of parol evidence.
2. Intrinsic or latent ambiguity is one which is not
apparent on the face of the document but which lies in the
person or thing that is the subject of the document or deed.
In other words, the ambiguity is intrinsic or latent when the
language of the writing is clear and intelligible and suggests
but a single meaning, but some matter extraneous to the
writing creates the ambiguity (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th
Ed., : 78 citing Logue v. Von Almen, 379 Ill. 208, 40 N.E.2d
73, 82).
In this type of ambiguity, the document is clear on its
face but matters outside the agreement create the ambiguity.
Illustration:
The testator’s will bequeaths to Jose Navidad, his
only grandson, a parcel of grazing land with an area of
ten thousand square meters, located in a town called
Magdiwang. It was discovered, after his death, that the
testator owns two parcels of land in the same place which
are of exactly the same area and description. There is
here an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing.
Similarly, if the testator owns only one parcel of land
and bequeaths that land to his grandson, described in
the will as Jose Navidad, but it was discovered later that
he has two grandsons with the same name, there also
exists an intrinsic or latent ambiguity. Parol evidence
may be introduced to prove the grandson intended in the
will provided that the will’s intrinsic ambiguity is put in
issue.
3. Note that the rule allowing parol evidence
particularly refers only to an intrinsic ambiguity in the
192 EVIDENCE
writing. The obvious implication is that where the ambiguity

is patent or extrinsic, parol evidence will not be admitted even
if the same is put in issue in the pleading.
A patent or extrinsic ambiguity is that which appears on
the very face of the instrument, and arises from the defective,
obscure, or insensible language used (Black’s Law Dictionary,
5th Ed., p. 73). Parol evidence is not admissible to explain the
ambiguity; otherwise, the court would be creating, instead of
construing a contract.
For example, a donor writes in the deed of donation that
he is donating to his only son, Jose, one of his cars. Without
describing the specific car, there is a patent ambiguity. The
ambiguity which is apparent on the very face of the document
cannot be clarified or explained by parol evidence.
4. To reiterate, as long as the latent or intrinsic
ambiguity is raised as an issue in the pleadings, the court will
allow evidence aliunde to explain the ambiguity to give effect
to the intention of a party or the parties. However, even if a
pleader raises as an issue the extrinsic or patent ambiguity
in a contract or will, the court will not allow parol evidence
to explain the ambiguity or supply the deficiency. The rule
only allows parol evidence in the case of an intrinsic or latent
ambiguity.
Mistake or imperfection in the writing and failure to express

the true agreement of the parties (Bar 2001)
1. The admission of evidence aliunde may be justified
when there is a mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement. Again, this mistake or imperfection must be put
in issue in the pleading by the party who wants to prove the
defect in the writing.
The pleading does not need to specifically state words
and phrases such as “mistake,” “imperfection” or “failure to
express the true intent of the parties.” When the other party
responds to the allegations by making the proper denial, such
matters have already been put in issue (See Spouses Paras
v. Kimwa Construction and Development Corp., G.R. No.

171601, April 8, 2015).
2. The failure of the writing to express the true
agreement of the parties is another ground for admitting parol
evidence as long as the issue is raised in the pleadings. In fact,
mistake or imperfection of the writing may be a reason for the
failure of the instrument or writing to embody the intention of
the parties. This does not mean, however, that the mistake or
imperfection prevented the meeting of the minds between or
among the parties. This only means that, despite the meeting
of the minds, the true agreement of the parties is not reflected
in the instrument.
Aside from mistake, there are some other reasons
enumerated in substantive law for the failure of the
instrument to express the true intention of the parties like
fraud, inequitable conduct or accident (Art. 1859, Civil Code
of the Philippines), ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad
faith on the part of the person drafting the instrument (Art.
1364, ibid.).
8. Ifthe document appears to be a sale, parol evidence
may be resorted to if the same does not express the true
intent of the parties because it is actually a loan. The owner
of the property may prove that the contract is really a loan
with mortgage by raising as an issue in the pleading the fact
that the document is not really a sale (Madrigal v. Court of
Appeals, 456 SCRA 247).
4. When there is a meeting of the minds between
the parties, but their true intention is not expressed in the
instrument by any of the aforementioned causes, one of the
parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument (Art.
1359, Civil Code of the Philippines).
In an action for reformation of the instrument under

Art. 1359 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff may introduce parol
evidence to show the real intention of the parties. An action
for reformation presupposes that a meeting of the minds
exists between the parties, i.e., there is a contract between
EVIDENCE —
194 ies)
(The Bar Lectures Ser
contract
them although the instrument that evidences the
reason of,
does not reflect the true agreement of the parties by
for instance, fraud or mistake.
5. If there is no meeting of the minds between the
parties because of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct
or accident, the proper remedy is not reformation of the
Code
instrument but an action for annulment (Art. 1359, Civil
of the Philippines) because the contract 1s rendered voidable
by the vitiation of the consent of one of the parties (Art. 1390,
ibid.).
Examples:
(a) The parties have agreed on the area of the land
subject of the sale. By an act of fraud of the seller, who
prepared the deed of sale, a smaller area is indicated in
the deed. There is nothing defective in the contract which
is the meeting of the minds. The defect is in the deed of
sale, which is the instrument. If an action for reformation
is brought, the action must be for the purpose of reforming
the instrument, not for reforming the contract.
(b) An instrument may be reformed if it does not
express the true intention of the parties because of lack
of skill of the person drafting the instrument (Art. 1364,
ibid,). |
(c) Ifthe parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge
of property, but the instrument states that the property is
sold absolutely or with a right of repurchase, reformation
of the instrument is proper (Art. 1365, ibid. ).
6. Reformation of the instrument cannot be brought to
reform any of the following:
(a) Simple donations inter vivos wherein no
condition is imposed;
(b) Wills; or
ai . When the real agreement is void (Art. 1366,
ibid. ).
Waiver of the parol evidence rule

The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to invoke
the benefits of the rule. This waiver may be made by failure
to object to the introduction of evidence aliunde. Inadmissible
evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to object
(Santiago v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 98; Policarpio v.
Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 729). Failure to object to the
parol evidence presented by the adverse party operates as
a waiver of the protection of the parol evidence rule (Willex
Plastic Industries Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 478).
Probative value
Even if parol evidence is admitted, such admission would
not mean that the court would give probative value to the
parol evidence. Admissibility is not the equivalent of probative
value or credibility.
Distinctions between the original document rule and the

parol evidence rule
1. The original document rule establishes a preference
for the original document over a secondary evidence thereof.
The parol evidence rule is not concerned with the primacy of
evidence but presupposes that the original is available.
2. The original document rule precludes the admission
of secondary evidence if the original document is available. The
parol evidence rule precludes the admission of other evidence
to prove the terms of a document other than the contents of
the document itself for the purpose of varying the terms of the
writing.
3. The original document rule can be invoked by any
litigant to an action whether or not said litigant is a party to
the document involved. The parol evidence rule can be invoked
only by the parties to the document and their successors-in-
interest.
4. The original document rule applies to all forms of
writing. The parol evidence rule applies to written agreements
(contracts) and “wills.”
EVIDENCE
196 (The Bar Lectures Series
)
Note: If the subjects of inquiry are the terms of the

the
written agreement between the parties, one must read
agreement itself and not seek guidance on sour
ces outside the
parol”
writing. Sources outside such writing are considered
the parol
evidence and, as a rule, are inadmissible. This is
into any writing.
evidence” rule. However, one should not look inal
He must look at the original writing. This is the “orig
document” rule.
C. Authentication and Proof of Documents

(Rule 132)
Meaning of authentication (Bar 2012)

1. The concept of “authentication” occupies a vital
place in the presentation of evidence. Not only objects but also
documents introduced in evidence need to be authenticated.
It is the preliminary step in showing the admissibility of
evidence.
For example, a .38 revolver, is found in the crime scene.
To be admissible in evidence, it must be authenticated. This
means that it must be shown to the satisfaction of the court
that the weapon is the very same weapon found at the crime
scene. To convince the court, the proponent of the evidence
must call someone to identify the weapon and affirm: “This
is the weapon I found in the crime scene.” This someone could
be the police investigator or someone else who handled the
evidence. When he affirms it is the same weapon, then the
evidence is authenticated.
2. Litigation always involves the authentication of
either object or documentary evidence. Unless a docu
ment
is considered self-authenticating, it will not be admi
tted in
evidence without prior authentication. The requirement
for
authentication of evidence discloses the existence, in
the legal
system, of a legal presumption that is not, howe
ver, directly
written in statutes or procedural rules but
is necessarily
_ implied therein. This presumption is: That objects and
documents presented in evidence are, as a rule, counterfeit.
In
C. Authentication and Proof of Documents (Rule 132)
short, evidence presented in court is not presumed authentic.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon the proponent of the evidence
to prove its authenticity.
3. Authentication of a private document does not
require a seal. There shall be no difference between sealed
and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility
as evidence is concerned (Sec. 32, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
Concept of a document (Bar 2019)

The Supreme Court has defined a document as a “deed,
instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something
is proved, evidenced or set forth” (Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA
764; People v. Camacho, 44 Phil. 484; U.S. v. Orera, 11 Phil.
596). However, for documents to be considered as documentary
evidence, it must be “offered as proof of their contents” (Sec. 2,
Rule 130, Rules of Court). If the document is not offered for
that purpose, the document is a mere object evidence as when
the purpose is merely to prove its existence. Hence, not every
document is to be received as documentary evidence.
Public and private documents

1. Documents may either be public or private. This
classification is for the purpose of their presentation in
evidence.
2. Section 19 of Rule 132, as amended, enumerates the
public documents, thus:
“SEC. 19. Classes of documents. — For the purpose

of their presentation in evidence, documents are either
public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the
official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
198 EVIDENCE
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary

public except last wills and testaments;
(c) Docu that me nt
are consi dered spublic
documents under treaties and conventions which are
in force between the Philippines and the country of
source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private.”
3. The written official acts and records of the official

acts of the sovereign authority do not refer only to those of the
Philippines. They also refer to those of a foreign country.
Documents acknowledged before a notary public are
public documents except last wills and testaments which are
private documents even if notarized (Sec. 19/b], Rule 132,
Rules of Court). Assumed to be included in this class of public
documents are those acknowledged before an officer, other
than a notary public, authorized to administer oaths. In the
case of a public record of a private document required by law
to be entered in a public record, the public document does not
refer to the private document itself but the public record of
that private document. (Bar 2011)
4. The rule does not give a specific definition of a private
document except by providing that “... All other writings are
private” (Sec. 19, ibid.). Private documents are those that
do not fall under any of the enumerations in Sec. 19, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court (Franco v. People, G.R. No. 191185,
February 1, 2016).
5. The 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence
added to the enumeration “documents that are considered
public documents under treaties and conventions which are in
force between the Philippines and the country of source.” One
example is the Convention Abolishing ‘the Requirement of
Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, otherwise known
as the Apostille Convention, which became effective between
the Philippines and other contracting states on May 14, 2019.
Proof of a private document

1. Section 20 of Rule 132, as amended, provides:
“SEC. 20. Proof of private documents. — Before

any Private document offered as authentic is received
in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved byfollowing
any of the means:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed
or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker; or
(c) Byotl id howina its d i
Any other private document need only be identified

as that which it is claimed to be.”
When authentication of a private document is required (Bar

2018)
1. Where the private document is offered in evidence
as authentic, there is a need to prove 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 (Sec. 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court; Franco v.
People, G.R. No. 191185, February 1, 2016).
2. Section 20 recognizes three ways of proving the due
execution and genuineness of a private instrument. One way
is to rely on the personal knowledge of a witness. Here, the
witness attests to the genuineness of the document because
it was executed or signed in his presence, i.e., he personally
witnessed the execution or writing of the document. The
second mode does not require that the document be executed
in the presence of the witness. Here, the witness testifies
or shows evidence that the signature or handwriting of the
maker is genuine (Sec. 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court; Ong
v. People, 342 SCRA 372; Bangayan v. Rizal Commercial
Banking Corp., 647 SCRA 8, 26, April 4, 2011; Tan Shuy v.
Maulawin, 665 SCRA 604, 612, February 8, 2012; Cercado-
200 EVIDENCE
Siga v. Cercado, Jr., GR. No. 1853874, March 1 1, 201 5). The
third mode is broader than the first two and is akin to Sec. 2,
the
Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence which allows
authentication of an electronic document “by other evidence
should its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the
judge.”
The manner of authenticating a document, required by
Sec. 20 of Rule 132, applies only when a private document
is offered as authentic as when it is offered to prove that the
document was truly executed by the person purported to have
made the same. Where the document is offered in evidence not
as authentic, its genuineness and due execution need not be
proven as when the only purpose is for the offeror to show that
a certain piece of document exists. When a witness says: “I
found this document in the drawer of my table,” the document
only needs identification and not authentication. But when
the witness wants to show that the deed was indeed executed
by his brother, the process of authentication required by Sec.
20 must be complied with.
Authentication of both the original and a photocopy of the

original
While it is a basic rule of evidence that the original copy
prevails over a mere photocopy, there is no harm if in a case,
both the original and a photocopy thereof are authenticated,
identified and offered in evidence by the party proponent
(Santos v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 183034, March 12, 201 4).
When authentication of private documents is not required

The requirement of authentication of a private document
is excused in some instances, specifically:
(a) when the document is an ancient one within the
context of Sec. 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 under Sec. 8 of Rule 8 of
the Rules of Court;
(c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the

document have been admitted under Sec. 4 of Rule 129;
or
(d) when the document is not being offered as
authentic as implied from Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court, which requires authentication only when the
document is offered as “authentic” (See Patula v. People,
669 SCRA 135, 157, April 11, 2012).
Ancient documents (Bar 1990)

There is an exception to the rule requiring proof of the
genuineness and due execution of a private document. The
exception is in the case of a private “ancient document.” A
private document is considered ancient when it is more than
30 years old, is produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any
alteration or circumstance of suspicion (Sec. 21, Rule 132,
Rules of Court; Cercado-Siga v. Cercado, Jr., G.R. No. 185374,
March 11, 2015). (Bar 2011)
When a document is ancient pursuant to the description
in Sec. 21 of Rule 132, evidence of its authenticity need not
be given, i.e., there is no need to prove its genuineness and
due execution. This means that there is no necessity for
observance of the authentication process under Sec. 20 such
as the testimony of a person who saw the document executed
or by one who will show evidence of the genuineness of the
handwriting of the maker of the document. It must, however,
be established first that the document is ancient and that it
has the characteristics of a document so provided under Sec.
21. When all these are complied with, no other evidence of its
authenticity need be given.
Section 21 of Rule 132 is clear on this point. To quote:
“SEC. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private

document not necessary. — Where a private document
is more than thirty (30) years old, is produced from a
custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine,
EVIDENCE —
202 Lec tur es Ser ies )
(The Bar
orc ircumstances
nblemished by any alterations
no other evidence of its authenticity need
Santon
be given.”
a handwriting
How to prove genuineness of
d, enumerates
1. Section 22 of Rule 132, as amende
iting may be proved:
how the genuineness of a handwr
ng proved.
“SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriti
proved by any
— The handwriting of a person may be
ng of such
witness who believes it to be the handwriti
on write, or
person because he or she has seen the pers
which
has seen writing purporting to be his or hers upon
the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.”
2. Section 22 of Rule 132 does not require expert

testimony to prove the handwriting of a person.
It may be proven by any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of a person because: (1) he has seen the person
write; or (2) he has seen writing purporting to be his upon
which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person; or
(3) by a comparison made by the witness or the court weit
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against
whom the document is offered, or proved to be genuine
to the
satisfaction of the judge (Heirs of Amado Celestial
v Heirs of
kditha G. Celestial, 408 SCRA 291; Aguinaldo
v Torres J}
G.R. No. 225808, September 11, 2017). a
Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
~ authorizes the couulrt, by itself, : to make explicitly
a comparison of the
disputed handwriting with writings admitt
ed or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the evidence is
offered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge (Almeda

vu. Heirs of Ponciano Almeda, G.R. No. 194189, September 14,
2017). Hence, a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on
the testimony of handwriting experts and that the judge still
exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity
of the signatures under scrutiny (Philippine Trust Company
uv. Gabinete, G.R. No. 216120, March 29, 201 7).
“The opinions of handwriting experts are not necessarily
binding upon the court, the expert’s function being to place
before the court data upon which the court can form its own
opinion. This principle holds true especially when the question
involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity,
which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens
of the questioned signatures with those of the currently
existing ones. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely
on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge
must conduct an independent examination of the questioned
signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its
authenticity” (Heirs of Peter Donton v. Stier, G.R. No. 216491,
August 23, 2017).
Importance of knowing whether a document is public or

private; proof of notarial documents
1. The nature of documents as either public or private
determines how they may be presented as evidence in court.
A public document is admissible in evidence without
further proof of its due execution and genuineness and has
in its favor the presumption of regularity (Pen Development
Corp. v. Martinez Leyba, Inc., G.R. No. 211845, August 9,
2017).
For example, under Sec. 30 of Rule 132, every document
duly notarized may be presented in evidence without further
proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie
evidence of the execution of the instrument or document
involved. Sec. 30 of Rule 132 affirms the above principles,
thus:
204 Aa EVIDENCE
“SEC. 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every

instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as
provided by law, may be presented in evidence without
further proof, the certificate of acknowledgement being
prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument
or document involved.”
2. The above rule presupposes that the document was

notarized by a person duly authorized to perform notarial
functions. Without such authority, the private document
does not become a public document. It also presupposes that
the document was properly notarized in the presence of the
notary public. Thus, where the parties signed the document in
the USA, the witness in Makati City and the notarization took
place in Cavite City, the document was improperly notarized.
The improper notarization stripped the document of its public
character and reduced it to a private document (See Aguinaldo
v. Torres, Jr., G.R. No. 225808, September 11, 2017). If the
acknowledgment in the notarized document is defective, such
defect will merely strip the document of its public character
and reduce it to a private document. It remains incumbent
upon a party, who wants to uphold the document, to prove
that the document was not forged (See Almeda v. Heirs of
Ponciano Almeda, G.R. No. 194189, September 14, 2017).
“Acknowledgment” refers to an act in which an individual,
on a single occasion, (a) appears in person before the notary
public and presents an integrally complete instrument or
document; (b) is attested to be personally known to the notary
_ public or identified by the notary public through competent
__ evidence of identity as defined by the Rules; and (c) presents
_ to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or
document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes
_ stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has
executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary
a - act and deed, and, if he acts ina representative capacity, that
os hehas authority to sign in that capacity (Coquia v. Laforteza,
_ AC:No. 9364, February 8, 2017).
-
A notarized deed of sale carries the evidentiary
‘weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.
It is admissible in evidence without further proof of its

authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due
execution of a notarial document lies on the party contesting
the same (Almeda v. Heirs of Ponciano Almeda, G.R. No.
194189, September 14, 2017: See Tujan-Militante v. Nustad,
G.R. No. 209518, June 19, 2017; See also Chambon v. Ruiz,
A.C. No. 11478, September 5, 2017; Taday v. Apoya, Jr., A.C.
No. 11981, July 3, 201 8).
A notarized document is also entitled to full faith and

credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the
public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment
executed by a notary public (Fabay v. Resuena, A.C. No. 8728,
January 26, 2016; Spouses Navarro v. Ygoria, A.C. No. 8450,
July 26, 2017). This is because notarization converts a private
document to a public document (Taday v. Apoya, Jr., A.C. No.
11981, July 3, 2018).
4. A birth certificate, being a public document, enjoys
the presumption of regularity absent proof to the contrary
(People v. Entrampas, G.R. No. 212161, March 29, 2017).
5. A baptismal certificate is not a public document.
It is a canonical certificate which is simply proof of the act
to which a priest may certify, i.e., the administration of the
sacrament of baptism. It is not proof of the declarations in the
record with respect to the parentage of the child baptized, or
of prior and distinct facts which require separate and distinct
evidence (Heirs of Gilberto Roldan v. Heirs of Silvela Roldan,
G.R. No. 202578, September 27, 2017).
6. Thechemistry report of a public officer, for example,
showing a positive result of a paraffin test, is a public
document. As a public document, the rule on authentication
does not apply. It is admissible in evidence without further
proof of its due execution and genuineness, The person who
made the report, need not be presented in court to identify,
describe and testify how the report was conducted. Moreover,
documents consisting of entries in public records made in
206 EVIDENCE
the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie

evidence of the facts stated therein (Kummer v. People, G.R.
No. 174461, September 11, 2013).
Also, the picture seat plan, prepared by officers of the
Civil Service Commission in implementing a government
examination, is a public document. The presentation of the
room examiners is not necessary to establish the authenticity
and due execution of the said seat plan. Documents consisting
of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty
by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein (Civil Service Commission v. Vergel de Dios, G.R. No.
203536, February 4, 2015).
7. Incontrast to the rule on public documents, a private
document, because it lacks the official or sovereign character
of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law,
requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or
the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court
(Patula v. People, 669 SCRA 1385, 156, April 11, 2012; See also
Spouses Lehner v. Chua, G.R. No. 174240, March 20, 2018).
Before the admission of a private document in evidence
that is offered as authentic, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved (Sec. 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court). This
requirement does not apply to a public document which is
admissible without further proof of its due execution and
genuineness.
Public documents as evidence

Under Sec. 23 of Rule 182, when a public officer, in the
performance of his duty, makes an entry in the public record,
the document of such entry is deemed prima facie evidence
of the fact stated in the entry. In Kummer v. People, G.R.
No. 174461, September 11, 2013, for example, the Court
considered the entries made by a government forensic chemist
- in a chemistry report as prima facie evidence of the facts
_ stated therein, This is because such entries were made by a
- public officer in the performance of his duty.
CHAPTER IV -_ OBJECT AND DOCUMENTA
RY EVIDENCE 207
C. Authentication and Proof of Documents
(Rule 132)
Section 23, as quoted, dec

lares:
i, “SEC. 23. Public documents as evid

ence. —
cuments consisting of entries in public rec
ords made
M my performance of a duty by a public officer are prima
acie evidence of the facts therein stated. All
other public
documents are evidence, even against a third
person, of
the fact which gave rise to their execution and
of the
date of the latter.”
_ However, not all types of public documents are deemed

prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. When a
document, like a deed of sale, is notarized such document is
transformed into a public document but although classified
as such, the document is not evidence of the facts recited in
the document. In other words, it is not evidence of the truth
of the facts and stipulations in the document. At most the
notarized document is evidence of the facts that gave rise to
the document, like the fact that there was a sale and of the
date of such document (Dadis v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 206008,
June 7, 2017).
In the case of other public documents, the facts stated
therein only constitute evidence of the fact that gave rise to the
execution of such documents and of the date of the execution
of the same.
Proof of official record; attestation of a copy

1. While a public document does not require the
authentication imposed upon a private document, there is
a necessity for showing to the court that indeed a record of
the official acts of official bodies, tribunals or of public officers
exists. How is this effected? Section 24 of Rule 132, as amended,
supplies the answer. The record of a public document may be
evidenced by:
(a) An official publication thereof; or
the officer
(b) A copy of the document attested by attestation
the
having legal custody of the record or by
of his or her deputy; if the record is not kept in the
EVIDENCE —
208 )
(The Bar Lectures Series
with a
Philippines, the attestation must be accompanied
custody;
certificate that such officer has the
is
(i) If the office in which the record is kept
cting party to
in a foreign country which is a contra
lippines is
a treaty or convention to which the Phi
nt under
also a party, or considered a public docume
aph (c),
such treaty or convention pursuant to paragr
ivalent
Sec. 19 of Rule 132, the certificate or its equ
or
shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty
convention subject to reciprocity granted to public
documents originating from the Philippines.
(i) If the office in which the record is kept is
in a foreign country which is not a contracting party
to a treaty or convention referred to in the previous
sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary
of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in
the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in
the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his or her office.
It has been held that the certification mentioned above
refers only to official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the Philippines, or
of a foreign country, as found in Sec. 19(a) of Rule 132. It does
not include other public documents like one acknowledged
before a notary public abroad. The notarized document need
not be certified by a consular officer because Sec. 24 of Rule
132 refers only to letter “a” of Sec. 19 of Rule 132 (Tujan-
Militante v. Nustad, G.R. No. 20951 8, June 19, 2017).
2. The attestation referred to in the precedi
must “state, in substance, that the copy
a cee
the original, or a specific part thereof,
as the case ma a
The attestation must be under the offic
ial seal of the stieath
officer, if there be any, or if he be the cler
k of a court hagine
a seal, under the seal of such court” (Sec.
25, Rule 132 Rule :
of Court; Government of Hongkong
Special Adnibnileisatc
Region v. Murioz, G.R. No. 207342, November
7, 2017 ”). .
3. The certificate and attestation are required because

of the general rule on the “irremovability of public records”
embodied in Sec. 26 of Rule 132, thus:
“SEC. 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any

public record, an official copy of which is admissible
in evidence, must not be removed from the office in
which it is kept, except upon order of a court where
the inspection of the record is essential to the just
determination of a pending case.”
4. Considering that the certificate or its equivalent is

prima facie evidence of the due execution and genuineness of
the document involved, a document that is accompanied by
said certificate or its equivalent may be presented in evidence
without further proof. The certificate shall not be required
when a treaty or convention between a foreign country
and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has
exempted the document itself from this formality (Sec. 24,
Rule 132, Rules of Court). This is in consonance with Art. 3 of
the Apostille Convention.
Proof of foreign laws; doctrine of processual presumption

(presumed-identity)
To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present
a copy thereof and comply with Secs. 24 and 25 of Rule 132 as
mentioned in the preceding topic. Where a foreign law is not
pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proven, the presumption
is that the foreign law is the same as Philippine law (Orion
Savings Bank v. Suzuki, G.R. No. 205487, November 12, 2014),
in accordance with the doctrine of processual presumption.
Special power of attorney executed abroad (Bar 2011)

In one case, a special power of attorney was executed
and acknowledged before a notary public of the state of
Washington, USA, authorizing the son of the principal to file
in the Philippines a suit against certain persons. The power
of attorney did not contain a certificate of authentication
ee rs
210 EVIDENCE
by a secretary of the Philippine embassy or legation, consul

general, consul, vice-consul or consular agent or by any officer
in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country.
The Court held that a notary public in a foreign country

is not one of those who can issue the certificate mentioned
in Sec. 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The Court ruled
that non-compliance with said provision will render the
special power of attorney inadmissible in evidence. Not being
duly established in evidence, the special power of attorney
cannot be used by the son to file a suit in representation of
his father. The case filed then is considered as one not filed
by a real party in interest. Not being a real party in interest
and without the authority to pursue the case, the son could
not have validly commenced the case. The argument that the
lack of consular authentication is a mere technicality that can
be brushed aside in order to uphold substantial justice was
also considered as untenable. The failure to have the special
power of attorney authenticated, according to the Court, is
not a mere technicality but a question of jurisdiction. Citing
the previous case of Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 838,
it was held that jurisdiction over the real party in interest
was never acquired by the courts. As a result, all proceedings
in the lower courts are declared null and void and, thus, set
aside (Heirs of Medina v. Natividad, 572 SCRA 227).
Public record of a private document

A public record of a private document may be proved by
any of the following:
(a) By the original record; or
(b) Byacopy thereof, attested by the legal custodian
of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such
officer has the custody (Sec. 27, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
: Proof of lack of record

_. A litigation does not always involve evidence of the
existence of a record. Sometimes, the issue centers on the
absence of an official record. How then may the absence of a

record be proven?
Proof of lack of record of a document consists of a written
statement signed by the officer having custody of an official
record or by his deputy. The written statement must contain
the following matters:
(a) there has been a diligent search of the record;
(b) that despite the diligent search, no record of
entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records
of his office.
The written statement must be accompanied by a
certificate that such officer has the custody of official records
(Sec. 28, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
Last wills and testaments

Last wills and testaments must undergo an authenti-
cation process even if they are notarized as required by Art.
806 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The Rules of Court
(Sec. 19[b], Rule 132), while declaring that the term “public
document” includes one acknowledged before a notary public,
nevertheless, expressly excludes last wills and testaments.
Besides, substantive law provides that no will shall pass
either real or personal property unless proved and allowed in
the proper court (Art. 838, Civil Code of the Philippines). The
same substantive rule is echoed in Sec. 1 of Rule 75 which
provides:
“SECTION 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as
to execution. — No will shall pass either real or personal
court, Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance
of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution”
(Underscoring supplied).
Explaining alterations in a document

The party producing the document as genuine but which
bears alterations after its execution has the duty to account for
212 EVIDENCE
any alteration found in a document purported to be genuine.

For such purpose, he may show any of the following:
(a) that the alteration was made by another
without his concurrence; or
(b) that the alteration was made with the consent
of the parties affected by it;
(c) that the alteration was otherwise properly or
innocently made; or
(d) that the alteration did not in any way change
the meaning or language of the instrument.
Failure to do any of the above will make the document
inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 31, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
Proof of documents in an unofficial language

Because the rule provides that a document written in an
unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, it must
be accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino. To
avoid interruption of court proceedings, attorneys are required
to have such translation prepared before trial (Sec. 33, ibid.).
impeachment of judicial record

1. A judicial record refers to the record of judicial
proceedings (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p. 762). It does
not only include official entries or files or the official acts of a
judicial officer (Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 11th Ed., §805),
but also the judgment of the court (Black’s Law Dictionary,
p. 762).
2. Section 29 of Rule 132 authorizes the impeachment
_ of any judicial record if there be evidence of the existence of
_ any of the following grounds: (a) lack of jurisdiction in the
_ court or judicial officer; (b) collusion between the parties; or
© fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
‘proceedings.
Registration of contracts
1. Where a contract is required by law to be registered,
the same must be, as a rule, in a public instrument. For
example, for purposes of registration and convenience,
acts and contracts which have for their object the creation,
transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights
over immovable property must appear in a public instrument
(Art. 1358, Civil Code of the Philippines).
2. Certain contracts must be in writing or in a public
instrument in order to be valid. Examples: (a) A donation of
an immovable (Art. 749, ibid.); (b) A donation of a movable
with a value exceeding five thousand pesos (Art. 748, ibid.);
(c) A partnership where immovable property or real rights are
contributed (Art. 1771, ibid.).
Foreign judgments; divorces

Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive
evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and
admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven
by the divorce decree itself. Indeed, the best evidence of a
judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a
written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of
a foreign country.
Under Secs. 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a
writing or document may be proven as a public or official record
of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2)
a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of
the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such
copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the
proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign
service stationed in the foreign country in which the record
is kept, and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office (Vda.
de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee, 665 SCRA 487, 495, February 8,
2012).
214 EVIDENCE
Church registries
As early as in the case of U.S. v. Evangelista, 29 Phil. 215,
it has been settled that church registries of births, marriages,
and deaths made subsequent to the promulgation of General
Orders No. 68, promulgated on December 18, 1889, and the
passage of Act No. 190, enacted on August 7, 1901, are no longer
public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public
officials. They are private writings and their authenticity
must, therefore, be proved, as are all other private writings
in accordance with the Rules on Evidence (Llemos v. Llemos,
513 SCRA 128; See also Cercado-Siga v. Cercado, Jr., G.R. No.
185374, March 11, 2015). (Bar 2011)
—0o000
—

130-EVIDENCE-RIANO 2022 02-Oct-2022 21-16-32

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

130-EVIDENCE-RIANO 2022 02-Oct-2022 21-16-32

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

130-EVIDENCE-RIANO 2022 02-Oct-2022 21-16-32

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter IV

OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Classification of evidence under the Rules of Court

superior or has the most probative vvalue. The better view

bolstered. However, common reason suggests that when the

testimonial evidence conflicts with the documentary oor object

evidence,testimonial evidence cannot prevail since it can Feeney

easily be fabricated. When the witness asserts, for instance,

not the only evidence ofa ‘fact.

the allegations contained ‘therein.

AL Object Evidence oes

Nature of object. evidence

“SECTION 1. Object as evidence. — - Objects as

the(2) 00 — evidence does not refer to the perception of

Object or real evidence appeals directly to the senses of the.

4. Object evidence could provide a dramatic ‘end to

Requisites for admissibility of object evidence

2. For the object not to be excluded by the Rules, the

5. Object evidence is not taken in isolation, It is weighed

(b) The evidence must be authenticated; aeeeemneertirsmant

~(c) The authenticati

is to comply with the element of competence as an 1 essential

As a rule, the formal offer ofevidence is particularly a ae

vital act before the _admission of evidence because the court

offered” (Sec. 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court).

The requirements of relevance by the testimony of a

Object evidence.and the right against self-incrimination (Bar

against object evidence.

f 3.) Photogronis — Photomanhe of persons, ine and

(ii) Some other person competent to testify

_@: Where do you work Mr. Witness?

For the past ten years, Sir.

Guess and Rado Sts. in St. Jude Village.

I’ve worked in this area for the past ten years

(4) Motion pictures: and. recordings — The rules that

standard for laying the foundation for motion Pictures and

(5) Diagrams, models and_maps — These types of

depicts, and that the same is an accurate representation of

X-ray pictures — X-ray pictures, also referred

No. 204894, March 10, 2014). This rule applies to telephone

In the absence or unavailability of the required witnesses,

View of an object or scene

2. Courts have recognized that there are times when

made readily identifiable

Chain of.custody.in general. -.. se ankians ty

must be authenticated prior to its admission x x x” (People vy,

3.° In drug cases, the chain of custody also means that

I would like to show you this gun. Will you

Would you please describe the knife you saw?

A: It was of the kind you normally buy in a wet

With my own Swiss knife, I scratched my

In the above examples, showing the chain of custody

Officer, after finding the substance you said you

What did you do with the evidence after that?

Q: In what condition was the evidence bag when

Ideally, the next witness would be the chemist who

else and that, as it is shown in court, there appear no signs

_, Note: It has been held, however, that the forensic chemist,