EXCEPTION: FOR COMPELLING REASONS, WHICH
337
MUST BE STATED IN THE APPLICATION, IT MAY
ALSO BE FILED: .................................................... 313
1. IF THE PLACE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME IS KNOWN, ANY COURT WITHIN THE
JUDICIAL REGION WHERE THE CRIME WAS
COMMITTED......................................................... 313
2. ANY COURT WITHIN THE JUDICIAL REGION
WHERE THE WARRANT SHALL BE ENFORCED .. 313
D. PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF
SEARCH WARRANT ............................................. 313
E. PERSONAL EXAMINATION BY JUDGE OF
THE APPLICANT AND WITNESS ......................... 314
F. PARTICULARITY OF PLACE TO BE
SEARCHED AND THINGS TO BE SEIZED .......... 314
G. PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED .. 314
H. EXCEPTIONS TO THE SEARCH WARRANT
REQUIREMENT .................................................... 315
I. REMEDIES FROM UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE ............................................................... 320
J. CYBERCRIME WARRANTS .......................... 321
K. WARRANTS RELATING TO BANK
ACCOUNTS ........................................................... 321
XV. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN
CRIMINAL CASES ..................................... 322
A. NATURE ...................................................... 322
B. KINDS OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES ........ 322
C. OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES ............ 323
XVI. GUIDELINES ON CONTINUOUS
TRIAL 324
A. APPLICABILITY ........................................... 324
B. PROHIBITED AND MERITORIOUS MOTIONS
324
C. ARRAIGNMENT AND PRE-TRIAL .............. 324
D. TRIAL AND MEMORANDA..................... 325
E. PROMULGATION ........................................ 326
XVII. RULE ON CYBERCRIME
WARRANTS ................................................. 327
A. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY ...................... 327
B. GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................. 327
C. DISCLOSURE OF COMPUTER DATA .......... 328
D. INTERCEPTION....................................... 329
E. SEARCH, SEIZURE, AND EXAMINATION OF
COMPUTER DATA ............................................... 330
F. CUSTODY OF COMPUTER DATA ............... 331
G. DESTRUCTION OF COMPUTER DATA .. 332
XVIII. PROBATION................................ 333
EVIDENCE
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES ....................... 337
A. CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE ...............................
1. Scope and Applicability of the Rules of
Evidence .......................................................... 337
a. Scope of Application.............................. 337
b. Uniformity of Application..................... 337
Distinguish: Proof v. Evidence...................... 337
2. Construction of the Rules of Evidence .... 337
B. EQUIPOISE RULE............................................ 338
II. ADMISSIBILITY .................................... 339
A. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ...................... 339
1. Requisites for Admissibility; Relevance and
Competence .................................................... 339
a. Relevance ................................................ 339
b. Competence............................................ 342
2. Exclusionary Rules of Evidence................ 342
a. Constitutional exclusionary rules .......... 342
b. Statutory exclusionary rules................... 342
III. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS .............................................. 343
A. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED.................... 343
B. MATTERS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE.................... 343
1. When Mandatory ........................................ 343
2. When Discretionary.................................... 343
C. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS ................................... 345
1. Effect of Judicial Admissions .................... 346
2. How Judicial Admissions May Be
Contradicted.................................................... 346
IV. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE ............ 348
A. NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE.................... 348
B. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY .................. 348
C. CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE ........... 349
D. CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN RELATION TO SEC. 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002 ....................................................... 349
E. DNA EVIDENCE ............................................ 350
a. Application for DNA testing order ........... 350
b. Post-conviction DNA Testing; Remedy .. 351
c. Assessment of Probative Value of DNA
Evidence and Admissibility............................ 351
d. Rules on Evaluation of Reliability of the
DNA Testing Methodology........................... 352
V. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE............ 353
A. MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE . 353
1. Requisites for Admissibility ....................... 353
B. BEST EVIDENCE/ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
RULE..................................................................... 353
1. Meaning of the Rule ................................... 353
2. When Not Applicable ................................ 353
3. Meaning of Original Document and
Duplicate ......................................................... 353
 4. Exception; Secondary Evidence; Summaries
.......................................................................... 354
a. When the original is unavailable............ 354
b. When the original is in the custody or
control of the adverse party OR original
cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures............................. 354
c. When the contents of documents, records,
photographs, or numerous accounts are
voluminous and cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time, and the fact
sought to be established from them is only
the general result of the whole
(“Summaries”) ............................................ 354
d. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office ................................................ 354
e. When original is outside the jurisdiction of
the court ...................................................... 355
C. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE ............................... 355
1. Meaning of the Rule ................................... 355
2. Application of the Parol Evidence Rule ... 355
3. When Parol Evidence Can Be Introduced 355
a. Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake or
Imperfection in the Written Agreement... 355
b. Failure of the Written Agreement to
Express the True Intent and Agreement of
the Parties Thereto ..................................... 356
c. Validity of the Written Agreement ....... 356
4. Distinction Between the Original Document
Rule and Parol Evidence Rule ....................... 356
D. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS............. 356
1. General Rule; Literal, Legal Meaning........ 357
2. Construction So as to Give Effect to All
Provisions ........................................................ 357
3. Construction of general and particular
provisions ........................................................ 357
4. Construction according to circumstances 357
5. Construction of peculiar signification of
terms ................................................................ 358
6. Written Words Control Printed ................ 358
7. Experts and Interpreters; When Resorted To
.......................................................................... 358
8. Preferred Among Two Constructions ...... 358
9. Construction in favor of natural rights ..... 358
10. Interpretation According to Usage ......... 359
VI. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE .............. 360
A. QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS.................. 360
B. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE;
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES ................ 361
1. Disqualification by Reason of Marriage.... 361
2. Disqualifications by Reason of Privileged
Communications; Rule on Third Parties ...... 362
a. Husband and Wife.................................. 362
b. Attorney and Client................................ 363
c. Physician and Patient ............................. 364
d. Priest and Penitent ................................. 365
e. Public Officers ........................................ 365
3. Parental and Filial Privilege Rule ............... 366
4. Trade Secrets ............................................... 366
5. Other Privileged Communication Not in the
Rules of Court ................................................. 366
a. Newsman’s Privilege .............................. 366
b. Information in Conciliation Proceedings
..................................................................... 366
c. Data Privacy Act..................................... 367
d. Food and Drug Administration Act ..... 367
C. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS .................. 367
1. Admission by a Party.................................. 367
2. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule .......................... 367
3. Admission by a Third Party ....................... 368
4. Admission By a Co-Partner or Agent ....... 368
5. Admission by a Conspirator ...................... 368
6. Admission by Privies .................................. 369
7. Admission by Silence ................................. 369
8. Confessions ................................................. 370
9. Admissibility of Offers of compromise.... 371
D. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE............ 371
1. Similar Acts as Evidence ............................ 371
2. Unaccepted Offer ....................................... 372
E. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY RULE
.............................................................................. 372
1. Meaning of Hearsay.................................... 372
2. Reason for Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence
.......................................................................... 373
3. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule ................ 374
a. Dying Declaration .................................. 374
b. Statement of Decedent or Person of
Unsound Mind ........................................... 374
c. Declaration Against Interest.................. 375
d. Act or Declaration About Pedigree ...... 375
e. Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding
Pedigree ....................................................... 376
f. Common Reputation .............................. 377
g. Part of the Res Gestate .......................... 377
h. Records of Regularly Conducted Business
Activity ........................................................ 378
i. Entries in Official Records ..................... 379
j. Commercial Lists and the Like .............. 379
k. Learned Treatises ................................... 379
l. Testimony or Deposition at a Former Trial
..................................................................... 380
m. Residual Exception ............................... 380
4. Independently Relevant Statements (IRS) 380
F. OPINION RULE ............................................... 381
1. Opinion of Expert Witness; Weight given381
a. Admitting Expert Testimony ................ 381
 b. Examining an Expert Witness .............. 381
2. Opinion of Ordinary Witness.................... 382
a. Identity of a Person About Whom He Has
Adequate Knowledge................................. 382
b. Handwriting With Which He Has
Sufficient Familiarity .................................. 382
c. Mental Sanity of a Person With Whom He
Is Sufficiently Acquainted.......................... 382
d. Impressions of the Emotion, Behavior,
Condition or Appearance of a Person ...... 382
G. CHARACTER EVIDENCE................................ 383
1. Criminal Cases ............................................ 383
2. Civil Cases ................................................... 383
3. Criminal and Civil Cases ............................ 384
VII. BURDEN OF PROOF AND
PRESUMPTIONS ....................................... 385
A. BURDEN OF PROOF AND BURDEN OF
EVIDENCE ........................................................... 385
B. PRESUMPTIONS ............................................... 385
1. Conclusive Presumptions .......................... 386
2. Disputable Presumptions ...................... 387
3. Presumptions in Civil Actions and
Proceedings; Against an Accused in Criminal
Cases ................................................................ 389
VIII. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE 390
A. EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS...................... 390
1. Rights and Obligations of a Witness......... 390
2. Order in the Examination of an Individual
Witness ............................................................ 390
3. Leading and Misleading Questions ........... 391
4. Impeachment of Witness ........................... 391
a. Adverse Party’s Witness......................... 391
b. By Evidence of Conviction of Crime... 392
c. Own Witness .......................................... 392
d. How the Witness Is Impeached By
Evidence of Inconsistent Statements ....... 392
5. Referral of Witness to Memorandum ....... 392
6. Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No.
004-07-SC)....................................................... 393
a. Applicability of the Rule ........................ 393
b. Meaning of “Child Witness" ................. 393
c. Competency of a child witness.............. 393
d. Examination of a Child Witness ........... 393
e. Live-link TV Testimony of a Child
Witness ........................................................ 394
f. Videotaped Deposition of a Child Witness
..................................................................... 394
g. Hearsay Exception in Child abuse Cases
..................................................................... 394
h. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule ...................... 395
i. Protective Orders .................................... 395
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS ....................................................... 396
1. Meaning of Authentication ........................ 396
2. Classes of Documents ................................ 396
3. When a Private Writing Requires
Authentication; Proof of Private Writing ..... 397
4. When Evidence of Authenticity of a Private
Writing Is Not Required ................................ 397
5. Genuineness of a Handwriting .................. 397
6. Public Documents as Evidence; Proof of
Official Records .............................................. 397
7. Attestation of a Copy of a Document or
Record.............................................................. 398
8. Public Record of Private Documents ....... 398
9. Proof of Lack of Record ............................ 398
10. How a Judicial Record is Impeached ...... 398
11. Proof of Notarial Documents ................. 398
12. Alterations in a Document ...................... 399
13. Documentary Evidence in an Unofficial
Language.......................................................... 399
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION................................ 399
1. Offer of Evidence....................................... 399
2. When to Make an Offer ............................. 400
3. Objection..................................................... 400
4. Repetition of an Objection ........................ 401
5. Ruling........................................................... 401
6. Striking Out an Answer ............................. 402
7. Tender of Excluded Evidence................... 402
IX. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M.
NO. 12-8-8-SC) ............................................. 404
A. SCOPE .............................................................. 404
B. SUBMISSION IN LIEU OF DIRECT TESTIMONY
.............................................................................. 404
C. CONTENTS ...................................................... 404
D. OFFER AND OBJECTION ............................... 405
F. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE ..................... 406
X. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE ................................................. 407
A. QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE ............................. 407
1. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt ............. 407
2. Preponderance of Evidence ...................... 407
3. Substantial Evidence .................................. 407
4. Clear and Convincing Evidence ................ 407
B. POWER TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE........ 408
C. EVIDENCE ON MOTION ................................ 408
XI. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC) ................................. 409
A. MEANING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE;
ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE .......................... 409
 B. PROBATIVE VALUE OF ELECTRONIC 2. Review of Final Judgments or Final
DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT; Orders of The Civil Service Commission..... 429
METHOD OF PROOF ........................................... 410 3. Review of Final Judgments or Final
C. AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC Orders of The Ombudsman .......................... 430
DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES 410 4. Review of Final Judgments or Final
D. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND HEARSAY Orders of The National Labor Relations
RULE..................................................................... 410 Commission .................................................... 430
1. Audio, Photographic, Video and Ephemeral E. REVIEW OF FINAL JUDGMENTS OR FINAL
evidence ........................................................... 411 ORDERS OF QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES.......... 430
F. RULE 45 – APPEALS BY CERTIORARI TO THE
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SUPREME COURT ................................................ 432
1. Appeal from Judgments or Final Orders
I. APPEALS; GENERAL PRINCIPLES 413
of The Court of Appeals ................................ 432
A. NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ........ 413 2. Appeal from Judgments or Final Orders
1.
Issues to Be Raised on Appeal.............. 414 of The Sandiganbayan .................................... 435
2.
Period of Appeal .................................... 415 3. Appeal from Judgments or Final Orders
3.
Perfection of Appeal.............................. 415 of The Court of Tax Appeals ........................ 435
B. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS SUBJECT G. RULE 64 – REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OR
TO APPEAL........................................................... 415 FINAL ORDERS OF THE COA AND COMELEC
C. MATTERS NOT APPEALABLE ; AVAILABLE 436
REMEDIES ............................................................ 415 1. Review of Final Judgments or Final
D. DOCTRINE OF FINALITY/ IMMUTABILITY Orders of The Commission on Audit........... 436
OF JUDGMENT ; EXCEPTIONS ........................... 416 2. Review of Final Judgments or Final
Orders of The Commission on Elections .... 436
II. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES
a. Dismissal, reinstatement, and
OTHER THAN APPEAL ........................... 417
withdrawal of appeal .................................. 436
A. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 417
IV. APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES:
1.Grounds for Availing of the Remedy... 418
MODES OF APPEAL FROM JUDGMENTS
2.Time to File Petition .............................. 418
3.Contents of Petition .............................. 418 OR FINAL ORDERS OF VARIOUS
B. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT BY THE COURT COURTS/TRIBUNALS ............................. 439
OF APPEALS ......................................................... 419 A. EFFECT OF AN APPEAL.............................. 439
1. Grounds for Annulment ....................... 420 B. WHERE TO APPEAL.................................... 439
2. Period to File Action ............................. 420 C. HOW APPEAL TAKEN............................ 439
3. Effects of Judgment of Annulment ..... 420 1. Procedure in the Lower Courts
C. COLLATERAL ATTACK ON JUDGMENTS, (MeTC/MTC/MCTC and RTC) .................. 440
WHEN PROPER.................................................... 421 2. Procedure in the Court of Appeals ...... 440
D. RULE 65 AS A REMEDY FROM JUDGMENT a. Parties and Title ................................. 440
422 b. Briefs................................................... 440
III. APPEALS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE; 3. Dismissal of Appeal for Abandonment or
Failure to Prosecute; Grounds....................... 441
MODES OF APPEAL FROM JUDGMENTS
a. Appellant fails to file his brief within
OR FINAL ORDERS OF VARIOUS
the prescribed time ..................................... 441
COURTS / TRIBUNALS ........................... 423
b. Appellant escapes, jumps bail, or flees . 441
A. RULE 40 – APPEAL FROM MTCS TO RTCS c. Prompt Disposition of Appeal.............. 441
423 d. Reversal or Modification of Judgment on
B. RULE 41 – APPEAL FROM RTCS................ 424 Appeal ......................................................... 441
C. RULE 42 – PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM e. Scope of the CA’s Judgment ................. 442
RTCS TO CA ........................................................ 427 f. CA’s Power to Receive Evidence .......... 442
D. RULE 43 – APPEALS FROM CTA, CSC, g. Post-CA Judgment ................................. 442
AND QJA.............................................................. 429 h. Procedure in the Supreme Court .......... 443
1. Appeal from Judgments or Final Orders i. Appeals from the Office of the
of The Court of Tax Appeals ........................ 429 Ombudsman ............................................... 444
 j. Appeals from the Resolutions of the Office 3. Government Remedies for Collection of
of the City Prosecutor................................ 444 Delinquent Taxes ............................................ 468
k. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan ......... 444 a. Requisites: ............................................... 468
l. Effect of Appeal by Any of Several b. Prescriptive Periods; Suspension of
Accused ....................................................... 444 Running of Statute of Limitations ............ 468
m. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal ....... 445 c. Administrative Remedies .................. 469
d. No Injunction Rule; Exceptions ...... 474
V. PROCEDURE IN TAX CASES ...... 446
4. Civil Penalties .............................................. 475
VI. PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF a. Delinquency Interest and Deficiency
APPEALS...................................................... 446 Interest ........................................................ 475
e. Surcharge ............................................ 475
A. RULE 44 – ORDINARY APPEALED CASES . 446
f. Compromise Penalty ......................... 476
B. RULE 46 – ORIGINAL CASES...................... 447
C. RULE 47 – ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS II. TAX REMEDIES UNDER THE LOCAL
OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTION ............. 448 GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991 .............. 477
a. Grounds for Annulment ........................ 449
A. TAXPAYER’S REMEDIES................................. 477
b. Period to File Action ............................. 450
1. Protest of Assessment ....................... 477
c. Effects of Judgment of Annulment . 450
2. Claim for Refund or Tax Credit of
D. RULE 50 – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL ......... 450
Erroneously or Illegally Collected Tax, Fee,
E. RULE 51 – JUDGMENT ; HARMLESS ERROR
or Charge..................................................... 477
451
3. Question the Legality of the Ordinance477
F. RULE 53 – NEW TRIAL ............................... 452
B. ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF LOCAL
VII. PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME TAXES................................................................... 478
COURT......................................................... 454 1. Remedies of LGUs ............................... 478
a. Local Government’s Lien ................. 478
A. RULE 56-A – ORIGINAL CASES ................. 454
b. Civil Remedies, in General ............... 478
a. Rule 56-B – Appealed cases ....................... 454
C. JUDICIAL ACTION .................................. 479
D. REMEDIES UNDER THE LGC ON REAL
TAX REMEDIES
PROPERTY TAX ................................................... 479
I. TAX REMEDIES UNDER THE NIRC 456 1. Remedies of LGUs ............................ 479
2. Taxpayer’s Remedies.............................. 480
A. GENERAL CONCEPTS ................................ 456
a. Contesting the Valuation of Real
Taxpayer Remedies ......................................... 456
Property....................................................... 480
1. Assessment of Internal Revenue Taxes .... 456
g. Contesting a Deficiency Tax
Procedural due process in tax
Assessment.................................................. 481
assessments [Sec. 228, NIRC; RR 12-99, as
h. Compromising an RPT Assessment 482
amended by RR 18-13, RR 7-18 and RR 22-
2020] ............................................................ 456 III. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ...... 483
viii. Tax Delinquency as Distinguished from
A. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX
Tax Deficiency............................................ 459
APPEALS ............................................................... 483
d. Prescriptive Period for Assessment . 459
1. Civil Cases ................................................... 483
2. Taxpayer’s Remedies .................................. 461
b. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the
a. Protesting the Assessment ................ 461
Court in Divisions ...................................... 483
B. DECISION ON THE PROTEST FILED ......... 462
b. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil
1. Denial of the protest through the issuance of
Cases ............................................................ 483
a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment
2. Criminal Cases ............................................ 485
(FDDA) ........................................................... 462
a. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the
2. Indirect denial of the protest ..................... 463
Court in Divisions ...................................... 485
3. Inaction by the CIR or his duly authorized
b. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction in
representative .................................................. 463
Criminal Cases ............................................ 485
a. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally
b. Local Taxes ........................................ 486
Collected ..................................................... 463
3. Civil Cases ................................................... 486
a. Power of Commissioner of Internal
a. Who May Appeal, Mode of Appeal; Effect
Revenue to Compromise ........................... 466
of Appeal..................................................... 486
b. Non-retroactivity of Rulings............. 468
EVIDENCE
REMEDIAL LAW AND
LEGAL ETHICS

Page 336 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Concept of Evidence
The means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the
truth respecting a matter of fact [Sec. 1,
Rule 128].
“Truth” is not necessarily the actual truth,
but one referred to as the judicial or legal
truth [Riano, 2, 2016 Ed.].
1. Scope and Applicability of the
Rules of Evidence
a. Scope of Application
Under the Rules of Court (ROC), the rules
of evidence are specifically applicable only
to judicial proceedings [Sec. 1, Rule 128].
Judicial proceedings are of THREE
KINDS ONLY
1. Civil action – which is of two kinds:
a. ordinary civil action, and
b. special civil action
2. Criminal action
3. Special Proceeding [Sec. 3, Rule 1].
Note: All other proceedings are NON-
JUDICIAL, hence, application of the rules of
evidence in the ROC is not mandatory
unless provided to be so by law or
regulation [See Sec. 4, Rule 1].
b. Uniformity of Application
General Rule: The rules of evidence shall
be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings [Sec. 2, Rule 128].
Exceptions:
If otherwise provided by:
1. Law (e.g. 1987 Constitution,
statutes)
2. Rules of Court (Sec. 2, Rule 128)
3. SC issuances (e.g., Judicial
Affidavit Rule, Rules on Procedure for
Environmental Cases, Child Witness
Rule, Rules on Electronic Evidence,
Rules on DNA Evidence)
Page 337 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
No Vested Right of Property in Rules of
Evidence
Any evidence inadmissible according to the
laws in force at the time the action accrued, but
admissible according to the laws in force at the
time of trial, is receivable [Francisco 8, 1996
Ed., citing Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R. No. 1164
(1903)].
Rules of Evidence May be Waived
According to Francisco [Ibid.], there are rules
of evidence established merely for the
protection of the parties. If, according to the
well-established doctrine, the parties may
waive such rules during the trial of a case,
there is no reason why they cannot make the
waiver in a contract (e.g. a contract of
insurance requiring the testimony of
eyewitness as the only evidence admissible
concerning the death of the insured person).
However, if the rule of evidence waived by the
parties has been established on grounds of
public policy, the waiver is void (e.g. waiver
of the privilege against the disclosure of state
secrets).
Distinguish: Proof v. Evidence
Proof Evidence
Result or Mode and manner of
effect of proving competent facts in
evidence [2 judicial proceedings
Regalado [Bustos v. Lucero, G.R.
698, 2008 No. L-2068 (1948)].
Ed.].
The end The means to an end
result
Note: Evidence is a relative term; It signifies a
relation between facts: the factum probans and
factum probandum [Wigmore, Principles of
Judicial Proof, 5, cited in Riano 11, 2016 Ed.].
2. Construction of the Rules of
Evidence
The Rules of Court, including the Revised
Rules on Evidence, shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective
of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding
[Sec. 6, Rule 1].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise
be liberally construed [Sec. 2, Rule 2, Rules
on Electronic Evidence].

B. Equipoise Rule
The doctrine refers to the situation where
the evidence of the parties are evenly
balanced or there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates. In this case, the
decision should be against the party with the
burden of proof [Rivera v. C.A., G.R. No.
115625 (1998); Marubeni v. Lirag, G.R. No.
130998 (2001)].

In criminal cases, the equipoise rule

provides that where the evidence is evenly
balanced, the constitutional presumption of
innocence tilts the scales in favor of the
accused [Malana v. People, G.R. No.
173612 (2008)].

Page 338 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
II. ADMISSIBILITY
A. Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to
the issue and not excluded by the
Constitution, the law or these Rules [Sec. 3,
Rule 128].
Admissibility does not concern weight
Admissibility of evidence should not be
equated with weight of evidence. The
admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence, while the
weight of evidence pertains to evidence
already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade. Thus, a particular
item of evidence may be admissible, but its
evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by
the Rules of Court [Dela Llana v. Biong,
G.R. No. 182356 (2013)].
Admissibility of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not the circumstance
(or evidence) is to be considered at all. On
the other hand, the probative value of
evidence refers to the question of whether
or not it proves an issue [PNOC Shipping
and Transport Corporation v. C.A., G.R. No.
107518 (1998)].
Since admissibility of evidence is
dete2rmined by its relevance and
competence, admissibility is, therefore, an
affair of logic and law. On the other hand,
the weight to be given to such evidence,
once admitted, depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided in
Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down
by the Court. Thus, while evidence may be
admissible, it may be entitled to little or no
weight at all. Conversely, evidence which
may have evidentiary weight may be
inadmissible because a special rule forbids
its reception [People v. Turco, G.R. No.
137757 (2000)].
To emphasize, “a preliminary investigation
is merely preparatory to a trial; it is not a trial
on the merits.” Since “it cannot be expected
that upon the filing of the information in court
the prosecutor would have already
presented all the evidence necessary to
secure a conviction of the accused,” the
Page 339 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence
cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary
investigation [Maza v. Judge Turla, G.R. No.
187094 (2017)].
The Importance of Offer in Relation to
Admissibility
Parties are required to inform the courts of the
purpose of introducing their respective exhibits
to assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility
in case an objection thereto is made [Star Two
v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454 (2011)].
The court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified
[Sec. 34, Rule 132].
All evidence must be offered orally [Sec. 35,
Rule 132].
● Offer of testimonial evidence — made at
the time the witness is called to testify
● Offer of documentary and object evidence
— made after the presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence
Note: Under the new rules, there is an
exception for documentary and object
evidence — “Unless allowed by the Court to be
done in writing”
Objection
Objection to offer of evidence must be made
orally immediately after the offer is made.
● Objection to the testimony of a witness for
lack of formal offer must be made as soon
as the witness begins to testify.
● Objection as to a question propounded in
the course of the oral examination of a
witness must be made as soon as the
grounds therefor become reasonably
apparent.
● The grounds for objections must be
specified [Sec. 36, Rule 132].
1. Requisites for Admissibility;
Relevance and Competence
a. Relevance
When the evidence has such a relation to the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence
or non-existence [Sec. 4, Rule 128] (e.g.,
evidence as to the age of a person who has
been raped is relevant in a situation where the
EVIDENCE
age would qualify the offense to statutory
rape).
Determinable by the rules of logic and
human experience [2 Regalado 704, 2008
Ed.].
Collateral Matters
Matters other than the fact in issue and
which are offered as a basis for inference as
to the existence or non-existence of the
facts in issue [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.].
General Rule: Evidence on collateral
matters is NOT allowed.
Exception: When it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in
issue [Sec. 4, Rule 128].
Note: What the Rules prohibit is evidence of
irrelevant collateral facts [2 Regalado
708, 2008 Ed.].
i. Multiple Admissibility
Where the evidence is relevant and
competent for two or more purposes, such
evidence should be admitted for any or all
the purposes for which it is offered, provided
it satisfies all the requisites of law for its
admissibility therefor [2 Regalado 706, 2008
Ed.].
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and
is admissible insofar as it satisfies all rules
applicable to it when offered for that
purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule
which would be applicable to it if offered for
another purpose does not exclude it
[Francisco 11, 1996 Ed.].
ii. Conditional Admissibility
Where the evidence at the time of its offer
appears to be immaterial or irrelevant
unless it is connected with the other facts to
be subsequently proved, such evidence
may be received on condition that the other
facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise,
the evidence already given shall be stricken
out [2 Regalado 705, 2008 Ed.].
Page 340 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Example: a copy of a writing may not be
considered competent evidence until the
original is proven to be lost or destroyed
Conditional admissibility requires no bad faith
on the part of the proponent.
iii. Curative Admissibility
The right of a party to introduce incompetent
evidence in his behalf where the court has
admitted incompetent evidence adduced by
the adverse party.
iv. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
Direct Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence
Proves the Proof of facts from which,
fact in dispute taken collectively, the
without the existence of a particular
aid of any fact in dispute may be
inference or inferred as a necessary or
presumption probable consequence
[Francisco 2, 1996 Ed.]
Requisites to Warrant a Conviction Based
on Circumstantial Evidence
1. There is more than one circumstance;
2. The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
3. The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce conviction beyond
reasonable doubt [Sec. 4, Rule 133].
Inferences cannot be based on other
inferences [Ibid].
The totality of the evidence must constitute an
unbroken chain showing the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt [People v.
Matito, G.R. No. 144405 (2004)].
Note: Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker
form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence
[Ibid].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
v. Positive and Negative Evidence vi. Competent and Credible Evidence

Positive Negative Evidence Competent Credible Evidence

Evidence Evidence

Witness affirms Witness states he/she Not excluded by Refers to probative

that a certain did not see or does not the Constitution, value or convincing
state of facts did know of the occurrence the law, or the weight
exist or that a of a fact. Rules [Sec. 3,
certain event Rule 128] Weight involves the
happened. effect of evidence
admitted, its tendency
to convince and
[2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.] persuade. It is not
determined
mathematically by the
numerical superiority
of the witnesses
testifying to a given
fact, but depends upon
its practical effect in
inducing belief on the
part of the judge trying
the case [Francisco
11, 1996 Ed.].

Determined by
the prevailing
exclusionary
rules of evidence
[2 Regalado 704,
2008 Ed.].

Note:
Exclusionary
rules may affect
due process. To
the extent that
they might
prejudice
substantive
rights, therefore,
they cannot be
made to apply
retroactively.

Page 341 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Relevant Competent competent and independent counsel, (c)
express, and (d) in writing.

When the evidence Not excluded by Moreover, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7438
has such a relation the Constitution, requires that "any person arrested, detained or
to the fact in issue the law, or the under custodial investigation shall at all times
as to induce belief Rules [Sec. 3, Rule be assisted by counsel.”
in its existence or 128].
non-existence [Sec. b. Statutory exclusionary rules
4, Rule 128]. • Lack of documentary stamp tax to
documents required to have one makes
such document inadmissible as evidence
b. Competence in court until the requisite stamp/s shall
have been affixed thereto and cancelled
Not excluded by the Constitution, the law, or [Sec. 201, NIRC];
the Rules [Sec. 3, Rule 128]. • Any communication obtained by a person,
not being authorized by all the parties to
2. Exclusionary Rules of Evidence any private communication, by tapping any
wire/cable or using any other
a. Constitutional exclusionary rules device/arrangement to secretly
overhear/intercept/record such information
Consequence Violation by using any device, shall not be
admissible in evidence in any hearing or
investigation [Secs. 1 and 4, R.A. 4200
Inadmissible for Art III, Sec 2 (Wire-Tapping Act)].
any proceeding (unreasonable
searches and Note: there must be a law that renders the
seizure) evidence inadmissible [Ejercito v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 157294-95
Art III, Sec 3 (2006)]. In this case, the SC held that nowhere
(privacy of in R.A. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law) does it
communication and provide that an unlawful examination of bank
correspondence) accounts shall render the evidence obtained
therefrom inadmissible in evidence.
Inadmissible Art III, Sec 12 (right
against the to counsel,
1. Exclusions Under the Rules on
accused, but may prohibition on
Evidence
be used by the torture, force,
a. Original document rule (previously best
offended party in a violence, threat,
evidence rule)
suit for damages intimidation or other
b. Hearsay evidence rule
against the violator means which vitiate
c. Offer of compromise in civil cases
the free will;
prohibition on
secret detention 2. Exclusions Under Court issuances
places, solitary, a. Rule on Electronic Evidence, e.g.
incommunicado) compliance with authentication requirements
for electronic evidence
Art III, Sec 17 (right b. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, e.g.
against self- sexual abuse shield rule
incrimination) c. Judicial Affidavit Rule

It is settled that for an extrajudicial

confession to be admissible in evidence
against the accused, the same “must be (a)
voluntary, (b) made with the assistance of a

Page 342 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
III. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
A. What Need Not Be Proved
1. Facts of Judicial Notice
2. Judicial Admissions
3. Conclusive Presumptions
Note: Evidence is also not required when
the issue is purely a question of law. The
definition of “evidence” in Sec. 1, Rule 128
refers to “a matter of fact”.
B. Matters of Judicial Notice
Judicial Notice
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain
facts that judges may properly take and act
on without proof because these facts are
already known to them. Put differently, it is
the assumption by a court of a fact without
need of further traditional evidentiary
support. [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 166859 (2011)].
Courts must take judicial notice with
caution. Any reasonable doubt on the
subject must be resolved in the negative
(court will not take judicial notice).
1. When Mandatory
a. Existence and territorial extent of
states;
b. Their political history, forms of
government, and symbols of
nationality;
c. Law of nations;
d. Admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals;
e. Political constitution and history of
the Philippines;
f. Official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments
of the National Government of the
Philippines;
g. Laws of nature;
h. Measure of time; and
i. Geographical divisions [Sec. 1,
Rule 129].
Page 343 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Note: It is grave abuse of discretion if the court
does not allow the taking of judicial notice [Prof.
Avena].
Since we consider the act of cancellation by
President Macapagal-Arroyo of the proposed
ZTE- NBN Project during the meeting of
October 2, 2007 with the Chinese President in
China as an official act of the executive
department, the Court must take judicial
notice of such official act without need of
evidence [Suplico v. NEDA, G.R. No. 178830
(2008)].
The Management Contract entered into by
petitioner and the Philippine Ports Authority is
clearly not among the matters which the courts
can take judicial notice of. It cannot be
considered an official act of the executive
department. The PPA was only performing a
proprietary function when it entered into a
Management Contract with the petitioner.
[Asian Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R.
No. 171406 (2011)].
The RTC declared that the discrepancy arose
from the fact that Barrio Catmon was
previously part of Barrio Tinajeros. The RTC
has authority to declare so because this is a
matter subject to mandatory judicial notice.
Geographical divisions are among matters that
courts should take judicial notice of [B.E. San
Diego, Inc. v. C.A., G.R. No. 159230 (2010)].
2. When Discretionary
1. Matters of public knowledge;
2. Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration; and
3. Matters ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions [Sec.
2, Rule 129].
Requisites
1. The matter must be one of common
and general knowledge;
2. It must be well and authoritatively
settled and not doubtful or uncertain;
3. It must be known to be within the limits
of the jurisdiction of the court
[Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. CA and
Korean Airlines, G.R. No. 152392
(2005)].
The principal guide in determining what facts
may be assumed to be judicially-known is that
EVIDENCE
of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that
judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced
by public records and facts of general
notoriety. Moreover, a judicially-noticed fact
must be one not subject to a reasonable
dispute in that it is either (1) generally
known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and
ready determination by resorting to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questionable [Ibid].
Things of “common knowledge,” of which
courts take judicial notice, may be matters
coming to the knowledge of men generally
in the course of the ordinary experiences of
life, or they may be matters which are
generally accepted by mankind as true and
are capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration [State Prosecutors v, Muro,
A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 (1994)].
Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge.
The mere personal knowledge of the judge
is not the judicial knowledge of the court,
and he is not authorized to make his
individual knowledge of a fact, not generally
or professionally known, the basis of his
action [Ibid].
Note: When Hearing Necessary
During the Pre-Trial and the Trial
The court, motu proprio, or upon motion,
shall hear the parties on the propriety of
taking judicial notice of any matter. [Sec. 3,
Rule 129].
After the Trial and Before Judgment or
on Appeal
The court, motu proprio or upon motion,
may take judicial notice of any matter and
shall hear the parties thereon if such matter
is decisive of a material issue in the case
[Sec. 3, Rule 129].
Note: With Respect to the Court’s Own
Acts and Records
A court will take judicial notice of its own
acts and records in the same case, of facts
established in prior proceedings in the same
case, of the authenticity of its own records
of another case between the same parties,
of the files of related cases in the same
court, and of public records on file in the
Page 344 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
same court [Republic v. C.A., G.R. No. 119288
(1997)].
With Respect to Records of Other Cases
General Rule:
As a general rule, courts are not authorized to
take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases, even when such cases
have been tried or are pending in the same
court, and notwithstanding the fact that both
cases may have been tried or are actually
pending before the same judge [People v.
Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028 (1996)].
Exceptions:
In the absence of objection, and as a matter of
convenience to all parties, a court may properly
treat all or any part of the original record of a
case filed in its archives as read into the record
of a case pending before it, when:
1. With the knowledge of the opposing
party, reference is made to it for that
purpose, by name and number or in
some other manner by which it is
sufficiently designated; or
2. The original record of the former case
or any part of it, is actually withdrawn
from the archives by the court's
direction, at the request or with the
consent of the parties, and admitted as
a part of the record of the case then
pending [US v. Claveria, G.R. No. 9282
(1915)].
Courts may also take judicial notice of
proceedings in other causes because of their:
a. Close connection with the matter in
controversy. For example, in a
separate civil action against the
administrator of an estate arising from
an appeal against the report of the
committee on claims appointed in the
administration proceedings of the said
estate, the court took judicial notice of
the record of the administration
proceedings to determine whether or
not the appeal was taken on time.
b. To determine whether or not the case
pending is a moot one or whether or not
a previous ruling is applicable in the
case under consideration.
c. The other case had been decided by
the same court, involving the same
subject matter, with the same cause of
action, and was between the same
EVIDENCE
parties (which was not denied), and
constituted res judicata on the
current cause before the court
[Tiburcio v. PHHC, G.R. No. L-
13479 (1959)].
In this case, the requisite of notoriety is
belied by the necessity of attaching
documentary evidence, i.e. the Joint
Affidavit of the stallholders, to prove the
alleged practice of paying goodwill money in
a particular area [Latip v. Chua, G.R. No.
177809 (2009)].
The classification of the land is obviously
essential to the valuation of the property.
The parties should thus have been given the
opportunity to present evidence on the
nature of the property before the lower court
took judicial notice of the commercial nature
of a portion of the subject landholdings [LBP
v. Honeycomb Farms, G.R. No. 166259
(2012)].
It can be considered of public knowledge
and judicially noticed that the scene of the
rape is not always nor necessarily isolated
or secluded for lust is no respecter of time
or place. [People v. Tundag, G.R. Nos.
135695-96 (2000)].
Laws of nature involving the physical
sciences, specifically biology, include the
structural make-up and composition of living
things. The Court may take judicial notice
that a person’s organs were in their proper
anatomical locations [Atienza v. Board of
Medicine, G.R. No. 177407 (2011)].
The distance between places may be taken
as a matter of judicial notice [Maceda v.
Vda. De Macatangay, G.R. No. 164947
(2006)].
The Court may take judicial notice of the
assessed value of property. [Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Legaspi, G.R. No.
205966 (2016)].
C. Judicial Admissions
In General
To be a judicial admission, the same:
1. May be oral or written;
2. Must be made by a party to the
case; and
Page 345 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
3. Must be made in the course of the
proceedings in the same case [Sec. 4,
Rule 129].
Note: The admission, to be judicial, must be
made in the course of the proceedings in the
same case. Thus, an admission made in
another judicial proceeding will not be deemed
a judicial admission in the case where the
admission is not made. Instead, it will be
considered an extrajudicial admission for
purposes of the other proceeding where such
admission is offered [Riano 87, 2016 Ed.].
Judicial admissions may be made in
1. the pleadings filed by the parties,
2. in the course of the trial, either by verbal or
written manifestations or stipulations, or
3. in other stages of the judicial proceeding;
e.g. stipulation of facts in a pre-trial
conference [People v. Hernandez, G.R.
No. 108028 (1996)], allegations in motions
not specifically denied [Republic v. de
Guzman, G.R. No. 175021 (2011)], pre-
trial, depositions, written interrogatories or
requests for admission [2 Regalado 836-
837, 2008 Ed.].
Note:
1. Admissions made by a party pursuant
to a request for admission is for the
purpose of the pending action only
[Sec. 3, Rule 26].
2. In criminal cases, all agreements or
admissions made or entered during the
pre-trial conference shall be reduced in
writing and signed by the accused and
counsel, otherwise, they cannot be
used against the accused [Sec. 2, Rule
118]. However, in the civil case
instituted with the criminal case, such
admission will be admissible against
any other party.
There are averments made in pleadings which
are not deemed admissions even if the adverse
party fails to make a specific denial of the
same, like immaterial allegations [Sec. 11,
Rule 8], conclusions, as well as the amount of
liquidated damages [Sec. 11, Rule 8; Riano 89,
2016 Ed.].
Note: The theory of adoptive admission has
been adopted by the court in this jurisdiction.
An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to
a statement or action by another person
EVIDENCE
when it is reasonable to treat the party’s
reaction as an admission of something
stated or implied by the other person.
The basis for admissibility of admissions
made vicariously is that arising from the
ratification or adoption by the party of the
statements which the other person had
made.
In the Angara Diary, Estrada’s options
started to dwindle when the armed forces
withdrew its support. Thus, Executive
Secretary Angara had to ask Senate
President Pimentel to advise the petitioner
to consider the option of dignified exit or
resignation. Estrada did not object to the
suggested option but simply said he could
never leave the country [Estrada v.
Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15 (2001)].
Judicial Proceeding [Sec. 3, Rule 1]
1. Civil – includes special civil actions
2. Criminal
3. Special Proceeding
Examples of statements made that are
not judicial admissions
a. Statements made during preliminary
investigation
b. Statements during Court-Annexed
Mediation
Note: Execution of judgment is part of a
judicial proceeding. The Court retains
control over the case until the full
satisfaction of the final judgment [People v.
Gallo, G.R. No. 124736 (1999)].
1. Effect of Judicial Admissions
The judicial admission does not require
proof [Sec. 4, Rule 129].
Sec. 8, Rule 10 (as amended) provides that
“[a]n amended pleading supersedes the
pleading that it amends. However,
admissions in superseded pleadings
may be offered in evidence against the
pleader.” Thus, admissions in superseded
pleadings have to be “[offered] in evidence”
precisely because they become extra-
judicial in nature the moment the pleading
containing them are superseded by virtue of
amendment. See Bastida v. Menzi & Co,
Inc. [G.R. No. L-35840 (1933)], cited in 2
Regalado 837, 2008 Ed.].
Page 346 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
challenge that fact, as judicial admissions are
a waiver of proof; production of evidence is
dispensed with [Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No.
165987 (2006)].
Consequently:
1. An admission made in the pleadings
cannot be controverted by the party
making such admission and are
conclusive as to such party, and all
proofs to the contrary or inconsistent
therewith should be ignored, whether
objection is interposed by the party or
not.
2. The allegations, statements or
admissions contained in a pleading are
conclusive as against the pleader.
3. A party cannot subsequently take a
position contrary of or inconsistent with
what was pleaded. [Florete, Sr. v.
Florete, Jr., G.R. No. 223321 (2018)].
2. How Judicial Admissions May Be
Contradicted
As an exception to the general rule, judicial
admissions may be contradicted only by
showing that:
1. It was made through palpable mistake; or
2. The imputed admission was not, in fact,
made [Sec. 4, Rule 129].
This may be invoked when the statement of a
party is taken out of context or that his
statement was made not in the sense it is made
to appear by the other party [Phil. Health Care
Providers v. Estrada, G.R. No. 171052 (2008),
citing Atillo, III v. C.A. (1997)].
An admission against interest binds the person
who makes the same, and absent any showing
that this was made through palpable mistake,
no amount of rationalization can offset it,
especially so in this case where respondents
failed to present even one piece of evidence in
their defense. [Heirs of Donton v. Stier, G.R.
No. 216491 (2017)].
Note: Allegations (and admissions) in a
pleading, even if not shown to be made through
“palpable mistake,” can still be corrected or
amended provided that the amendment is
sanctioned under Sec. 8, Rule 10 of the Rules
of Court [Yujuico v. United Resources, G.R.
No. 211113 (2015)].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Pre-trial Admissions
Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement
entered into by the parties at the pre-trial of
a case constitute judicial admissions by
them [Lim v. Jabalde, G.R. No. L-36786
(1989), cited in 2 Regalado 837, 2008 Ed.].

When the parties in a case agree on what

the foreign law provides, these are
admissions of fact which the other parties
and the court are made to rely and act upon,
hence they are in estoppel to subsequently
take a contrary position [PCIB v. Escolin
G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896 (1974],
cited in 2 Regalado 838, 2008 Ed.].

When contradicted:
1. In civil cases: if to prevent manifest
injustice [Sec. 7, Rule 18];
2. In criminal cases: if the pre-trial
admission was reduced to writing and
signed by the accused and his counsel
[Secs. 2 and 4, Rule 118].

Page 347 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
IV. OBJECT (REAL)
EVIDENCE
A. Nature of object evidence
Object Evidence
Those addressed to the senses of the court
[Sec. 1, Rule 130].
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent
manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in
our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
Where the physical evidence on record runs
counter to the testimonial evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, we consistently rule
that the physical evidence should prevail
[BPI v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177 (2008)].
A person’s appearance, where relevant, is
admissible as object evidence, the same
being addressed to the senses of the court
[People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516
(2003)].
An ocular inspection of the body of the
accused is permissible [Villaflor v.
Summers, G.R., No. 16444 (1920)].
The right against self-incrimination cannot
be invoked against object evidence [People
v. Malimit, G.R. No. 109775 (1996)].
View of an Object or Scene
The inspection or view outside the
courtroom should be made in the presence
of the parties or at least with previous notice
to them in order that they may show the
object to be viewed. Such inspection or
view is a part of the trial, inasmuch as
evidence is thereby being received, which is
expressly authorized by law [5 Moran 81,
1970 Ed., cited in In re Climaco, A.C. No.
134-J (1974)].
B. Requisites for
Admissibility
Basic Requisites for Admissibility
1. Evidence must be relevant;
2. Evidence must be authenticated by
a competent witness;
3. Object must be formally offered
[Sec. 34, Rule 132; Riano 101, 2016
Ed.].
Page 348 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
RELEVANT
General Rule: When an object is relevant to
the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court [Sec. 1, Rule
130].
Exceptions: Court may refuse exhibition of
object evidence and rely on testimonial
evidence alone if—
a. Exhibition is contrary to public policy,
morals or decency;
b. It would result in delays,
inconvenience, unnecessary expenses
out of proportion to the evidentiary
value of such object; [People v. Tavera,
G.R. No. L-23172 (1925)].
c. Evidence would be confusing or
misleading;
d. The testimonial or documentary
evidence already presented clearly
portrays the object in question as to
render a view thereof unnecessary.
COMPETENT AND AUTHENTICATED
Evidence Must Be Authenticated
To authenticate the object is to show that the
object is the very thing that is either the subject
matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to
prove an issue in the case.
Authentication Must Be Made by a
Competent Witness
The witness must have the capacity to identify
the object as the very thing involved in the
litigation.
A witness can testify only to those facts which
he/she knows of his/her personal knowledge;
that is, which are derived from his/her own
perception [Sec. 22, Rule 130].
Note: Requisites for the Admissibility of
Tape Recording
1. A showing that the recording was
capable of taking testimony
2. A showing that the operator of the
recording device is competent
3. Establishment of the authenticity and
correctness of recording
4. A showing that no changes, deletions,
or additions have been made on the
recordings
5. A showing of the manner of
preservation of the recording
6. Identification of speakers
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
7. A showing that the testimony Audio, photographic and video evidence of
elicited was voluntarily made events, acts or transactions shall be admissible
without any kind of inducement provided it shall be:
[Torralba v. People, G.R. No. • Shown, presented or displayed to the
153699 (2005)]. court, and
• Identified, explained or authenticated
C. Categories of Object o By the person who made the
Evidence recording, or
o By some other person
Two Classifications: competent to testify on the
1. Actual physical or “autopic” accuracy thereof [Sec. 1, Rule
evidence –those which have a 11, Rules on Electronic
direct relation or part in the fact or Evidence].
incident sought to be proven and
those brought to the court for Note: Reenactments are object evidence
personal examination by the because they are exhibited, examined and
presiding magistrate; viewed by the court. E.g. a person who hears a
man cat-call a woman, and mimics the cat-call
in court is reenacting the event. He is not
Objects that testifying because he was not declaring
have readily anything nor making a statement [Prof. Avena].
E.g. Gun with
identifiable
a serial
marks; or
Unique
number D. Chain Of Custody In Relation
objects Exhibit
Car with a
To Sec. 21 Of The
identifiable Comprehensive Dangerous
dent on its
visual or
physical
left bumper Drugs Act Of 2002
peculiarities
“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded
Objects with no authorized movements and custody of seized
unique drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources
E.g. Sachet
characteristic of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
of shabu with
Objects but are made each stage, from the time of
initials of the
made readily seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
police officer
unique identifiable by laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
who retrieved
law enforcers court for destruction [Sec. 1(b), Dangerous
it
upon retrieval Drugs Board Resolution No. 1 (2002)].
or confiscation
As a method of authenticating evidence, the
Objects with no chain of custody rule requires that the
Non- identifying E.g. Narcotic admission of an exhibit be preceded by
unique marks and substances, evidence sufficient to support a finding that
objects cannot be bodily fluids the matter in question is what the proponent
marked claims it to be. It would include testimony about
[People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209 (2019)] every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into
2. Demonstrative Evidence evidence, in such a way that every person who
Those which represent the actual or touched the exhibit would describe how and
physical object (or event in case of pictures from whom it was received, where it was and
or videos) being offered to support or draw what happened to it while in the witness'
an inference or to aid in comprehending the possession, the condition in which it was
verbal testimony of a witness [People v. received and the condition in which it was
Olarte, G.R. No. 233209 (2019)]. delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change

Page 349 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same [Malilin v.
People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008)].
As a general rule, four links in the chain
of custody of the confiscated item must be
established:
1. First, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending
officer;
2. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer;
3. Third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
4. Fourth, the turnover and submission of
the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court [People v.
Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590 (2017)].
Note: If the proffered evidence is unique,
readily identifiable, and relatively resistant
to change, that foundation need only consist
of testimony by a witness with knowledge
that the evidence is what the proponent
claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule
has to be resorted to and complied with by
the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary
requirement of relevancy. And at all times,
the source of amorphous as well as firmly
structured objects being offered as
evidence must be tethered to and supported
by a testimony.
E. DNA Evidence
When a crime is committed, material is
collected from the scene of the crime or
from the victim’s body for the suspect’s
DNA. This is the evidence sample. The
evidence sample is then matched with the
reference sample taken from the suspect
and the victim. The purpose of DNA testing
is to ascertain whether an association exists
between the evidence sample and the
reference sample. The samples collected
are subjected to various chemical
processes to establish their profile. The test
may yield three possible results:
a. Exclusion – The samples are
different and therefore must have
originated from different sources.
This conclusion is absolute and
Page 350 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
requires no further analysis or
discussion;
b. Inconclusive – It is not possible to be
sure, based on the results of the test,
whether the samples have similar DNA
types. This might occur for a variety of
reasons including degradation,
contamination, or failure of some
aspect of the protocol. Various parts of
the analysis might then be repeated
with the same or a different sample, to
obtain a more conclusive result; or
c. Inclusion – The samples are similar,
and could have originated from the
same source. In such a case, the
samples are found to be similar, the
analyst proceeds to determine the
statistical significance of the similarity
[People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656
(2002)].
Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a
criminal case or from the respondent in a
paternity case, contrary to the belief of
respondent in this action, will not violate the
right against self-incrimination [Herrera v. Alba,
G.R. No. 148220 (2005)].
“DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the
DNA profiles, results and other genetic
information directly generated from DNA
testing of biological samples.
“DNA testing” means verified and credible
scientific methods which include the extraction
of DNA from biological samples, the generation
of DNA profiles and the comparison of the
information obtained from the DNA testing of
biological samples for the purpose of
determining, with reasonable certainty,
whether or not the DNA obtained from two or
more distinct biological samples originates
from the same person (direct identification) or
if the biological samples originate from related
persons (kinship analysis) [Sec. 3, AM No. 06-
11-5-SC or Rule on DNA Evidence].
a. Application for DNA testing order
The appropriate court may, at any time, either
motu proprio or on application of any person
who has a legal interest in the matter in
litigation, order a DNA testing.
EVIDENCE
Such order shall issue after due hearing and
notice to the parties upon a showing of the
following:
a. A biological sample exists that is
relevant to the case;
b. The biological sample: (i) was not
previously subjected to the type of
DNA testing now requested; or (ii)
was previously subjected to DNA
testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
c. The DNA testing uses a the release of the convict, unless continued
scientifically valid technique;
d. The DNA testing has the scientific
potential to produce new
information that is relevant to the
proper resolution of the case; and
e. The existence of other factors, if
any, which the court may consider
as potentially affecting the accuracy
of integrity of the DNA testing.
Exception: DNA testing may be done
without a prior court order, at the behest of
any party (including law enforcement
agencies), before a suit or proceeding is
commenced [Sec. 4, Rule on DNA
Evidence].
Note: The death of the petitioner (putative
father) does not ipso facto negate the
application of DNA testing for as long as
there exist appropriate biological samples of
his DNA. The term “biological sample”
means any organic material originating from
a person’s body, even if found in inanimate
objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing.
This includes blood, saliva, and other body
fluids, tissues, hairs and bones [Ong v.
Diaz, G.R. No. 1717113 (2007)].
b. Post-conviction DNA Testing;
Remedy
Post-conviction DNA testing may be
available, without need of prior court order,
to the prosecution or any person convicted
by final and executory judgment provided
that:
1. A biological sample exists;
2. Such sample is relevant to the case;
and
3. The testing would probably result in
the reversal or modification of the
judgment of conviction [Sec. 6, Rule
on DNA Evidence].
Page 351 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the
Convict
The convict or the prosecution may file a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
court of origin if the results of the post-
conviction DNA testing are favorable to the
convict.
In case the court, after due hearing finds the
petition to be meritorious, if shall reverse or
modify the judgment of conviction and order
detention is justified for a lawful cause.
A similar petition may be filed either in the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with
any member of said courts, which may conduct
a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the
court of origin and issue the appropriate orders
[Sec. 10, Rule on DNA Evidence].
c. Assessment of Probative Value of
DNA Evidence and Admissibility
In assessing the probative value of the DNA
evidence presented, the court shall consider
the following:
1. The chain of custody, including how the
biological samples were collected, how
they were handled, and the possibility of
contamination of the samples;
2. 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;
3. The forensic DNA laboratory, including
accreditation by any reputable standards-
setting institution and the qualification of
the analyst who conducted the tests. If the
laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic
casework and credibility shall be properly
established; and
4. The reliability of the testing result, as
provided in Sec. 8 [Sec. 7, Rule on DNA
Evidence].
Note: The provisions of the Rules of Court
concerning the appreciation of evidence shall
apply suppletorily [Sec. 7, Rule on DNA
Evidence].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
d. Rules on Evaluation of
Reliability of the DNA Testing
Methodology

In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the

court shall consider the following:
1. The evaluation of the weight of
matching DNA evidence or the
relevance of mismatching DNA
evidence;
2. The results of the DNA testing in the
light of the totality of the other
evidence presented in the case; and
that
3. DNA results that exclude the
putative parent from paternity shall
be conclusive proof of non-
paternity. If the value of the
Probability of Paternity is less than
99.9%, the results of the DNA
testing shall be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value
of the Probability of Paternity is
99.9% or higher there shall be a
disputable presumption of paternity
[Sec. 9, Rule on DNA Evidence].

It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA

profile matches that of the putative father. A
complete match between the DNA profile of
the child and the DNA profile of the putative
father does not necessarily establish
paternity. For this reason, following the
highest standard adopted in an American
jurisdiction, trial courts should require at
least 99.9% as a minimum value of the
Probability of Paternity (“W”) prior to a
paternity inclusion. W is a numerical
estimate for the likelihood of paternity of a
putative father compared to the probability
of a random match of two unrelated
individuals. Due to the probabilistic nature
of paternity inclusions, W will never equal to
100% [Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220
(2005)].

Page 352 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
V. DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
A. Meaning of Documentary
Evidence
Consist of writings, recordings,
photographs, or any material containing
letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,
symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes
of written expressions offered as proof of
their contents [Sec. 2, Rule 130]. If offered
for some other purpose, they constitute
object evidence.
Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures
or videos [Sec. 2, Rule 130].
1. Requisites for Admissibility
1. The document must be relevant;
2. The evidence must be
authenticated;
3. The document must be
authenticated by a competent
witness;
4. The document must be formally
offered in evidence [Riano 132,
2016 Ed.].
B. Best Evidence/Original
Document Rule
1. Meaning of the Rule
When the subject of inquiry is the contents
of a document, writing, recording,
photograph, or other record, no evidence is
admissible other than the original
document itself [Sec. 3, Rule 130].
Note: Original document rule is a rule on
admissibility (competence). This rule
replaced the Best Evidence Rule.
2. When Not Applicable
Where the issue is only as to whether such
document was actually executed, or exists,
or on the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best evidence
rule (now original document rule) does not
Page 353 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise
admissible without need for accounting for the
original [Republic v. Gimenez, G.R. No.
174673 (2016)].
Affidavits and depositions are considered as
not being the best evidence, hence not
admissible if the affiants or deponents are
available as witnesses [2 Regalado 721, 2008
Ed., citing 4 Martin 82].
The best evidence rule (now original document
rule) does not apply to all types of evidence. It
does not comprehend object and testimonial
evidence [Riano, 133, 2016 Ed.].
3. Meaning of Original Document and
Duplicate
Original — The document itself or any
counterpart intended to have the same effect
by a person executing or issuing it.
An “original” of a photograph includes the
negative or any print therefrom.
If data is stored in a computer or similar
device, any printout or other output
readable by sight or other means, shown to
reflect the data accurately, is an “original” [Sec.
4(a), Rule 130].
Duplicate—counterpart produced by:
• The same impression as the original, or
from the same matrix;
• Means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures;
• Mechanical or electronic recording;
• Chemical reproduction; or
• Other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduce the original [Sec.
4(b), Rule 130].
General Rule: A duplicate is admissible to the
same extent as an original.
Exceptions:
1. A general question is raised as to the
authenticity of the original; or
2. In the circumstances, it is unjust or
inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu
of the original [Sec. 4(c), Rule 130].
Note: 2019 Amendments made substantial
changes to Sec. 4, Rule 130.
EVIDENCE
Carbon copies are deemed duplicate
(originals) [People v. Tan, G.R. No. L-14257
(1959); Skunac v. Sylianteng, G.R. No.
205879 (2014)].
4. Exception; Secondary Evidence;
Summaries
The following are the exceptions to the
original document rule:
a. When the original is unavailable
1. When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court;
2. Upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its
unavailability; and
3. Without bad faith on the offeror’s
part.
What to present to prove contents (in
this order)
A copy;
A recital of its contents in some
authentic document; or
The testimony of witnesses [Rule 130,
Sec. 5].
In order that secondary evidence may be
admissible, there must be proof by
satisfactory evidence of:
1. Due execution of the original;
2. Loss, destruction, or unavailability
of all such originals; and
3. Reasonable diligence and good
faith in the search for or attempt to
produce the original [Republic v.
Marcos-Manotoc, G.R. No. 171701
(2012)].
The correct order of proof is existence,
execution, loss, and contents [Republic v.
Cuenca, G.R. No. 198393 (2018)].
Due execution of the document should be
proved through the testimony of either:
1. The person or persons who
executed it;
2. The person before whom its
execution was acknowledged; or
3. Any person who was present and
saw it executed and delivered, or
who, after its execution and
delivery, saw it and recognized the
Page 354 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
signatures, or by a person to whom the
parties to the instruments had
previously confessed the execution
thereof [Director of Lands v. C.A., G.R.
No. L-29575 (1971)].
When more than one original copy exists, it
must appear that all of them have been lost,
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court
before secondary evidence can be given of any
one. A photocopy may not be used without
accounting for the other originals [Citibank v.
Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905 (2003)].
The general rule concerning proof of a lost
instrument is, that reasonable search shall be
made for it in the place where it was last known
to have been, and, if such search does not
discover it, then inquiry should be made of
persons most likely to have its custody, or who
have some reasons to know of its whereabouts
[Tan v. CA, G.R. No. L-56866 (1985)].
b. When the original is in the custody or
control of the adverse party OR original
cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures
What to Present to Prove Contents
Same as when lost, destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court [Sec. 6, Rule 130].
c. When the contents of documents,
records, photographs, or numerous
accounts are voluminous and cannot be
examined in court without great loss of
time, and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the
general result of the whole
(“Summaries”)
What to Present to Prove Contents
Chart, summary, or calculation of the contents
of such evidence.
The originals shall be available for examination
or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a
reasonable time and place. The court may
order that they be produced in court [Sec. 7,
Rule 130].
d. When the original is a public record
in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office
EVIDENCE
What to Present to Prove Contents
Certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof [Sec. 8, Rule 130].
e. When original is outside the
jurisdiction of the court
When the original is outside the jurisdiction
of the court, secondary evidence is
admissible. [Regalado 784, 2008 Ed., citing
PNB v. Olila, G.R. No. L-8189 (1956),
unreported].
C. Parol Evidence Rule
1. Meaning of the Rule
Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or
written, which is intended or tends to vary or
contradict a complete and enforceable
agreement embodied in a document [2
Regalado 730, 2008 Ed.].
2. Application of the Parol
Evidence Rule
General Rule
When the terms of an agreement (including
wills) have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, as between
the parties and their successors in interest,
no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement [Sec. 10,
Rule 130].
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition
to or contradiction of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony or other evidence
purporting to show that, at or before the
execution of the parties' written agreement,
other or different terms were agreed upon
by the parties, varying the purport of the
written contract. [Felix Plazo Urban Poor
Settlers v. Lipat, G.R. No. 182409 (2017)].
Where Not Applicable
It does not apply when third parties are
involved or those not privy to the written
instrument in question and does not base a
claim or assent a right originating in the
instrument [Lechugas v. C.A., G.R. No. L-
39972 & L-40300 (1986)].
Note: American jurisprudence also refers to a
situation where an ambiguity partakes of the
nature of both patent and latent ambiguity, that
Page 355 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
3. When Parol Evidence Can Be
Introduced
How Parol Evidence Can Be Introduced
General Rule: Ground/s for presenting parol
evidence is put in issue in a verified pleading
[Sec. 10, Rule 130].
Exception: If the facts in the pleadings all lead
to the fact that it is being put in issue then the
Parol Evidence exception may apply [Sps.
Paras v. Kimwa Corporation, G.R. No. 171601
(2015)].
In sum, two (2) things must be established for
parol evidence to be admitted:
● That the existence of any of the four (4)
exceptions has been put in issue in a
party's pleading or has not been objected
to by the adverse party; and
● That the parol evidence sought to be
presented serves to form the basis of the
conclusion proposed by the presenting
party. [Sps. Paras v. Kimwa Corporation,
G. R. No. 171601 (2015)].
When Can Parol Evidence Can Be
Introduced
● Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
in the written agreement
● Failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto
● Validity of the written agreement
● Existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors-in-interest after
the execution of the written agreement.
a. Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake or
Imperfection in the Written Agreement
Intrinsic ambiguity (latent)– writing admits of
two constructions, both of which are in
harmony with the language used [Ignacio v.
Rementeria, 99 Phil. 1054 (Unreported)].
The document is clear on its face, but matters
outside the agreement create the ambiguity
(e.g. “I bequeath this land to my cousin
George.” However, the testator has two
cousins named George) [Riano, 161, 2016
Ed.].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
is, an intermediate ambiguity, because 4. Distinction Between the Original
the words of the writing, though seemingly Document Rule and Parol Evidence
clear and with a settled meaning, is actually Rule
equivocal and admits of two interpretations.
Parol evidence, in such a case is admissible
to clarify the ambiguity [2 Regalado 734, Original Document Parol Evidence
2008 Ed., citing 20 Am. Jur 1011] (e.g. Rule Rule
“dollar” may mean USD, CAD, HKD, etc.)
Contemplates the Presupposes that the
Mistake refers to a mistake of fact which is situation wherein the original document is
mutual to the parties [BPI v. Fidelity and original writing is not available in court
Surety, Co., G.R. No. L-26743 (1927)]. available and/or there
is a dispute as to
Imperfection includes an inaccurate whether said writing
statement in the agreement or is the original
incompleteness in the writing, or the
presence of inconsistent provisions [2
Regalado 732, 2008 Ed.].
Prohibits the Prohibits the varying
introduction of of the terms of a
b. Failure of the Written Agreement
substitutionary written agreement
to Express the True Intent and evidence in lieu of the
Agreement of the Parties Thereto original document
regardless of WON it
Purpose varies the contents of
To enable court to ascertain the true the original
intention of the parties [Tolentino v.
Gonzales Sy Chiam, G.R. No. 26085
(1927)]. Applies to all kinds of Applies only to
writings, recordings, documents
c. Validity of the Written Agreement photographs, or any contractual in nature
material containing and to wills
Parol evidence may be admitted to show: letters, words,
1. True consideration of a contract sounds, numbers,
2. Want/Illegality of consideration figures, symbols, or
3. Incapacity of parties their equivalent, or
4. Fictitious/absolutely simulated contract other modes of
5. Fraud in inducement [2 Regalado 733, written expression
2008 Ed.]. offered as proof of
their contents
Can be invoked by Can be invoked only
any party to an action when the
regardless of WON controversy is
such party between the parties
participated in the to the written
writing involved agreement, their
privies or any party
directly affected
thereby
[2 Regalado 731, 2008 Ed.]

D. Interpretation of Documents
Interpretation is defined as the act of making
intelligible what was before not understood,
Page 356 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
ambiguous, or not obvious; it is a method by
which the meaning of language is
ascertained. [PSALM v. Sem-Calaca Power
Corp., G.R. No. 204719 (2016).
1. General Rule; Literal, Legal
Meaning
The language of a writing is to be
interpreted according to the legal meaning it
bears in the place of its execution, unless
the parties intended otherwise [Sec. 11,
Rule 130].
If the terms of a contract are clear and leave
no doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control. If the words
appear to be contrary to the evident
intention of the parties, the latter shall
prevail over the former [Art. 1370, New Civil
Code].
When Necessary
A contract provision is ambiguous if it is
susceptible of two reasonable
alternative interpretations [PSALM v.
Sem-Calaca Power Corp., G.R. No. 204719
(2016)].
Where the language of a written contract
is clear and unambiguous, the contract
must be taken to mean that which, on its
face, it purports to mean, unless some
good reason can be assigned to show that
the words should be understood in a
different sense [Ibid].
Ambiguity Caused by One Party
The interpretation of obscure words or
stipulations in a contract shall not favor the
party who caused the obscurity [Art. 1377,
New Civil Code].
An ambiguity in a document is construed
against the party who prepared the
document, and in accordance with the real
intention of the parties [Capital Insurance v.
Sadang, G.R. No. L-18857 (1967)].
2. Construction So as to Give
Effect to All Provisions
In the construction of an instrument, where
there are several provisions or particulars,
Page 357 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
such a construction is, if possible, to be
adopted as will give effect to all [Sec. 11, Rule
130].
The various stipulations of a contract shall be
interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful
ones that sense which may result from all of
them taken jointly [Art. 1374, New Civil Code].
In the case at bench, the Memorandum of
Agreement embodies certain provisions that
are consistent with either a conventional
subrogation or assignment of credit. It has not
been shown that any clause or provision in the
Memorandum of Agreement is inconsistent or
incompatible with a conventional subrogation.
On the other hand, the two cited provisions
requiring consent of the debtor to the
memorandum is inconsistent with a contract of
assignment of credit. Thus, if we were to
interpret the same as one of assignment of
credit, then the aforementioned stipulations
regarding the consent of Anglo-Asean Bank
would be rendered inutile and useless
considering that, as previously discussed, the
consent of the debtor is not necessary in an
assignment of credit [Licaros v. Gatmaitan,
G.R. No. 142838 (2001)].
3. Construction of general and
particular provisions
In the construction of an instrument, the
intention of the parties is to be pursued; and
when a general and a particular provision are
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the
former. So a particular intent will control a
general one that is inconsistent with it [Sec. 12,
Rule 130].
4. Construction according to
circumstances
For the proper construction of an instrument,
the circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject thereof
and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that
the judge may be placed in the position of those
whose language he or she is to interpret [Sec.
13, Rule 130].
In order to judge the intention of the contracting
parties, their contemporaneous and
subsequent acts shall be principally
considered. [Art. 1371, New Civil Code].
EVIDENCE
Contracts executed together and in
connection with each other may be used to
interpret an ambiguity found in one of them
[Southeast Asia Shipping Corp. v. Seagull
Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 144439 (2003)].
5. Construction of peculiar
signification of terms
The terms of a writing are presumed to have
been used in their primary and general
acceptation, but evidence is admissible to
show that they have a local, technical, or
otherwise peculiar signification, and were
so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must
be construed accordingly [Sec. 14, Rule
130].
Words which may have different
significations shall be understood in that
which is most in keeping with the nature and
object of the contract [Art. 1375, New Civil
Code].
We hold that reading the clause as requiring
a final judgment is a strained interpretation
and contrary to settled rules of interpretation
of contracts. Paragraph 5(e) only requires
that the proceeds "could not be recovered
from the insurer," and does not state that it
should be so declared by a court, or even
with finality. In determining the signification
of terms, words are presumed to have been
used in their primary and general
acceptance, and there was no evidence
presented to show that the words used
signified a judicial adjudication. Indeed, if
the parties had intended the non-recovery
to be through a judicial and final
adjudication, they should have stated so.
[Security Bank Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.
141733 (2007)].
The reliance of the trial court in the Webster
definition of the term "indicative," as also
adopted by petitioner, is misplaced. The
transaction at bar involves the sale of an
asset under a privatization scheme which
attaches a peculiar meaning or signification
to the term "indicative price." [Moreno Jr. v.
Private Management Office, G.R. No.
159373 (2006)].
Page 358 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
6. Written Words Control Printed
When an instrument consists partly of written
words and partly of a printed form, and the two
(2) are inconsistent, the former controls the
latter [Sec. 15, Rule 130].
Rationale
The rationale for this rule is that the written
words are the latest expression of the will of the
parties [De los Santos v. Vibar, G.R. No.
150931 (2008)].
7. Experts and Interpreters; When
Resorted To
When the characters in which an instrument is
written are difficult to be deciphered, or the
language is not understood by the court, the
evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the
characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the
meaning of the language [Sec. 16, Rule 130].
8. Preferred Among Two
Constructions
When the terms of an agreement have been
intended in a different sense by the different
parties to it, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he or she supposed the
other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise
equally proper, that is to be taken which is the
most favorable to the party in whose favor the
provision was made [Sec. 17, Rule 130].
There is also no question that the 10%
guaranteed yearly increase of rents provided
for in sub-paragraph 2.2 of the sub-lease
agreement is for the benefit of respondent
herein, being the sub-lessor of the premises.
As such, any doubt in interpretation must be in
its favor [Horrigan v. Troika Commercial, G.R.
No. 148411 (2005)].
9. Construction in favor of natural
rights
When an instrument is equally susceptible of
two (2) interpretations, one (1) in favor of
natural right and the other against it, the former
is to be adopted [Sec. 18, Rule 130].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
10. Interpretation According to
Usage

An instrument may be construed according

to usage, in order to determine its true
character [Sec. 20, Rule 130].

The usage or custom of the place shall be

borne in mind in the interpretation of the
ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the
omission of stipulations which are ordinarily
established [Art. 1376, New Civil Code].

Page 359 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
VI. TESTIMONIAL
EVIDENCE
A. Qualifications of a Witness
Witness
A witness is one who, being present,
personally sees or perceives a thing, a
beholder, spectator or eyewitness. One who
testifies to what he has seen or heard, or
otherwise observed [Herrera citing Black’s
Law Dictionary].
Qualifications of a Witness
All persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious/political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a
crime unless otherwise provided by law,
shall not be ground for disqualification [Sec.
21, Rule 130].
Basic Qualifications of a Witness
1. He/she can perceive
• Corollary to perception is that the
witness must have personal
knowledge of the facts surrounding
the subject matter of his testimony
[Sec. 22, Rule 130]
2. He/she can make known his perception
• This means that he/she must have
the ability to remember and
communicate the remembered
perception
3. He/she must take an oath or affirmation
[Sec. 1, Rule 132]
4. He/she must not possess any of the
disqualifications
A deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so
long as he/she has the faculty to make
observations and he/she can make those
observations known to others [People v.
Aleman y Longhas, G.R. No. 181539
(2013)].
Parties declared in default are not
disqualified from taking the witness stand
for non-disqualified parties. The law does
not provide default as an exception [Marcos
v. Heirs of Navarro, G.R. No. 198240
(2013)].
Page 360 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
There is no substantive or procedural rule
which requires a witness for a party to present
some form of authorization to testify as a
witness for the party presenting him or her
[AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits
System v. Republic, G.R. No. 188956 (2013)].
When Determined
Qualification of a witness is determined at the
time the said witness is produced for
examination or at the taking of their
depositions.
With respect to children of tender years,
competence at the time of the occurrence is
also taken into account.
In Case Person Is Convicted of a Crime
General Rule: Not disqualified
The fact that a witness has been convicted of
felony is a circumstance to be taken into
consideration as affecting his character and
credibility [Enrile, et al. v. Roberto, et al., G.R.
No. L-42309 (1935)].
Exception: Otherwise provided by law, e.g.
under Art. 821 of the Civil Code, a person
convicted of any of the following crimes cannot
be a witness to a will:
a. Falsification of documents,
b. Perjury; or
c. False testimony
Competency of a Witness
One is qualified to take the witness stand if:
1. He is capable of perceiving at the time
of the occurrence of the fact; and
2. He came make his perception known
[Sec. 21-22, Rule 130].
Competency has reference to the basic
qualifications and the absence of
disqualifications of a witness to testify [Riano,
185, 2016 Ed.].
Competency Presumed
A person who takes the witness stand is
presumed to possess the qualifications of a
witness. His competence may be questioned
by the other party by interposing an objection
[Herrera].
Remedy for Errors or Questions on
Competence
Appeal, not certiorari, is the proper remedy for
the correction of any error as to the
EVIDENCE
competency of a witness committed by an
inferior court in the course of the trial
[Icutanim v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-1709
(1948)].
Credibility of a Witness
Credibility has nothing to do with the law or
the rules. It refers to the weight and
trustworthiness or reliability of the testimony
[Riano, 185, 2016 Ed.].
Questions concerning the credibility of a
witness are best addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court as it is in the best
position to observe his demeanor and bodily
movements. [Llanto v. Alzona, 450 SCRA
288 (2005)].
B. Testimonial Privilege;
Disqualifications of
Witnesses
Effect of Interest in the Subject Matter
A person is not disqualified by reason of his
interest in the subject matter.
Interest only affects credibility, not
competency.
Effect of Relationship
General Rule: Mere relationship does not
impair credibility [People v. De Guzman,
G.R. No. 130809 (2000)].
Exception:
To warrant rejection, it must be clearly
shown that:
a. Testimony was inherently improbable or
defective
b. Improper/evil motives had moved the
witness to incriminate falsely [People v.
Daen Jr., G.R. No. 112015 (1995)]
Note: Disqualification by reason of mental
incapacity or immaturity (previously Sec.
21, Rule 130) and disqualification by reason
of death or insanity of adverse party aka
Dead Man’s Statute (previously Sec. 23,
Rule 130) have been deleted in the 2019
Revisions.
Page 361 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
1. Disqualification by Reason of
Marriage
Also known as Marital Disqualification Rule
[Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005)]
or Spousal Immunity
Elements
a. During their marriage
i) The marriage must be valid and
existing at the time of the offer of
the testimony
b. The husband or the wife cannot testify
against the other
i) The “other” spouse must be a party
to the action, either as a plaintiff or
defendant
ii) Note: 2019 Revision removed the
words “for or”
c. Without the consent of the affected
spouse [Sec. 23, Rule 130]
Except: Spouse may testify against the other
even without the consent of the latter
1. In a civil case by one against the other;
or
2. In a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct
descendants/ascendants [Sec. 23,
Rule 130]
Rationale
a. There is identity of interests between
husband and wife;
b. If one were to testify against the other,
there is a consequent danger of perjury;
c. Policy of the law is to guard the security
and confidence of private life, and to
prevent domestic disunion and
unhappiness; and
d. Where there is want of domestic tranquility,
there is danger of punishing one spouse
through the hostile testimony of the other
[Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439
(2005)].
EVIDENCE
Duration
General Rule: During their marriage [Sec.
23 Rule 130]
Exception: Where the marital and domestic
relations are so strained that there is no
more harmony to be preserved nor peace
and tranquility which may be disturbed, the
reason based upon such harmony and
tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of
interests disappears, and the consequent
danger of perjury based on that identity is
non-existent [Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No.
143439 (2005)].
Scope of Rule
The rule also includes utterance as to facts
or mere production of documents. It does
not only prevent disclosure of matters
communicated in nuptial confidence but is
an absolute prohibition against the spouse’s
testifying to any facts affecting the other
however these facts may have been
acquired [Herrera].
Waiver of Disqualification
If one spouse imputes the commission of a
crime against the other, the latter may testify
against the former [People v. Francisco,
G.R. No. L-568 (1947)].
Spouses as Co-accused
The other cannot be called as an adverse
party witness under this Rule
2. Disqualifications by Reason of
Privileged Communications; Rule
on Third Parties
Privilege
A privilege is a rule of law that, to protect a
particular relationship or interest, either
permits a witness to refrain from giving
testimony he otherwise could be compelled
to give, or permits someone usually one of
the parties, to prevent the witness from
revealing certain information [Herrera].
Privilege may only be invoked by the
persons protected thereunder. It may also
be waived by the same persons, either
impliedly or expressly.
a. Husband and Wife
Also known as marital privilege
Page 362 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Rationale
Confidential nature of the privilege; to preserve
marital and domestic relations
Elements
1. The husband or the wife
2. During or after the marriage
3. Cannot be examined
4. Without the consent of the other
5. As to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other
during the marriage [Sec. 24(a), Rule
130].
Except: Spouse may testify for or against the
other even without the consent of the latter
1. In a civil case by one against the other, or
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants. [Sec. 24(a),
Rule 130]
A widow of a victim allegedly murdered may
testify as to her husband’s dying declaration as
to how he died since the same was not
intended to be confidential [US v. Antipolo,
G.R. No. L-13109 (1918)].
Scope: “Any communication”
Includes utterances, either oral or written, or
acts [Herrera]
When not applicable
a. When the communication was not
intended to be kept in confidence
b. When the communication was made prior
to the marriage
c. Waiver of the privilege [Herrera]
Waiver
1. Failure of the spouse to object; or
2. Calling spouse as witness on cross
examination
3. Any conduct constructed as implied
consent [Herrera]
The objection to the competency of the spouse
must be made when he or she is first offered
as a witness. The incompetency is waived by
failure to make a timely objection to the
admission of spouse’s testimony [People v.
Pasensoy, G. R. No. 140634 (2002)].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Marital Exceptions
Marital Privilege 1.Furtherance of crime or fraud
Disqualification
[Sec. 24(a)] a. If the services or advice of the lawyer were
[Sec. 22]
sought or obtained
One spouse should Neither of the b. To enable or aid anyone
be a party to the spouses need to be c. To commit or plan to commit
case; a party; d. What the client knew or reasonably should
have known to be a crime or fraud [Sec.
Applies only if the 24(b)(i), Rule 130]
Does not cease
marriage is existing 2.Claimants through same deceased client
even after the
at the time the a. As to communication relevant to an issue
marriage is
testimony is offered; between parties who
dissolved; and
and b. Claim through the same deceased client
c. Regardless of whether the claims are by
Constitutes a total Prohibition is limited
testate, intestate, or inter vivos transaction
prohibition on any to testimony on
[Sec. 24(b)(ii), Rule 130]
testimony against confidential
3.Breach of duty by lawyer or client
the spouse of the communications
a. As to communications relevant to an
witness between spouses
issue of breach of duty
i. By the lawyer to his/her client; or
b. Attorney and Client ii. By the client to his/her lawyer [Sec.
24(b)(iii), Rule 130]
Elements 4.Document attested by the lawyer
As regards an attorney or any person a. As to communication relevant to an issue
reasonably believed by the client to be concerning an attested document
licensed to engage in the practice of law b. The lawyer is an attesting witness [Sec.
1. Without the consent of his client 24(b)(iv), Rule 130]
2. Cannot be examined as to 5.Joint clients
a. Any communication made by the a. As to a communication relevant to a matter
client to him/her, or of common interest between two or more
b. His/her advice given thereon in clients
the course of, or with a view to, b. The communication was made by any of
professional employment [Sec them to
24(b), Rule 130] c. The lawyer retained or consulted in
common
As regards an attorney’s secretary, d. Communication is offered in an action
stenographer, clerk, or other persons between any of the clients
assisting the attorney e. Neither expressly agreed otherwise [Sec.
1. Without the consent of the client and 24(b)(v), Rule 130]
his/her employer
2. Cannot be examined Identity of Client
3. Concerning any fact the knowledge of General Rule: The attorney-client privilege
which has been acquired in such may not be invoked to refuse to divulge the
capacity [Sec. 24(b), Rule 130] identity of the client.

Subject-matter of the Privilege Exceptions:

1. Communications
2. Observations by the lawyer (regardless
of medium of transmission which may
include oral or written words and
actions)
3. Tangible evidence delivered to a lawyer
4. Documents entrusted to a lawyer
[Herrera]
a. When a strong probability exists that
revealing the name would implicate that
person in the very same activity for which
he sought the lawyer’s advice;
b. When disclosure would open the client to
liability;
c. When the name would furnish the only link
that would form the chain of testimony
necessary to convict [Regala v.

Page 363 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938 and
G.R. No. 108113 (1996)]
Duration of the privilege
In the absence of a statute, the privilege is
permanent. It may even be claimed by a
client’s executor or administrator after the
client’s death [Herrera].
c. Physician and Patient
Elements
1. A physician, psychotherapist or person
reasonably believed by the patient to be
authorized to practice medicine or
psychotherapy
a. Psychotherapist:
i. Person licensed to
practice medicine
engaged in the
diagnosis or treatment
of a mental or emotional
condition; or
ii. A person licensed as a
psychologist by the
government while
similarly engaged
2. In a civil case
a. Note: the privilege cannot be
claimed in a criminal case
because the interest of the
public in a criminal prosecution
should be deemed more
important than the secrecy of
the communication [Riano, 211,
2016 Ed.]
3. Without the consent of the patient
4. Cannot be examined as to
a. Any confidential communication
made between the patient and
his/her physician or
psychotherapist
b. For the purpose of diagnosis or
treatment
1. Of the patient’s physical,
mental, or emotional
condition
2. Including drug or alcohol
addiction
Note: this privilege also applies to persons,
including members of the patient’s family,
who have participated in the diagnosis or
treatment of the patient under the direction
of the physician or psychotherapist [Sec.
24(c), Rule 130].
Page 364 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Physician-patient relationship need not be
entered into voluntarily.
When not applicable
1. Communication was not given in
confidence
2. Communication was irrelevant to the
professional employment
3. Communication was made for an
unlawful purpose
4. Communication was intended for the
commission/concealment of a crime
5. Communication was intended to be
made public/divulged in court
6. When there was a waiver
7. When the doctor was presented as an
expert witness and only hypothetical
problems were presented to him [Lim v.
C.A., G.R. No. 91114 (1992)]
Waiver
1. Express waiver – may only be done by the
patient
2. Implied waiver
a. By failing to object
b. When the patient testifies
c. A testator procures an attending doctor
to subscribe his will as an attesting
witness
d. Disclosure of the privileged information
either made or acquiesced by the
privilege holder before trial
e. Where the patient examines the
physician as to matters disclosed in a
consultation
f. Also check Rule 28 on Physical and
Mental Examination [Rules on Civil
Procedure] [Herrera]
Physician allowed to testify as an expert
A doctor is allowed to be an expert witness
when he does not disclose anything obtained
in the course of his examination, interview and
treatment of a patient. [Lim v. C.A., G.R. No.
91114 (1992)]
Autopsical information
If the information was not acquired by the
physician in confidence, he may be allowed to
testify thereto. But if the physician performing
the autopsy was also the deceased’s
physician, he cannot be permitted either
directly or indirectly to disclose facts that came
to his knowledge while treating the living
patient [Herrera, citing US Case Travelers ’
Insurance Co. v. Bergeron]
EVIDENCE
Duration of privilege
The privilege survives the death of the
patient [Riano, 212, 16th Ed.].
Hospital Records during discovery
procedure
To allow the disclosure during discovery
procedure of the hospital records would be
to allow access to evidence that is
inadmissible without the patient’s consent.
Disclosing them would be the equivalent of
compelling the physician to testify on
privileged matters he gained while dealing
with the patient, without the latter’s prior
consent [Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 179786
(2013)].
d. Priest and Penitent
Elements
1. A minister or priest or person
reasonably believed to be so
2. Without the consent of the affected
person
3. Cannot be examined as to any
a. communication; or
b. confession made to; or
c. advice given by him/her
4. in his/her professional character
5. in the course of discipline enjoined by
the church to which the minister or priest
belongs [Sec. 24(d), Rule 130]
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
contains important evidence” and by
the unavailability of the information
elsewhere [Neri v. Senate, G.R. No.
180643 (2008)]
Purpose
The privilege is not intended for the protection
of public officers but for the protection of the
public interest. When no public interest would
be prejudiced, this privilege cannot be invoked
[Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, G.R. No.
70054 (1986)).
Rule on Third Parties
The communication shall remain privileged,
even in the hands of a third person who may
have obtained the information, provided that
the original parties to the communication took
reasonable precaution to protect its
confidentiality [Sec. 24, Rule 130 (last par.)].
Note: This amendment is a stark contrast from
the previous rule which removes the privilege
from communication that landed in the hands
of third parties.

e. Public Officers

Elements
1. A public officer
2. During or after his/her tenure
3. Cannot be examined as to
communications made to him/her in
official confidence
4. When the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the
disclosure [Sec. 24(e), Rule 130]

Elements of “presidential
communications privilege”
1. Must relate to a “quintessential and
non-delegable presidential power;”
2. Must be authored or “solicited and
received” by a close advisor of the
President or the President himself;
and
3. Privilege may be overcome by a
showing of adequate need such that
the information sought “likely
Page 365 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
3. Parental and Filial Privilege Rule 4. Trade Secrets

Art. 315, General Rule: A person cannot be compelled

Sec. 25, CC to testify about any trade secret
Art. 215, FC
Rule 130 (repealed
by FC) Exception: the non-disclosure will conceal
fraud or otherwise work injustice
No person
When disclosure is directed, the court shall
shall be
take protective measures, as required by
compelled to
testify against No No • The interests of the owner of the trade
his/her descendant descendant secret;
1. Parents shall be can be • The interests of the parties; and
2. other compelled, in compelled, • The furtherance of justice [Sec. 26,
direct a criminal in a criminal Rule 130]
ascenda case, to case, to
nts testify against testify 5. Other Privileged Communication
3. children his parents against his Not in the Rules of Court
or and parents and
4. other grandparents ascendants a. Newsman’s Privilege
direct
descend General Rule: Publisher, editor or duly
ants accredited reporter of any newspaper,
magazine or periodical of general circulation
Except when cannot be compelled to reveal the source of
Except when such any news-report or information appearing in
such testimony is said publication which was related in
testimony is indispensabl confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter.
indispensabl e in a crime
e in a crime 1. against Exception: Court or a House/Committee of
1. against the None Congress finds that such revelation is
that person or descenda demanded by security of the State.
2. by one nt or
parent 2. by one Note: This is without prejudice to his liability
against the parent under the civil and criminal laws [R.A. 53, as
other. against amended by R.A. 1477].
the other
b. Information in Conciliation
Applicability Proceedings
The rule is applied to both civil and criminal
cases [Herrera]. All information and statements made at
conciliation proceedings shall be treated as
The privilege cannot apply between privileged communications [Art. 233, Labor
stepmothers and stepchildren because the Code].
rule applies only to direct ascendants and
descendants, a family tie connected by a
common ancestry [Lee v. C.A., G.R. No.
177861 (2010)].

A child can waive the filial privilege and

choose to testify against his father. The rule
refers to a privilege not to testify, which can
be invoked or waived like other privileges
[People v. Invencion y Soriano, G.R. No.
131636 (2003)].
Page 366 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
c. Data Privacy Act
Personal information controllers may invoke
the principle of privileged communication
over privileged information that they lawfully
control or process. Subject to existing laws
and regulations, any evidence gathered on
privileged information is inadmissible [Sec.
15, RA 10173].
d. Food and Drug Administration Act
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Requisites for Admissibility
1. They must involve matters of fact;
2. They must be categorical and definite;
3. They must be knowingly and voluntarily
made; and
4. Is adverse to admitter’s interests [2
Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.]
Effect of an Admission
It may be given in evidence against the
admitter [Sec. 27, Rule 130].

Prohibits the use of a person to his own
advantage, or revealing, other than to the
Secretary of Health or officers or employees
of the Department of Health or to the courts
when relevant in any judicial proceeding
under this Act, any information acquired
under authority Board of Food Inspection
and Board of Food and Drug, or concerning
any method or process which as a trade
secret is entitled to protection [Secs. 9, 11
(f) and 12, RA 3720].
Flight from justice is an admission by conduct
and circumstantial evidence of consciousness
of guilt [US v. Sarikala, G.R. No. L-12988
(1918)].
Rationale
No man would make any declaration against
himself unless it is true [Republic v. Bautista,
G.R. No. 169801 (2007)].
Judicial and Extrajudicial Admissions

C. Admissions and Judicial Extrajudicial

Confessions Made in connection
Any other
with a judicial
1. Admission by a Party admission [Secs.
proceeding in which it
27 and 33, Rule
is offered [Sec. 4,
Elements 130]
Rule 129]
1. The act, declaration or omission
2. Of a party Must still be
3. As to a relevant fact formally offered in
4. Against his or her interest [Sec. 27, Does not require evidence (Note the
Rule 130] proof [Sec. 4, Rule language of Sec.
5. Made out of court (Those made in 129] 27, Rule 130: “may
court are governed by Sec. 4, Rule be given in
129) [2 Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.] evidence”)
6. Offered and presented in court in an
admissible manner (e.g. non- May be conclusive
hearsay) unless contradicted Rebuttable
[Sec. 4, Rule 129]
EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS May be written, oral express or implied
Any statement of fact made by a party [Sec. 4, Rule 129; Sec. 27, Rule 130]
against his interest or unfavorable to the
conclusion for which he contends or is
inconsistent with the facts alleged by him [2 2. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
Regalado 754, 2008 Ed., citing 31 C.J.S.
1022]. “Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet”—
Things done between strangers ought not to
A statement by the accused, direct or injure those who are not parties to them
implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and [Black’s Law Dictionary].
tending in connection with proof of other
facts, to prove his guilt [People v. Lorenzo,
G.R. No. 110107 (1995)].
Page 367 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
Two Branches
1. First branch: Admission by a third
party [Sec. 29, Rule 130].
2. Second branch: Similar acts as
evidence [Sec. 35, Rule 130].
3. Admission by a Third Party
General Rule: The rights of a party cannot
be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another [Sec. 29, Rule 130].
Admission by a third party is inadmissible as
against another. The act, declaration or
omission of another is generally irrelevant,
and that in justice, a person should not be
bound by the acts of mere unauthorized
strangers.
The rule is well-settled that a party is not
bound by any agreement of which he has no
knowledge and to which he has not given
his consent and that his rights cannot be
prejudiced by the declaration, act or
omission of another, except by virtue of a
particular relation between them.
Exceptions:
a. Partner’s or Agent’s Admission [Sec.
30, Rule 130]
b. Admission by conspirator [Sec. 31, Rule
130]
c. Admission by privies [Sec. 32, Rule 130]
Basis of Exception
A third party may be so united in interest
with the party-opponent that the other
person’s admissions may be receivable
against the party himself. The term “privy” is
the orthodox catchword for the relation.
Note: The res inter alios acta rule only
applies to extrajudicial declarations
(admissions and confessions). However,
when the declarant repeats his extrajudicial
declaration in open court and his co-
accused are given the opportunity to cross-
examine him, the declaration becomes
admissible against the co-accused.
4. Admission By a Co-Partner or
Agent
Requisites for Admissibility
1. The act or declaration
2. Of a partner or agent
Page 368 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
a. authorized by the party to make a
statement concerning the subject; or
b. within the scope of his/her authority
3. During the existence of the partnership or
agency,
4. May be given in evidence against such
party
5. After the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration
(evidence aliunde) [Sec. 30, Rule 130]
This rule also applies to the act or declaration
of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other persons
jointly interested with the party [Sec. 30, Rule
130].
Statements Made After Partnership Is
Dissolved
As a rule, statements made after the
partnership has been dissolved do not fall
within the exception, but where the admissions
are made in connection with the winding up
of the partnership affairs, said admissions
are still admissible as the partner is acting as
an agent of his co-partners in said winding up
[2 Regalado 759, 2008 Ed.].
Joint Interests
a. The joint interest must be first made to
appear by evidence other than the
admission itself
b. The admission must relate to the subject-
matter of joint interest [Herrera]
The word “joint” must be construed according
to its meaning in the common law system, that
is, in solidum for the whole [Jaucian v. Querol,
G.R. No. L-11307 (1918)].
A mere community of interests between
several persons is not sufficient to make the
admissions of one admissible against all
[Herrera].
Just like in partnership and agency, the interest
must be a subsisting one unless for the
admission to be admissible [Herrera].
5. Admission by a Conspirator
Requisites for Admissibility
1. The act or declaration
2. Of a conspirator
3. In furtherance of the conspiracy and
during its existence,
EVIDENCE
4. May be given in evidence against
the co-conspirator
5. After the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act or
declaration (evidence aliunde) [Sec.
31, Rule 130]
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule
is an admission made by a conspirator
under Sec. 30, Rule 130 [People v.
Cachuela, G.R. No. 191752 (2013)].
Existence of the conspiracy may be inferred
from acts of the accused [People v. Belen,
G.R. No. L-13895 (1963)].
Applies only to extra-judicial statements, not
to testimony given on the stand [People v.
Serrano, G.R. No. L-7973 (1959)] or at trial
where the party adversely affected has the
opportunity to cross-examine [People v.
Palijon, G.R. No. 123545 (2000].
As regards extrajudicial admissions
AFTER termination of conspiracy,
BEFORE trial
General Rule: Not admissible [People v.
Badilla, G.R. No. 23792 (1926); People v.
Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181 (1955)].
Exceptions:
1. Made in the presence of the co-
conspirator who expressly/impliedly
agreed (tacit admission)
2. Facts in admission are confirmed in the
independent extrajudicial confessions
made by the co-conspirators after
apprehension [People v. Badilla, G.R.
No. 23792 (1926)]
3. As a circumstance to determine
credibility of a witness [People v.
Narciso, G.R. No. L-24484 (1968)]
4. Circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of the latter’s participation [2
Regalado 761, 2008 Ed.]
Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions
Extrajudicial statements of co-accused may
be taken as circumstantial evidence
against the person implicated to show
the probability of the latter’s actual
participation, provided that the statements
are made by several accused are:
1. Made without collusion
Page 369 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
2. Identical with each other in their
essential details;
3. Corroborated by other evidence on
record [People v. Molleda, G.R. No. L-
34248 (1978), People v. Tuniaco, G.R.
No. 185710 (2010)]
Note: Interlocking confessions may also be
used as evidence aliunde to prove conspiracy.
Applicable to Extrajudicial Statements
The evidence adduced in court by the
conspirators as witnesses are not declarations
of conspirators, but direct testimony to the acts
to which they testify. This is applicable only
when it is sought to introduce extrajudicial
declarations and statements of the co-
conspirators [Herrera, citing People v.
Vizcarra, G.R. No. L-38859 (1982)].
6. Admission by Privies
Privies
Persons who are partakers or have an interest
in any action or thing, or any relation to another
[Riano 262, 2016 Ed., citing Black’s Law
Dictionary].
It denotes the idea of succession, not only by
right of heirship and testamentary legacy, but
also that of succession by singular title, derived
from acts inter vivos, and for special purposes
(e.g. assignee of a credit and one subrogated
to it are privies) [Alpuerto v. Perez Pastor and
Roa, G.R. No. L-12794 (1918)].
Requisites for Admissibility
1. One derives title to property from another
2. The act, declaration, or omission
a. Of the latter (the person from whom title
is derived)
b. While holding the title
c. In relation to the property
d. Is evidence against the former (one
who derives title from another) [Sec.
32, Rule 130]
7. Admission by Silence
An act or declaration made in the presence and
within the hearing or observation of a party who
does or says nothing when the act or
declaration is such as naturally to call for action
or comment if not true, and when proper and
possible for him/her to do so, may be given in
evidence against him/her [Sec. 33, Rule 130].
EVIDENCE
Requisites: When silence is deemed an
admission
a. Person heard or understood the
statement;
b. That he was at a liberty to make a
denial;
c. That the statement was about a matter
affecting his rights or in which he was
interested and which naturally calls for a
response;
d. That the facts were within his
knowledge; and
e. That the fact admitted from his silence
is material to the issue [People v.
Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060 (1978)].
This rule applies even when a person was
surprised in the act [US v. Bay, G.R. No.
9341 (1914)] or even if he was already in the
custody of the police [People v. Ancheta,
G.R. No. 143935 (2004)].
When Not Applicable
1. Statements adverse to the party were
made in the course of an official
investigation [U.S. v. De la Cruz, G.R.
No. 4740 (1908)], as where he was
pointed out in the course of a custodial
investigation and was neither asked to
reply nor comment on such imputations
[People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423
(1979)]
2. Party had justifiable reason to remain
silent, e.g. acting on advice of counsel
[2 Regalado 763, 2008 Ed.]
Failure to File a Comment
Respondent’s failure to file a comment
despite all the opportunities afforded him
constituted a waiver of his right to defend
himself. In the natural order of things, a man
would resist an unfounded claim or
imputation against him. It is generally
contrary to human nature to remain silent
and say nothing in the face of false
accusations. As such, respondents' silence
may be construed as an implied admission
and acknowledgement of the veracity of the
allegations against him [OCA v. Amor, A.M.
No. RTJ-08-2140 (2014)].
8. Confessions
The declaration of an accused
acknowledging his/her guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily
Page 370 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
included therein, may be given in evidence
against him/her [Sec. 34, Rule 130].
An acknowledgment in express words or
terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his
guilt of the crime charged [People v. Lorenzo,
G.R. No. 110107 (1995)].
Requisites
1. Express and categorical acknowledgement
of guilt [U.S. v. Corrales, G.R. No. 9230
(1914)]
2. Facts admitted constitutes a criminal
offense [U.S. v. Flores, G.R. No. 9014
(1913)]
3. Given voluntarily [People v Nishishima,
G.R. No. 35122 (1932)]
4. Intelligently made [Bilaan v Cusi, G.R. No.
L-18179 (1962)], realizing the importance
or legal significance of the act [U.S. v.
Agatea, G.R. No. 15177 (1919)]
5. No violation of Secs. 12 and 17, Art. III of
the Constitution [2 Regalado 765, 2008
Ed.]
If the accused admits having committed the act
in question but alleges a justification therefore,
the same is merely an admission [Ladiana v.
People, G.R. No. 144293 (2002)].
Any confession, including a re-enactment,
without admonition of the right to silence and to
counsel, and without counsel chosen by the
accused is inadmissible in evidence [People v.
Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959 (1996)].
[T]he basic test for the validity of a confession
is – was it voluntarily and freely made. The term
"voluntary" means that the accused speaks of
his free will and accord, without inducement of
any kind, and with a full and complete
knowledge of the nature and consequences of
the confession, and when the speaking is so
free from influences affecting the will of the
accused, at the time the confession was made,
that it renders it admissible in evidence against
him. Plainly, the admissibility of a confession in
evidence hinges on its voluntariness [People v.
Satorre, G.R. No. 133858 (2003)].
An extrajudicial confession may be given in
evidence against the confessant but not
against his co-accused (since) they are
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine
him. A judicial confession is admissible
against the declarant’s co-accused since the
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
latter are afforded the opportunity to cross- 9. Admissibility of Offers of
examine the former. [People v. Palijon, G.R. compromise
No. 123545 (2000), cited in People v.
Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314 (2011)]. In civil cases
An offer of compromise is not an admission of
Effect of Extrajudicial Confession of any liability and is not admissible in evidence
Guilt against the offeror
General Rule: An extrajudicial confession
made by an accused, shall not be a General Rule: Evidence of conduct or
sufficient ground for conviction. statements made in compromise negotiations
are also not admissible
Exception: When corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti [Sec. 3, Rule Exceptions: Evidence otherwise discoverable
133]. or offered for another purpose such as
a. Proving bias or prejudice of a witness;
Corpus Delicti b. Negativing a contention of undue delay; or
Substance of the crime; the fact that a crime c. Proving an effort to obstruct a criminal
has actually been committed [People v. De investigation or prosecution
Leon, G.R. No. 180762 (2009)].
In criminal cases
As Distinguished from Admissions of a General Rule: An offer of compromise by the
Party accused may be received as an implied
admission of guilt
Admission of a
Confession Exception: In cases involving quasi-offenses
Party
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by the
Acknowledgment of law to be compromised
A statement of fact [2
guilt or liability [2
Regalado 754, 2008
Regalado 754, 2008 Pleas of guilty
Ed.]
Ed.] Not admissible against the accused who made
the plea or offer:
Maybe express or Must be express [2 e. Plea of guilty later withdrawn;
tacit [2 Regalado Regalado 754, 2008
f. Unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a
754, 2008 Ed.] Ed.]
lesser offense; or
Can be made only by g. Statement made in the course of plea
Maybe made by 3rd the party himself, bargaining with the prosecution which does
parties, and in and admissible not result in a plea of guilty or which results
certain cases, against his co- in a plea of guilty later withdrawn
admissible against a accused in some
party [2 Regalado instances [2 Offer to pay medical, hospital or other
754, 2008 Ed.] Regalado 754, 2008 expenses
Ed.] Offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital
or other expenses occasioned by an injury is
Acts, declarations or not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or
Declarations [Sec.
omissions [Sec. 26,
34, Rule 130]
criminal liability for the injury [Sec. 28, Rule
Rule 130] 130].

May be in any
proceeding D. Previous Conduct as
[Sec. 27, Rule 130 Criminal case [Sec. Evidence
refers to a party 34, Rule 130 refers
without distinction as to “accused”]
1. Similar Acts as Evidence
to nature of
proceeding]
General Rule: Evidence that one did or did not
do a certain thing at one time is not admissible

Page 371 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
to prove that he/she did or did not do the
same or similar thing at another time.
Exceptions: Said evidence may be
received to prove a:
1. Specific intent or knowledge
2. Identity
3. Plan, system, or scheme
4. Habit
5. Custom or usage and the like [Sec. 35,
Rule 130]
2nd Branch of res inter alios acta rule [2
Regalado 774, 2008 Ed.].
Reason for General Rule
The rule is founded upon reason, public
policy, justice and judicial convenience. The
fact that a person has committed the same
or similar acts at some prior time affords, as
a general rule, no logical guaranty that he
committed the act in question. This is so
because, subjectively, a man's mind and
even his modes of life may change; and,
objectively, the conditions under which he
may find himself at a given time may
likewise change and thus induce him to act
in a different way. Besides, if evidence of
similar acts are to be invariably admitted,
they will give rise to a multiplicity of
collateral issues and will subject the
defendant to surprise as well as confuse the
court and prolong the trial. [Metropolitan
Bank and Trust v. Custodio, G.R. No.
173780 (2011)].
Evidence is not admissible when it shows,
or tends to show, that the accused in a
criminal case has committed a crime
independent from the offense for which he
is on trial. A man may be a notorious
criminal, and may have committed many
crimes, and still be innocent of the crime
charged on trial [People v. Pineda, G.R. No.
141644 (2004)].
When useful
Evidence of similar acts may frequently
become relevant, especially to actions
based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds
light on the state of mind or knowledge of a
person; it provides insight into such
person's motive or intent; it uncovers a
scheme, design or plan, or it reveals a
mistake [Ibid].
Page 372 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
What is needed
Habit, custom, usage or pattern of conduct
must be proved like any other facts. Courts
must contend with the caveat that, before they
admit evidence of usage, of habit or pattern of
conduct, the offering party must establish the
degree of specificity and frequency of uniform
response that ensures more than a mere
tendency to act in a given manner but rather,
conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. The
offering party must allege and prove specific,
repetitive conduct that might constitute
evidence of habit. The examples offered in
evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence
must be numerous enough to base on
inference of systematic conduct. Mere
similarity of contracts does not present the kind
of sufficiently similar circumstances to
outweigh the danger of prejudice and
confusion… In determining whether the
examples are numerous enough, and
sufficiently regular, the key criteria are
adequacy of sampling and uniformity of
response. After all, habit means a course of
behavior of a person regularly represented in
like circumstances [Boston Bank v. Manalo,
G.R. No. 158149 (2006)].
2. Unaccepted Offer
An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of
money or to deliver a written instrument or
specific personal property is, if rejected without
valid cause, equivalent to the actual production
and tender of the money, instrument, or
property [Sec. 36, Rule 130].
E. Testimonial Knowledge;
Hearsay Rule
1. Meaning of Hearsay
Hearsay is a statement other than the one
made by the declarant while testifying at a trial
or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts
asserted therein.
Statement — Oral or written assertion OR
non-verbal conduct of a person if it is intended
by him/her as an assertion [Sec. 37, Rule 130].
Elements
a. Declarant is out of court
b. Out of court declaration is offered as proof
of its contents
 EVIDENCE
c. Absence of opportunity for cross-
examination
Testimonial Knowledge; General Rule on
Hearsay
A witness can testify only as to those facts
which he/she knows of his personal
knowledge, that is, which are derived from
his/her own perception [Sec. 22, Rule 130].
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Hearsay evidence is excluded precisely
because the party against whom it is presented
is deprived of or is bereft of opportunity to
cross-examine the persons to whom the
statements or writings are attributed
[Philippines Free Press v. C.A., G.R. No.
132864 (2005)]

If a party does not object to hearsay

evidence, the same is admissible, as a party
can waive his right to cross-examine
[People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147 (1987)].

Repeated failure to cross-examine is an

implied waiver [Savory Luncheonette v.
Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No.
L-38964 (1975)].

When a statement is NOT hearsay:

1. If the declarant testifies at the trial or
hearing and is subject to cross-
examination concerning the statement;
and
2. The statement is:
a. Inconsistent with the declarant’s
testimony and was given under oath
subject to the penalty of perjury at a
trial, hearing, or other proceeding,
or in a deposition
b. Consistent with the declarant’s
testimony and is offered to rebut an
express or implied charge against
the declarant of recent fabrication or
improper influence or motive
c. Identification of a person made after
perceiving him/her [Sec. 37, Rule
130]

2. Reason for Exclusion of Hearsay

Evidence

The underlying rule against hearsay is a

serious concern about the worth
(trustworthiness, reliability) of hearsay
evidence. Because such evidence:
1. Was not given under oath or solemn
affirmation; and
2. Was not subject to cross-examination by
opposing counsel to test the perception,
memory, veracity and articulateness of
out-of-court declarant or actor upon
whose reliability on which the worth of
the out-of-court testimony depends
[Herrera]
Page 373 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
3. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
1. Dying declaration
2. Statement of decedent or person of
unsound mind
3. Declaration against interest
4. Act or declaration about pedigree
5. Family reputation or tradition
regarding pedigree
6. Common reputation
7. Part of the res gestae
8. Records of regularly conducted
business activity
9. Entries in official records
10. Commercial lists and the like
11. Learned treatises
12. Testimony or deposition at a former
trial
13. Residual exception
a. Dying Declaration
Also known as “antemortem statement” or
“statement in articulo mortis” [People v.
Mendoza, G.R. No. 142654 (2001)]
Requisites for Admissibility
1. Declaration of a dying person
2. Declaration was made under the
consciousness of an impending death
3. Declaration may be received in any
case wherein his/her death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances
of such death [Sec. 38, Rule 130]
4. Declarant would have been competent
as a witness had he survived [Geraldo v
People, G.R. No. 173608 (2008)); and
5. Declarant should have died [People v.
Macandog, G.R. No. 129534 and
1411691 (2001)]
A dying declaration must be single hearsay
to be admissible [People v. Bautista, G.R.
No. 117685 (1999)].
Rationale for Admissibility
As a general rule, when a person is at the
point of death, every motive of falsehood is
silenced [People v Bacunawa, G.R. No.
136859 (2001)].
The law considers the point of death as a
situation so solemn and awful as creating an
obligation equal to that which is imposed by
Page 374 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
an oath administered by the court [People v.
Cerilla, G.R. No. 177147 (2007)].
The admissibility of an ante mortem declaration
is not affected by the fact that the declarant
died hours or several days after making his
declaration. It is sufficient that he believes
himself in imminent danger of death at the time
of such declaration [Herrera, citing People v.
Ericta, 77 SCRA 199].
The rule is that, in order to make a dying
declaration admissible, a fixed belief in
inevitable and imminent death must be entered
by the declarant. It is the belief in impending
death and not the rapid succession of death in
point of fact that renders a dying declaration
admissible. The test is whether the declarant
has abandoned all hopes of survival and
looked on death as certainly impending.
Objections to the dying declaration
May be premised on any of the requisites for its
admissibility embodied in Sec. 38, Rule 130
[Riano 302, 2016 Ed.]
Dying declarations are admissible in favor of
the defendant as well as against him [US v.
Antipolo, 37 Phil. 726 (1918)].
b. Statement of Decedent or Person of
Unsound Mind
Requisites for Admissibility
General Rule: Any statement of the deceased
or the person of unsound mind may be
received in evidence
1. In an action against:
a. an executor, administrator or other
representative of a deceased person;
OR
b. a person of unsound mind
2. Upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such deceased person or against such
person of unsound mind
3. Where party or assignor of a party or a
person in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of the deceased
or before the person became of unsound
mind
4. Statement was made by the deceased or
person of unsound mind at a time where
the matter had been recently perceived by
him/her while his/her recollection was clear
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Exception: The statement is inadmissible if As Distinguished from Admissions
made under circumstances indicating its
lack of trustworthiness [Sec. 39, Rule 130]. Admission By a Declaration
Party [Sec. 27, Against Interest
c. Declaration Against Interest Rule 130] [Sec. 40, Rule 130]

Requisites for Admissibility Admitter is a party Declarant is neither

1. Declarant is dead or unable to testify; himself, or in privity a party nor in privity
2. Declaration relates to a fact against the with such party with a party
interest of the declarant;
3. At the time he made said declaration, Admissible whether Admissible only
declarant was aware that the same was or not admitter is when declarant is
contrary to the declarant’s own interest; available as a unavailable as a
and witness witness
4. Declarant had no motive to falsify and
Can be made any Must have been
believed such declaration to be true
time, even during made ante litem
[Sec. 40, Rule 130]
trial motam
When NOT Admissible
General Rule: If the statement tends to Admissible only Admissible even
expose the declarant to criminal liability and against the admitter against 3rd persons
is offered to exculpate the accused.
Admissible not as Admissible as an
Exception: Admissible if corroborating an exception to any exception to the
circumstances clearly indicate the rule hearsay rule
trustworthiness of the statement [Sec. 40,
Rule 130]. Made against one’s
claim or defense, Made against one’s
Inability to testify means that the person is although not moral pecuniary or moral
dead, mentally incapacitated or physically or pecuniary interest
incompetent. Mere absence from the interest
jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto Secondary
unavailable [Fuentes v. C.A., G.R. No. Primary evidence
evidence
111692 (1996)].
[Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15
Admissible Against Third Persons (2001)]
Declaration against interest made by the
deceased, or by one unable to testify, is d. Act or Declaration About Pedigree
admissible even against the declarant’s
successors-in-interest or even against third Requisites for Admissibility
persons [Sec. 40, Rule 130]. 1. The act or declaration
2. Of a person deceased or unable to testify
Actual or Real Interest 3. In respect to the pedigree of another
It is essential that at the time of the person related to him/her by
statement, the declarant’s interest affected a. Birth;
thereby should be actual, real or apparent, b. Adoption;
not merely contingent, future or, conditional; c. Marriage; or
otherwise the declaration would not in d. In the absence thereof, with those
reality be against interest. (Example: family he/she was so intimately
declarations regarding a declarant’s associated as to be likely to have
inheritance are not admissible because accurate information concerning
these are future interests) [Herrera] his/her pedigree
4. May be received in evidence where the
act/declaration occurred before the
controversy; and

Page 375 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
5. Relationship between the declarant and
the person whose pedigree is in
question must be shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration
(evidence aliunde) [Sec. 41, Rule 130]
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
A person’s statement as to his date of birth and
age, as he learned of these from his parents or
relatives, is an ante litem motam declaration of
a family tradition [Gravador v. Mamigo, G.R.
No. L-24989 (1967)].

Pedigree includes: Distinguished From Declaration About

1. Relationship; Pedigree
2. Family genealogy;
3. Birth; Sec. 41 – Sec. 42 – Family
4. Marriage; Declaration About Reputation or
5. Death; Pedigree Tradition
6. Dates when these facts occurred;
7. Places where these facts occurred; There must be a The witness
8. Names of relatives; and declarant and a testifying to the
9. Facts of family history intimately witness family reputation
connected with pedigree [Sec. 40, Rule
The witness need and tradition must
130]
not be a relative of be a member of the
the person whose family member of
Pedigree Declaration By Conduct
pedigree is in the person whose
This rule may also consist of proof of acts or
conduct of relatives and the mode of question, it must be pedigree is in
the declarant. controversy.
treatment in the family of one whose
parentage is in question [Herrera 649]
The witness may
Independent
e. Family Reputation or Tradition evidence is needed
testify about the
Regarding Pedigree relationship himself.
to establish
The author of the
relationship
Requisites for Admissibility reputation need not
between declarant
1. Witness must be a member, by be established by
and person whose
consanguinity, affinity, or adoption, of independent
pedigree is in issue
the same family as the subject; and evidence.
2. Such reputation or tradition must have
existed in that family ante litem motam [Herrera]
(before the controversy) [Sec. 42, Rule
130].
a. Note: Ante litem motam means before
the controversy arose, not before the
suit was brought [Prof. Avena].

Other Admissible Evidence

1. Entries in family bibles or other family
books;
2. Charts;
3. Engravings on rings;
4. Family portraits and the like [Sec. 42,
Rule 130]

This enumeration, by ejusdem generis, is

limited to "family possessions," or those
articles which represent, in effect, a family's
joint statement of its belief as to the
pedigree of a person [Jison v. C.A., G.R.
No. 124853 (1998)]

Page 376 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
f. Common Reputation
Definition: The definite opinion of the
community in which the fact to be proved is
known or exists. It means the general or
substantially undivided reputation, as
distinguished from a partial or qualified one,
although it need not be unanimous [2
Regalado, 787, 2008 Ed.].
Requisites for Admissibility
1. Common reputation existed ante litem
motam
2. Reputation pertains to:
a. boundaries of or customs affecting
lands in the community
b. events of general history important
to the community
c. marriage, or
d. moral character [Sec. 43, Rule 130]
Note: The 30-year rule was removed in the
Amended Rules
Other Admissible Evidence
1. Monuments
2. Inscriptions in public places [Sec.
43, Rule 130]
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Res gestae, as an exception to the hearsay
rule, refers to those exclamations and
statements made by either the participants,
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately
before, during, or after the commission of the
crime, when the circumstances are such that
the statements were made as a spontaneous
reaction or utterance inspired by the
excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and
to fabricate a false statement [DBP Pool of
Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio
Mindanao Network, Inc., G.R. No. 147039
(2006)]
A dying declaration can be made only by the
victim, while a statement as part of the res
gestae may be that of the killer himself after or
during the killing [2 Regalado 788, 2008 Ed.,
citing People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. L-1846–48
(1949)]
A statement not admissible as dying
declaration because it was not made under
consciousness of impending death, may still be
admissible as part of res gestae if made
immediately after the incident [People v.
Gueron, G.R. No. L-29365 (1983)].

Pedigree may be established by reputation

in the family, but not in the community
[Secs. 42-43, Rule 130].

Common reputation is hearsay like any

other exception to the hearsay rule, but is
admissible because of trustworthiness
[Riano 327, 2016 Ed., citing Reg. v.
Bedforshire, 4 E & B 535, 82 ECL 535, 542].

Reputation has been held admissible as

evidence of age, birth, race, or race-
ancestry, and on the question of whether a
child was born alive [In re: Florencio
Mallare, A.M. No. 533 (1974)]

Unlike that of matters of pedigree, general

reputation of marriage may proceed from
persons who are not members of the family
— the reason for the distinction is the public
interest [In re: Florencio Mallare, A.M. No.
533 (1974)].

g. Part of the Res Gestate

Res gestae — “things done”

Page 377 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Requisites for Res Gestae Sec. 44. Res Sec. 38. Dying
Spontaneous Gestae Declaration
Verbal Acts
Statements
Statement may be Can be made only
a. The principal a. The res gestae made by the killer by the victim
act, the res or principal act himself
gestae, be or to be after or during the
made due to a characterized killing [People v.
startling must be Reyes, G.R. Nos. L-
occurrence equivocal; 1846–48 (1949)]
b. The statements b. Such act must OR that of a
were made be material to 3rd person.
before the the issue
declarant had c. The statements May precede, Made only after the
the opportunity must accompany or be homicidal attack
to contrive accompany the made after the has been
c. The statements equivocal act. homicidal attack committed
must refer to d. The statements was committed
the occurrence give a legal Justification in the Trustworthiness
in question and significance to spontaneity of the based upon in its
its attending the equivocal statement. being given in
circumstances act [Talidano v. awareness of
[Talidano v. Falcon impending death
Falcon Maritime, G.R.
Maritime, G.R. No. 172031 [2 Regalado 788-789, 2008 Ed.]
No. 172031 (2008)]
(2008)]] h. Records of Regularly Conducted
[2 Regalado 790, Business Activity
[2 Regalado 788, 2008 Ed.]
2008 Ed., citing Requisites for Admissibility
People v. Siscar, 1. Memorandum, report, record or data
G.R. No. 55649 compilation
(1985)] a. Of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses
Spontaneous b. Made by writing, typing, electronic,
exclamations may optical, or other similar means
have been made c. At or near the time of or from
before, transmission or supply of information
during or 2. Entrant had knowledge thereof
Verbal act must
immediately after 3. Records are kept in the regular course or
have been made at
the startling conduct of a business activity
the time, and not
occurrence 4. The making of the memorandum, report,
after, the equivocal
equivocal act [2 record, or data compilation by electronic,
act was being
Regalado 790, optical or similar means is regular practice
performed
2008 Ed.] 5. All of the above are shown by the testimony
[2 Regalado 790,
2008 Ed.] of a custodian or other qualified witness
AND must be under [Sec. 45, Rule 130]
the stress or
excitement caused Note: Sec. 45 has no counterpart in the
by the occurrence previous Rules but it is the exact reproduction
[Sec. 44, Rule 130] of Sec. 2, Rule 8, Rules on Electronic Evidence
(“Business records as exception to the hearsay
rule under the Rules on Electronic Evidence”)

If the entrant is available as a witness, the

entries will not be admitted, but they may
Page 378 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
nevertheless be availed of by said entrant
as a memorandum to refresh his memory
while testifying on the transactions reflected
therein [Cang Yui v. Gardner, G.R. No. L-
9974 (1916)]
Entries in the payroll, being entries in the
course of business, enjoy the presumption
of regularity [Sapio v. Undaloc Construction,
G.R. No. 155034 (2008)].
Reason for rule
The duty of the employees to communicate
facts is itself a badge of trustworthiness of
the entries [Security Bank and Trust
Company v. Gan, G.R. No. 150464 (2006)].
These entries are accorded unusual
reliability because their regularity and
continuity are calculated to discipline record
keepers in the habit of precision [LBP v.
Monet’s Export and Manufacturing Corp.,
G.R. No. 184971 (2010)].
i. Entries in Official Records
Requisites for Admissibility
1. Entries in official records were made
by a public officer in the
performance of his/her duties or by
a person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law [Sec.
46, Rule 130];
2. Entrant must have personal
knowledge of the facts stated by him
or such facts acquired by him from
reports made by persons under a
legal duty to submit the same
[Barcelon, Roxas Securities v. CIR,
G.R. No. 157064 (2006)]; and
3. Entries were duly entered in a
regular manner in the official
records [People v. Mayingque, G.R.
No. 179709 (2010)].
The trustworthiness of public documents
and the value given to the entries made
therein could be grounded on:
1. The sense of official duty in the
preparation of the statement made;
2. The penalty which is usually affixed
to a breach of that duty;
3. The routine and disinterested origin
of most such statements; and
4. The publicity of record which makes
more likely the prior exposure of
Page 379 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
such errors as might have occurred
[Herce, Jr. v. Municipality of Cabuyao,
Laguna, G.R. No. 166645 (2005)]
A sheriff’s return is an official statement by a
public official in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law and is prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. Being an
exception to the hearsay rule, the sheriff need
not testify in court as to the facts stated in said
return [Manalo v Robles Trans.Co., G.R. No. L-
8171 (1956)].
Entries in official records are merely prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated [Sec.
46, Rule 130].
Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive
proof of the truth of such entries [People v.
Cabuang, G.R. No. 103292 (1993)].
Baptismal certificates or parochial records of
baptism are not official records [Fortus v.
Novero, G.R. No. L-22378 (1968)].
j. Commercial Lists and the Like
Requisites for Admissibility
a. Evidence of statements of matters of
interest to persons engaged in an
occupation
b. Such statements are contained in a list,
register, periodical, or other published
compilations
c. Compilation is published for use by
persons engaged in that occupation; and
a. Example: mortality tables, MIMS
drug database
d. It is generally used and relied upon by them
[Sec. 47, Rule 130]
k. Learned Treatises
Requisites for Admissibility
1. Published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet is on a subject of history, law,
science, or art; and
2. Court takes either:
a. Judicial notice of it, or
b. A witness expert in the subject
testifies that the writer of the
statement in the treatise,
periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his/her
profession or calling as expert
EVIDENCE
in the subject [Sec. 48, Rule
130].
Scientific studies or articles and websites
which were culled from the internet,
attached to the Petition, and were not
testified to by an expert witness are hearsay
in nature and cannot be given probative
weight. [Paje v. Casiño, G.R. No. 207257
(2015)]
l. Testimony or Deposition at a
Former Trial
Requisites for Admissibility
1. Witness is dead, out of the Philippines
or with due diligence cannot be found
therein, unavailable, or unable to testify;
2. The testimony or deposition was given
in a former case or proceeding, judicial
or administrative, between the same
parties or those representing the same
interests;
3. Former case involved the same subject
as that in the present case although on
different causes of action;
4. Issue testified to by the witness in the
former trial is the same issue involved in
the present case; and
5. Adverse party had the opportunity to
cross-examine the witness in the former
case [Sec. 49, Rule 130].
Inability to Testify (Meaning and
Standard)
The inability of the witness to testify must
proceed from a grave cause, almost
amounting to death, as when the witness is
old and has lost the power of speech. Mere
refusal shall not suffice [Tan v. C.A., G.R.
No. L-22793 (1967)].
m. Residual Exception
Requisites for admissibility
1. Statement not specifically covered by
any of the foregoing exceptions;
2. Has the equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness
3. The court determines that:
a. The statement is offered as
evidence of a material fact;
b. It is more probative on the point for
which it is offered than any other
evidence which the proponent can
Page 380 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
procure through reasonable efforts;
and
c. The general purposes of these rules
and the interests of justice will be best
served by its admission.
4. Proponent makes known to the adverse
party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing
or by the pre-trial stage in case of a trial of
the main case, to provide the adverse party
with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it,
the proponent’s intention to offer the
statement and its particulars, including the
name and address of the declarant [Sec.
50, Rule 130].
OTHER EXCEPTIONS OUTSIDE THE
RULES OF COURT
1. Affidavit in the Rules of Summary
Procedure - shall not be considered as
competent evidence for the party presenting
the affidavit, but the adverse party may
utilize the same for any admissible purpose
[Sec. 14, Rules on Summary Procedure]
2. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, hearsay exception in child abuse
cases [See Sec. 28].
4. Independently Relevant
Statements (IRS)
Statements or writings attributed to a person
not on the witness stand, which are being
offered not to prove the truth of the facts
stated therein, but only to prove that such were
actually made.
These are not covered by the hearsay rule
[People v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-20986 (1965)].
These are statements which are relevant
independently of whether they are true or not
[Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710 (2001)].
Two classes of independently relevant
statements:
1. Statements which are the very facts in
issue, and
2. Statements which are circumstantial
evidence of the facts in issue. They include
the following:
a. Statement of a person
showing his state of mind, that
is, his mental condition,
knowledge, belief, intention, ill
will and other emotions;
EVIDENCE
b. Statements of a person
which show his physical
condition, as illness and the
like;
c. Statements of a person
from which an inference
may be made as to the
state of mind of another,
that is, the knowledge,
belief, motive, good or bad
faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Statements which may
identify the date, place and
person in question; and
e. Statements showing the
lack of credibility of a
witness [Estrada v.
Desierto, G.R. No. 146710
(2001)]
F. Opinion Rule
Opinion is an inference or conclusion drawn
from facts observed [Black’s Law
Dictionary]
General Rule: The opinion of witness is not
admissible [Sec. 51, Rule 130].
Exceptions:
1. Expert witness [Sec. 52, Rule 130]
2. Ordinary witness [Sec. 53, Rule 130]
1. Opinion of Expert Witness;
Weight given
The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education, which
he/she shown to possess, may be received
in evidence [Sec. 52, Rule 130].
Expert witness is one who has made the
subject upon which he gives his opinion a
matter of particular study, practice or
observation and he must have particular
and special knowledge on the subject
[People v. Dekingco, G.R. No. 87685
(1990)]
a. Admitting Expert Testimony
Question in admitting expert testimony
Whether the opinion called for will aid the
fact finder in resolving an issue, or whether
Page 381 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
the judge is as well qualified as the witness to
draw its own or his own deductions from the
hypothetical facts [Herrera].
Court discretion to exclude or include
expert evidence
If men of common understanding are capable
of comprehending the primary facts and
drawing correct conclusions from them, expert
testimony may be excluded by the Court
[Herrera].
Competency of witness is a preliminary
question before testimony is admitted
It must be shown that the witness is really an
expert; determination of competency is a
preliminary question [Herrera]
The competence of an expert witness is a
matter for the trial court to decide upon in the
exercise of its discretion. The test of
qualification is necessarily a relative one,
depending upon the subject matter of the
investigation, and the fitness of the expert
witness. In our jurisdiction, the criterion
remains to be the expert witness' special
knowledge, experience and practical
training that qualify him/her to explain
highly technical medical matters to the
Court.
It is the specialist's knowledge of the
requisite subject matter, rather than his/her
specialty that determines his/her
qualification to testify. [Casumpang v.
Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127 (2015)]
b. Examining an Expert Witness
Mode of Examination of Expert Witness
He may base his opinion on the basis of
hypothetical questions where the facts are
presented to him hypothetically, and on the
assumption that they are true, formulates his
opinion on this hypothesis [Herrera].
The lack of personal examination and interview
of the respondent, or any other person
diagnosed with personality disorder, does not
per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors.
Neither do their findings automatically
constitute hearsay that would result in their
exclusion as evidence. Within their
acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can
diagnose the psychological make up of a
person based on a number of factors culled
EVIDENCE
from various sources [Camacho-Reyes v.
Reyes, G.R. No. 185286 (2010)].
How to Present an Expert Witness
a. Introduce and qualify the witness;
b. Let him give his factual testimony, if he
has knowledge of the facts;
c. Begin the hypothetical question by
asking him to assume certain facts as
true;
d. Conclude the question, by first asking
the expert if he has an opinion on a
certain point
e. assuming that these facts are true and
secondly, asking him, after he has
answered affirmatively, to give his
opinion on the point;
f. After he has stated his opinion, ask him
to give his reasons.
Weight Given to Expert Testimony
Courts are not bound by the findings or
opinions of the expert. Their evidence is not
conclusive, but merely advisory.
How Weight May Be Determined
In determining the weight to be given to
expert testimony, the court may consider
the following:
1. Whether the opinion is based upon
sufficient facts or data;
2. Whether it is the product of reliable
principles and methods;
3. Whether the witness has applied
the principles and methods reliably
to the facts of the case; and
4. Such other factors as the court may
deem helpful to make such
determination [Sec. 5, Rule 133].
2. Opinion of Ordinary Witness
The opinion of an ordinary witness is
admissible:
1. If proper basis is given, and
2. Regarding:
a. Identity of a person about whom
he/she has adequate knowledge;
b. Handwriting with which he/she has
sufficient familiarity;
c. Mental sanity of a person with whom
he/she is sufficiently acquainted;
and
d. Impressions of the
i. Emotion,
ii. Behavior,
Page 382 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
iii. Condition, or
iv. Appearance of a person [Sec. 53,
Rule 130].
a. Identity of a Person About Whom He
Has Adequate Knowledge
Statements of a witness as to identity are not
to be rejected because he is unable to describe
features of the person in question [Herrera].
Identification by voice is recognized by the
courts, especially in a case where it was
impossible to see the accused but the witness
has known the accused since their childhood
[Herrera, citing US v. Manabat].
b. Handwriting With Which He Has
Sufficient Familiarity
The ordinary witness must be acquainted with
the characteristics of the handwriting of a
person. He may only draw on the knowledge
which he already has, and which enables him
to recognize the handwriting.
Only experts are allowed to give conclusions
from the comparison of samples of handwriting
of a person whose handwriting he is not familiar
with [Herrera].
c. Mental Sanity of a Person With
Whom He Is Sufficiently Acquainted
These are allowed where the witness can
adequately describe the actions, looks or
symptoms of a person’s sanity or insanity
which is impossible for the court to determine
[Herrera].
d. Impressions of the Emotion,
Behavior, Condition or Appearance of
a Person
The rule recognizes instances when a witness
may be permitted to state his inferences that
are drawn from minute facts and details which
the witness cannot fully and properly describe
in court. Such expressions are expressed to
the countenance, the eye and the general
manner and bearing of the individual;
appearance which are plainly enough
recognized by a person of good judgment, but
which he cannot otherwise communicate by an
EVIDENCE
expression of results in the shape of an
opinion [Herrera, citing US case Hardy v.
Merill].
G. Character Evidence
Note: There are substantial changes in this
part under the 2019 Revised Rules.
Character distinguished from reputation
'Character' is what a man is, and 'reputation'
is what he is supposed to be in what people
say he is. 'Character' depends on attributes
possessed, and 'reputation' on attributes
which others believe one to possess. The
former signifies reality and the latter merely
what is accepted to be reality at present
[Lim v. C.A., G.R. No. 91114 (1992)].
General Rule:
Evidence of a person’s character or a trait
of character is not admissible for the
purpose of proving action in conformity
therewith on a particular occasion [Sec. 54,
Rule 130].
Exceptions:
1. Criminal cases [Sec. 54(a), Rule 130]
2. Civil case [Sec. 54(b), Rule 130]
3. In both civil and criminal cases [Sec.
54(c), Rule 130]
a. Evidence of good character of
witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached
b. When the character or trait of
character is an essential element of a
charge, claim or defense
1. Criminal Cases
1. Accused – May prove his/her good
moral character, which is pertinent
to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
2. Prosecution – May not prove the
bad moral character of the accused,
except in rebuttal.
3. Offended Party – May be proved if
it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged
[Sec. 54, Rule 130].
Good Moral Character of Accused
The purpose of presenting evidence of good
moral character is to prove the improbability
Page 383 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
of his doing the act charged. The accused may
prove his good moral character only if it is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged [Herrera].
Bad moral character of accused in rebuttal
Unless and until the accused gives evidence of
his good moral character the prosecution may
not introduce evidence of his bad character
[Herrera, citing People v. Rabanes, G.R. No.
93709 (1992)].
Character evidence must be limited to the traits
and characteristics involved in the type of
offense charged. Thus:
a. On a charge of rape: character for chastity
b. On a charge of assault: character for
peaceableness or violence
c. On a charge of embezzlement: character
for honesty [CSC v. Belagan, G.R. No.
132164 (2004)]
Proof of the bad character of the victim is
not admissible:
a. In a murder case: If the crime was
committed through treachery and evident
premeditation [People v. Soliman, G.R. No.
L-9723 (1957)]
b. In a rape case: If through violence and
intimidation [People v. Blance, G.R. No.
20063 (1923)]
Rape Shield Rule
In prosecution for rape, evidence of
complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion
thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the extent that the
court finds that such evidence is material and
relevant to the case [Sec. 6, R.A. 8505].
Sexual Abuse Shield Rule
The following evidence is not admissible in any
criminal proceeding involving alleged child
sexual abuse:
a. Evidence to prove that the alleged victim
engaged in other sexual behavior; and
b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim [Sec.
30, Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness]
2. Civil Cases
Moral character is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in
the case [Sec. 54(b), Rule 130].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
3. Criminal and Civil Cases

Evidence of the witness ’good character is

not admissible until such character has
been impeached.

In all cases in which evidence of character

or a trait of character of a person is
admissible, proof may be made by:
a. Testimony as to reputation; or
b. Testimony in the form of an opinion

On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable

into relevant specific instances of conduct.

In cases where the character or trait of

character is an essential element of a
charge, claim, or defense, proof may also
be made of specific instances of that
person’s conduct. [Sec. 54(c), Rule 130]

Page 384 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
VII. BURDEN OF PROOF
AND PRESUMPTIONS
A. Burden of Proof and
Burden of Evidence
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his or her claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required
by law. Burden of proof never shifts [Sec. 1,
Rule 131].
● In civil cases, the burden of proof is on
the party who would be defeated if no
evidence were given on either side, the
plaintiff with respect to his complaint, the
defendant with respect to his
counterclaim, and the cross-claimant,
with respect to his cross-claim [2
Regalado 816, 2008 Ed.].
● In criminal cases, the burden of proof
rests on the prosecution [Boac v. People,
G.R. No. 180597 (2008)].
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party
to present evidence sufficient to establish
or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima
facie case. Burden of evidence may shift
from one party to the other in the course of
the proceedings, depending on the
exigencies of the case [Sec. 1, Rule 131].
A party will have the burden of evidence
only if there is any factum probandum
(whether evidentiary or otherwise) that the
adverse party has already established
(whether by law, rule, or by virtue of
evidence that he has presented) that he (the
potential proponent) has to overcome. A
party will not have any burden of evidence
at all if the adverse party has not
established any factum probandum in the
first place [Prof. Avena].
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of
evidence lies with the party who asserts an
affirmative allegation [2 Regalado 817, 2008
Ed.].
Example:
In a case for collection of a sum of money, if
the defendant asserts that she has paid, then
she has the burden of proving that she had, not
on the creditor that she had not. While the
creditor had needed to prove the existence of
a debt, the burden shifts to the debtor because
she alleged an affirmative defense, which
admits the creditor’s allegation [Vitarich v.
Losin, G.R. No. 181560 (2010)].
B. Presumptions
Presumptions are inferences as to the
existence of a fact not actually known, arising
from its usual connection with another which is
known, or a conjecture based on past
experience as to what course human affairs
ordinarily take [University of Mindanao, Inc. v.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-
65 (2016)].
A presumption can rest only upon ascertained
facts. It cannot be based on other
presumptions, assumptions, probabilities or
inferences [Francisco, 52].
Presumptions are not allegations, nor do they
supply their absence. Presumptions are
conclusions. They do not apply when there are
no facts or allegations to support them
[University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)].

The burden of proof is generally

determined by the pleadings filed by the
party; the burden of evidence is generally
determined by the developments at the trial,
or by the provisions of the substantive law
or procedural rules which may relieve the
party from presenting evidence on the fact
alleged, i.e., presumptions, judicial notice
and admissions [2 Regalado 816-817, 2008
Ed.].

Page 385 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Presumption of Presumption of 1. Conclusive Presumptions
Fact Law
The technical definition of “conclusive
Praesumptiones Praesumptiones presumption” is implied by way of contra-
hominis [2 juris [2 Regalado distinction with that for the term “disputable
Regalado 819, 819, 2008 Ed.] presumption” in Sec. 3 of Rule 131 of the Rules
2008 Ed.] of Court.
Those which the law Thus, a conclusive presumption is a class of
Those which the requires to be evidence which the law does not allow to be
experience of drawn from the contradicted [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.].
mankind has existence of
shown to be valid, established facts in Conclusive presumptions in the ROC [Sec.
founded on the absence of 2, Rule 131]:
general knowledge contrary evidence; 1. A party is not permitted falsify a thing
and information; derived from the law whenever:
essentially an itself rather from a. By his or her own declaration, act or
inference common logic or omission;
probability b. He or she intentionally and
e.g. Inference of deliberately led another to believe a
guilt upon In the absence of a particular thing is true;
discovery of legal provision or c. To act upon such belief; and
bloodied garment ruling, there is no d. The litigation arises out of such
in possession of presumption of law. declaration act or omission
accused 2. A tenant is not permitted to deny the title
e.g. Presumption of of his or her landlord at the time of the
innocence in favor commencement of the relation of landlord
of the accused, and tenant between them
presumption of
negligence of a These conclusive presumptions are based
common carrier upon the doctrine of estoppel in pais, see Arts.
1431-1439, Civil Code [2 Regalado 820, 2008
Ed.]
Conclusive Disputable
Once a contract of lease is shown to exist
between the parties, the lessee cannot by any
Inferences which Satisfactory if proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive
the law makes so uncontradicted, but presumption that the lessor has a valid title to
peremptory that it may be or a better right of possession to the subject
will not allow them contradicted and premises than the lessee [Santos v. National
to be overturned overcome by other Statistics Office., G.R. No. 171129 (2011)].
by any contrary evidence [Sec. 3,
proof however Rule 131]. What a tenant is estopped from denying is the
strong [Datalift title of his landlord at the time of the
Movers v. commencement of the landlord-tenant relation.
Belgravia Realty, If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have
G.R. No. 144268 been acquired subsequent to the
(2006)]. commencement of that relation, the
presumption will not apply. Hence, the tenant
may show that the landlord's title has expired
or been conveyed to another or himself; and he
is not estopped to deny a claim for rent, if he
has been ousted or evicted by title paramount
[Ermitaño v Paglas, G.R. No. 174436 (2013)].

Page 386 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
Sources of conclusive presumptions
other than the Rules of Court:
a. Law
i. The decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall
become incontrovertible, upon the
expiration of the one-year period
within which any person deprived of
land or of any estate or interest
therein by such adjudication or
confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper court
a petition for reopening and review of
the decree of registration [Sec. 32,
P.D. 1529].
ii. The child shall be considered
legitimate although the mother may
have declared against its legitimacy
or may have been sentenced as an
adulteress. [Art. 167, FC]. Factum
probans that the child was conceived
or born during the marriage of its
parents conclusively establishes the
factum probandum of the legitimate
status of that child, Art. 167 is saying
that any factum probans presented
and offered to prove the truth of the
latter declaration (of the mother) will
be inadmissible in evidence.
b. SC Issuances
2. Disputable Presumptions
a. Person is innocent of crime or wrong;
b. Unlawful act is done with an unlawful
intent;
c. Person intends the ordinary
consequences of his or her voluntary act;
d. Person takes ordinary care of his or her
concerns;
e. Evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
f. Money paid by one to another was due
to the latter;
g. Thing delivered by one to another
belonged to the latter;
h. Obligation delivered up to the debtor has
been paid;
i. Prior rents or installments had been paid
when a receipt for the later ones is
produced;
j. A person found in possession of a thing
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful
act is the taker and doer of the whole act;
otherwise, that things which a person
Page 387 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
possesses or exercises acts of ownership
over are owned by him or her;
k. Person in possession of an order on himself
or herself for the payment of the money, or
the delivery of anything, has paid the money
or delivered the thing accordingly;
l. Person acting in a public office was
regularly appointed or elected to it;
m. Official duty has been regularly performed;
n. A court, or judge acting as such, whether in
the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in
the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
o. All the matters within an issue raised in a
case were laid before the court and passed
upon by it; and in like manner that all
matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before the
arbitrators and passed upon by them;
p. Private transactions have been fair and
regular;
q. Ordinary course of business has been
followed;
r. There was a sufficient consideration for a
contract;
s. Negotiable instrument was given or
indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
t. An indorsement of a negotiable instrument
was made before the instrument was
overdue and at the place where the
instrument is dated;
u. A writing is truly dated;
v. Letter duly directed and mailed was
received in the regular course of the mail;
w. Presumptions concerning absence:
i. Ordinary but continued absence of:
1. 7 years, it being unknown WON the
absentee still lives, he or she is
considered dead for all purposes,
except for those of succession
2. 10 years – the absentee shall be
considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession; but if he
disappeared after the age of 75 years,
an absence of 5 years shall be
sufficient to open his or her
succession
3. 4 consecutive years – the spouse
present may contract a subsequent
marriage if s/he has a well-founded
belief that the absent spouse is
already dead; but where there is
danger of death, an absence of only 2
years shall be sufficient for
remarriage
a. Note: before marrying again, the
present spouse must institute
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
summary proceedings for termination of her former marriage (in the
declaration of presumptive absence of proof to the contrary):
death of spouse
ii. Qualified absence – The following
When Child Was Presumption
shall be considered dead for all Born
purposes including the division of the
estate among the heirs
Before 180 days after Considered to have
1. A person on board a vessel lost the solemnization of been conceived
during a sea voyage, or an the subsequent during the former
aircraft which is missing, who marriage marriage, provided it
has not been heard of for 4 be born within 300
years since the loss of the days after the
vessel or aircraft termination of the
2. A member of the armed forces former marriage
who has taken part in armed
After 180 days Considered to have
hostilities, and has been
following the been conceived
missing for 4 years celebration of the during the
3. A person who has been in subsequent marriage subsequent marriage,
danger of death under other even though it be
circumstances and whose born within the 300
existence has not been known days after the
for 4 years termination of the
x. Acquiescence resulted from a belief that former marriage.
the thing acquiesced in was conformable
to the law or fact
ee. A thing once proved to exist continues
i. “Acquiescence” – reluctant
as long as is usual with things of the nature;
acceptance without protest
ff. The law has been obeyed;
y. Things have happened according to the
gg. A printed/published book, purporting to
ordinary course of nature and the
be printed/published by public authority,
ordinary habits of life
was so printed/published;
z. Persons acting as co-partners have
hh. A printed/published book, purporting to
entered into a contract of co-partnership;
contain reports of cases adjudged in
aa. A man and woman deporting
tribunals of the country where the book is
themselves as husband and wife have
published, contains correct reports of such
entered into a lawful contract of
cases;
marriage;
ii. A trustee or other person whose duty it was
bb. Property acquired by a man and a
to convey real property to a particular
woman who are capacitated to marry
person has actually conveyed it to him when
each other and who live exclusively with
such presumption is necessary to perfect
each other as husband and wife without
the title of such person or his successor in
the benefit of marriage or under a void
interest;
marriage, has been obtained by their
jj. Presumptions regarding survivorship:
joint efforts, work or industry;
(Applicable for all purposes except
cc. In cases of cohabitation by a man and a
succession)
woman who are not capacitated to marry
i. When 2 persons perish in the same
each other and who have acquired
calamity
property through their actual joint
ii. It is not shown who died first; and
contribution of money, property or
iii. There are no particular circumstances
industry, such contributions and their
from which the order of death can be
corresponding shares including joint
inferred
deposits of money and evidences of
credit are equal;
The survivorship is determined from the
dd. Presumptions governing children of
probabilities resulting from the strength and the
women who contracted another
age of the sexes:
marriage within 300 days after

Page 388 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Situation Person Presumed The presumption of regularity in the
to Have Survived performance of official duty obtains only when
there is no deviation from the regular
Both < 15 y/o The older performance of duty. Where the official act in
question is irregular on its face, no presumption
of regularity can arise [People v. Casabuena,
Both > 60 y/o The younger G.R. No. 186455 (2014)].

When there is gross disregard of the

One < 15 y/o, The one < 15 procedural safeguards set forth in Republic Act
the other > 60 y/o No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002), serious uncertainty is generated
as to the identity of the seized items that the
prosecution presented in evidence. Such doubt
Both > 15 and < 60 The male cannot be remedied by merely invoking the
y/o, of different presumption of regularity in the performance of
sexes official duties [People v. Lagahit, G.R. No.
200877 (2014)]
Both > 15 and <60 The older
y/o, of the same sex 3. Presumptions in Civil Actions and
Proceedings; Against an Accused in
One < 15 or > 60 The one between
y/o, and the other those ages Criminal Cases
between those ages
Civil Actions and Proceedings
In all civil actions and proceedings not
otherwise provided for by the law or these
kk. As between 2 or more persons called to Rules, a presumption imposes on the party
succeed each other: If there is a doubt against whom it is directed the burden of going
as to which of them died first, whoever forward with evidence to rebut or meet the
alleges the death of one prior to the presumption.
other, shall prove the same.
i. In the absence of proof, they shall If presumptions are inconsistent, the
be considered to have died at the presumption that is founded upon weightier
same time [Sec. 3, Rule 131]. considerations of policy shall apply.

No presumption of legitimacy or If considerations of policy are of equal weight,

illegitimacy neither presumption applies [Sec. 5, Rule 131].
There is no presumption of legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child born after 300 days Criminal Cases
following the dissolution of marriage or the If a presumed fact that established guilt, is an
separation of spouses. Whoever alleges the element of the offense charged, or negates a
legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must defense, the existence of the basic fact must
prove his or her allegation [Sec. 4, Rule be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
131]. presumed fact follows from the basic fact
beyond reasonable doubt [Sec. 6, Rule 131].
The adverse presumption of suppression of
evidence is not applicable when:
a. The suppression is not willful;
b. The evidence suppressed or withheld is
merely corroborative or cumulative;
c. The evidence is at the disposal of both
parties; and
d. The suppression is an exercise of a
privilege [Tarapen v. People, G.R. No.
173824 (2008)]

Page 389 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
VIII. PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE
A. Examination of a Witness
Shall Be Done
In open court, and
Under oath or affirmation.
Answers shall be given orally, unless the
Witness is incapacitated to speak, or
Question calls for a different mode of
answer [Sec. 1, Rule 132].
Proceedings to be recorded, including:
1. The questions propounded to a witness
and his answers thereto
2. The statements made by the judge or
any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses
with reference to the case
By means of shorthand or stenotype or by
other means of recording found suitable by
the court [Sec. 2, Rule 132].
Transcript Deemed Prima Facie Correct
A transcript of the record of the proceedings
made by the official stenographer,
stenotypist or recorder and certified as
correct by him shall be deemed prima facie
a correct statement of such proceedings
[Sec. 2, Rule 132].
Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses
The court, motu proprio or upon motion,
shall order witnesses excluded so that they
cannot hear the testimony of other
witnesses.
However, this rule does NOT AUTHORIZE
exclusion of:
1. A party who is a natural person;
2. A duly designated representative of a
juridical entity which is a party to the
case;
3. A person whose presence is essential to
the presentation of the party’s cause; or
4. A person authorized by a statute to be
present.
The court may also cause witnesses to be
kept separate and to be prevented from
conversing with one another, directly or
through intermediaries, until all shall have
been examined [Sec. 15].
Page 390 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
1. Rights and Obligations of a
Witness
RIGHTS
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
3. To only be examined as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him/her to a penalty for an offense
a. Unless: otherwise provided by law
b. Example of this right: Sec. 8, R.A. 1379
and other immunity statutes which
grant the witness immunity from
criminal prosecution for offenses
admitted
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his/her reputation
a. Exceptions:
i) the answer is the very fact in issue;
ii) the answer is a fact from which the
fact in issue would be presumed
b. Exception to the exception: he/she
must answer to the fact of his/her
previous final conviction for an offense
[Sec. 3, Rule 132].
OBLIGATION
A witness must answer questions, although
his/her answer may tend to establish a claim
against him/her. [Sec. 3, Rule 132]
One-Day Examination of Witness Rule
A witness has to be fully examined in one (1)
day only. It shall be strictly adhered to subject
to the courts' discretion during trial on whether
or not to extend the direct and/or cross-
examination for justifiable reasons [A.M. No.
03-1-09-SC].
2. Order in the Examination of an
Individual Witness
a. Direct examination by the proponent;
b. Cross-examination by the opponent;
c. Re-direct examination by the
proponent;
d. Re-cross examination by the opponent
[Sec. 4, Rule 132].
EVIDENCE
Direct examination — Examination-in-
chief of a witness by the party presenting
him/her on the facts relevant to the issue
[Sec. 5, Rule 132].
Cross-examination — The witness may be
cross examined by the adverse party on any
relevant matter with sufficient fullness and
freedom
● Purpose: To test the witness ’accuracy,
truthfulness and freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse; and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue
[Sec. 6, Rule 132].
Right to Cross-examination
Cross-examination is the most reliable and
effective way known of testing the credibility
and accuracy of testimony. This is an
essential element of due process [Herrera,
citing Alford v. US (1931)].
The right to cross-examine under the
constitution is superior to technical rules on
evidence [Herrera, citing People v. Valero,
G.R. No. L-45283-84 (1982)].
Effect of Denial of Right to Cross-
examine
Most courts require that the testimony given
on direct examination be stricken off –
provided the unavailability of the witness is
through no fault of the party seeking to
cross-examine [Herrera].
Cross-examination must be completed or
finished. When cross-examination is not
and cannot be done or completed due to
causes attributable to the party offering the
witness, the uncompleted testimony is
thereby rendered incompetent [Herrera,
citing Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German
Airlines, G.R. No. L-28773 (1975)].
Re-direct examination—re-examination of
the witness by the party calling him/her
● Purpose: to explain or supplement
his/her answers given during the cross-
examination
● Questions on matters not dealt with
during the cross-examination may be
allowed by the court in its discretion.
[Sec. 7, Rule 132]
Re-cross-examination — Re-cross-
examination of the witness by the adverse
Page 391 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
party on matters stated in his/her re-direct and
on other matters allowed by the court in its
discretion [Sec. 8, Rule 132].
Recalling the Witness
After examination by both sides has been
concluded, the witness cannot be recalled
without leave of court [Sec. 9, Rule 132].
Why Conducted
1. Particularly identified material points were
not covered in cross-examination
2. Particularly described vital documents
were not presented to the witness
3. Cross-examination was conducted in so
inept a manner as to result in a virtual
absence thereof [People v. Rivera, G.R.
No. 98376 (1991)].
3. Leading and Misleading Questions
Leading question: A question which suggests
to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires.
General Rule: Not allowed
Except:
a. On cross examination;
b. On preliminary matters;
c. When there is difficulty in getting direct
and intelligible answers from a witness
who is ignorant, or a child of tender
years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-
mute;
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or
an officer, director, or managing agent
of a public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an
adverse party [Sec. 10, Rule 132]
Misleading question: One which assumes as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he/she has previously
stated. It is not allowed [Sec. 10, Rule 132].
4. Impeachment of Witness
a. Adverse Party’s Witness
1. By contradictory evidence;
2. By evidence that his/her general reputation
for truth, honesty or integrity is bad;
EVIDENCE
3. By evidence that he/she has made at
other times statements inconsistent with
his present testimony
But NOT by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, EXCEPT that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of
the judgment, that he/she has been
convicted of an offense [Sec. 11, Rule 132].
b. By Evidence of Conviction of
Crime
1. By evidence that he/she has been
convicted by final judgment of a crime:
a. Punishable by a penalty in excess of
one year; or
b. Involving moral turpitude, regardless
of penalty
HOWEVER, evidence of conviction is not
admissible if the conviction has been
subject of an amnesty or annulment of the
conviction [Sec. 12, Rule 132].
c. Own Witness
Party May Not Impeach His Own Witness
EXCEPT with respect to
a. An unwilling or hostile witness; or
b. A witness who is an adverse party
or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse
party
When Witness Considered Unwilling or
Hostile
Only if so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his/her
1. adverse interest
2. unjustified reluctance to testify, or
3. having misled the party into calling
him/her to the witness stand
How impeached: The unwilling or hostile
witness so declared, or the witness who is
an adverse party, may be impeached by the
party presenting him/her in all respects as if
he/she had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his bad
character. He/she may also be impeached
and cross-examined by the adverse party,
but such cross-examination must only be on
the subject matter of his examination-in-
chief [Sec. 13, Rule 132].
Page 392 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
d. How the Witness Is Impeached By
Evidence of Inconsistent Statements
1. The statements must be related to
him/her, with the circumstances of the
times and places and the persons
present, and
2. He/she must be asked whether he/she
made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them.
3. If the statements be in writing, they
must be shown to the witness before
any question is put to him/her
concerning them [Sec. 14, Rule 132].
5. Referral of Witness to
Memorandum
When Witness May Refer to Memorandum
1. A witness may be allowed to
refresh his/her memory respecting
a fact
a. By anything written or
recorded
b. By himself/herself or under
his/her direction
c. At the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately
thereafter, or at any other
time when the fact was
fresh in his/her memory
and
d. He/she knew that the same
was correctly written or
recorded
e. The writing or record must
be produced and may be
inspected by the adverse
party, who may, if he/she
chooses, cross-examine
the witness upon it, and
may read it in evidence.
2. A witness may also testify from
such a writing or record, though
he/she retain no recollection of
the particular facts, if he/she is able
to swear that the writing or record
correctly stated the transaction
when made; but such evidence
must be received with caution [Sec.
16, Rule 132].
EVIDENCE
When Part of Transaction, Writing or
Record Given in Evidence, the
Remainder Admissible
1. When part of an act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given
in evidence by one party, the whole of
the same subject may be inquired into
by the other
2. When a detached act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given
in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record
necessary to its understanding may
also be given in evidence [Sec. 17, Rule
132].
Right to Inspect Writing shown to
Witness
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it
may be inspected by the adverse party
[Sec. 18, Rule 132].
6. Examination of a Child Witness
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
a. Applicability of the Rule
Unless otherwise provided, this rule shall
govern the examination of a child witness
who are:
1. Victims of a crime;
2. Accused of a crime; and
3. Witnesses to a crime
Where applicable: all criminal and non-
criminal proceedings involving child
witnesses [Sec. 1, Rule on Examination of
a Child Witness].
b. Meaning of “Child Witness"
Child witness—any person who at the
time of giving testimony is:
1. Below the age of 18 years; or
2. In child abuse cases, may be over 18 but
is found by the court unable to fully take
care of himself or protect himself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition [Sec. 4 (a),
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness]
c. Competency of a child witness
General Rule: Every child is presumed
qualified to be a witness.
Page 393 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Exception: the court shall conduct a
competency examination of a child, motu
proprio or on motion of a party when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the child’s
ability to:
1. Perceive
2. Remember
3. Communicate
4. Distinguish from falsehood, or
5. Appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court
[Sec. 6]
Proof of Necessity
The party seeking a competency examination
must present proof of its necessity. The age of
the child, by itself, is not a sufficient basis [Sec.
6(a)].
Burden of proof lies with the party challenging
the child’s competence [Sec. 6(b)].
Conduct of Examination
1. Conducted only by the judge
2. Counsel for the parties may submit
questions to the judge
a. It is discretionary upon the
judge if he will ask the child
the submitted questions
[Sec. 6(d)].
Developmentally Appropriate Questions
The questions asked shall:
1. Be appropriate to the age and
developmental level of the child;
2. Not be related to the issues at trial; and
3. Focus on the ability of the child to
remember, communicate, distinguish
between truth and falsehood, and
appreciate the duty to testify truthfully [Sec.
69(d)].
Continuing Duty to Assess Competence
The court has the duty of continuously
assessing the competence of the child
throughout his testimony [Sec. 6(f)].
d. Examination of a Child Witness
Done in open court
General Rule: Given orally
Exception: If the witness is incapacitated to
speak or the question calls for a different mode
of answer [Sec. 8].
EVIDENCE
e. Live-link TV Testimony of a Child
Witness
The prosecutor, counsel or guardian ad
litem may apply for an order that the
testimony of the child be taken in a room
outside the courtroom and be televised to
the courtroom by live-link television.
Prerequisite for applying: the guardian ad
litem shall consult the prosecutor or counsel
and defer to their judgment regarding the
necessity of applying for an order.
If the guardian is convinced that the
decision of the prosecutor or counsel not to
apply will cause the child serious emotional
trauma, he himself may apply for the order.
[Sec. 25(a)]
When applied for: at least 5 days before
the trial date UNLESS the court finds on the
record that the need for such an order was
not reasonably foreseeable [Sec. 25(a)]
The court shall issue an order granting or
denying the use of live-link television and
stating the reasons therefor. [Sec. 25(e)]
When granted: if there is a substantial
likelihood that the child would suffer trauma
from testifying in the presence of the
accused, his counsel or the prosecutor
1. the trauma must be of a kind which would
impair the completeness or truthfulness
of the testimony of the child [Sec. 25(f)]
The testimony of the child shall be
preserved on videotape, digital disc, or
other similar devices which shall be made
part of the court record and shall be subject
to a protective order as provided in Sec.
31(b). [Sec. 25(h)]
f. Videotaped Deposition of a Child
Witness
The prosecutor, counsel or guardian ad
litem may apply for an order that a
deposition be taken of the testimony of the
child and that it be recorded and preserved
on videotape.
Prerequisite for applying: Same as
application for live-link TV testimony in Sec.
25(a)
Page 394 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
When granted: If the court finds that the child
will not be able to testify in open court at trial
The judge shall preside at the videotaped
deposition of the child.
Objection to deposition testimony or evidence,
or parts thereof, and the grounds of objection
shall be stated and ruled upon at the time of the
taking of the deposition.
Who Else Is Allowed in the Proceeding:
1. Prosecutor
2. Defense counsel
3. Guardian ad litem
4. Accused, subject to subsection (e)
a. If there is evidence that the child is
unable to testify in the physical
presence of the accused, the court may
direct the latter to be excluded from the
room where the deposition is
conducted
b. In case of exclusion of the accused, the
court shall order the testimony of the
child to be taken by live-link TV in
accordance with Sec. 25
c. It is not necessary for the child to be
able to view an image of the accused
5. Other persons whose presence is
determined by the court to be necessary for
the welfare and well-being of the child
6. One or both of his support persons, the
facilitator and interpreter, if any
7. Court stenographer; and
8. Persons necessary to operate the
videotape equipment [Sec. 27(c)].
Rights of the accused during trial, especially
the right to counsel and confront and cross-
examine the child, shall NOT BE VIOLATED
during the deposition.
If, at the time of the trial, the court finds that the
child is unable to testify for a reason stated in
Sec. 25(f) of this Rule or is unavailable for any
reason described in Rule 23, Sec 4(c) of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may
admit into evidence the videotaped deposition
of the child in lieu of his testimony at the trial.
[Sec. 27]
g. Hearsay Exception in Child abuse
Cases
Applicability: Any criminal and non-criminal
proceeding
EVIDENCE
A statement made by a child describing any
act or attempted act of child abuse, not
otherwise admissible under the hearsay
rule, may be admitted in evidence subject to
the following rules:
1. Before the hearsay statement may be
admitted, its proponent shall make
known to the adverse party the
intention to offer such statement and
its particulars
a. Reason: to provide him a fair
opportunity to object
b. if the child is available: the court shall,
upon motion of the adverse party,
require the child to be present at the
presentation of the hearsay
statement for cross-examination
c. if the child is unavailable: the fact of
unavailability must be proved by the
opponent [Sec. 28(a)]
2. The court shall consider the time,
content and circumstances of the
hearsay statement which provide
sufficient indicia of reliability
a. factors to consider:
i. motive to lie
ii. general character of declarant
child
iii. whether more than one person
heard the statement
iv. whether the statement was
spontaneous
v. timing of the statement and the
relationship between the
declarant child and witness
vi. cross-examination could not
show the lack of knowledge of
the declarant child
vii. possibility of faulty recollection of
the declarant child is remote
viii. the circumstances surrounding
the statement are such that there
is no reason to suppose the
declarant child misrepresented
the involvement of the accused
[Sec. 28(b)]
When a Child Is Considered Unavailable:
1. He/she is deceased, suffers from mental
infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness,
or will be exposed to severe
psychological injury; or
2. He/she is absent from the hearing and
the proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by
Page 395 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
process or other reasonable means [Sec.
28(c)].
Condition for admissibility if child is
unavailable: His/her hearsay testimony must
be corroborated by other admissible evidence
[Sec. 28(d)]
h. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule
General Rule: The following evidence is
inadmissible in any criminal proceeding
involving alleged child sexual abuse:
1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged
victim engaged in other sexual behavior;
and
2. Evidence to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim
Exception: Evidence of specific instances of
sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove
that a person other than the accused was
the source of the semen, injury, or other
physical evidence shall be ADMISSIBLE.
Requirements for Party Intending to Offer
Such Evidence:
1. Written motion filed at least 15 days before
trial, specifically describing the evidence
and stating the purpose for which it is
offered
a. Exception: if the court, for good cause,
requires a different time for filing or
permits filing during trial
2. Motion served on all parties and the
guardian ad litem at least 3 days before the
hearing of the motion
Hearing Necessary
Before admitting such evidence, the court must
conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the
child, his/her guardian ad litem, the parties, and
their counsel a right to attend and be heard.
The motion and the record of the hearing must
be sealed and remain under seal and protected
by a protective order.
The child shall not be required to testify at the
hearing in chambers EXCEPT if he consents.
[Sec. 30]
i. Protective Orders
Coverage: Any videotape or audiotape of a
child that is part of the court record
EVIDENCE
Provisions of the Order:
1. Tapes may be viewed only by the
parties, their counsel, their expert
witnesses, and the guardian ad litem
2. No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be
divulged by any person mentioned in
Sec. 31(a) to any other person, except
as necessary for the trial
a. Persons in Sec. 31(a):
members of the court staff
for administrative use, the
prosecuting attorney,
defense counsel, guardian
ad litem, agents of
investigating law
enforcement agencies, and
other persons as
determined by the court
3. No person shall be granted access to the
tape, its transcript, or any part thereof,
UNLESS:
a. He signs a written
affirmation that he has
received and read a copy of
the protective order;
b. He submits to the
jurisdiction of the court with
respect to the protective
order; and
c. In case of violation, he will
be subject to the contempt
power of the court
4. Each of the cassette tapes and
transcripts thereof made available to the
parties, their counsel, and their
respective agents shall bear the
following cautionary notice:
a. “This object or document
and the contents thereof are
subject to a protective order
issued by the court in (case
title), (case number). They
shall not be examined,
inspected, read, viewed, or
copied by any person, or
disclosed to any person,
except as provided in the
protective order. No
additional copies of the tape
or any of its portion shall be
made, given, sold, or shown
to any person without prior
court order. Any person
violating such protective
order is subject to the
contempt power of the court
Page 396 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
and other penalties prescribed
by law.”
5. No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or
shown to any person EXCEPT as ordered
by the court
6. Within 30 days from receipt, all copies of the
tape and any transcripts thereof shall be
returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping
UNLESS the period is extended by the court
on motion of a party
7. This protective order shall remain in full
force and effect until further order of the
court [Sec. 31(b)].
Additional Protective Order
The court may, motu proprio or on motion of
any party, the child, his parents, legal guardian,
or the guardian ad litem, issue additional
orders to protect the privacy of the child [Sec.
31(c)].
B. Authentication and Proof of
Documents
1. Meaning of Authentication
Proving that the objects and documents
presented in evidence are genuine and what it
purports to be.
2. Classes of Documents
Public Documents
a. 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
b. Notarial documents (except last wills and
testaments)
c. Documents considered public documents
under treaties and conventions which are
in force between the Philippines and the
country of source
Note: This is a new addition to the
original provision.
d. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be
entered therein [Sec. 19, Rule 132]
A public document enjoys the presumption of
regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the
truth of the facts stated therein and a
EVIDENCE
conclusive presumption of its existence and
due execution. To overcome this
presumption, there must be clear and
convincing evidence [Chua v. Westmont
Bank, G.R. No. 182650 (2012)].
A public document is self-authenticating
and requires no further authentication in
order to be presented as evidence in court
[Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457 (2012)].
Private Documents
All other writings are private [Sec. 19, Rule
130].
A private document is any other writing,
deed, or instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of a notary
or other person legally authorized by which
some disposition or agreement is proved or
set forth [Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457
(2012)].
3. When a Private Writing Requires
Authentication; Proof of Private
Writing
General Rule: Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence,
its due execution and authenticity must be
proved [Sec. 20, Rule 132].
How to Prove Due Execution and
Authenticity
a. By anyone who saw the document
executed or written;
b. By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker; or
c. By other evidence showing its due
execution and authenticity [Sec. 20, Rule
132]
Before a private document is admitted in
evidence, it must be authenticated either by:
1. The person who executed it,
2. The person before whom its execution
was acknowledged,
3. Any person who was present and saw it
executed, or
4. Who after its execution, saw it and
recognized the signatures, or
5. The person to whom the parties to the
instruments had previously confessed
execution thereof [Malayan Insurance v.
Phil. Nails and Wires Corp., G.R. No.
138084 (2002)].
Page 397 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
If a private writing itself is inserted officially into
a public record, its record, its recordation, or its
incorporation into the public record becomes a
public document, but that does not make the
private writing itself a public document so as to
make it admissible without authentication
[Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188881
(2014)].
4. When Evidence of Authenticity of a
Private Writing Is Not Required
The requirement of authentication of a private
document is excused only in four instances,
specifically:
a. When the document is an ancient one
which is:
1. More than 30 years old;
2. Produced from a custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine;
and
3. Unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion [Sec. 21,
Rule 132]
b. When the genuineness and authenticity of
the actionable document have not been
specifically denied under oath by the
adverse party;
c. When the genuineness and authenticity of
the document have been admitted; or
d. When the document is not being offered as
genuine.
5. Genuineness of a Handwriting
a. By any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of such person because:
i. He/she has seen the person write; or
ii. He/she has seen writing purporting to be
his/hers upon which the witness has
acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
such person [Sec. 22, Rule 132].
b. A comparison by the witness or the court of
the questioned handwriting, and admitted
genuine specimens thereof or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge [Sec.
22, Rule 132]
c. Expert evidence [Sec. 52, Rule 130]
6. Public Documents as Evidence;
Proof of Official Records
Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty by
EVIDENCE
a public officer are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated. All other public
documents are evidence, even against a
third person, of the fact which gave rise to
their execution and of the date of the latter
[Sec. 23, Rule 132].
Proof of Official Record Referred to in
Sec. 19(a), Rule 132
1) By an official publication thereof; or
2) By a copy of the document attested by
the officer having legal custody of the
record, or his/her deputy
a) If record is not kept in the
Philippines: accompany with a
certificate that such officer has the
custody
i) If the foreign country is a
contracting party to a treaty or
convention to which the
Philippines is also a party, or it
is considered a public document
under the treaty or convention:
certificate or its equivalent shall
be in the form prescribed
therein, subject to reciprocity
ii) If not a contracting party:
certificate made by a secretary
of the embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice-
consul, or consular agent, or
any officer in the foreign service
of the Philippines stationed in
the country where the record is
kept
(1) Must be authenticated by
the seal of his/her office
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 [Sec 24, Rule. 132].
Note: Substantial amendment to Sec 24,
Rule 132
7. Attestation of a Copy of a
Document or Record
a. Must state that the copy is a correct copy
of the original or a specific part thereof,
as the case may be
b. Must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if
he/she be the clerk of a court having a
Page 398 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
seal, under the seal of such court [Sec. 25,
Rule 132]
8. Public Record of Private
Documents
a. By the original record; or
b. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal
custodian of the record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the custody
[Sec. 27, Rule 132]
See Sec. 25, Rule 132
9. Proof of Lack of Record
a. Written statement
• Signed by an officer having the custody
of an official record or by his/her deputy
• Must state that after diligent search, no
record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his/her
office
b. Certificate
• Accompanying the written statement
• Must state that that such officer has the
custody [Sec. 28, Rule 132]
10. How a Judicial Record is
Impeached
Establish:
a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer;
b. Collusion between the parties; or
c. Fraud in the party offering the record, with
respect to the proceedings [Sec. 29, Rule
132].
11. Proof of Notarial Documents
Notarial Documents
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved
and certified as provided by law which 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,
Rule 132]
Such notarized documents are evidence, even
against third persons, of the facts which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of
execution [Sec. 23, Rule 132].
EVIDENCE
Note: Last wills and testaments are not
public documents [Sec. 19, Rule 132].
12. Alterations in a Document
When Applicable and Whose Burden of
Proof
The party producing a document as genuine
which has been altered and appears to have
been altered after its execution, in a part
material to the question in dispute, must
account for the alteration. If he or she fails
to do that, the document shall not be
admissible in evidence [Sec. 31, Rule 132].
How to Account for Alteration
Party producing a document as genuine
may show that the alteration
a. Was made by another, without his/her
concurrence;
b. Was made with the consent of the
parties affected by it;
c. Was otherwise properly or innocently
made; or
d. Did not change the meaning or language
of the instrument [Sec. 31, Rule 132].
13. Documentary Evidence in an
Unofficial Language
Not admissible unless accompanied by a
translation into English or Filipino. Parties or
their attorneys are directed to have the
translation prepared before trial [Sec. 33,
Rule 132].
Where such document, not so accompanied
with a translation in English or Filipino, is
offered in evidence and not objected to,
either by the parties or the court, it must be
presumed that the language in which the
document is written is understood by all,
and the document is admissible in evidence
[Heirs of Doronio v. Heirs of Doronio, G.R.
No. 169454 (2007)].
C. Offer and Objection
1. Offer of Evidence
General Rule: The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence
is offered must be specified [Sec. 34, Rule
132].
Page 399 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Exception:
Evidence not formally offered may be
admissible when two essential conditions
concur:
a. The same must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and,
b. The same must have been incorporated in
the records of the case [Star Two v. Ko,
G.R. No. 185454 (2011)]
As Distinguished from Identification of
Documentary Evidence
Identification of
Formal Offer of
Documentary
Evidence
Evidence
Done in the course of Done only when the
the trial and party rests his/her
accompanied by the case
marking of the
evidence
[Interpacific Transit v. Aviles, G.R. No. 86062
(1990)]
Why Formal Offer is Necessary
Parties are required to inform the courts of the
purpose of introducing their respective exhibits
to assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility
in case an objection thereto is made [Star Two
v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454 (2011)].
A formal offer is necessary because it is the
duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and
his judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties to the suit. It is
a settled rule that the mere fact that a particular
document is identified and marked as an
exhibit does not mean that it has thereby
already been offered as part of the evidence of
a party [Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. 146556
(2006).
No evidentiary value can be given to pieces of
evidence not formally offered [Dizon v. CTA,
G.R. No. 140944 (2008)].
However, where the absence of an offer of
testimonial evidence was not objected to as
when the witness was cross-examined by the
adverse party despite failure to make an offer
of the testimony, the court must consider the
testimony.
The provisions of the ROC on the inclusion on
appeal of documentary evidence or exhibits in
the records, cannot be stretched as to include
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
such pleadings or documents not offered at 2. When to Make an Offer
the hearing of the case [Candido v. C.A.,
G.R. No. 107493 (1996)].
Kind of
When to offer
evidence
When Formal Offer is NOT Required
a. In a summary proceeding because it is a At the time the witness is
proceeding where there is no full-blown Testimonial
called to testify
trial;
b. Documents judicially admitted or taken After the presentation of
Documentary
judicial notice of; a party’s testimonial
and Object
c. Documents, affidavits, and depositions evidence
used in rendering a summary judgment; [Sec. 35, Rule 132]
d. Documents or affidavits used in deciding
quasi-judicial or administrative cases The party who terminated the presentation of
[Bantolino v. Coca Cola Bottlers, G.R. evidence must make an oral offer of evidence
No. 153660 (2003)] on the very day the party presented the last
e. Lost objects previously marked, witness. Otherwise, the court may consider the
identified, described in the record, and party’s documentary or object evidence waived
testified to by witness who had been [Heirs of Pasag v. Sps. Parocha, G.R. No.
subjects of cross-examination in respect 155483 (2007)].
to said objects [Tabuena v. C.A., G.R.
No. 85423 (1991), citing People v. Manner of Offer
Napat-a, G.R. No. 84951 (1989)] ALL evidence must be offered orally [Sec. 35,
f. When duly identified in a testimony duly Rule 132].
recorded and it was incorporated in the
records of the case [Vda. de Oate v. Note: This is a revision under the 2019 Revised
C.A., G.R. No. 116149 (1995)] Rules.
Evidence can be considered only for the The Court shall consider the evidence solely
purposes it was specifically offered for the purpose for which it is offered, not for
[Republic v. Reyes-Bakunawa, G.R. No. any other purpose [Spouses Ragudo v Fabella
180418 (2013)]. Estate Tenants Association, Inc., G.R. No.
146823 (2005)].
Waiver of Right to Make Formal Offer
It is deemed waived by a party if it fails to
3. Objection
submit within a considerable period of time
its formal offer [Heirs of Pasag v. Parocha,
Concept
G.R. No. 155483 (2007)].
When a party desires the court to reject the
evidence offered, he must so state in the form
A party is not deemed to have waived
of objection. Without such objection, he cannot
objection to admissibility of documents by
raise the question for the first time on appeal
his failure to object to the same when they
[People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 197818 (2015)].
were marked, identified and then introduced
during the trial. This is because objection to
Purposes of Objection
documentary evidence must be made at the
a. Made to keep out inadmissible evidence
time it is formally offered and not earlier
that would cause harm to client’s cause
[Interpacific Transit v. Aviles, G.R. No.
(rules of evidence are not self-operating);
86062 (1990)].
b. To protect the record (for future appeal);
c. To protect witness from being
embarrassed or harassed;
d. To expose adversary’s unfair tactics;
e. To give trial court an opportunity to correct
its own errors and at the same time warn
the court that a ruling adverse to the
objector may supply a reason to invoke a
higher court’s appellate jurisdiction; and
Page 400 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
f. To avoid a waiver of inadmissibility
[Riano].
Objections must be specific enough to
adequately inform the court the rule of
evidence or of substantive law that
authorizes the exclusion of evidence
[Riano].
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
necessary to repeat the objection, it being
sufficient for the adverse party to record his/her
continuing objection to such class of
questions [Sec. 37, Rule 132].
A court may, motu proprio, treat the objection
as a continuing one [Keller v. Ellerman &
Bucknall Steamship, G.R. No. L-12308 (1918)].

MANNER Objection prior to the formal offer is premature

Objection to offer of evidence must be made and could not be considered by the Court as
ORALLY immediately after the offer is basis for a continuing one [Interpacific Transit
made [Sec. 35, Rule 132]. v. Aviles, G.R. No. 86062 (1990)].

When to Object Where a continuing objection had been

What to object to When to object interposed on prohibited testimony, the
objection is deemed waived where the
objecting counsel cross-examined the witness
Testimony of a Immediately as
on the very matters subject of the prohibition
witness for lack of soon as the witness
[De Abraham v. Recto-Kasten, G.R. No. L-
formal offer begins to testify
16741 (1962)].
Must be made as 5. Ruling
A question
soon as the
propounded in the
grounds become
course of oral General Rule: The ruling of the court must be
reasonably
examination given immediately after the objection is made.
apparent
The grounds for objection must be Exception: The court desires to take a
specified in any case. reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made
[Sec. 36, Rule 132] during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to
Waiver of Objection meet the situation presented by the ruling [Sec.
When there is failure to point out some 38, Rule 132].
defect, irregularity or wrong in the
admission or exclusion of evidence. Such A reasonable time must not extend beyond the
failure may take various forms and may ninety (90)-day reglementary period from the
either be expressed or implied [Riano 353, date of submission of the formal offer of
2016 Ed.]. evidence [Beltran v. Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-
03-1747 (2003)].
Effect of waiver
Although hearsay evidence may be The reason for sustaining or overruling an
admitted because of lack of objection, it is objection need not be stated. However, if the
nonetheless without probative value, unless objection is based on two or more grounds, a
the proponent can show that the evidence ruling sustaining the objection on one or some
falls within the exception to the hearsay of them must specify the ground/s relied upon
evidence rule [Bayani v. People, G.R. No. [Sec. 38, Rule 132].
155619 (2007)].
Reservation of a ruling by the court on an
4. Repetition of an Objection objection to the admissibility of evidence,
without subsequently excluding the same,
When it becomes reasonably apparent in amounts to a denial of an objection [People v.
the course of examination of a witness that Tavera, G.R. No. L-23172 (1925)].
the questions being propounded are of the
same class as those to which objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be
Page 401 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
No Express Ruling Needed
The trial court need not make an express
ruling admitting the exhibits if there is no
objection interposed to their admission
[Herrera, citing Boix v. Rivera, CA Rep. 2d
104].
The ruling of the court is required only when
there is an objection to a question or to the
admission of an exhibit [Herrera].
Objections based on irrelevancy and
immateriality need no specification or
explanation. Relevancy or materiality of
evidence is a matter of logic, since it is
determined simply by ascertaining its logical
connection to a fact in issue in the case
[Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, A.M.
No. RTJ-06-2005 (2006)].
6. Striking Out an Answer
Motion to Strike
A motion to strike out goes to admissibility
and not to weight; evidence should not be
stricken out because of its little probative
value [Herrera].
a. Court may sustain an objection and
order the answer, testimony, or narration
to be stricken off the record if:
i. The witness answers the question
before the adverse party had the
opportunity to object;
ii. A question is not objectionable, but
the answer is not responsive;
iii. The witness testifies without a
question being posed;
iv. The witness testifies beyond limits set
by the court; or
v. The witness does a narration instead
of answering the question; AND
vi. Such objection is found to be
meritorious.
b. The court may also, upon motion, order
the striking out of answers, which are
i. Incompetent,
ii. Irrelevant, or
iii. Otherwise improper [Sec. 39,
Rule 132].
Motion to Strike Out Should Specify
Objection
A motion to strike out should specify the
objection as well as the portion of the
evidence which is objected to [Herrera].
Page 402 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
7. Tender of Excluded Evidence
The procedure in Section 40 is known as the
offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence
and is made for purposes of appeal. If an
adverse judgment is eventually rendered
against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign
as error the rejection of the excluded evidence.
The appellate court will better understand and
appreciate the assignment of error if the
evidence involved is included in the record of
the case [Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa,
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2005 (2006)].
The SC had advised trial courts to allow the
rejected [documentary] evidence to be
attached to the record to enable the appellate
court to examine the same and determine
whether the exclusion of the same was proper
or not [Herrera, citing Banez v. C.A., G.R. No.
L-30351 (1974)].
If an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence
is rejected, the party producing it should ask
the courts permission to have the exhibit
attached to the record. Any evidence that a
party desires to submit for the consideration of
a higher court must be formally offered by him
otherwise it is excluded and rejected and
cannot even be taken cognizance of on appeal
[Catacutan v. People, G.R. No. 175991
(2011)].
Before tender of excluded evidence is made,
the evidence must have been formally offered
before the court. And before formal offer of
evidence is made, the evidence must have
been identified and presented before the court
[Yu v. C.A., G.R. No. 154115 (2005)].
How to Tender Evidence
Kind of How to tender the
evidence evidence
Offeror may have the
Documentary same attached or made
part of the record.
Offeror may state for the
record the name and
other personal
Testimonial circumstances of the
witness and the
substance of the
proposed testimony.
[Sec. 40, Rule 132]
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
Rationale
1. To allow the court to know the nature of
the testimony or the documentary
evidence and convince the trial judge to
permit the evidence or testimony; and
2. Even if he is not convinced to reverse
his earlier ruling, the tender is made to
create and preserve a record for appeal
[Riano 360, 2016 Ed.].

Two Methods of Making the Tender

1. Where the counsel tells the court what
the proposed testimony would be;
2. By using the question and answer form
[Riano 361-362, 2016 Ed.].

Erroneous Way of Making Tender

To make a mere general “offer of proof”
without producing the witness or stating the
evidence where by the fact in issue is to be
proved [Riano 364, 2016 Ed., Douillard v.
Wood, 20 C2d 670, 128 P2d 6 (1942)]

Harmless Error Rule

In dealing with evidence improperly
admitted in trial, we examine its damaging
quality and its impact to the substantive
rights of the litigants. If the impact is slight
and insignificant, we disregard the error as
it will not overcome the weight of the
properly admitted evidence against the
prejudiced party [People v. Teehankee,
G.R. No. 111206 (1995)].

The Rules of Court does not prohibit a party

from requesting the court to allow it to
present additional evidence even after it has
rested its case. Any such opportunity,
however, for the ultimate purpose of the
admission of additional evidence is already
addressed to the sound discretion of the
court [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
152375 (2011)].

Page 403 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
IX. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
RULE (A.M. NO. 12-8-8-
SC)
A. Scope
Where Applicable
Applies to all actions and proceedings, and
incidents requiring the reception of
evidence before:
1. Courts (but not to small claims cases)
2. Investigating officers and bodies
authorized by the SC to receive
evidence, including the IBP
3. Quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of
procedure are subject to disapproval of
the Supreme Court, insofar as their
existing rules of procedure contravene
the provisions of this Rule [Sec. 1]
B. Submission in lieu of
Direct Testimony
1) The parties shall file with the court and
serve on the adverse party, personally
or by licensed courier service, not later
than five days before pre-trial or
preliminary conference or the
scheduled hearing with respect to
motions and incidents, the following
a) The judicial affidavits of their
witnesses, which shall take the
place of such witnesses' direct
testimonies; and
b) The parties' documentary or object
evidence, if any, shall be marked
and attached to the judicial
affidavits
2) Should a party or a witness desire to
keep the original document or object
evidence in his possession, he may,
after the same has been identified,
marked as exhibit, and authenticated,
warrant in his judicial affidavit that the
copy or reproduction attached to such
affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction
of that original. In addition, the party or
witness shall bring the original
document or object evidence for
comparison during the preliminary
conference with the attached copy,
reproduction, or pictures, failing which
the latter shall not be admitted. This is
Page 404 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
without prejudice to the introduction of
secondary evidence in place of the original
when allowed by existing rules [Sec. 2].
C. Contents
Shall be prepared in the language known to the
witness and, if not in English or Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in English or
Filipino [Sec. 3]
1) The name, age, residence or business
address, and occupation of the witness
2) The name and address of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination of
the witness and the place where the
examination is being held
3) A statement that the witness is answering
the questions asked of him, fully conscious
that he does so under oath, and that he
may face criminal liability for false
testimony or perjury
4) Questions asked of the witness and his
corresponding answers, consecutively
numbered, that
5) Show the circumstances under which the
witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies
6) Elicit from him those facts which are
relevant to the issues that the case
presents; and
7) Identify the attached documentary and
object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of
Court
8) The signature of the witness over his
printed name
9) A jurat with the signature of the notary
public who administers the oath or an
officer who is authorized by law to
administer the same [Sec. 3]
10) A sworn attestation at the end, executed by
the lawyer who conducted or supervised
the examination of the witness, to the effect
that:
11) He faithfully recorded or caused to be
recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness
gave; and
12) Neither he nor any other person then
present or assisting him coached the
witness regarding the latter's answers.
A false attestation shall subject the lawyer
mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment [Sec. 4].
EVIDENCE
D. Offer and Objection
Offer of and Objections to Testimony in
Judicial Affidavit
1. The party presenting the judicial affidavit
of his witness in place of direct testimony
shall state the purpose of such testimony
at the start of the presentation of the
witness.
2. The adverse party may move to
disqualify the witness or to strike out his
affidavit or any of the answers found in it
on ground of inadmissibility.
3. The court shall promptly rule on the
motion and, if granted, shall cause the
marking of any excluded answer by
placing it in brackets under the initials of
an authorized court personnel, without
prejudice to a tender of excluded
evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132
of the Rules of Court [Sec. 6].
Examination of the Witness on His
Judicial Affidavit
1. The adverse party shall have the right to
cross-examine the witness on his judicial
affidavit and on the exhibits attached to
the same.
2. The party who presents the witness may
also examine him as on re-direct.
3. In every case, the court shall take active
part in examining the witness to
determine his credibility as well as the
truth of his testimony and to elicit the
answers that it needs for resolving the
issues [Sec. 7].
Oral Offer of and Objections to Exhibits
1. Upon the termination of the testimony of
his last witness, a party shall
immediately make an oral offer of
evidence of his documentary or object
exhibits, piece by piece, in their
chronological order, stating the purpose
or purposes for which he offers the
particular exhibit.
2. After each piece of exhibit is offered, the
adverse party shall state the legal
ground for his objection, if any, to its
admission, and the court shall
immediately make its ruling respecting
that exhibit.
3. Since the documentary or object exhibits
form part of the judicial affidavits that
describe and authenticate them, it is
sufficient that such exhibits are simply
Page 405 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
cited by their markings during the offers, the
objections, and the rulings, dispensing with
the description of each exhibit [Sec. 8].
E. Application in Criminal Cases
This Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all
criminal actions:
1) Where the maximum of the imposable
penalty does not exceed six years;
2) Where the accused agrees to the use of
judicial affidavits, irrespective of the
penalty involved; or
3) With respect to the civil aspect of the
actions, whatever the penalties involved
are [Sec. 9].
Procedure
1. The prosecution shall submit the judicial
affidavits of its witnesses not later than five
days before the pre-trial, serving copies ·of
the same upon the accused.
2. The complainant or public prosecutor shall
attach to the affidavits such documentary or
object evidence as he may have, marking
them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on.
3. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or
object evidence shall be admitted at the
trial.
4. If the accused desires to be heard on his
defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits
of the prosecution, he shall have the option
to submit his judicial affidavit as well as
those of his witnesses to the court within ten
days from receipt of such affidavits and
serve a copy of each on the public and
private prosecutor, including his
documentary and object evidence
previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and
so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct
testimonies of the accused and his
witnesses when they appear before the
court to testify [Sec. 9].
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
F. Effect of non-compliance documents, or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication, and
eventual production in court, the requesting
Non-compliant party may avail himself of the issuance of a
Consequence
behavior subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
Deemed to have waived governing the issuance of a subpoena to the
their submission witness in this case shall be the same as when
taking his deposition except that the taking of a
Note: Court may allow,
judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex
only once late
parte [Sec. 5].
submission, provided
Party’s failure
1. the delay (a) is for a
to submit Adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses
valid reason, (b)
would not prejudice are excluded since they are not covered by
the opposing party Sec. 5 [Tam v. China Banking Corporation,
and G.R. No. 214054 (2015)]
2. the defaulting party
pays a fine. There is nothing in the provisions of the Judicial
Affidavit Rule, which prohibits a defendant from
Witness’ filing a demurrer to evidence, if he truly
failure to believes that the evidence adduced by the
Affidavit shall not be plaintiff is insufficient [Lagon v. Velasco, G.R.
appear at the
considered by the court No. 208424 (2018)].
scheduled
hearing
The provisions of the Rules of Court and other
Deemed to have waived rules of procedure in the investigative or quasi-
Counsel’s
his client’s right to cross- judicial bodies covered by this rule are
failure to
examine the witnesses repealed or modified insofar as these are
appear
there present inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule
[Sec. 11].
Judicial affidavit cannot
be admitted as evidence

The court may, however,

allow only once the
subsequent submission
Non- of the compliant
compliance replacement affidavits
with content before the hearing or trial
and attestation provided
requirements 1. the delay (a) is for a
valid reason, (b)
would not prejudice
the opposing party
and
2. the defaulting party
pays a fine.

[Sec. 10]

Issuance of Subpoena
If the government employee or official, or
the requested witness, who is neither the
witness of the adverse party nor a hostile
witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit or refuses without just
cause to make the relevant books,

Page 406 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
EVIDENCE
X. WEIGHT AND
SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE
A. Quantum of Evidence
1. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to
an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind [Sec. 2, Rule 133].
The burden is on the prosecution to prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, NOT on the
accused to prove his/her innocence [Boac v
People, G.R. No. 180597 (2008)].
The prosecution must not rely on the
weakness of the evidence of the defense
[Ubales v People, G.R. No. 175692 (2008);
People v. Hu, G.R. No. 182232 (2008)].
2. Preponderance of Evidence
Applicable quantum of evidence in civil
cases [Sec. 1, Rule 133]
Means that the evidence adduced by one
side is, as a whole, superior to or has
greater weight than that of the other
[Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property
Developer, Inc., G.R. No. 155110 (2005);
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes,
G.R. No. 157177 (2008)].
In determining preponderance of evidence,
the court may consider:
a. All the facts and circumstances of the
case;
b. The witnesses’ manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they testify, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their
testimony, their interest or want of interest,
and also their personal credibility so far as
the same may legitimately appear upon the
trial;
Page 407 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
c. Number of witnesses (although
preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number) [Sec. 1, Rule 133]
3. Substantial Evidence
Degree of evidence required in cases filed
before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies.
It is the amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. [Sec. 6, Rule 133].
Also applies to petitions under the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo [Sec. 17, Rule on the Writ of
Amparo] and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas
data [Sec. 16, Rule on the Writ of Habeas
data].
Substantial Evidence Rule
Factual findings, especially when affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, are accorded not only
great respect but also finality, and are deemed
binding upon this Court so long as they are
supported by substantial evidence [Tan
Brothers Corp. v. Escudero, G.R. No. 188711
(2013)].
4. Clear and Convincing Evidence
Clear and convincing evidence is more than
mere preponderance, but not to the extent
of such certainty as is required beyond
reasonable doubt as in criminal cases
[Manalo v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 102358
(1992)].
The standard of proof required in granting or
denying bail in extradition cases is “clear and
convincing evidence” that the potential
extraditee is not a flight risk and will abide with
all the orders and process of the extradition
court [Government of Hongkong Special
Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No.
153675 (2007)].
It must be added that the defenses of denial
and improper motive can only prosper when
substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence [People v. Colentava, G.R. No.
190348 (2015)].
It is used for overturning disputable
presumptions, such as the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties
EVIDENCE
[Portuguez v. People, G.R. No. 194499
(2015)] or the existence of a valuable
consideration [Tolentino v. Sps. Jerera,
G.R. No. 179874 (2015)].
Note however: The addressee's “direct
denial” of receipt of mail alleged to have
been mailed to it defeats the presumption in
Sec. 3(v), Rule 131 and shifts the burden
upon the party favored by the presumption
to prove that the mailed letter was indeed
received by the addressee [Commissioner
of Internal Revenue v. Metro Star, G.R. No.
185371 (2010)].
It is also the standard of proof for invoking
the justifying circumstance of self-defense
for the defense and proving the aggravating
circumstance of treachery for the
prosecution [People v. C.A.sas, G.R. No.
212565 (2015)]. The former is because
having admitted the killing requires the
accused to rely on the strength of his own
evidence, not on the weakness of the
Prosecution’s, which, even if it were weak,
could not be disbelieved in view of his
admission [People v. Mediado, G.R. No.
169871 (2011)].
B. Power to Stop Further
Evidence
The court may stop the introduction of
further testimony upon any particular point
when the evidence upon it is already so full
that more witnesses to the same point
cannot be reasonably expected to be
additionally persuasive. This power shall be
exercised with caution [Sec. 7, Rule 133].
[Sec. 7, Rule 133] grants the trial court the
authority and discretion to stop further
testimonial evidence on the ground that
additional corroborative testimony has
no more persuasive value as the evidence
on that particular point is already so full [Go
v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 147923 (2007)].
When evidence is merely cumulative
It need not be overemphasized that the
foregoing factual circumstances only;
serves to underscore the immutable fact
that the depositions proposed to be taken
from the five U.S. based witnesses would
be merely corroborative or cumulative in
Page 408 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
nature and in denying respondent's motion to
take them, the trial court was but exercising its
judgment on what it perceived to be a
superfluous exercise on the belief that the
introduction thereof will not reasonably add
to the persuasiveness of the evidence
already on record [People v. Webb, G.R. No.
132577 (1999)].
C. Evidence on Motion
When a motion is based on facts not appearing
of record, the court may hear the matter on
affidavits or depositions presented by the
respective parties, but the court may direct that
the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
testimony or depositions [Sec. 8, Rule 133].
But respondent judge claims that petitioner has
not proved his minority. This is inaccurate. In
his motion for bail, petitioner alleged that he
was a minor of 16 and this averment was never
challenged by the prosecution. Subsequently,
in his memorandum in support of the
motion for bail, petitioner attached a copy
of his birth certificate. And finally, after
respondent Judge had denied the motion for
bail, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, attaching thereto a certified
true copy of his birth certificate. Respondents
Judge however refused to take cognizance of
petitioner's unchallenged minority allegedly
because the certificate of birth was not offered
in evidence. This was error because evidence
of petitioner's minority was already a part of the
record of the case. It was properly filed in
support of a motion. It would be a needless
formality to offer it in evidence. Respondent
Judge therefore acted with grave abuse of
discretion in disregarding it [Bravo Jr. v. Borja,
G.R. No. L-65228 (1985)].
When inapplicable
[W]hile the court may rule upon motions solely
on the basis of affidavits and counter-affidavits,
if the affidavits contradict each other on
matters of fact, the court can have no basis
to make its findings of facts and the prudent
course is to subject the affiants to cross-
examination so that the court can decide whom
to believe [People v. Monteiro, G.R. No. 49454
(1990)].
EVIDENCE
XI. RULES ON
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)
Scope
General Rule: The Rules on Electronic
Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) shall apply
whenever an electronic document or
electronic data message is offered or used
in evidence.
Exception: When otherwise provided [Sec.
1, Rule 1, Rules on Electronic Evidence].
Cases covered
The Rules apply to all civil actions and
proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and
administrative cases [Sec. 2, Rule 1, Rules
on Electronic Evidence].
However, according to People v. Enojas
[G.R. No. 182835 (2010)], the Rules may
also apply to criminal cases.
A. Meaning of Electronic
Evidence; Electronic Data
Message
Electronic evidence — Evidence, the use
of which is sanctioned by existing rules of
evidence, in ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of
fact, which evidence is received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically [Sec. 3(u), Rule 1,
IRR of Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012]
Electronic data message — Information
generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means [Sec.
1(g), Rule 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence]
Electronic document—information or the
representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written
expression, 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
Page 409 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
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" [Sec. 1(h), Rule 2, Rules on
Electronic Evidence]
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term
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 [Sec. 1,
Rule 3, Rules on Electronic Evidence].
Electronic signature — Any distinctive mark,
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form,
representing the identity of a person and
attached to or logically associated with the
electronic data message or electronic
document or any methodology or procedure
employed or adopted by a person and
executed or adopted by such person with the
intention of authenticating, signing or
approving an electronic data message or
electronic document. For purposes of these
Rules, an electronic signature includes digital
signatures. [Sec. 1(j), Rule 2, Rules on
Electronic Evidence]
Digital signature — An electronic signature
consisting of a transformation of an electronic
document or an electronic data message using
an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such
that a person having the initial untransformed
electronic document and the signer's public key
can accurately determine:
1. Whether the transformation was created
using the private key that corresponds to the
signer's public key; and
2. Whether the initial electronic document had
been altered after the transformation was
made [Sec. 1(h), Rule 2, Rules on
Electronic Evidence]
Ephemeral electronic communication —
Telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio,
streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not
recorded or retained [Sec. 1(k), Rule 2, Rules
on Electronic Evidence].
EVIDENCE
B. Probative Value of
Electronic Documents or
Evidentiary Weight; Method of
Proof
Factors that may be considered in
assessing evidentiary weight:
1. The reliability of the manner or method
in which it was generated, stored or
communicated, including but not limited
to input and output procedures, controls,
tests and checks for accuracy and
reliability of the electronic data message
or document, in the light of all the
circumstances as well as any relevant
agreement;
2. The reliability of the manner in which its
originator was identified;
3. The integrity of the information and
communication system in which it is
recorded or stored, including but not
limited to the hardware and computer
programs or software used as well as
programming errors;
4. The familiarity of the witness or the
person who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
5. The nature and quality of the
information which went into the
communication and information system
upon which the electronic data message
or electronic document was based; or
6. Other factors which the court may
consider as affecting the accuracy or
integrity of the electronic document or
electronic data message [Rule 1, Sec 7,
Rules on Electronic Evidence].
Method of Proof
All matters relating to the admissibility and
evidentiary weight may be established by
an affidavit:
1. stating facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiant or facts based
on authentic records; and
2. affirmatively showing the competence
of the affiant to testify on the matters
contained therein [Sec. 1, Rule 9, REE].
The affiant shall be made to affirm the
contents of the affidavit in open court and
may be cross-examined as a matter of right
[Sec. 2, Rule 9, REE].
Page 410 of 535
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022
REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
C. Authentication of Electronic
Documents and Electronic
Signatures
Burden of Proof
The person seeking to introduce an electronic
document in any legal proceeding has the
burden of proving its authenticity in the manner
provided in this Rule [Sec. 1, Rule 5, REE].
Manner of Authentication of Private
Electronic Document Offered as Authentic
1. By evidence that it had been digitally
signed by the person purported to have
signed the same;
2. 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
3. By other evidence showing its integrity
and reliability to the satisfaction of the
judge [Sec. 2, Rule 5, REE]
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. 3, Rule 5, REE].
Manner of Authentication of Electronic
Signature
By evidence that a method or process
was utilized to establish a digital signature
and verify the same;
By any other means provided by law; or
By any other means satisfactory to the
judge as establishing the genuineness of the
electronic signature [Sec. 2, Rule 6, REE]
D. Electronic Documents and
Hearsay Rule
General Rule: Hearsay rule does not apply to:
a. A memorandum, report, record or data
compilation of acts, events, conditions,
opinions, or diagnoses
b. Made by electronic, optical or other similar
means
c. At or near the time of or from transmission
or supply of information
d. By a person with knowledge thereof
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW AND ETHICS
e. Kept in the regular course or conduct of
a business activity and
f. Such was the regular practice to make
the memorandum, report, record, or
data compilation by electronic, optical or
similar means and
g. Shown by the testimony of the
custodian or other qualified witnesses
[Sec. 1, Rule 8, REE].

Exception: The presumption may be

overcome by evidence of the
untrustworthiness of the source of
information or the method or circumstances
of the preparation, transmission or storage
thereof [Sec. 2, Rule 8, REE].

1. Audio, Photographic, Video and

Ephemeral evidence

Audio, Photographic and Video

Evidence of Events, Acts or
Transactions
a. Must be shown, presented or displayed
to the court; and
b. 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 [Sec. 1, Rule 11, REE].

Ephemeral Electronic Communications

a. Proven by the testimony of:
i. A person who was a party to the
same; or
ii. Has personal knowledge
thereof.
b. In the absence or unavailability of such
witnesses, other competent evidence
may be admitted

Recording of the Telephone

Conversation or Ephemeral Electronic
Communication
Same as audio, photo and video evidence

If recorded or embodied in an electronic

document, provisions of Rule 5
(Authentication of electronic documents)
shall apply [Sec. 2, Rule 11, REE].

Page 411 of 535

UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2022