2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW

Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

GENERAL CONCEPTS

The burden of evidence, not the burden of proof, is shifted when there is a prima facie case.

Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court defines burden of proof as the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defenses by the amount of
evidence required by law. Further, it is a basic principle that whoever alleges a fact has the burden
of proving it. Meanwhile, burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at
any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one
when created against him. Similarly, it is elementary that the burden of evidence shifts from party
to party depending upon the exigencies of the case. In the present case, and guided by the
foregoing, it is clear that the burden of proof is not shifted to Ante. Contrary to his assertions,
only the burden of evidence is shifted, which requires him to present evidence that weighs in his
favor to counteract the findings of SDT. This, nevertheless, does not require him to prove his
innocence, i.e., that he did not do the infractions charged. The distinction between the two lies
in the subtle but important detail that Ante may successfully overthrow SDT's prima facie case
against him, without necessarily proving his innocence. In other words, Ante may adduce
defenses or exculpatory evidence on his behalf; and if sufficient, would defeat the case against
him. However, does this automatically mean that he did not commit the acts and omissions
charged against him? Certainly not. Needless to say, Ante need not prove his innocence, for he
has in his favor such presumption. Ante vs. University of the Philippines Student Disciplinary
Tribunal, G.R. No. 227911, March 14, 2022, J. Hernando

Equipoise rule does not apply when the scales of evidence tilted heavily against the defense.

Arriola maintains that he possessed a valid authority to sell the subject lot, which Candelaria
denied. While hearsay, Arriola asserts his position that Candelaria only withheld such authority
because they had a subsequent disagreement. There being a conflict between the versions of the
prosecution and the defense, Arriola insists that the courts should have favored that of the latter,
citing the equipoise rule. The Court differs. The equipoise rule is inapplicable here. Under this
rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds
application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his
guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to
produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the
crime charged is found lacking. Conviction rests not on the frailty of the defense but on the
strength and sufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution. In this case, however, the scales of
the evidence had already tilted heavily against the defense. The Court perceives no conflicting

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

versions, as Arriola technically failed to set forth his own version in the first place. His guilt was
finely established with the required quantum of proof, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020, J. Hernando

ADMISSIBILITY

Admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value.

Disini assails both the admissibility and probative value of Exhibit E-9. He claims that the
Sandiganbayan violated the rule on authentication of documents under Section 20 of Rule 132
126 when it admitted and relied on Exhibit E-9. Admissibility of evidence should not be confused
with its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence
are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted
evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary
weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or the rules
on evidence. Before any private document offered as authentic, such as Exhibit E-9, is received
in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved by anyone who saw the document
executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker. Disini vs. Republic, G.R. No. 205172, June 15, 2021, J. Hernando

Circumstantial evidence may be presented to convict the accused.

Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive evidence, refers to proof of

collateral facts and circumstances whence the existence of the main fact may be inferred
according to reason and common experience. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain
conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be
sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.
People vs. Manansala y Alfaro, G.R. No. 233104, September 2, 2020, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

As a rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of other cases in the same court.

It is well-settled that, as a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the
adjudication of cases pending before them, 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 heard or are actually pending before the same judge. It is true
that the said rule admits of exceptions, namely: (a) 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, 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 (b) when 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. Bernas vs. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat, G.R. No. 195908, August 15, 2018

Guidelines in Appreciating Age as an Element of the Crime or as a Qualifying Circumstance

The Court hereby sets the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the
crime or as a qualifying circumstance: (1) The best evidence to prove the age of the offended
party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party; (2) In the
absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate
and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age; (3) If
the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member
of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a) If the victim
is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7
years old; b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 12 years old; c) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what
is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old; (4) In the absence of a certificate of
live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning
the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused; (5) It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the
offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age
shall not be taken against him and; (6) The trial court should always make a categorical finding as
to the age of the victim. People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 244048, February 14, 2022, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

Admission of Age in the stipulation of facts is a judicial admission and considered a waiver.

Granting that the prosecution failed to offer the original or certified true copy of AAA's birth
certificate, the latter's testimony as to her age, i.e., 14 years old at the time of the incident, and
XXX's express and clear admission of her age during the pre-trial in the stipulation of facts,
sufficiently established AAA's minority. These stipulations are binding on the court because they
are considered judicial admissions within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules
of Court. XXX and her counsel, as well as the prosecutor, signed the stipulation of facts which is
therefore recognized as a declaration constituting judicial admission, a waiver of her right to
present evidence to the contrary and binding upon the parties. Although the right to present
evidence is guaranteed by the Constitution, such right may be waived expressly or impliedly.
People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 244048, February 14, 2022, J. Hernando

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Secondary evidence may be presented upon proof of execution/existence and cause of lost.

According to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, when the original document
has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove
its contents by presenting secondary evidence. This secondary evidence pertains to: (1) a copy of
the lost document, (2) by a recital of the contents of the lost document in some authentic
document, or (3) by a testimony of a witnesses, in the order stated. Hence, in order for
respondent, CAMACOP to prove the existence and contents of the purportedly lost Deed of Sale,
it was incumbent upon it to present either (1) a copy of the purported Deed of Sale, or (2) an
authentic document containing a recital of the contents of the purported Deed of Sale, or (3) a
witness who can testify as to the existence and contents of the purported Deed of Sale, in that
order. Heir of Pastora T. Cardenas and Eustaquio Cardenas vs. The Christian and Missionary
Alliance Churches of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222614, March 20, 2019

Secondary evidence may be introduced by testimony of those familiar with the fact in issue.

Millonte submitted a Certification indicating the fact of death of Ambrosio, one of the purported
vendors. Likewise, she presented Certifications stating that the death certificates of Pantaleona,
Lucio, Marcelo, and Eleuteria could not be produced or located due to the fire during the war,
which burned the records of the Local Civil Registrar of Tanauan. Moreover, the testimonies of
Rolando and Florentino, and even Millonte herself, established that Lucio, Ambrosio, and

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

Eleuteria passed away many years before 1970, when the Deed of Absolute Sale was allegedly
executed. As relatives of the deceased, their information was derived from their personal
experiences or conversations with those who knew or were familiar with the Gonzaga siblings. In
view of these, Millonte's resort to secondary evidence was proper, as the original documents (the
death certificates of the other Gonzaga siblings) were unavailable because these were destroyed
by the fire. Hence, the deaths of the Gonzagas, the supposed contracting parties, prior to the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale were sufficiently established. City of Tanauan vs.
Millonte, G.R. No. 219292, June 28, 2021, J. Hernando

Secondary evidence may be admitted if the terms of a writing are not in issue.

The Best Evidence Rule (now, the Original Document Rule) applies only when the terms of a
writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as
the existence, execution, or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Original
Document Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even
without accounting for the original. Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez
and Valentina Clave, G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013

Parol Evidence Rule is related to the “Plain Meaning Rule” and “Four Corners Rule”.

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. Related to this is the plain meaning rule and the four
corners rule. The cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts is embodied in the first paragraph
of Article 1370 of the Civil Code: 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. This
provision is akin to the "plain meaning rule", which assumes that the intent of the parties to an
instrument is embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are clear and unambiguous the
intent is to be discovered only from the express language of the agreement. It also resembles the
"four corners" rule, a principle which allows courts in some cases to search beneath the semantic
surface for clues to meaning. A court's purpose in examining a contract is to interpret the intent
of the contracting parties, as objectively manifested by them. The process of interpreting a
contract requires the court to make a preliminary inquiry as to whether the contract before it is
ambiguous. If the contract is determined to be ambiguous, then the interpretation of the contract
is left to the court, to resolve the ambiguity in the light of the intrinsic evidence. Bacala vs. Heirs
of Poliño, G.R. No. 200608, February 10, 2021, J. Hernand

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Discovery procedure cannot be used to access evidence that is otherwise inadmissible.

The right to compel the production of documents has a limitation: the documents to be disclosed
are “not privileged.” Josielene of course claims that the hospital records subject of this case are
not privileged since it is the “testimonial” evidence of the physician that may be regarded as
privileged. Section 24(c) of Rule 130 states that the physician “cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, be examined” regarding their professional conversation. The privilege,
says Josielene, does not cover the hospital records, but only the examination of the physician at
the trial. To allow, however, the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records —
the results of tests that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness, and the
advice or treatment he gave him — would be to allow access to evidence that is inadmissible
without the patient’s consent. Physician memorializes all these information in the patient’s
records. 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 vs. Chan, G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013

The right against self-incrimination is only a right against testimonial compulsion.

The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right
against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the
accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not
an incrimination but as part of object evidence. Over the years, the Court has expressly excluded
several kinds of object evidence taken from the person of the accused from the realm of self-
incrimination. These include photographs, hair, and other bodily substances. The Court has also
declared as constitutional several procedures performed on the accused such as pregnancy tests
for women accused of adultery, expulsion of morphine from one’s mouth and the tracing of one’s
foot to determine its identity with bloody footprints. The Court even authorized the examination
of a woman’s genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband, to verify his claim that
she was impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis. Some of these procedures were, to
be sure, rather invasive and involuntary, but all of them were constitutionally sound. DNA testing
and its results are now similarly acceptable. Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162571, June
15, 2005

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

An extrajudicial confession taken with color of state function without counsel is inadmissible.

Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the
“bantay bayan,” are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the
preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the
actions taken by the head of “bantay bayan”, and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities
delegated to a “bantay bayan,” particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation,
any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the
entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of
the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. The extrajudicial
confession of appellant, which was taken without a counsel, is therefore inadmissible in evidence.
People vs. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010

Confession made before news reporters without undue influence is admissible.

A confession made before news reporters, absent any showing of undue influence from the
police authorities, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the crime confessed to by the accused.
The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made by Antonio while inside a detention cell does
not by itself render such confession inadmissible, contrary to what Antonio would like this Court
to believe. In People v. Domantay, where the accused was also interviewed while inside a jail cell,
this Court held that such circumstance alone does not taint the extrajudicial confession of the
accused, especially since the same was given freely and spontaneously. People vs. Dacanay, G.R.
No. 216064, November 7, 2016

Hearsay testimony rests on the ground that there was no opportunity to cross-examine.

Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or in part, on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to
produce it. A person who introduces a hearsay statement is not obliged to enter into any
particular stipulation, to answer any question, to solve any difficulties, to reconcile any
contradictions, to explain any obscurities, to remove any ambiguities; and that he/she
entrenches himself/herself in the simple assertion that he/she was told so, and leaves the burden
entirely upon the dead or absent author. For this reason, the rule against hearsay testimony rests
mainly on the ground that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The hearsay
rule, however, does not apply to independently relevant statements. Arriola vs. People, G.R. No.
199975, February 24, 2020, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

The uncompleted testimony of a witness is rendered inadmissible in evidence.

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 and
inadmissible in evidence. From the record, Arriola had been granted sufficient opportunities to
complete his cross-examination. He had been fairly warned and notified in the September 5, 2006
Order of the RTC that his cross-examination shall be reset for the last time, and that another
failure to appear for cross-examination shall be cause for the striking off of his direct testimony.
Due to causes known only to Arriola, he failed to even begin the same. Add to this that prior to
his cross-examination, Arriola was already remiss in his attendance for various reasons in the
hearings before the trial court. Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020, J.
Hernando

A dying declaration is admissible as evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.

It must be mentioned that a "dying declaration" is one of the recognized exceptions to the right
to confrontation. In the case at bar, it will not be amiss to state that Mary Jane's deposition
through written interrogatories is akin to her dying declaration. There is no doubt that Mary Jane
will be answering the written interrogatories under the consciousness of an impending death —
or execution by a firing squad to be exact. To stress, Mary Jane has been convicted by final
judgment and sentenced to death by firing squad. Mary Jane has already availed of all available
legal remedies and there is no expectation that her conviction will be overturned by the
Indonesian authorities. The only purpose for the grant of the reprieve was for Mary Jane to assist
the prosecution in erecting its case against her recruiters and traffickers. There was nary any
mention that the outcome of the legal proceedings here in the Philippines will have a
concomitant effect in Mary Jane's conviction by the Indonesian authorities. That Mary Jane is
facing impending death is undisputed considering the nature of her reprieve which is merely
temporary. It is therefore not a stretch of imagination to state that Mary Jane's declarations in
her deposition are made in extremity, she being at the point of death, and every hope of this
world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most
powerful considerations to speak the truth, to vindicate oneself, and to secure justice to her
detractors. People vs. Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, October 9, 2019, J. Hernando

Immediate death is not indispensable for a dying declaration to be admissible.

The fact that the victim did not expire right after his declaration, but survived seven days
thereafter, will not alter the probative force of his dying declaration. The occurrence of a

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

declarant’s death immediately thereafter is not indispensable. The rule on dying declarations
does not require that the person should be at the time in the throes of death, or that he should
die immediately, or within any specified time thereafter, in order to give the declaration
probative force. People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 142654, November 16, 2001

Previous conduct can only be offered to show the scheme of the offender.

As a rule, evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal
case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial. It is not
competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing
that he committed the crime charged in the complaint or information. An exception to this rule
is when such evidence tends directly to establish the particular crime, and it is usually competent
to prove the motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan
embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one
tends to establish the other, or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the
crime on trial. People vs. Magpayo, G.R. Nos. 92961-64, September 1, 1993

BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

Presumption of innocence Prevails Over Presumption of Regularity of Performance of Duty.

The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally
protected right. The burden lies with the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
by establishing each and every element of the crime charged. Judicial reliance on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures
undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally unsound because the lapses themselves
are affirmative proofs of irregularity. Any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be
justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband.
Absent any of the said conditions, the noncompliance is an irregularity, a red flag that casts
reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti. The presumption of regularity cannot
overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule
of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. People vs.
Callejo, G.R. No. 227427, June 6, 2018

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Medical certificate has corroborative purposes but unnecessary for conviction of rape.

While a medical certificate attesting to the victim’s physical trauma from the rape has
corroborative purposes, it is wholly unnecessary for conviction, if not a mere superfluity. If
anything, Cabales only confirmed in his appeal that he indeed obtained carnal knowledge of AAA.
This is a complete turn- around from his initial denial of the incident before the trial court, where
he claimed that he stayed in his house the entire day of January 16, 2005 attending to his wife
who had just given birth. Given Cabales’ contradicting stance, this Court receives his defense with
utmost caution. People vs. Cabales, G.R. No. 213831, September 25, 2019, J. Hernando

Authentication of a private document is required before it could be presented as evidence.

The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be
presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character,
or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a
competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of
a private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further authentication
to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, 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. Lacking the
official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a
private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court
before its acceptance as evidence in court. Whether a document is public or private is relevant
in determining its admissibility as evidence. Public documents are admissible in evidence even
without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. On the other hand, private
documents are inadmissible in evidence unless they are properly authenticated. Clearly, Exhibit
E-9 is a private document, thus it must be properly authenticated to be admissible and given
probative value. Disini vs. Republic, G.R. No. 205172, June 15, 2021, J. Hernando

Proof of official record can be given through an authentication by a Philippine Consul.

The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was accompanied by an Authentication

issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying
that Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was an official
in and for Japan. The Authentication further certified that he was authorized to sign the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce and that his signature in it was genuine.
Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is admissible
as evidence of the fact of divorce between petitioner and respondent. Republic v. Kikuchi, G.R.
No. 243646, June 22, 2022, J. Hernando

Courts cannot consider evidence which was not formally offered.

In this case, even assuming that the Reply-Letter dated June 27, 2003 was appended to the
records, the fact still remains that the court cannot consider evidence which was not formally
offered. As such, any statement allegedly made on behalf of petitioner Mandagan in the said
letter could not be considered an admission of receipt of a notice of dishonor as the same has no
evidentiary value whatsoever. Verily, the RTC could not be faulted, much less accused of
capriciousness, in appreciating the evidence without the Reply-Letter dated June 27, 2003.
Mandagan vs. Jose M. Valero Corporation, G.R. No. 215118, June 19, 2019

No formal offer is necessary for evidence duly recorded or incorporated in the records.

In certain instances, however, this Court has relaxed the procedural rule and allowed the trial
court to consider evidence not formally offered on the condition that the following requisites are
present: (1) the evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and (2) the
same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. Heirs of Serapio Mabborang vs.
Mabborang, G.R. No. 182805, April 22, 2015

Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is made.

Since the Republic failed to object to the offer of evidence and even manifested that the State
will not submit controverting evidence, Edwin's testimony was properly admitted. Further, while
the Republic insists that it could not have objected to the offer because it was not served a copy
of Jocelyn's formal offer of evidence — implying that the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP)’s
failure to object did not bind the Republic because the authority conferred to it by the OSG is
subject to the reservation that the latter be furnished with notices of "hearings, orders and other
court processes" – the Court still upholds the admission of evidence because the reservation does
not cover pleadings of the parties. It is limited only to issuances of the trial court. Besides, the
records show that the offer was done orally. Since objection to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer, the OSG, even if served a copy of all court processes and

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

pleadings of the parties, still could not have personally made the objection because it was not
present during the hearing and was instead duly represented by the OCP. Republic vs. Kikuchi,
G.R. No. 243646, June 22, 2022, J. Hernando

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

Judicial Affidavit Rule does not apply to the presentation of an adverse party’s witness.

Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule contemplates a situation where there is a (a) government
employee or official or (b) requested witness who is not the (1) adverse party’s witness nor (2) a
hostile witness. If this person either (a) unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or (b)
refuses without just cause to make the relevant documents available to the other party and its
presentation to court, Section 5 allows the requesting party to avail of issuance of subpoena ad
testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. Thus, adverse party witnesses
and hostile witnesses being excluded they are not covered by Section 5. Expressio unius est
exclusion alterius: the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the
exclusion of all others. Here, Yap is a requested witness who is the adverse party’s witness.
Regardless of whether he unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without
just cause to present the documents, Section 5 cannot be made to apply to him for the reason
that he is included in a group of individuals expressly exempt from the provision’s application.
Ng Meng Tam vs. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 214054, August 5, 2015

The good cause exception to allow evidence not stated in pre-trial order does not apply to
Judicial Affidavit Rule.

No documentary evidence shall be presented and offered in trial other than those that had been
earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for good
cause shown. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what may constitute "good cause,"
though this Court has previously defined it as any substantial reason "that affords a legal excuse."
The good cause exception, however, does not extend to testimonial evidence, especially since
the Judicial Affidavit Rule governs presentation of testimonial evidence. The Real Bank (A Thrift
Bank), Inc. vs. Maningas, G.R. No. 211837, March 16, 2022, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

In civil cases, burden of proof is on plaintiff to establish case by preponderance of evidence.

In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to establish his/her
case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is defined as the weight, credit,
and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous
with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” It is
a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more
convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Preponderance of evidence refers to the probability to truth of the matters intended to be
proven as facts. Caranto vs. Caranto, G.R. No. 202889 March 2, 2020, J. Hernando

Substantial evidence is the least demanding among the hierarchy of evidence.

It is a well-established rule that the party-litigant who alleges the existence of a fact or thing
necessary to establish his/her claim has the burden of proving the same by the amount of
evidence required by law, which, in labor proceedings, is substantial evidence, or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. To be clear, in
the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is placed at the highest level,
followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence,
in that order. Thus, in the hierarchy of evidence, it is the least demanding. Corollarily, the ground
for the dismissal of an employee does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The quantum
of proof required is merely substantial evidence — which only entails evidence to support a
conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
Accordingly, requiring a quantum of proof that is over and above substantial evidence is contrary
to law. JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo, G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020, J. Hernando

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

Authentication of electronic evidence can be through testimony of the origin and transfer.

This Court agrees with the RTC in appreciating the CCTV footages and admitting the same as
evidence because they bolstered the testimonies of the witnesses and supported the finding of
treachery in the case at bar. As correctly held by the CA, the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides
that persons authorized to authenticate the video or CCTV recording is not limited solely to the
person who made the recording but also by another competent witness who can testify to its

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 14
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 7
EVIDENCE

accuracy. In the case at bar, Asas was able to establish the origin of the recording and explain
how it was transferred to the compact disc and subsequently presented to the trial court. Hence,
this Court finds no reason to contradict such finding. People vs. Manansala y Alfaro, G.R. No.
233104, September 2, 2020, J. Hernando

An electronic document is admissible if it complies with the rules on admissibility.

For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must pass the test of
admissibility. According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, an electronic
document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the
Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.
Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence lays down the authentication process of electronic
documents. Section 2 of Rule 5 sets forth the required proof of authentication: —Before any
private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be
proved by any of the following means: (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same; (b) by evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication
of electronic documents were applied to the document; or (c) by other evidence showing its
integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. RCBC Bankard Services Corporation vs.
Oracion, Jr., G.R. No. 223274, June 19, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 14 of 14