TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
3. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
5. HEARSAY
6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
7. OPINION RULE
8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
I. QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS
WITNESS — is one present, who personally sees or
perceives a thing, a beholder, a spectator, or eye
witness. One who testifies to what he has seen,
heard, or otherwise observed.
● All persons who can perceive and can make
known their perception to others may be
witnesses.
● Religious or political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law shall not
be a ground for disqualification.
● An insane person can testify during his lucid
interval, mentally retarded, and blind/mute
person can testify because he has a means
of perception and communicates the same.
● A witness can testify only to those facts
which he/she knows of his/her personal
knowledge, which are derived from his or her
perception.
BASIC QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
1. He/she can perceive. A corollary to
perception is that the witness must have
personal knowledge of the facts surrounding
the subject matter of his testimony.
2. He/she can make known his/her 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.
4. He/she must not possess any of the
disqualifications.
NOTE: A deaf-mute can be a witness as long as
he/she has the ability to make observations and can
make those observations known to others.
● Parties declared in default are not
disqualified from taking the witness’s stand
for non-disqualified parties. The law does not
provide default as an exception.
● No substantive or procedural rule requires a
witness for a party to present some form of
authorization to testify as a witness for the
party presenting him/her.
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 or
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 is the
fact that the witness has been convicted of
felonies, a circumstance to be taken into
consideration as affecting his character and
credibility.
● EXCEPTION: Otherwise provided by law, a
person convicted of any of the following
crimes cannot be a witness to a will:
a. Falsification of documents
b. Perjury
c. False testimony
COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS
● One is qualified to take the witness stand if.
a. He is capable of perceiving at the
time of the occurrence of the fact.
b. He came to make his perception
known.
● Competency has reference to the basic
qualifications in the absence of a witness to
testify.
COMPETENCY PRESUMED — a person who takes
the Witnesses presumed to possess the qualifications
of a witness. His competence may be questioned by
the other party by interposing an objection.
REMEDY FOR ERRORS OR QUESTIONS ON
COMPETENCE — Appeal, not certiorari, is the proper
remedy for the correction of any anger as to the
competency of a witness committed by an inferior
court in the course of the trial.
CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS — Credibility has
nothing to do with the law of the rules. It refers to the
weight and just worthiness of the reliability of the
testimony.
Questions concerning the credibility of a witness are
best addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court as a. is in the best position to observe his
demeanor and bodily movement.
 DISQUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS
EFFECT OF INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER
A person is not disqualified by reason of his interests
in the subject matter. Interest only affects credibility,
not competency.
EFFECT OF RELATIONSHIP
● GENERAL RULE: Mere relationship does
not impair credibility.
● EXCEPTION: The warrant rejection. It must
be clearly shown that:
a. Testimony was inherently
improbable or defective.
b. Improper/evil motives had moved
the witness to increment falsely.
NOTE: Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity
or immune immaturity and disqualification by reason
of death or insanity of the adverse party, AKA DEAD
MAN’S STATUTE have been deleted in the 2019
revisions.
DISQUALIFICATIONS BY REASON OF MARRIAGE
Also known as Marital Disqualification rule or
espousal immunity.
ELEMENTS:
a. During their marriage, the marriage must be
valid and existing at the time of the offer of
the testimony.
b. The husband of or the wife cannot testify
against the other. The. Other spouse must
be a party to the action, either as a plaintiff
or defendant.
c. With. The consent of the affected spouse.
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility,
there is danger of punishing 1 spouse
through the hostile testimony of the other.
DURATION
● GENERAL RULE: During their marriage.
● EXCEPTION: Were the marital and domestic
relationships 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
interest disappears in the consequent
danger of perjury, based on that identity is
non-existent.
● SCOPE OF RULE: The rule also includes
utterances as to facts or mere production of
documents. It not only prevents disclosure of
matters communicated in no confidence, but
is an absolute provision against these
spouses testifying to any factors affecting the
other. However, these factors may have
been acquired.
● WAIVER OF DISQUALIFICATION: If one
spouse imputes the commission of a crime
against the other, the latter may testify
against the former.
Spouses, as Co-Accused the other, cannot be called
as adverse party witness under this rule.

EXCEPT:
1. Spouses may testify against the other, even
without the consent of the latter, in a civil
case by one against the other.
2. In the criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants/ ascendants.

RATIONALE:
1. There is identity of interest between husband
and wife
2. If one were to testify against the other, there
is a consequent danger of perjury
3. Policy of the law is to guard the security and
confidence of private life. Prevent domestic
disunion and unhappiness. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGE
COMMUNICATION
 WHEN NOT APPLICABLE
● a rule of law that, to protect a particular 1. When the communication was not intended
relationship or interest, either permits a to be kept in confidence
witness to refrain from giving testimony he 2. When the communication was made prior to
otherwise could be compelled to give, or the marriage
permits someone, usually one of the parties, 3. Waiver of the privilege [Herrera]
to prevent the witness from revealing certain a. Failure of the spouse to object: or
information. b. Calling spouse as witness on cross
● Privilege may only be invoked by the examination
persons protected thereunder. It may also be c. Any conduct constructed as implied
waived by the same persons, either impliedly consent. [Herrera]
or expressly.
● The husband or the wife, during of after the The objection to the competency of the spouse must
marriage, cannot be examined without the be made when he or she is first offered as a witness.
consent of the other as to any The incompeter waived by failure to make a timely
communication received in confidence by objection to the admission of the spouse's testimony
one from the other during the marriage [People v. Pasensoy, G. R. No. 140634 (2002).
except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime
Marital Marital Privilege [Sec.
committed by one against the other or the
Disqualification [Sec. 24(a)]
latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
22]
HUSBAND AND WIFE
One spouse should be a Neither of the spouses
Also known as marital privilege
party to the case; need to be a party;

RATIONALE: Confidential nature of the privilege: to

preserve marital and domestic relations Applies only if the Does not cease even
marriage is existing at after the marriage is
ELEMENTS: the time the testimony is dissolved; and
1. The husband or the wife offered; and
2. During or after the marriage
3. Cannot be examined Constitutes a total Prohibition is limited to
4. Without the consent of the other prohibition on any testimony on
5. As to any communication received in testimony against the confidential
confidence by one from the other during the spouse of the witness communications
marriage [Sec. 24(a). Rule 130] between spouses

EXCEPT:
Spouses 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]
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
An attorney or person reasonably believed by the
client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law
cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined
communication made by the client to him or her
advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view
to, professional employment, nor can an attorney’s
secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons
assisting the attorney be examined without the
consent of the client and his or her employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity, except in the following
cases:
I. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services
or advice of the lawyer were sought or
obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit
 or plan to commit what the client knew or
reasonably should have known to be a crime
or fraud;
II. Claimants through the same deceased
client. As to a communication relevant to an
issue between parties who clạim through the
same deceased client, regardless of whether
the claims are by testate or intestate or by
inter vivos transaction;
III. Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a
communication relevant to an issue of
breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her
client, or by the client to his or her lawyer.
IV. Document attested by the lawyer. As to a
communication relevant to an issue
concerning an attested document to which
the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
V. Joint clients. As to a communication relevant
to a matter of common interest between two
[(2)] or more clients if the communication
was made by any of them to a lawyer
retained or consulted in common, when
offered in an action between any of the
clients, unless they have expressly agreed
otherwise.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. 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;
2. When disclosure would open the client to
liability;
3. When the name would furnish the only link
that would form the chain of testimony
necessary to convict [Regala v.
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]
PHYSICIAN AND CLIENT
A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably
believed by the patient to be authorized to practice
medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be examined as to
any confidential communication made for the purpose
of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical,
mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or
drug addiction, between the patient and his or her
physician or psychotherapist. This privilege also
applies to persons, including members of the patient's
family, who have participated in the diagnosis or
treatment of the patient under the direction of the
physician or psychotherapist.
A "psychotherapist" is:
a. a person licensed to practice medicine
engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a
mental or emotional condition, or
b. a person licensed as a psychologist by the
government while similarly engaged.
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]
Physician-patient relationship need not be entered
into voluntarily
WHEN NOT APPLICABLE
1. Communication was not given confidence
2. Communication was irrelevant to
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 testities
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]
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]
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)]
PRIEST AND PENITENT
A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be
so cannot, without the consent of the affected person,
be examined as to any communication or confession
made to or any advice given by him or her, in his or
her professional character, in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest
belongs.
PUBLIC OFFICERS
A public officer cannot be examined during or after his
or her tenure as to communications made to him or
her in official confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
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.
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 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.
II. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE - no person
shall be compelled to testify against his or her
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
direct descendants, except when such testimony is
indispensable in a crime against that person or by one
parent against the other. (25)
 the court shall take protective measures, as required
SEC. 25, ART. 215, FC ART. 315, CC
RULE 130 (REPEALED by:
BY FC) 1. the interests of the owner of the trade secret;
2. the interests of the parties; and
No person No descendant No descendant 3. the furtherance of justice [Sec. 26, Rule 130]
shall be shall be can be
compelled to compelled, in a compelled, in a NOTE: This is a new rule.
testify against criminal case, criminal case,
his/her to testify to testify
OTHER PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION NOT IN
against his against his
1. Parents parents and parents and THE RULES OF COURT
2. Other direct grandparents ascendants 1. NEWSMAN'S PRIVILEGE GENERAL
ascendants RULE:
3. Children or Publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter
4. Other direct of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of
ascendants
general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any news-report or
Except when Except when NONE
such testimony such testimony information appearing in said publication
is is which was related in confidence to such
indispensable indispensable publisher, editor or reporter
in a crime: in a crime:
EXCEPTION: Court or a House/Committee
1. Against that 1. Against the
of Congress finds that such revelation is
person descendant
2. By one 2. By one demanded by security of the State Note:
parent against parent against This is without prejudice to his liability under
the other the other the civil and criminal laws [R.A. 53, as
amended by R.A. 1477]
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
2. INFORMATION IN CONCILIATION
Applicability The rule is applied to both civil and
PROCEEDINGS:
criminal cases [Herrera] The privilege cannot apply
All information and statements made at
between stepmothers and stepchildren because the
conciliation proceedings shall be treated as
rule applies only to direct ascendants and
privileged communications [Art. 233, Labor
descendants, a family tie connected by a common
Code]
ancestry. [Lee v. C.A., G.R. No. 177861 (2010)]

3. DATA PRIVACY ACT:

A child can waive the filial privilege and choose to
Personal information controllers may invoke
testify against his father. The rule refers to a privilege
the principle of privileged communication
not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like
over privileged information that they lawfully
other privileges. [People v. Invencion y Soriano, G.R.
control or process. Subject to existing laws
No. 131636 (2003)]
and regulations, any evidence gathered on
privileged information is inadmissible [Sec.
2. PRIVILEGE RELATING TO TRADE SECRETS.
15, RA 10173]
A person cannot be compelled to testify about any
trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal
4. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is
ACT:
directed, the court shall take such protective
Prohibits the use of a person to his own
measures as the interest of the owner of the trade
advantage, or revealing, other than to the
secret and of the parties and the furtherance of justice
Secretary of Health or officers or employees
may require (26).
of the Department of Health or to the courts
when relevant in any judicial proceeding
GENERAL RULE: A person cannot be compelled to
under this Act, any information acquired
testify about any trade secret
under authority Board of Food Inspection
EXCEPT: the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or
and Board of Food and Drug, or concerning
otherwise work injustice When disclosure is directed,
any method or process which as a trade
 secret is entitled to protection [Secs. 9, 11 (f)
JUDICIAL EXTRAJUDICIAL
and 12, RA 3720].
Made in connection with Any other admission
III. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS a judicial proceeding in (Secs. 27 and 33, Rule
RULE ON ADMISSIONS OF A PARTY which it is offered (Sec. 130)
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a 4, Rule 129)
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
(27) May be conclusive Rebuttable
unless contradicted
ELEMENTS: (Sec. 4, Rule 129)
1. The act, declaration or omission
2. Of a party May be written, oral express, or implied (Sec. 4,
3. As to a relevant fact Rule 129; Sec. 27, Rule 130)
4. Against his or her interest [Sec. 27, Rule
130]
5. Made out of court (Those made in court are
governed by Sec. 4, Rule 129.) [2 Regalado 1. Admission by a party
754, 2008 Ed.] 2. Offer or compromise not admissible
6. Offered and presented in court in an 3. Admission by third party-cannot be
admissible manner (e.g. non-hearsay) prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission
by other
EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
4. Admission by co partner or agent-authorized,
● Any statement of fact made by a party
within the scope of authority, existence of the
against his interest or unfavorable to the
partnership may be given in evidence
conclusion for which he contends or is
against such party
inconsistent with the facts alleged by him. [2
5. Admission by conspirator-in furtherance of
Regalado 754, 2008 Ed., citing 31 C.J.S.
conspiracy and during its existence may be
1022]
given as evidence against co-conspirator
● A statement by the accused, direct or
implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and
ELEMENTS:
tending in connection with proof of other
1. The act, declaration or omission
facts, to prove his guilt. [People v. Lorenzo,
2. Of a party
G.R. No. 110107 (1995)]
3. As to a relevant fact
4. Against his or her interest [Sec. 27, Rule
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
130]
1. They must involve matters of fact;
5. Made out of court (Those made in court are
2. They must be categorical and definite;
governed by Sec. 4, Rule 129)
3. They must be knowingly and voluntarily
6. Offered and presented in court in an
made; and
admissible manner (e.g. non-hearsay)
4. Is adverse to admitter's interests [2
Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.]
A. ADMISSION BY A PARTY
EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
EFFECT OF AN ADMISSION
● Any statement of fact made by a party
● It may be given in evidence against the
against his interest or unfavorable to the
admitter. [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
conclusion for which he contends or is
● Flight from justice is an admission by
inconsistent with the facts alleged by him. [2
conduct and circumstantial evidence of
Regalado 754, 2008 Ed., citing 31 C.J.S.
consciousness of guilt. [US v. Sarikala, G.R.
1022]
No. L-12988 (1918)]
● A statement by the accused, direct or
implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and
RATIONALE
tending in connection with proof of other
● No man would make any declaration against
facts, to prove his guilt. [People v. Lorenzo,
himself unless it is true. [Republic v.
G.R. No. 110107 (1995)]
Bautista, G.R. No. 169801 (2007)]
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]
● 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)]
B. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
● The res inter alios acta rule provides that the
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another.
● "Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non
debet"— Things done between strangers
ought not to injure those who are not parties
to them [Black's Law Dictionary]
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] [2 Regalado 758, 774,
2008 Ed.]
C. 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:
1. Partner's or Agent's Admission [Sec. 30,
Rule 130]
2. Admission by conspirator [Sec. 31, Rule 130]
3. 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.
D. ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
1. The act or declaration
2. Of a partner or agent:
a. Authorized by the party to make a
statement concerning the subject;
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
1. The joint interest must be first made to
appear by evidence other than the admission
itself
2. 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]
E. 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,
4. May be given in evidence against the
coconspirator
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
extrajudicial 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
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)]
F. 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. (example: assignee of a credit and
one subrogated to it are privies.) [Alpuerto v.
Perez Pastor and Roa, G.R. No. L-12794
(1918)]
REQUISITES OF 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 is evidence against the former (one
who derives title from another) [Sec. 32,
Rule 130]
3. is evidence against the former (one who
derives title from another) [Sec. 32, Rule
130]
G. 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]
REQUISITES:
1. When silence is deemed an admission
Person heard or understood the statement;
2. That he was at a liberty to make a denial;
3. That the statement was about a matter
affecting his rights or in which he was
interested and which naturally calls for a
response;
4. That the facts were within his knowledge;
and 5. 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 RTJ-08-2140 (2014)]
H. CONFESSIONS
The declaration of an accused,acknowledging his/her
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily 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 Yip Wai Ming, G.R.
No. 120959 (1996)]
EFFECT OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF
GUILT
GENERAL RULE: An extrajudicial confession made
by an accused, shall not be a sufficient ground for
conviction
EXCEPTION: When corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti [Sec. 3, Rule 133]
● Corpus Delicti
Substance of the crime; the fact that a crime
has actually been committed [People v. De
Leon, G.R. No. 180762 (2009)]
I. SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE
GENERAL RULE: Evidence that one did or did not do
a certain thing at one time is not admissible 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 admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal
prove a: liability for the injury [Sec. 28, Rule 130
1. specific intent or knowledge
2. Identity DOCTRINE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
3. plan, system, or scheme habit ● Under the doctrine of adoptive admission, a
4. custom or usage and the like [Sec. 35, Rule third party's statement becomes the
130] 2nd Branch of res inter alios acta rule [2 admission of the party embracing or
Regalado 774, 2008 Ed.] espousing it.
● An adoptive admission is a party's reaction
REASON FOR GENERAL RULE to a statement or action by another person
The lone fact that a person committed the same or when it is reasonable to treat the party's
similar act at some prior time affords, as a general reaction as an admission of something
rule, no logical guaranty that he committed the act in stated or implied by the other person.
question. A man's mind and even his modes of life
may change; and objectively, the conditions which he PROBATIVE VALUE OF A LETTER OF APOLOGY
may find himself at a given time make likewise BY AN ACCUSED IN A RAPE CASE
change and induce him to act a different way ● If it was indeed written by the accused, these
[Herrera, citing Moran] can strengthen the trial judge's conviction
that the accused was indeed guilty of the
J. ADMISSIBILITY OF OFFERS OF COMPROMISE crime imputed to him.
IN CIVIL CASES
An offer of compromise is not an admission of any ADMISSION VS. CONFESSION
liability and is not admissible in evidence against the
offeror
ADMISSION CONFESSION
GENERAL RULE: Evidence of conduct or statements Statement by the Acknowledgements in
made in compromise negotiations are also not accused, direct or express terms, by a
admissible implied, of the facts party in a criminal case
pertinent to the issue, of his guilt of the crime
EXCEPTIONS: Evidence otherwise discoverable or and tending in charged
offered for another purpose such as: connection with other
facts to prove his guilt
a. proving bias or prejudice of a witness;
b. negativing a contention of undue delay; or Usually applied to civil Generally restricted to
c. proving an effort to obstruct a criminal transactions and to acknowledgement of
investigation or prosecution those matters of fact in guilt
criminal cases which do
IN CRIMINAL CASES not involved criminal
GENERAL RULE: An offer of compromise by the intent
accused may be received as an implied admission of
guilt EFFECT OF A PLEA OF FORGIVENESS IN A
EXCEPTION: In cases involving quasi-offenses CRIMINAL CASE
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by the law to ● A plea for forgiveness may be considered as
be compromised analogous to an attempt to compromise. In
a. Pleas of guilty later withdrawn criminal cases, except those involving quasi-
b. Not admissible against the accused who offenses (criminal negligence) of those
made the plea or offer: allowed by law to be compromised, an offer
c. Statement made in the course of plea of compromise by the accused may be
bargaining with the prosecution which does received in evidence as an implied
not result in a plea of guilty or which results admission of guilt. No one would ask for
in a plea of guilty later withdrawn Offer to forgiveness unless he had committed
pay medical, hospital or other expenses something wrong, for to forgive means to
absolve, to pardon, to cease, to feel
Offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or resentment against an account of wrong
other expenses occasioned by an injury is not
 committed. (People v. De Guzman, 77
SCAD, G.R. No. 117217, December 2, 1996)
V. HEARSAY
● hearsay is a statement other than one made
by the declarant while testifying at a trial or
hearing, offered to prove the truth of the
facts asserted therein.
A statement is:
(1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is
intended by him or her as an assertion.
● hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as
otherwise provided in these rules. a
statement is not hearsay if the declarant
testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject
to cross-examination concerning the
statement, and the statement is:
a. inconsistent with the declarant's
testimony, and was given under
oath subject to the penalty of
perjury at a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding, or in a deposition;
b. consistent with the declarant's
testimony and is offered to rebut an
express or implied charge against
the declarant of recent fabrication
or improper influence or motive; or
c. one of identification of a person
made after perceiving him or her.
(37)
NECESSITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS
Statement - oral or written assertion OR nonverbal
conduct of a person if it is intended by him/her as an
assertion [Sec. 39, Rule 130]
ELEMENTS:
1. Declarant is out of court
2. Out of court declaration is offered as proof of
its contents
3. Absence of opportunity for cross
examination
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]
● 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]
REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF HEARSAY
EVIDENCE
The underlying rule against hearsay are serious
concerns 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
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)]
HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS
1. Dying declaration
2. Statement of decedent or a 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 res gestae
8. Records of regularly conducted business
9. Entries in official record
10. Commercial list in the like
11. Learned treatises
12. Residual exemptions
1. DYING DECLARATION
Also known as "antemortem statement" or "statement
in articulo mortis" [People v. Mendoza, G.R. No.
142654 (2001)]
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
a. Declaration of a dying person
b. Declaration was made under the
consciousness of an impending death
c. 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]
d. Declarant would have been competent as a
witness had he survived [Geraldo v People,
G.R. No. 173608 (2008)): and
e. 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 to falsehood is
silenced [People v. Bacunawa, G.R. No.
136859]
● 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
an oath administered by the court.
● 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)]
DOCTRINE OF COMPLETENESS OF DYING
DECLARATION
Dying declaration must be complete. To be complete
does not mean that If should contain everything that
constitutes the res gestae of the subject of his
statement, but it should express in full all that he
intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect
of such fact. It must include all the declarants wished
or intended to include.
2. 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
a. In an action against:
1. an executor, administrator or other
representative of a deceased
person; OR
2. a person of unsound mind
b. Upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such deceased person or against such
person of unsound mind
c. 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
d. 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
EXCEPTION: The statement is inadmissible if made
under circumstances indicating its lack of
trustworthiness Sec. 39, Rule 130]
DEAD MAN'S STATUTE
An evidential disqualification, which renders 1. Birth;
inadmissible oral promises or declarations of a dead 2. adoption;
person when offered in support of their claims by 3. marriage; or
those who bring claims against the estate of a 4. in the absence thereof, with those
deceased person. family he/she was so intimately
associated as to be likely to have
3. DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST accurate information concerning
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY: his/her pedigree
a. Declarant is dead or unable to testify; d. May be received in evidence where the
b. Declaration relates to a fact against the act/declaration occurred before the
interest of the declarant; controversy; and
c. At the time he made said declaration, e. Relationship between the declarant and the
declarant was aware that the same was person whose pedigree is in question must
contrary to the declarant's own interest; and be shown by evidence other than such act or
d. Declarant had no motive to falsify and declaration (evidence aliunde) [Sec. 41, Rule
believed such declaration to be true [Sec. 130]
40, Rule 130] When NOT admissible
PEDIGREE INCLUDES
GENERAL RULE: If the statement tends to expose a. Relationship;
the declarant to criminal liability and is offered to b. Family genealogy;
exculpate the accused c. Birth;
d. Marriage;
ADMISSION BY A DECLARATION
PARTY [SEC. 27, AGAINST INTEREST e. Death;
RULE 130] [SEC. 40, RULE 130] f. Dates when these facts occurred;
g. Places where these facts occurred;
Admitted is a party Declarant is neither a h. Names of relatives; and
himself, or in privity with party nor in privity with a i. Facts of family history intimately connected
such party party with pedigree [Sec. 40, Rule 130]

Admissible whether or Admissible only when

5. FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
not admitted is available declarant is unavailable
as a witness as a witness REGARDING PEDIGREE
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY:
Can be made any time, Must have been made a. Witness must be a member, by
even during the trial ante litem motam consanguinity, affinity, or adoption, of the
same family as the subject; and
Admissible only against Admissible even against b. Such reputation or tradition must have
the admitter 3rd persons existed in that family ante litem motam
(before the controversy) [Sec. 42, Rule 130]
Admissible not as an Admissible as an
exception to any rule exception to the
hearsay rule NOTE: Ante litem motam means before the
controversy arose, not before the suit was brought
Made against one’s Made against one’s
claim or defense, pecuniary or moral OTHER ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE:
although not moral or interest a. Entries in family bibles or other family books;
pecuniary interest
b. Charts;
Primary evidence Secondary evidence c. Engravings on rings;
d. Family portraits and the like [Sec. 42, Rule
130]
4. ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY: This enumeration, by ejusdem generis, is limited to
a. The act or declaration "family possessions," or those articles which a family's
b. Of a person deceased or unable to testify joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a
c. In respect to the pedigree of another person person.
related to him/her by
A person's statement as to his date of birth and age, b. Inscriptions in public places
as he learned of these from his parents or [-24989,
1967 ante litem motam declaration of a family ● Pedigree may be established by reputation
tradition. in the family, but not in the community
● Common reputation is hearsay like any other
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION exception to the hearsay rule,but is
REGARDING PEDIGREE admissible because of trustworthiness
● Reputation has been held admissible as
evidence of age, birth, race, or race-
SEC. 41 - SEC. 42 - FAMILY
DECLARATION REPUTATION OR ancestry, and on the question of whether a
ABOUT PEDIGREE TRADITION child was born alive [In re: Florencio Mallare,
AM No. 533 (1974)] Unlike that of matters of
There must be a The witness testifying to pedigree general reputation of marriage may
declarant and a witness the family reputation proceed from persons who are not members
and tradition must be a of the family – the reason for the distinction
member of the family is the public interest [In re: Florencio Mallare,
member of the person
AM No. 533 (1974)].
whose pedigree is in
controversy
7. PART OF RES GESTAE
The witness need not The witness may testify Res gestae — "things done"
be a relative of the about the relationship ● Res gestae, as an exception to the hearsay
person whose pedigree himself. The author of rule, refers to those exclamations and
is in question, it must be the reputation need not statements made by either the participants,
the declarant. be established by
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately
Independent evidence is independent evidence.
needed to establish a before, during, or after the commission of the
relationship between a crime, when the circumstances are such that
declarant and a person the statements were made as a spontaneous
whose pedigree is in reaction or utterance inspired by the
issue. excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate
and to fabricate a false statement [DBP Pool
6. COMMON REPUTATION of Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio
Definition: The definite opinion of the community in Mindanao Network, Inc., G.R. No. 147039
which the fact to be proved is known or exists. It (2006)]
means the general or substantially undivided ● A dying declaration can be made only by the
reputation, as distinguished from a partial or victim, while a statement as part of the res
qualified one, although it need not be unanimous. gestae may be that of the killer himself after
or during the killing [2 Regalado 788, 2008
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY Ed., citing People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. L-
a. Common reputation existed ante litem 1846-48 (1949)]
motam ● A statement not admissible as dying
b. Reputation pertains to: declaration because it was not made under
1. Boundaries of or customs affecting consciousness of impending death, may still
lands in the community be admissible as part of res gestae it made
2. Events of general history important immediately after the incident People v.
to the community Gueron, G.R. No. L-29365 1983)]
3. Marriage, or
4. Moral character [Sec. 43, Rule 130] PART OF RES GESTAE
REQUISITES FOR RES GESTAE:
NOTE: The 30-year rule was removed in the
Amended Rules
SPONTANEOUS VERBAL ACTS
STATEMENTS
OTHER ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
a. Monuments
 3. At or near the time of or from
a. The principal act, the a. The res gestae or the
res gestae, be made principal act or to be transmission or supply of
due to a startling characterized must be information
occurrence equivocal; b. Entrant had knowledge thereof
b. The statements were b. Such act must be c. Records are kept in the regular course or
made before the material to the issue conduct of a business activity
declarant must refer to c. The statements must d. The making of the memorandum, report,
the occurrence accompany the
record, or data compilation by electronic,
c. The statements must equivocal act.
refer to the occurrence d. The statements give optical or similar means is regular practice
in question and its a legal significance to e. All of the above are shown by the testimony
attending circumstances the equivocal act of a custodian or other qualified witness
[Sec. 45, Rule 130]
Spontaneous Verbal act must have
exclamations may have been made at the time, NOTE: Sec. 45 has no counterpart in the previous
been made before, and not after, the
Rules but it is the exact reproduction of Sec. 2, Rule
during or immediately equivocal act was being
after the startling performed. 8, Rules on Electronic Evidence
occurrence equivocal
act and must be under ("Business records as exception to the hearsay rule
the stress or excitement under the Rules on Electronic Evidence")
caused by the ● If the entrant is available as a witness, the
occurrence entries will not be admitted, but they may
nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as
a memorandum to refresh his memory while
PART OF RES GESTAE testifying on the transactions reflected
therein [Cang Yui v. Gardner, G.R. No. L-
9974 (1916)]
SEC. 44 RES GESTAE SEC. 38 DYING
● Entries in the payroll, being entries in the
DECLARATION
course of business, enjoy the presumption of
Statements may be Can be made only by regularity [Sapio v. Undaloc Construction,
made by the killer the victim G.R. No. 155034 (2008)]
himself after or during
the killing or that of a REASON FOR RULE
3rd person ● The duty of the employees to communicate
facts is of itself a badge of trustworthiness of
May precede, Made only after the
the entries [Security Bank and Trust
accompany or be made homicidal attack has
after the homicidal been committed Company v. Gan, G.R. No. 150464 (2006)]
attack was committed ● These entries are accorded unusual
reliability because their regularity and
Justification in the Trustworthiness based continuity are calculated to discipline record
spontaneity of the upon in its being given keepers in the habit of precision [LBP v.
statement in awareness of Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corp.,
impending death
G.R. No. 184971 (2010)]

8. RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED HOW (Canque vs. CA, GR. No. 96202)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY 1. the person who made those entries is dead,
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY: outside the country, or unable to testify;
a. Memorandum, report, record or data 2. the entries were made at, or near the time of
compilation transaction to which they refer;
1. Of acts, events, conditions, 3. the entrant was in the position to know the
opinions, or diagnoses facts stated therein;
2. Made by writing, typing, electronic, 4. the entries were made in the professional
optical, or other similar means capacity or in course of duty of the entrant;
and
 5. the entries were made in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty
9. ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORD
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY:
a. 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 the law
b. 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
c. 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:
a. the sense of official duty in the preparation of
the statement made;
b. the penalty which is usually affixed to a
breach of that duty;
c. the routine and disinterested origin of most
such statements;
d. and the publicity of record which makes
more likely the prior exposure of such errors
as might have occurred
● 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 .
● Entries in official records are merely prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive
proof of the truth of such entries. Baptismal
certificates or parochial records of baptism
are not official records.
10. COMMERCIAL LIST 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
1. Example: mortality tables, MIMS
drug database
d. It is generally used and relied upon by them
[Sec. 47, Rule 130]
11. LEARNED TREATISES
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY:
a. Published treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
on a subject of history, law, science, or art;
and
b. Court takes either:
1. judicial notice of it, or
2. 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 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 basically
hearsay in nature and cannot be given probative
weight. [Paje v. Casiño, G.R. No. 207257 (2015)]
12. TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
PROCEEDING
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY:
a. Witness is dead, out of the Philippines or
with due diligence cannot be found therein,
unavailable, or unable to testify;
b. 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.
c. Former case involved the same subject as
that in the present case although on different
causes of action;
d. Issue testified to by the witness in the former
trial is the same issue involved in the present
case; and e. 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)
13. RESIDUAL EXCEPTION
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY:
 a. Statement not specifically covered by any of
HEARSAY INDEPENDENTLY
the foregoing exceptions; STATEMENT RELEVANT
b. Has the equivalent circumstantial guarantees STATEMENT
of trustworthiness
c. The court determines that: Out of the court Out of the court
1. the statement is offered as statement introduced in statement introduced in
evidence of a material fact; evidence for the evidence not for the
2. it is more probative on the point for purpose of establishing purpose of establishing
the truth therein stated the truth therein stated
which it is offered than any other
but only the fact of its
evidence which the proponent can utterance of such fact is
procure through reasonable efforts; relevant to the issue
and
3. the general purposes of these rules
and the interests of justice will be
VII. OPINION RULE
best served by its admission
Opinion is an inference or conclusion drawn from
d. Proponent makes known to the adverse
facts observed [Black's Law Dictionary|
party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing
or by the pre-trial stage in case of a trial of
Opinion of a witness is not admissible in evidence as
the main case, to provide the adverse party
a rule but the rule is not absolute.
with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it,
the proponent's intention to offer the
EXCEPTIONS:
statement and its particulars, including the
A. The opinion of a witness on a matter
name and address of the declarant [Sec. 50,
requiring special knowledge, skill,
Rule 130]
experience or training which he shown to
possess, may be received in evidence
NOTE: This is a new provision under the Amended
(section 52); expert witness
Rules.
B. The opinion of a witness for which proper
basis is given, may be received in evidence
OTHER EXCEPTIONS OUTSIDE THE RULES OF
regarding — ordinary witness
COURT
a. Affidavit in the Rules of Summary Procedure
I. The identity of a person about whom he has
- shall not be considered as competent
adequate knowledge;
evidence for the party presenting the
II. A handwriting with which he has sufficient
affidavit, but the adverse party may utilize
familiarity; and
the same for any admissible purpose [Sec.
III. the mental sanity of a person with whom he
14, Rules on Summary Procedure]
is sufficiently acquainted.
b. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, hearsay exception in child abuse
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the
cases [see Sec. 28]
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person (Section 50).
GUIDELINES ON NEWLY-DISCOVERED
● Expert witness is one who has made the
EVIDENCE
subject upon which he gives his opinion a
a. The evidence was discovered after trial;
matter of particular study, practice or
b. Such evidence could have not been
observation and he must have particular and
discovered and produced at the trial even
special knowledge on the subject [People v.
with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
Dekingco, G.R. No. 87685 (1990)]
c. The evidence is material, not merely
cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching;
VIII. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
and the evidence is of such weight that it
As a rule, character is not admissible in evidence.
would probably change the judgment if
There are exceptions like:
admitted
(A) in criminal cases:
1. the accused may prove his good moral
DISTINCTION
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
 2. unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
3. the good or bad moral character of the
offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
(B) in civil cases:
● Evidence of the moral character of a party in
civil case is admissible only when pertinent
to the issue of character involved in the
case.
(C) in criminal and civil cases:
● Evidence of the good character of a witness
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 testimony as to
reputation or by testimony in the form of an
opinion.
● On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable
into relevant specific instances of conduct.
● In cases in which character or a trait of
character of a person is an essential element
of a charge, claim or defense, proof may
also be made of specific instances of that
person's conduct.
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:
a. Criminal cases [Sec. 54(a), Rule 130]
b. Civil case [Sec. 54(b), Rule 130]
c. In both civil and criminal cases [Sec. 54(c),
Rule 130]
1. Evidence of good character of
witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached
2. When the character or trait of
character is an essential element of
a charge, claim or defense
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER OF ACCUSED
The purpose of presenting evidence of good moral
character is to prove the improbability 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:
- on a charge of rape: character for
chastity
- on a charge of assault: character
for peaceableness or violence
- 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:
- In a murder case: If the crime was
committed through treachery and
evident premeditation [People v.
Soliman, G.R. No. L-9723 (1957)]
- 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:
1. Evidence to prove that the alleged victim
engaged in other sexual behavior; and
 2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim [Sec 30,
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness]
● Moral character is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in
the case [Sec. 54(b), Rule 130]
● 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:
1. Testimony as to reputation; or
2. 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 Rut ise, proof may also be
made of specific instances of that person's
conduct. [Sec. 54(c), Rule 130]
RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND
PRESUMPTION
● 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.
● 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.
● 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 PROOF AND PRESUMPTION
● 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]
● The burden of proof is generally determined
by the pleadings filed by the party; the
burden of evidence is generally determined
by the developments of 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.]
● 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)]
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION
• 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)]
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION
● 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)]
INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS CONCLUSIVE
PRESUMPTION
The following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
a. whenever a party has, by his own
declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
and deliberately led to another to believe a
particular thing true, and to act upon such
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out
of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it: estoppel in pais
b. the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of
his landlord at the time of commencement of
the relation of landlord and tenant between
them. (Sec. 2)
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
● Thus, a conclusive presumption is a class of
evidence which the law does not allow to be
contradicted. [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]
● May not be overturned by evidence, however
strong the evidence is. They are conclusive
because they are declared as such under
the law or rules.
● Inferences which the law makes so
peremptory that it will not allow them to be
overturned by any contrary proof however
strong [Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty,
G.R. No. 144268 (2006)]
● Conclusive presumptions in the ROC |Sec.
2, Rule 131]:
a. A party is not permitted falsify a
thing whenever:
I. By his or her own
declaration, act or
omission;
II. He or she intentionally and
deliberately led another to
believe a particular thing is
true;
III. To act upon such belief;
and
IV. The litigation arises out of
such declaration act or
omission
b. A tenant is not permitted to deny
the title of his or her landlord at the
time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant
between them These conclusive
presumptions are based upon the
doctrine of estoppel in pais, see
Arts. 1431-1439, Civil Code [2
Regalado 820, 2008 Ed.]
Once a contract of lease is shown to exist between
the parties, the lessee cannot by any proof, however
strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that the
lessor has a valid title to or a better right of
possession to the subject premises than the lessee
[Santos v. National Statistics Office., G.R. No.
171129, (2011)]
What a tenant is estopped from denying is the title of
his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
landlord-tenant relation. If the title asserted is one that
is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the
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)]
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

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
● Satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by evidence.
● In recognition of variability of human
behavior
● 37 disputable presumptions