132 (First half)

Burden of evidence - in a civil case, the one who alleges has the burden of
proof but the burden of evidence would shift from party to party so in a criminal
case, the prosecution will always have the burden of proof but the burden of
evidence would shift to the accused to controvert the prima facie case
presented by the prosecution.

The burden of proof stays; the burden of evidence shifts from party to party

Burden of evidence can now be found under Rule 131. Under 131 is
presumptions. It can be conclusive, it can be disputable. So, generally a
presumption is an assumption of fact that results from a rule of law. The law
itself provides that such facts are to be presumed. If it is disputable, a
disputable presumption would operate against an adverse party if that adverse
party is not able to dispute that disputable presumption. The disputable
presumption is prima facie evidence. The other party must move forward with
his own evidence to rebut that presumption. If the other party fails to rebut that
presumption, then the disputable presumption or the prima facie evidence
stays.
A disputable presumption is satisfactory if it is uncontradicted but it may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence.

When we’re talking about burden of proof of an accused insofar as the accused
invokes self-defense. When the accused invokes self-defense, the common
mistake of students is that they say that the burden here of evidenc/proof is to
prove that self-defense by preponderance of evidence. That is incorrect. The
degree of evidence that is required to prove self-defense is clear and
convincing evidence. Because effectively, when an accused claims self-
defense, he admits the commission of the crime. For instance it is homicide, he
effectively admits the killing so he needs to prove by clear and convincing
evidence the strength of his self-defense. Even if the prosecution’s evidence is
weak, but he is not able to prove by clear and convingcing evidence his claim
of self-defense, then effectively it will become an admission of guilt because
minus the proof of self-defense, what will be only left behind is the admission of
guilt or the commission of the crime or the killing.

Equipoise Rule
If there is evidence that is capable of two interpretations, one is that it is in
favor of the accused or one is against the accused, we rule it in favor or the
scales tilt in favor the accused because of the constitutional right of the
accused to be presume innocent.

Mr. A was drinking with Mr. B, they were in Mr.A’s house, A told B that he was
hit, then B saw A falling to the ground after a cracking sound of gunshot and
then A said “Oh andyan ba si Mr. C?”. That statement is capable of 2
cnstructions. One that by the victim looking for Mr. C, it means Mr. C
committed the crime or that he is just looking for Mr. C and it doesn’t mean that
Mr. C committed the crime. We rule it in favor of the accused. The construction
of what that evidence means.

Conclusive presumptions
There are 2 conclusive presumption. The rule as amended in the first
conclusive presumptions is the same. The is based on the rule on estoppel
(1431 of Civil Code). Through estoppel, an admission or representation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it and it cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person relying thereon. 1431 is the substantive law
and the rule that implements it is this provision on conclusive presumption. If a
party has by his own declaration, act or omission intentionally and deliberately
let another to believe a particular thing to be true and to act on such belief, he
cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be
permitted to falsify it or to deny it.

Mr X owns a land and that land is subject of a real estate mortgage because of
the loan of Mr. X.He offered his land to Mr. Y with assumption of mortgage. Mr.
Y said he’ll talk to Mr. X’s creditor-mortgagee who is a bank. So Mr. Y goes to
the bank and asks how much is the loan because he would like to buy the land
and assume the mortgage. Mortgagee says P150,000 na lang and they issued a
statement of account that shows how much is the remaining balance of the
loan that is supported by the mortgage. A sale was entered into with
assumption of mortgage and Mr. Ypaid the P150,000 balance loan with the
creditor-mortgagee. The creditor-mortgagee accepted the 150,000. However,
the creditor-mortgagee refused to discharge the mortgage eh bayad na yung
utang dapat idischarge na yon. The creditor-mortgagee is claiming “ay meron
pa pala kasing other loan na sinusupport ng mortgage na yan”. Is the
mortgagee’s action correct? NO. The buyer relied on the representation of the
bank-mortagee that the only balance is P150,000. The bank even gave a
statement of account. So they cannot later on go back on what they said
because of that conclusive presumption, because of estoppel especially since
the other loan allegedly supported by the mortgage is something privy between
the old owner and bank. The new owner or buyer has nothing to do with that
transaction so he could have not known of the same.

The second conclusive presumption is with respect to the tenant. That the
tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord at the time of the commencement
of the relation of landlord and tenant. This rule only applies when the landlord
and tenant relationship has been sufficiently established. in once case, Mr. X
entered into a contract of lease over a property with Mr. Y. Y is allegedly the
owner. Mr. Y died so and nangongolekta na ng rents kay Mr. X, yung mga anak
ni Mr. Y as administrators. The one collecting the rent of Y who is deceased,
the original lessor, are the children. Then nalaman ni Mr. X na nabenta na
nabenta na pala yung property na nilelease niya to a third person, Mr. A. That
3rd person has title over the property, he is the owner in fee simple. So Mr. X
goes to the new owner and negotiates for the lease of the property. So doon na
siya diretso sa new owner nagbabayad, kay Mr. Y. So yung mga anak ng
deceased Mr. Y, nagdemand na magbayad ng rent sa kanila, sabi naman ng
naglelease, “bakit ako magbabayad sa inyo, hindi naman kayo ma-ari”. So the
children brought a case for ejectment against Mr. X, sabi hindi siya nagbabayad
ng rent. Sabi naman ni Mr. X in his answer, “but your are not the
owner/landlord, I did not even enter into a contract of lease with you”. Sabi
naman ng children, you cannot invoke the conclusive presumption that you
cannot assail the ownership of the landlord. Sabi ng court hindi nagaapply yung
conclusive presumption in this case because the children never owned that
land. The lease was not entered into with the children. And there was a new
owner of the land. This rule will not apply anymore when there are subsequent
facts that happened after the landlord-tenant relationship.

Go to the provision on marriage terminated and another marriage contracted

within 300 days after the termination of the former marriage. The basis of that
is Art 168 of Family Code. There is a typographical error. Go rule 131, Sec 4.
There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy if the child is born after
300 days following the dissolution of marriage or separation of spouses. If the
child is born after 300 days following the dissolution of marriage or separation
of spouses, whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy, must prove that
allegation. Under Sec 5 as amended, presumption in civil actions and
proceedings. This rule deals with the burden of evidence. In all civil actions and
proceedings not otherwise provided for by law or the rules, a presumption
imposes on the party against whom it is directed of going forward with
evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. The burden of proof is on the
plaintiff claiming that the defendant needs to pay a sum of money. The
presumption is against the defendant. The defendant is directed to go forward
with burden of evidence.

What happens if you have several presumptions that are inconsistent with each
other?
-The presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of public policy
shall prevail. But if the considerations of public policy are equal, walang
presumption na mag-aapply. It’s not unfair because a presumption can be
rebutted so you just go forward with your evidence to establish your claims or
defenses.

Another provision added in Rule 131 is Sec 6 as amended. If there is a

presumed fact that establishes guilt or negates the defense and provided that
this fact is an element of an offense, the existence of that basic fact has to be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. So the presumed facts follows from the basic
fact beyond reasonable doubt. Example, diba meron kang preumption that a
person in possession of a thing taken is the taker. That is your presumption.
And yung taking is an element of an offense. So kailangan maprove beyond
reasonable doubt mo yung posssession niya. Yung fact of which must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

.. In trial is thay in open court and under oath or affirmation. There are 2 parts
under Section 1:
1. It is done in open court
- not absoulote.
-Exceptions:
• Rule on Examination on Child Witness (Section 23). When the child
testifies, the court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all
 persons including members of the press who do not have a direct
interest in the case. To protect the privacy of the child. If the court
finds that it will cause psychological harm or hinder the ascertainment
of the truth.
• Sec 23 - the court motu proprio if evidence to be produced is offensive
to decency or public or morals, pwede rin iexclude from the courtroom
all persons
• On motion of the accused, the court may also exclude the public from
trial except the court personnel and counsel of the parties. Just
because the accused move for the exclusion of the public, it is not
automatic that the court will grant it; discretionary.
• Sec 25 of the Rule on Examination on Child Witness. Live-link
television testimony in criminal cases where the child is a victim or a
witness. The application must be made by the prosecutor, the counsel
or the guardian ad litem. If it is the guardian ad litem, he must consult
first with the prosecutor or the counsel. Then it will be the prosecutor
who will make the motion. But if the prosecutor refuses to apply for
the live-link and the guardian ad litem feels that the prosecutor is
wrong or the decision not to apply will cause serious emotional
trauma to the child, then that is the time that the guardian ad litem
may ask the court. You cannot ask for the live-link on the same day. It
has to be at least 5 days before the trial.
• Writ of habeas data (Sec 12) - When defenses may be heard in
chambers. When the respondent invokes defense that the release of
the data or information would compromise national security or state
secrets. Another instance is when the data and information cannot be
divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.

2. Answers of witnesses shall be given orally

- Kailan hindi? When witness is incapacitated to speak or when the question
calls for a different mode of answer.

Sec 2. Proceedings to be recorded

“Transcript of stenographic notes” (TSN) After hearing, you ask for TSN.
Important because the appellate court will only rely on the records of the case.
Correct records if there is error because it is presumed correct (motion to
correct TSN)

Sec 3. Rights and obligation of a witness

-must answer questions even if the answer will tend to establish a claim
against him.
-only instance when he can’t are their constitutional rights (right against self-
incrimination)

Rights:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions and from
harsh and insulting demeanor
 -this right can be waived. Hindi yung witness mo yung mag-object. It is
the duty of the counsel.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
offense, unless otherwise provided by law (right against self-incrimination)

Right against self-incrimination of an ordinary witness v. an accused

- Accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. it will not be
taken against you. You have the right to remain silent. But if you are an
accused and you are charged for rape and you agre ed to testify on your own
behalf, can the prosecution ask you questions in relation to the crime? YES.
You cannot refuse to answer that question on the ground of self-
incrimination. You have waived that privilege. You already agreed to testify
on your own behalf. So all questions relevant to the case even if you are
asked whether or not you commit the crime charged, you cannot refuse
because you already agreed to be a witness. You are subject to cross-
examination. But if the crime is rape and you are asked, nagtax evasion ka
ba? Can you refuse to anwer? YES. Right against self-incrimination. Even if
you are the accused and you waived your right not to be a witness and you
are testifying, your testimony is only limited to the crime charged which is
rape. But if you will be asked questions other than the charge of rape, that
will incriminate you for an offense other than the crime charged against you.
Then you can refuse on the ground of right against self-incrimination.

- What is ordinary witness? You cannot r efuse outright to testify.

Macocontempt ka niyan. When called to tesify, you must testify. You cannot
refuse like an accused. But let’s say the case is for legal separation and you
will be asked questions that would incriminate you for an offense of VAWC
and let’s say that the ground fro legal separation is for abandoment but not
VAWC. If the questions pertains to VAWC, even if it be relevant to the case
but it will incriminate you for another offense, then you can refuse to answer.

5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation unless it is
to the very fact in issue or fact from which a fact in issue would be presumed.
But if the witness is asked about a conviction of a former offense, pwede ba
niyang irefuse kasi masisira daw reputation niya? P pwede ba siyang
magrefuse sagutin if he was previously convicted of final judgement? NO.
Witness must answer to a fact of previous final conviction of an offense. It is
the trial court’s duty to protect every witness against oppressive behavior of an
examiner.

What is the order in examination of individual witnesses?

Direct Examination - examination-in-chief of a witness by a party presenting
him on the facts relevant to the issue.

Judicial Affidavit Rule

-amended by the revised rules on civil procedure. In the initiatory pleading or
initiatory answer, the complaint or answer, it is required that you have to
already attach all the judicial affidavit and if you do not attach the judicial
affidavit of that witness, then you will not be allowed to present that witness.
That is your general rule. The exception is for meritorious reasons and when
allowed in Rule 18 when you make your reservation. Nakaattach na yan sa
complaint or answer. As a general rule, attach everything in our
complaint/answer. In the complaint or answer, you must also allege the
summary of testimonies of witnesses whose JA you must attach to the
complaint or answer. Apart from the timing, JA rule will apply.

Sabi ng defendant “Kung magsusubmit ako ng JA ko in advance, it violates my

right to due process, kasi daw kapag sinubmit niya na yung JA niya, parang
effectively napilitan na daw siyang magpresent ng evidence so hindi na daw
siya makakapagfile ng demurrer to evidence. Kasi you file demurrer after the
plaintiff rests his case. INCORRECT. A JA and demurrer to evidence can co-exit
harmoniously as tools for efficient and speedy administration of justice. Pag
nagsubmit ka ng JA, doesn’t mean that you presented evidence. Evidence that
is not formally offered will not be considered by the court. The purpose of JA is
to abbreviate the judicial proceedings.

Sec 1. Saan nag-aapply and JA Rule?

• MTCS except small claims
• RTCs and Shari’a District Courts
• Sandiganbayan
• Court of Tax Appeals
• Court of Appeals and Shari’a Appellate Courts
• Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence, including the IBP
• Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies whose rules of procedure are
subject to the disapproval of the SC

Ano ang basis nito?

Sec 5(par 5) Art 8 of Constitution

• The JA is in lieu of your direct examination. In the old JA Rule, it also

provides for the mode of service. Personal service or licensed courier. There
is preference for certain pleadings to be filed only personally or by
registered mail. Hindi license courier. Sabi ng ROC, kapag initiatory pleading
or initiatory response pleading such as the complaint or answer, the mode of
filing and service is by personal or registered mail. So hindi yan pwede by
license courier service. Bakit kailangan personal or registered mail? JA are
attached to your complaint/answer. And under the revised rules on civpro,
kapag complaint/answer, kailangan ang filing mo is personal registered mail,
hindi licensed courier service.
• Attach to JA your documentary evidence and this is consistent with the
revisions in civpro, because in your complaint and answer, you need to
already attach all your evidence, so by attaching your JA, the documentary
evidence should be attached then you will be complying with the rule. Pero
kung object evidence, kotse, i-allege na lang or lagyan niyo ng secondary
evidence ng kotse (picture) then manifest subject to ocular insoection later
on.

Do you need to attach the original document?

-It is preferred that you attach the original document pero it’s dangerous also to
attach the original. There are cases when opponent eats the evidence.
Secondary muna lagay mo. If the party would desire to keep the original or the
object evidence in his possession, ipa-identify mark muna and then
authenticated tapos comparison with the other party. You can have them make
a stipulation that it is a faithful reproduction of the original and you need to
make a warranty in JA that what is attached is a faithful reproduction of the
original. Contents of a JA. Pwedeng English or Filipino. Pag hindi, accompanied
yan by translation in English or Filipino.

Sec 3
That the witness knows that he is fully conscious of the answers that he’s
making under oath, and that he may face criminal penalty for false testimony or
perjury. Dapat may pirma ng witness kasi yan yung iaauthenticate niya in open
court. Merong jurat, with the signature of the notary who administers the oath.
Witness must come before the notary public.

-Sworn attestation of the lawyer. Hindi siya nag-coach. That he faithfully

recorded or caused to be recorded the questions and the sanswers given by the
witness.
-Attachements: plaintiff (A,B,C); defendant (1,2,3); sequential; (first JA) exhibit
A,B,C then (second JA) exhibit D and E

Sec 5. Subpoena
Bigamy. Humingi kayo ng CENOMAR ng client and ang nilabas ay certification
that in the records of the civil registry, 2 ang marriage niya. You want to
subpoena that person who made the certification, that is a government
employee. Kailangan pa din gn JA. Kasama ang government employee or
requested witness basta hindi siya adverse party or hostile witness. Pag
nagunjustifiably decline to give JA, tsaka ka magpasubpoena to execute JA.
Then another subpoena for them to appear in court on the date of trial.

In the case of Ng Meng Tam v China Bank Corp (Gr 214054), SC rules that it
contemplates a situation where there is a government employee or official or
other requested witness who is not an adverse parties’ witness or a hostile
witness.

What if adverse party or hostile witness yan? Hindi mo pwedeng pasubpeona

para pagawan ng JA. Hindi nag-aapply and JA sa hostile or adverse party.
Requirement (written interrogatories - Rule 25, last sec)
-if you want to make an adverse party your witness, you have to serve first your
written interrogatories. It protects the adverse party from unwarranted
surprises or harassment or to prevent fishing expedition.

Sec 6. Offer and objections to the testimony in JA

1. Formal offer
• testimonial - offer at time the testimony will be given (matters
material to allegations in complaint; purpose of testimony)
• documentary and object -

There was a case for legal separation, then the petitioner wife was presenting
a psychologist, the psychologist in the school of the son.

Rule 132 (cont.)

The psychologist will testify on what the son says about the relationship of the parents. In that
instance, that is their offer, that the psychologist will discuss or testify the acts of the husband that
she learned from the son. That is hearsay evidence. Right then and there, before the witness will
testify, you must already object to the purpose. You say that the witness is incompetent to testify
because the witness has no personal knowledge on those facts. The court can allow, and in that
instance, the judicial affidavit will be striked out.
But if there are just some questions that are objectionable, and not the entire testimony, (kasi ‘di ba,
in the past as the question is propounded, you object to that in the direct, but now the entire question
is on paper) what you do is you before they start the testimony, you manifest to the court your
objections. Kunwari, nag-object ka na sa offer, the court denied the objection. So mag-object ka na
sa mga questions. Kunwari, number 1 is objected to for lack of predicate. Number 2, misleading.
Number 3, leading. Then the court will rule on the objections per question.
After the direct examination, you ask the witness to testify that he executed the judicial affidavit,
and as to the signature, and he must affirm the contents of the same. After that, we will have cross-
examination, then you can have re-direct, then re-cross.
Section 7 of JAR. In every case, the court shall take an active part in examining the witness.
Mandatory. Mag-tanong daw yung court, for the court to determine the credibility, as well as to the
truth of the testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the issue. In one case, the
judge was asking questions clarifying matters during trial. Sabi ng party, that is partiality and undue
interference. The SC said no because Sec. 7 mandates trial courts to take an active part in
examining the witness. Because unlike before na ma-observe ng court ‘yung demeanor ng witness
during the examination, ngayon nasa papel na lang ‘yung direct examination. So, for the court to be
able to test the credibility, the court may ask questions. In fact, the court is obliged to because of the
word “shall.”
Oral offer of objections to the exhibits. This is consistent with the Revised Rules of Evidence.
Under Sec. 5 of Rule 132, as amended, all evidence must be offered orally. Hindi na puwede in
writing. Whether it is testimonial, or documentary, the offer must be made orally. This is also
deemed consistent with the Rules on Continuous Trial. It provides that the offer of evidence is also
made orally, as well as the objections. They are all consistent with the JAR, which provides that for
every offer of exhibit, the party will state the legal ground, then the other his objection to the
admission. And then the court will rule on it.
Sec. 9. Application of the JAR on criminal cases. As a general rule, nag-aapply ‘to sa criminal
cases, except that if the penalty exceeds six years, the consent of the accused is needed. You have to
read this in connection with the Rules on Continuous Trial.
Applicability of JAR in first-level courts kapag continuous trial in criminal cases. Sabi ng Rules, the
testimony of the witness is ‘yung affidavits nila, subscribed before law enforcement or peace
officers, or affidavit or counter-affidavit during the preliminary investigation. Pero kung walang
affidavit or counter-affidavit or sworn statements before public enforcement officers, that is the
time na judicial affidavit siya. Take note that this is subject to additional direct and cross
examination questions. So even if there is already is an existing affidavit or counter-affidavit, the
court may allow additional direct.
Pwede i-dispense with ng prosecutor ‘yung written statements na ‘yan during PI, or yung affidavit
before the law enforcement officers, and they can instead prepare judicial affidavits or modify or
revise the sworn statements. The problem is if the adversary takes hold of the former sworn
statement, and it is inconsistent with the new judicial affidavit. That is a ground for impeachment of
the witness, as we will discuss later on.
Second-level courts, Sandiganbayan, CTA. Ganun din, similar. The testimony of the witness, ‘yung
sworn statements before law enforcement officers or affidavits or counter-affidavits during the PI.
Pag wala, judicial affidavits, subject to direct and cross examination. That rule will apply only in
instances where the demeanor of the witness is not essential in determining the credibility of the
witness. Example, forensic chemists, medico-legal officers, auditors, accountants, engineers,
custodians, expert witnesses and other similar witnesses. Because they will just testify on the
authenticity and due execution of documents or public documents or reports. In criminal cases
where they are transactional in character. Pwede rin ang judicial affidavits. Example, falsification,
malversation, estafa, other crimes where the culpability of the innocence of the accused is
established through documents. In these instances, it is not really essential to determine the
credibility of that witness in the sense that witnesses are really identifying and authenticating the
documents.
What does that mean? The use of judicial affidavits in second-level courts is not absolute. We can
have oral testimony. When? Reverse mo lang yung kaninang rule. If the demeanor of the witness is
essential in determining his credibility, then mag-oral testimony tayo. Or in cases where the
culpability or innocence of the accused is based on the testimony of the alleged eyewitness, the
testimonies of these witnesses shall be in oral form. This is found in the Revised Guidelines for
Continuous Trial in criminal cases.
Sabi sa JAR, i-submit not later than 5 days before the pre-trial, serving copies on the accused. Wala
namang complaint and answer ng criminal case. Information ‘yun. Sabagay may complaint din pero
hindi answer. So naka-attach na sa judicial affidavits yung evidence ng prosecution. What is the
effect of non-compliance with the JAR? Under the Revised Rules in Civil Procedure, excluded
yung evidence mo, unless for meritorious reasons. We can harmonize that with the JAR, that you
might be allowed by the court to rectify it upon payment of the fine, if the court allows it for
meritorious reasons.
Cross-examination. As amended na ‘to ah. Upon termination of the direct, the witness can be cross-
examined by the adverse party on any relevant matter. It is allowed even if it is not necessarily
stated in the direct examination, provided that it is relevant. You can object that it is not covered by
the direct. But the other party may counter that it is relevant. Even prior to the amendment, this is
recognized already. Take note that in cross examination, leading questions are allowed. A leading
question is question which suggests to the witness the answer that the examining party desires. This
is allowed on cross and on preliminary matters. Generally this is answerable by yes or no.
Misleading questions are prohibited in all instances.
Re-direct examination. After ng cross, i-explain mo yung answers given. Sa cross, since leading
questions answerable by yes or no, you are not given the time to explain. So in re-direct, you are
given the chance to supplement and explain your answers given on cross-examination. In fact,
under the Rules, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross, may be also allowed by the
court in its discretion.
Re-cross examination. After re-direct, re-cross. Pwede mong tanungin on matters covered by re-
direct, and also on such matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. If it’s not covered
by the direct, cross, re-direct, it is not allowed if it is not relevant.
Recalling the witness. After examination of the witness by both sides has been concluded, the
witness cannot be recalled without leave in its discretion. Kailangan ng leave of court to recall a
witness. It is not mandatory, only in the interest of justice may require, subject to the discretion of
the court.
Sec. 10. Misleading question. One which assumes a fact not yet established. In a collection of sum
of money, ang tanong mo, bakit mo siya tinataguan? Hindi pa naman na-establish na tinataguan
niya. That one assumes a fact not yet testified on. Another misleading question is that it asks a
question the basis of which are facts that are contrary to what is previously stated. Misleading
questions are never allowed.
When are leading questions allowed? Again, cross-examination. It is to test the credibility of the
witness. But you cannot do it in direct examination because you will effectively be coaching your
witness. In practice, if it is not objected to by the other party, lulusot ‘yan. Also, preliminary matters
are allowed. Hindi lahat ng questions of yes or no, leading na. Kunwari, gusto mo muna simulan, on
mag-present ka on direct examination, a witness to identify the judicial affidavit. In order for that
witness to identify the affidavit, you need to establish that there is a judicial affidavit. Third is when
there is difficutly in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant or a child
of tender years, or is feeble-minded or a deaf-mute. Under Sec. 19 of the Child Witness Rule, the
court will allow the child witness to testify in narrative form. Take note that if in narrative form, as
a general rule, i-strike out yan. Bawal ka mag-kwento. Except pag bata, pwede ‘yan. Sec. 20
provides that in all stages of examination of a child witness, pwede rin i-allow yung court yung
leading questions if it will further the interests of justice. Number four, unwilling or hostile witness.
Number five, a witness who is an adverse party. Kapag adverse party, it includes the officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, partnership or association which is an
adverse party. In other words, the employees or representatives of the adverse party.
Sec. 11. Impeachment of an adverse party’s witness. Remember, magkaiba ang credibility of the
witness from admissibility or qualified witness. You may be qualified to testify, however the
testimony may not be credible. Credibility means the dispoisiton and intention to tell the truth in the
testimony given. It refers to the person’s integrity and to the fact that he is worthy of belief. If you
want to discredit the witness, you want to impeach your witness. The witness has personal
knowledge, and not disqualified. Kelangan mo siya ma-impeach. Pano? You need to prove na hindi
credible ang witness.
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called. For example, contradictory
evidence. Sabi ng witness 5’2” siya. Contradictory ‘yung testimony sa object evidence. Impeach mo
‘yan. Evidence of general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad. Kahit na yung witness is
the offended party herself, this rule will apply. Why? By testifying on her behalf, she is opening
herself to the character reputation attack, pursuant to the principle that a person who becomes a
witness on his own behalf places himself in the same position of any other witness and may
therefore be impeached by an attack on his character or reputation. Relate this to the old provision
of Sec. 14, Rule 132, which is, as amended, found in Sec. 54(c), Rule 130. This provides that
evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been
impeached. If you have a witness, you do not present the evidence of good character of that witness,
unless na-impeach na ‘yung character ng witness based on this ground.
Number three, evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony. Going back to our discussion sa JAR, let’s say may counter affidavit siya, basura yung
counter-affidavit. Ginawan ng bagong judicial affidavit. In the counter affidavit, he admitted the
crime but offered the defense of self-defense. But in the judicial affidavit, he denied the commission
any killing and said that his whereabouts were elsewhere. Here, you can impeach that witness if that
accused himself testifies by evidence of inconsistent statements. Sec. 14, Rule 132 as amended.
How do you impeach the witness by evidence of consistent witness? Before impeaching the
witness, you cannot just submit to the court the counter-affidavit. You need to lay the predicate.
Kelangan mo pakita ‘yung statements na ‘yon, or yung written statement, then you need to ask if he
made that statement, and if so, be allowed to explain. If in writing, it must be shown to the witness
before any question is put to him.
In one case, there is an extrajudicial statement that is inconsistent. But that statement was never
presented to the witness. You cannot just submit it to the court. You need to present it to the witness
and have that witness confront the same. Direct him to the discrepancy and give him an opportunity
to explain. Mere presentation of prior declaration without the same having been read by the witness
and without giving that witness the opportunity to explain is insufficient for you to impeach the
witness. In the same way, kapag appeal, you cannot present the inconsistent statements for the first
time and ask the court to impeach the witness. Because he was never confronted with the document.
The reason for this rule is that every witness is presumed to be truthful and perjury is not inferred
just because there are apparent inconsistencies. The inconsistencies must be on essential matters or
material facts for you to impeach the witness. For every effort to reconcile the conflicting points
must be ascertained because of the presumption of truthfulness. Only when there is no reasonable
explanation given should he be deemed impeached.
If there are inconsistencies on minor or trivial matters, there is no ground for impeachement. For
example, the victim was asked the color of the shirt the accused wore, eh madilim, sabi gray.
Maroon pala. These trivial matters do not show that he is not credible. Rather, it shows the integrity
of the witness in that the testimony is not rehearsed. It tends to strengthen and not weaken because
they erased the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Also, you will not impeach the witness if there
is inconsistency that does not impinged on the essential elements of the crime charged. Kapag
walang kinalaman sa essential elements, and there is positive identification, the witness will not be
impeached. Take note that “but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts.” You cannot impeach
the witness by particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by examination of the witness
or record of judgment that he has been convicted of a offense. Meron bagong addition ‘yan
We relate this under Sec. 3 and Sec. 12 of Rule 132. Going back to Sec. 3, the witness must answer
to the fact of his previous final conviction of an offense. In Sec. 12, as amended, if the witness is
convicted of the crime previously, pwede ma-impeach, if:
1. Punishable of a penalty exceeding 1 year, regardless whether the crime involves moral
turpitude; and
2. Regardless of the period of the penalty, as long as the crime involves turpitude.
However, if the conviction has already been subject to annulment or amnesty, hindi pwede i-
impeach. Ngayon, tandaan niyo, wala yan sa old rules. Sa new rules, basta ma-convict ka previously
more than 1 year or moral turpitude, pwede ka ma-impeach. Kailangan convicted, kasi pag may
appeal, hindi ka pa finally convicted by final judgment.
Sec. 13, as amended. You can impeach the testimony of the adverse party, but you cannot impeach
your own witness. The party preenting the witness is not allowed to impeach his or her credibility.
Because when you produce a witness, you are vouching that the witness is worthy of credit. Bawal
‘yung pag may nasabing hindi mo gusto ‘yung witness, i-impeach mo na. This rule is not absolute.
The exceptions are found under paragraph (d) and (e) of Sec. 10., which are the ff:
1. Unwilling or hostile witness; and
2. Witness who is an adverse party, or an officer, director, managing agent of a public or
private corporation, partnership or association that is an adverse party.
The witness is unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court. You should first ask the court to
declare the witness as a hostile or an unwilling witness. You need to establish the grounds. They are
the ff:
1. There is adverse interest;
2. There is an unjustified reluctance to testify; or
 3. The witness misled the party into calling him as a witness.
A court declaration is required. If the court declaration is not had, you are bound by the testimony
of that witness.
Under Sec. 6, Rule 25, the adverse party who is not served with written interrogatories, you cannot
produce that party as a witness. Is this rule absolute? No. The exception is found in the provision:
“unless thereafter allowed for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice.” Remember,
hindi rin nag-aapply ang judicial affidavit dito, pursuant to the rule ng Ng Men Tam(?) v. China
Banking Corporation.
If you are impeaching your own witness, you are impeaching him in all respects as if he had been
called by the adverse party. But you cannot impeach your own witness on evidence of bad
character. In one case, the fact that the judge was subsequently dismissed from his office is not a
ground to impeach. Unless under the Revised Rules, nag-commit siya ng crime and convicted siya
by final conviction exceeding 1 year or moral turpitude. If the adverse party is impeaching the
witness, it is done by cross-examination. It must be evidence in chief.
Exclusion and separation of witnesses. May bagong addition dito. It is the court motu proprio or on
motion. “Shall” na siya so mandatory na, unlike before na “may.” “Shall order the witnesses
excluded.” Bakit mo i-exclude, para hindi na marinig yung mga testimony of other witnesses. Kasi
pag-narinig na nila yung question, makaka-formulate na sila ng sagot, or pwede nila gayahin yung
answer ng other witnesses. What will happen is, let’s say there are three witnesses, papalabasin
muna ‘yung dalawa. But this rule will not authorize if the witness that you want to be excluded is a
party, meaning, a natural person, a representative of a juridical entity that is a party to the case, if a
person whose presence is essential to the presentation to the party’s cause, or a person authorized by
statute to be present.
Additionally, the rule provides that the court may cause the witnesses to be kept separate and
prevented from conversing with each other directly or through intermediaries. So kahit hindi niya
kasama yung co-witness niya, pero kasama yung abogado or party or representative, i-prevent ‘yun
ng court.
Sec. 16, as amended. When a witness may refer to memorandum. There are two parts under Sec. 16.
One is called present recollection revived. The second is past recollection recorded. Under the first
one, your evidence is the testimony. The writing is just your memory aid. There is a writing or
recording by the witness himself, so you allow the witness to refer to such writing or recording. In
one case, may own notes ‘yung witness, and the notes were the dates. It was shown that he is
referring to the dates just for accuracy sa testimony niya on the dates, which was allowed by the
court that he recorded himself. If he did not write or record himself, it is made under his direction at
the time when the fact occurred, immediately thereafter, or at the time that the fact was still fresh on
his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. But in such case, the
writing may be inspected by the adverse party. Baka kasi may turo-turo na. And you can cross-
examine on the witness upon it.
The purpose of this is to refresh the memory. Ang evidence niya is yung testimony itself. The
memorandum is not evidence. And it may not be admitted as such. Because the witness is testifying
on the basis of the refreshed memory. Where the witness testifies on a memory refreshed on the
memorandum, yung memorandum corroborative lang yun sa evidence ng witness.
The second one is past recollection recorded. A witness will testify on a writing on record na wala
siyang memory or recollection of the pertinent facts but he is able to swear that the writing correctly
stated the transaction when made. But such evidence must be received with caution. The evidence is
the writing itself, and the witness will just attest to the writing.
When you talk about present recollection revived, you need to lay the proper predicate before you
can have the refreshing of memory. Kealngan you show that an aid of memorandum is necessary to
be able to testify, and that the memorandum is written by himself or under his direction.
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder is admissible.
If you present an evidence of a part, the whole of the same may be inquired to by the other party.
When the other party inquires into it, it’s not automatically part of the evidence of such other party.
You need to introduce it as evidence. This rule contemplates evidence, documents, facts,
declarations that are already adduced in evidence. So hihingin mo yung parts of the whole, only
when the part is adduced in evidence. In one case, the defendant attached to his answer proof of his
confinement in the hospital. The plaintiff is asking for all records in relation to the confinement to
the hospital. The defendant invoked privilege. Sabi ng plaintiff, hindi na kasi in-allege mo na dun sa
answer mo na na-confine ka. Will the disclosure of records be allowed? No. At that point in time,
the answer has just been filed. The trial has not begun. The record was not yet given in evidence.
The only time you will invoke this rule is insofar as parts that have been adduced in evidence. In
this case, it was only in the answer and has not been presented in trial, so it is premature to invoke
this rule.
Also, whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the other party. Dapat
usisero ka. Kapag hindi pinapakita sa’yo ng kalaban, you ask it from the court. You look at the
documents so that you know how to cross-examine.

Rule 132, Sec. 19

Classes of documents. So remember that in classes of documents there is an amendment. Let’s start
with Section 19. Under Sec. 19 you have public documents. There is a new addition, paragraph (c).
So one is the written official acts or the records of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country, documents
acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments, documents that are
considered public documents under treaties or conventions which are enforced between the
Philippines and the country of source and public records kept in the Philippines of private
documents required by law to be entered therein, all other writing are private. So tandaan niyo yung
bagong dagdag. One of the examples of the convention is called the apostille convention which
became effective in the Philippines on May 14, 2019. When you are asked what are public
documents, then the answer is Sec. 19, Rule 132 as amended. You need to know the classification
of documents even the classification of public documents. The reason why you need to make a
distinction lies with respect to the official duties attending the execution of the different kinds of
public documents. As a rule, official duties are presumed to be regularly performed. If you have an
affidavit, the presumption here is that the notary public regularly performed his duty. So when you
have a notarized document, let us say you have a verified answer, what is presumptively given
regularity is not the contents of the answer but the jurat that the person took the oath in the jurat
before the notary public. It is not the evidence of the truth of the contents of your answer. Iba iba
yung effects ng public documents, iba yung pag notarized, iba if it falls under par. (a) of Sec. 19.
Public documents are self authenticating. What do you mean by self authenticating pubic
documents? When you have a public document, the public document is really given a sovereign
character. Why? For instance, if you have a notarized document it is acknowledged before a notary
public or a sovereign character it is an official document of the government because it is a public
record of a public writing authorized by law. When you say it is self authenticating, it requires no
further authentication to be presented in evidence as evidence in court. Unlike a private document,
it is something that needs to be authenticated in in court. When you say authenticated, the person
who signed it must testify as to the execution of that document. If it is a private document, it
requires authentication. Public documents, self authenticating yan.

How do you authenticate a private document? You will find that under Sec. 21 Rule 132. As a rule,
you need to authenticate a document, but there are some private documents that do not require
authentication. An example is if it is an ancient one, or when the genuineness or authenticity is not
specifically denied under oath. Example of this is your actionable document that was not denied
under oath in the answer or reply. As you know, reply is not required anymore under the revised
rules in civil procedure except if you are going to specifically deny under oath an actionable
document that is attached to the answer. In the same way, if your reply attached an actionable
document, that is the only time you can file a rejoinder to specifically deny under oath the
actionable document attached to the reply. And if the genuineness and authenticity of the document
has been admitted like if you have a judicial admission, like in the pre-trial, you judicially admitted
already the genuineness and due execution or if the document is not being offered as genuine such
as a document that is used as object evidence. So in those instances, there is no need for
authentication.

Sec. 19(a). The written official acts or records of official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, etc. How may a record of public documents referred to in Sec. 19(a) be
proven? To prove section 19(a), it is by evidence of an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested toby an officer having legal custody or his deputy. The old rule says “official publication or
a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record”. So there has to be an attestation.
When we talk about the attestation, you need to refer to Rule 132, Sec. 25. The attestation must be
under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there is any, and if he is the clerk having a seal if he
is the clerk of such court. Then the copy is supposed to be a correct copy of the original or the
specific part thereof, as the case may be. That is what the attestation copy of the document must
state.

That is not the only way, so the first one is by official publication or a copy attested to. additionally,
under the amended rule under Sec. 24, if the record is kept in a foreign country and that foreign
country is a contracting party to a treaty or convention, like the Apostille Convention to which the
Philippines is a party, or considered as a public document under that treaty pursuant to par. (c) of
Sec. 19. To prove that, you will have a certificate or its equivalent and the form of that is that which
is prescribed in the treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines. It presupposes in this instance that the Philippines is a contracting
party to that treaty. The treaty will govern the form of the certificate and its equivalent.

Additionally, as amended, for documents originating from a foreign country which is not a
contracting party to a treaty or convention. The first one, to repeat, is by official publication or a
copy attested by the officer having legal custody (Sec. 35, Rule 132). The Second one is the treaty
will govern (Sec. 19(c) and Sec. 24, Rule 132). Another one is if it is a foreign document of a
foreign country but that foreign country is not a contracting party to a treaty or convention. in that
case, the certificate will be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice consul or consular agent or by an officer of a foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country where the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office. You compare
this paragraph with the second paragraph in the old rule. So the requisites under this one is that
there has to be a certificate of custody. So if the record is not in the Philippines, the copy must be
accompanied by the certificate that the officer has it in his custody made by the secretary of the
embassy, legation officer, consul general, etc. Then there has to be an authentication. This
certificate must be authenticated by the seal of the officer or the issuer. Take note that in the
absence of an attestation by the officer that has the legal custody and the certificate to the effect by
a Philippine foreign service officer, a mere copy of that foreign document will not be admissible in
evidence to prove the foreign law for instance. So you need to have that certificate of custody and
authentication. In the absence of which, a mere copy will not admissible in evidence. This type of
manner of proving presupposes that the foreign country from where the document originates is not a
party to the treaty with the Philippines in so far as public documents are concerned. Additionally,
also, as amended, a document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be
presented in evidence without further proof. So the certificate and its equivalent is prima facie
evidence that of its due execution and genuineness. So when the treaty provides that that certificate
is not anymore required then that certificate is no longer needed. So what is the legal significance of
documents that consist of entries in public records made in the performance of duty of a public
officer? Under Sec. 19(a), it is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Prima facie meaning
disputable siya, pero to overcome that, kailangan mo ng clear an convincing evidence. Let us say
that you have a local civil registrar, tapos and yung cler of court tapos meron silang records,
certification nila regarding the adoption of a person and it is entered and kept under their records
under their official custody. So it is prima facie evidence of that adoption. The certification would
suffice as proof of the adoption. If you want to assail that certification, you cannot collaterally
attack it when it is presented as evidence. If you want to assail the validity of that, you need to bring
an independent action to assail that adoption decree. But if you want to dispute that evidence then
you have to dispute it by clear and convincing evidence. That rule of prima facie evidence of the
facts stated therein nag aapply lang yan sa Sec. 19(a). Why? Look at Sec. 23 of Rule 132, it says
“all other public documents”. Example notarized or public records of private documents required by
law to be entered therein. All other public documents are evidence of the facts which gave rise to
the execution and the date of the latter. Sabi ng SC, the phrase “all other public documents” in the
second sentence of Sec. 23 means that those public documents other that yung nasa Sec. 19(a), yung
entries in public records made in the performance of duty by a public officer this include notarial
documents like a deed of donation. X filed a petition for correction of an area covered by a torrens
title. As evidence, nag present siya ng CENRO (Community Environment and Natural Resources
Certification) ng Regional Technical Director ng DENR it states that the true area is 21,928 sqm.
And then another one is a technical description certified by the Chief of Service Division and a
Subdivision Plan certified by the Regional Survey Division. The person asking for correction of the
area did not present those who prepared the certifications as witnesses kasi sabi niya they are public
documents, there is no need to present those who executed those documents because they are self
authenticating. Is he correct? NO, it does not fall under Sec. 19(a) and the first sentence of Sec. 23
of Rule 132. CENRO does not fall under the first sentence of prima facie proof of the facts stated
therein because it is not an entry in public records made in the performance of duty by a public
officer. kasi yang certification na yan , hindi yan ginawa regularly in the performance of duty,
ginawa lang yan for purposes of that case. What do you mean by “made in the performance of
duty”? An example is when you have a civil registrar that makes the book of registries of all
marriages and births. Yung CENRO hindi yan nagfa-fall under that. Another example CENOMAR,
yung CENOMAR or Certificate of No Marriage pag ikakasal ka na to prove that you are capacitated
to marry, yan hindi yan magfa-fall din under self authenticating. In that instance, you need to
present the one who executed the CENOMAR or CENRO to testify on that document, it is not self
authenticating. You need the testimony of the one who issued the documentary evidence to confirm
the veracity of the contents, otherwise it is hearsay. At best, it is only proof that it is duly executed
but not prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents. Bakit prima facie proof lang of its due
execution? Kasi nga yung prima facie proof of the facts stated therein nagfa-fall lang yan sa Sec.
19(a), made in the regular performance of duties like a local civil registrar. Pero kung case to case
basis mo lang yan ginagawa, hindi yan nagfa-fall dun sa regular performance and it falls under the
second sentence of Sec. 23. Sa second sentence ng Sec. 23 sabi “all others” so all other public
documents, proof lang of its due execution but not proof of the facts stated therein.

Additionally, kapag nagfa-fall yan sa Sec. 19(a), it is also prima facie proof of the facts stated
therein. Ibig sabihin, kung meron kang birth certificate, yung date of birth don, yung pangalan mo,
yung parents dun, they are prima facie proof of your name, date of birth, etc. Hindi mo na kailangan
mag-present ng witness para sabihin niya na eto yung date of birth, that document itself has two
effects: 1) it is self authenticating; and 2) it is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Hindi
lahat ng public documents ganon yung epekto. Tingnan niyo yung Sec. 23 Rule 132, may two
sentences ka jan. Yung first sentence ng Sec. 23, Rule 132 pertains to Sec. 19(a). Dun sa second
sentence, sabi “all other public documents”. Ano ibig sabihin non? It means public documents
under Sec. 19 na hindi nag fa-fall under Sec. 19(a). If it is under Sec. 19 (b) or (d), kunwari yung
notarized document or entries of private documents in public records required by law to be entered
therein, prima facie siya ng due execution. So kung may notarized deed of sale ka, that notarized
deed of sale prima facie evidence yan ng date ng notarization mo. So kunwari naka notarize yan ng
Jan. 1, 2019, that is prima facie evidence na Jan. 1, 2019 na nag appear kayo before a notary and
prima facie evidence ng execution niya na Jan. 1, 2019 nagpunta ka sa notary pero hindi siya prima
facie evidence ng lamn. So kung may affidavit of loss ka na ginawa ang prima facie lang jan ay
yung notarial part, it is not proof of the facts stated therein. Bakit ganon? Kasi yang prima facie
evidence na yancomes from the presumption of regularity. Let’s say you have a local civil registrar,
trabaho niya to make birth certificate and book of records so may prima facie proof. Kapag nagpa-
notary ka, hindi naman duty ng notary yung buong affidavit, ang duty niya lang is ipag-swear ka. It
is only prima facie proof na pinag-swear ka ng notary pero hindi masasabi doon na totoo yung ni-
swear mo sa notary. Yung case na sinabi ko, Republic vs. Galeno GR No. 215009, ang
pinaguusapan dito is a CENRO or a PENRO. Yun yung mga issued ng mga office under the DENR.
Yung CENRO pwedeng nag issue sila ng certification na sinasabi kung ano yung laki ng property.
Parang nagpa-sukat ka sa officer ng DENR para macorrect mo yung size sa title mo And ginawa
dito sa kasong to nag punta siya sa isang officer sa DENR, nagpatulong siya para imeasure yung
property. After niya imeasure yung property, nag-issue ng certification. Nung inissiue niya yung
certification, pinresent niya yung certification in evidence with presenting the one who executed
that certificate. Ang tanong, does that certificate fall under Sec. 19(a) in that you don’t need it to be
authenticated and that you don’t need the person to testify on the facts stated therein? Sabi ng SC,
this document ng CENRO, it is not the same status na made in the performance of duty na it has the
prima facie presumption of the facts stated therein. So if it is a CENRO or PENRO document issued
by the officer of the DENR whether it is as to the size or to certify that the land is alienable or
disposable, that on its own is not enough. You need the person who executed that certification to
testify on the facts stated therein. Bakit? Kasi daw yung CENRO is not the repository or legal
custodian of issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring the land to be alienable, disposable or on
the area of land. The CENRO is not the official repository. Hindi yan nagfa-fall dun sa performance
of functions because hindi siya yung proper authority for that testimony. So dahil hindi yun yung
proper proof, kailangan para magng admissible, mag testify yung gumawa ng certificate nay un
tungkol sa ginawa niyang certificate. Ang official is the DENR Secretary’s issuance declaring the
land to be alienable or disposable. Pero kung Regional Technical Director lang yan ng CENRO,
they do not fall under the class of documents contemplated under the first sentence of Sec. 23 Rule
132. That certification does not reflect entries in public records made in the performance of duty of
a public officer. Kasi hindi niya yung regularly ginagawa. Gagawin niya yun pag may nagrequest.
Ang analogy ko jan is kunwari meron akong case for bigamy. Pag sa bigamy case, ang evidence ko
dalawang marriage certificate, yung first marriage and second marriage. Then kumuha ako ng
certification sa local civil registarar na sinasabi na based on their records, si Mr. X appears to be
married twice. yung marriage certificate nay un nagfa-fall sa Sec. 19(a). Pero yung certification na
hiningi ko na nag papakita na dalawa yung marriage niya, hindi yung nagfa-fall sa Sec. 19(a) kasi
hindi yan regular performance of functions niya. So in which case, yung marriage certificate I don’t
need to prove the local civil registrar to testify on the contents of the marriage certificate and
signature, but I need that local civil registrar or the one who issued that certification to testify on the
contents of the certification na oo ginawa ko to at based sa paghahanap ko ng records, dalawang
beses na siyang kinasal.

Going to documents acknowledged before a notary public, there is an exception “except last wills
and testaments”. Bakit? substantive law requires that the will must first be admitted to probate. So
in admitting a will to probate, diba kailangan niyong iprove that it is duly executed by the testator.
So hindi pwedeng automatic na may presumption na duly executed siya kasi pag notarized
document, as I mentioned, ang presumption mo it is duly executed kasi pinirmahan mo yan e before
the notary public. So ang presumption don only is in so far as the date and the signing not the
contents pero pag will yan hindi maga-apply kasi ng ayou need to prove the genuineness and due
execution during the probate procedings. Kapag notarial document, evidence yan ng execution and
the date of execution kasi a public officer mo dito ay notary public and ano lang yung function ng
notary public? sa kanya ka maga-appear to make your oath on the document. So the public function
involved here is only the jurat or the acknowledgment. in other words, the only thing that is given
the presumption is the execution and the date and your appearance before the notary public but it
does not mean that everything in your affidavit is given prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts
stated therein kasi yung body ng affidavit mo, hindi naman yan performance ng public function ng
notary public. Yung function lang niya is only the acknowledgment or the jurat. Sabi ng Supreme
Court affidavits are self serving so what is entitled to presumption here is the execution sa notarial
portion but you still need to present a witness to testify on the facts stated on the affidavit, a witness
that has personal knowledge. Remember, if you have an affidavit and it is not presented in court
testified on by a witness, it is hearsay. That’s why you need to present an affidavit so that you give
the other party to cross examine. Otherwise, it is hearsay.