RULE 130

CASE DIGESTS

(A) OBJECT REAL EVIDENCE

People of the Philippines vs Herofil Olarte

GR No 233209 March 11, 2019
Facts:
- Task Force "Boy Solo" was formed in response to reports that a lone gunman was believed to be responsible for
several robbery incidents at Pabayo and Chavez Streets in Cagayan de Oro City.
- PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar were conducting discreet monitoring operations in the area and noticed a man walking
towards a branch of LBC Express, Inc. (LBC), a commercial establishment. His features resembled "Boy Solo" who
pulled out a firearm when about to enter the establishment.
- Accused Olarte was charged for illegal or unauthorized possession of a hand grenade and an unlicensed pistol.
- The information filed by the prosecution alleged that Olarte was seen attempting robbery in an LBC Cagayan de Oro
branch when policemen apprehended him. The hand grenade and unlicensed pistol was found in the subsequent
search.
- The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of a hand grenade. The CA affirmed
the RTC ruling on appeal.
- Hence, the present appeal, where the accused claims that the hand grenade was not admissible in evidence for non-
compliance with the chain of custody rule.

Issue: W/N the seized hand grenade is admissible in evidence against Olarte.

Held:
- Yes. As a rule, object evidence must be authenticated before it may be admitted. When the evidence is a non-unique
object that is highly fungible, the authentication must be via application of the chain of custody rule. However, if the
evidence is a non-unique object that is relatively resistant to change, testimonial sponsorship is sufficient.
- In this case, the seized hand grenade need not be authenticated via chain of custody rule because it is relatively
resistant to change. The testimonies based on personal knowledge of the apprehending officers are sufficient to
authenticate the item.
- Wherefore, the present appeal is dismissed.

Basis:
An object evidence is either actual or demonstrative: “Object evidence is classified into:
a) actual physical or "autoptic" evidence: those which have a direct relation or part in the fact or incident sought to be
proven and those brought to the court for personal examination by the presiding magistrate; and
b) demonstrative evidence: those which represent the actual or physical object (or event in the case of pictures or
videos) being offered to support or draw an inference or to aid in comprehending the verbal testimony of a witness. x
x x”

Actual evidence may be objects that are unique, made unique, or non-unique: “Further, actual evidence is subdivided
into three categories:
a) those that have readily identifiable marks (unique objects);
b) those that are made readily identifiable (objects made unique) and
c) those with no identifying marks (non-unique objects).”

Definition of unique objects: “[U]nique objects either: (a) already exhibit identifiable visual or physical peculiarities such as
a particular paint job or an accidental scratch, dent, cut, chip, disfigurement or stain; or (b) have a readily distinguishable mark
such as a unit-specific serial number in case of an industrially manufactured item.”

Definition of non-unique objects; importance of authentication of non-unique objects: “[N]on-unique objects such as
narcotic substances, industrial chemicals, and body fluids cannot be distinguished and are not readily identifiable; that is why
they present an inherent problem of fungibility 106 or substitutability and contamination which adversely affects their
relevance or probative value. This is the reason why non-unique objects have to be made unique by law enforcers upon
retrieval or confiscation in order for these articles to be authenticated by a sponsoring witness so that trial and reviewing
courts can determine their relevance or probative value.”

1
Chain of custody rule as manner of authentication is only applicable when seized item can be easily planted:
“Historically, the Court has applied the "chain of custody" rule as a mode of authenticating illegal drug substances in order to
determine its admissibility. However, such rule has not yet been extended to other substances or objects for it is only a
variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence. At this point, it
becomes necessary to point out that the degree of fungibility of amorphous objects without an inherent unique characteristic
capable of scientific determination, i.e., DNA testing, is higher than stably structured objects or those which retain their form
because the likelihood of tracing the former objects' source is more difficult, if not impossible.”

Testimonial sponsorship is sufficient to authenticate items that are unique, readily identifiable, and relatively
resistant to change: ”In this regard, the Court emphasizes that if the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and
relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is
what the proponent claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent to
satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy. And at all times, the source of amorphous as well as firmly structured objects
being offered as evidence must be tethered to and supported by a testimony.”

Capistrano Daayata vs People of the Philippines

GR No 205745 March 8, 2017

Facts:
- Petitioners Daayata et al. were charged with frustrated murder for allegedly assaulting relentlessly Bahian on his way
to the barangay hall.
- The defense claimed that Bahian’s injury was caused by him hitting the pavement after engaging in a fist fight with
petitioner Salisi.
- The RTC held petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge. The CA affirmed the RTC decision on appeal.
Hence, the present petition.

Issue: W/N the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove that petitioners assaulted Bahian.

Held:
No. Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. An allegation of assault is not believable in the absence of marked
physical injuries as evidence. In this case, the prosecution’s assertion that Bahian was relentlessly assaulted is belied by the
presence of only one injury to the head that Bahian sustained. More doubt is cast over the said assertion in light of the version
of the defense, which was admitted by Bahian himself and corroborated by several other witnesses, that Bahian sustained the
head injury because of his own fault.

Wherefore, the petitioners are acquitted.

Basis:
Assault claim is not believable in the absence of marked physical injuries as evidence: "Physical evidence is evidence of
the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses." They have been characterized as "that mute but
eloquent manifestations of truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence." Thus, in People v. Vasquez, this
Court refused to undiscerningly lend credence to the incriminating assertions of prosecution witnesses as to an alleged
mauling, and stated that "[t]his Court cannot be persuaded by the prosecution's claim of perpetration of physical violence in
the absence of any marked physical injuries on the various parts of the victim's face and body." x x x”

People of the Philippines vs Crisente Pepaño Nuñez

GR No 209342 October 4, 2017

Facts:
An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Pobre and several others. Later, accused Nunez was apprehended
on the premise that he was actually Pobre. Trial ensued, where prosecution witnesses identified Nunez as one of the robbers.

The RTC convicted Nunez of the charge. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling on appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

Issue: W/N the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove that Nunez is one of the robbers.

Held:
2
No. Courts should not solely rely on the positive identification by eyewitnesses for evidence. The frailty of human memory is
not only detailed by scientific research data but also recognized in the Philippine jurisdiction. Eyewitness testimony must be
viewed in light of the totality of circumstance test, wherein circumstances surrounding the witness are examined to determine
the credibility of his/her testimony. Among the considerations of the said test is the degree of certainty by the witness at the
moment of identification. Initial identification is more crucial than identification during trial.

In this case, the RTC and CA failed to recognize several circumstances which cast serious doubt on to the identification of the
prosecution witnesses. First, one of the witnesses admitted to not remembering the appearance of the fourth robber but later
claim the same as Nunez. Also, when the witnesses took the stand, eight years had passed since the robbery incident. Finally,
the witnesses’ identification of Nunez did not come until he had been arrested and was the sole object of identification. The
ultimate conclusion is that the prosecution failed to prove Nunez’s guilt.

Wherefore, the accused is acquitted for reasonable doubt.

Basis:
Prosecution must not solely rely on positive identification for evidence: “The frailty of human memory is a scientific fact.
The danger of inordinate reliance on human memory in criminal proceedings, where conviction results in the possible
deprivation of liberty, property, and even life, is equally established.”

Witness identification of perpetrators must be appreciated in view of the totality of circumstance test: “People v.
Teehankee, Jr. introduced in this jurisdiction the totality of circumstances test, which relies on factors already identified by the
United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2)
the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of
certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification;
and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

A witness' credibility is ascertained by considering the first two factors, i.e., the witness' opportunity to view the malefactor at
the time of the crime and the witness' degree of attention at that time, based on conditions of visibility and the extent of time,
little and fleeting as it may have been, for the witness to be exposed to the perpetrators, peruse their features, and ascertain
their identity. x x x

Rather than a sweeping approbation of a supposed natural propensity for remembering the faces of assailants, this Court now
emphasizes the need for courts to appreciate the totality of circumstances in the identification of perpetrators of crimes.”

Initial identification is more crucial than identification made during trial: “Still, certainty on the witness stand is by no
means conclusive. By the time a witness takes the stand, he or she shall have likely made narrations to investigators, to
responding police or barangay officers, to the public prosecutor, to any possible private prosecutors, to the families of the
victims, other sympathizers, and even to the media. The witness, then, may have established certainty, not because of a
foolproof cognitive perception and recollection of events but because of consistent reinforcement borne by becoming an
experienced narrator. Repeated narrations before different audiences may also prepare a witness for the same kind of scrutiny
that he or she will encounter during cross-examination. Again, what is more crucial is certainty at the onset or on initial
identification, not in a relatively belated stage of criminal proceedings.”

People of the Philippines vs Catherine Romorosa

GR No 237209 April 10, 2019

Facts:
Accused Romorosa et al. were charged of sale and possession of illegal drugs in violation of RA 9165. The accused were
apprehended during a buy-bust operation by the NBI, based on a tip by a confidential informant.

The RTC and the CA on appeal convicted Romorosa of illegal sale of shabu. Hence, the current appeal. Herein, Romorosa
alleges that the chain of custody rule was violated because the forensic chemist failed to turn over the seized shabu to an
evidence custodian prior to submission of the same to the court.

Issue: W/N the chain of custody rule was violated.

Held:
3
No. Turnover of seized drug to an evidence custodian is not a requirement in the chain of custody rule. It is not prescribed nor
required under RA 9165 and its implementing rules. This holds true even if failure to make such turnover is a deviation from
the standard practice of the NBI. Therefore, in this case, the integrity of the seized shabu was not tainted by failure of the
forensic chemist to turnover the same to an evidence custodian. The Court is satisfied that the corpus delicti of the offense was
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Wherefore, the instant appeal is dismissed.

Basis:
Turnover of seized drug to an evidence custodian is not a requirement in the chain of custody rule: “Contrary to
appellant's assertion, the failure of SFC Purificando to turn-over the shabu he examined to an "evidence custodian," prior to
submitting the same to the court, did not render doubtful the integrity of the shabu so submitted. We find that such failure did
not create a gap in the chain of custody of the shabu retrieved from the appellant x x x.

Since neither law nor jurisprudence specifically condemns a direct submission of drug evidence by the forensic chemist to the
court, We cannot ipso facto make the conclusion that the shabu submitted by SFC Purificando is no longer reliable solely on
the ground that he by-passed the evidence custodian of the NBI. This holds true even though such action by SFC Purificando
may have constituted a deviation from a "standard practice" of the NBI. Again, there is simply no law or jurisprudence that
renders a drug evidence inadmissible just because it was not forwarded to an "evidence custodian" and was instead submitted
directly to the court by the forensic chemist.”

People of the Philippines vs Gerrico Vallejo

GR No 144656 May 9, 2002

Facts:
Accused Vallejo was charged of rape-slaying a 9-year old child. The trial court admitted the DNA test performed on the vaginal
swabs taken during the autopsy of the deceased child. The DNA test yielded a DNA profile matching that of Vallejo. The said
DNA test, on top of an extrajudicial confession and several circumstantial evidence, formed basis of the RTC’s conviction of
Vallejo. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: W/N the trial court erred in admitting DNA analysis in evidence.

Held:
No. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the court must consider the data on the collection, handling, possible
contamination, procedure of analysis, standards of conducting tests, and qualification of the analyst. In this case, the DNA test
yielded both a positive and a negative match with the accused’s DNA profile. However, the negative match was accounted for
by considering the data surrounding the collected samples, which were either inadequate or contaminated. The positive match
therefore was found to be definite and enough to corroborate with other evidence pointing to the conclusion that accused is
guilty of the crime charged.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed.

Basis:
Guidelines in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: “In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore,
courts should consider, among others things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the
possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards
and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.”

4
 PO1 Crispin Ocampo y Santos vs People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015

Facts:

On May 27, 2000, petitioner assaulted and use personal violence upon Mario De Luna. Petitioner fired his service firearm
against the victim hitting the latter on the chest and other parts of the body. The wounds were the direct and immediate cause
of his death. Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. He admitted to having shot the victim to death, but claimed to
have done so in self-defense. In support of this claim, defense witness Marita averred that the shooting incident was
precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife attack upon accused-appellant. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of
homicide and upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner, but modified some of the monetary
damages awarded.

Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Settled is the rule that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must be met:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person engaged in self-defense.

In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the first element of self-defense. There was no
showing of attack or assault that had placed petitioner’s life in imminent or actual danger. Petitioner’s tale of self-defense is
negated by the physical evidence, specifically the trajectory of the bullets that penetrated the victim’s body. Where the physical
evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld.
With regard to the second element of self-defense, the Court finds that the means employed by petitioner was grossly
disproportionate to the victim's alleged unlawful aggression. The victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds in his chest and
different parts of his body. Indeed, the Advance Information prepared by the investigator of the case reveals that there was no
mention of either a stabbing incident that happened or a knife that was recovered from the crime scene. Here, the wounds
sustained by the victim clearly show the intent of petitioner to kill and not merely to prevent or repel an attack.

Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

People of the Philippines vs Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto

GR NO. 131516 Marcg 5, 2003

On complaint of Cyra May Francisco Buenafe, accused-appellant Ronnie Rullepa was charged with Rape before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for allegedly having carnal knowledge with complainant who was then only three (3) years of
age, a minor against her will and without her consent. She described her abuse under the hands of Rullepa in a plain and
matter-of-fact manner in her testimony.

The victim and her mother testified that she was only three years old at the time of the rape. However, the prosecution did not
offer the victim‘s certificate of live birth or similar authentic documents in evidence.

Finding for the prosecution, the RTC rendered judgment finding Rullepa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and
accordingly sentenced him to death. The case was placed for automatic review of the Supreme Court

Issues:
5
 1. Whether or not a person’s appearance is admissible as object evidence- YES.
2. Whether or not the death penalty was rightfully imposed on Rullepa – NO.

Ruling:
1. Yes. A person’s appearance is admissible as object evidence. A person‘s appearance, where relevant,
is admissible as object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the court. As to the weight to accord such
appearance, especially in rape cases, the Court in People v. Pruna laid down the guideline.
- The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of
live birth of such party.
- In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school
records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
- If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims mother or a member of the family either by
affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date
of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under
the following circumstances:

a) If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7
years old;
b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12
years old;
c) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than
18 years old.

- In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victims mother or
relatives concerning the victims age, the complainants testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused.
- It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to
object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
- The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim

2. No. The death penalty was not rightfully imposed on Rullepa. It has not been established with moral certainty that
victim, Cyra May, was below seven years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Thus, Rullepa cannot be
sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only the penalty of reclusion perpetua can be imposed upon him.
- The testimony of a relative with respect to the age of the victim is sufficient to constitute proof beyond
reasonable doubt in cases (a) and (b) above. In such cases, the disparity between the allegation and the proof of
age is so great that the court can easily determine from the appearance of the victim the veracity of the
testimony. The appearance corroborates the relative‘s testimony.
- As the alleged age approaches the age sought to be proved, the person‘s appearance, as object evidence of her
age, loses probative value. Doubt as to her true age becomes greater and, following United States v. Agadas, such
doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Because of the vast disparity between the alleged age (three years old) and the age sought to be proved (below
twelve years), the trial court would have had no difficulty ascertaining the victim‘s age from her appearance. No
reasonable doubt, therefore, exists that the second element of statutory rape is present.
- Whether the victim was below seven years old, however, is another matter. Here, reasonable doubt exists. A
mature three and a half-year old can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped seven-year old. The appearance
of the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much weight and the testimony of the mother is, by
itself, insufficient.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96,
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto is found GUILTY of Statutory Rape, defined
and punished by Article 335 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion

6
perpetua. He is ordered to pay private complainant, Cyra May Buenafe, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

NOTES
- In such cases where the disparity between the allegation and the proof of age is so great, the court can
easily determine from the appearance of the victim the veracity of the testimony. The appearance corroborates the
relative‘s testimony made pursuant to Rule 130 Sec. 40.
- As the alleged age approaches the age sought to be proved, the person‘s appearance, as object evidence of her
age, loses probative value. Doubt as to her true age becomes greater and, following United States v. Agadas, such doubt
must be resolved in favor of the accused

(B) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Section 2. Documentary Evidence

People of the Philippines vs Mario Tandoy Lim

GR No 80505 December 4, 1990

Facts:
In a buy-bust operation by the Anti-Narcotics Unit, accused Tandoy was arrested. An information was against the Tandoy for
the charge of possession of sale of illegal drugs. The trial court found Tandoy guilty. Hence, the instant appeal where accused
invokes the best evidence rule against the admission of the xerox copy of the marked money used in the buy-bust operation.

Issue: W/N the xerox copy of the marked money is admissible in evidence.

Held:
Yes. The best evidence rule is not applicable if the document is not indispensable to the issue. In this case, the sale of the
marijuana was adequately proven by the police officers. The failure of the prosecution to present the marked money is
therefore not a fatal omission.

Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Basis:
Best evidence rule is not applicable if the document is not indispensable to the issue: “Moreover, the presentation at the
trial of the "buy-bust money" was not indispensable to the conviction of the accused-appellant because the sale of the
marijuana had been adequately proved by the testimony of the police officers. So long as the marijuana actually sold by the
accused-appellant had been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to produce the marked money itself would not constitute a
fatal omission.”

The United Staes vs Bernard Gregorio and Eustaquio Balistoy

GR No L-5791 December 17, 1910

Facts:
Some real property of judgment debtor Balistoy was attached for public sale. Appellant Gregorio claimed that Balistoy had sold
to him one of the real property, and requested that the same be excluded from attachment. As proof of sale, Gregorio
submitted a document signed by Gregorio and Balistoy.

A complaint was filed against Gregorio and Balistoy for the crime of falsification of a private document. The CFI pronounced
both of them guilty. Hence, this appeal.
7
Issue: W/N a copy of the original is sufficient for a conviction of falsification of document.

Held:
No. The original is indispensable evidence for cases of falsification of document. Conversely, it is improper to hold a conviction
for falsification of document with only a copy of the original in view. In this case, the original document setting forth the
memorandum allegedly falsified was not presented. In lieu thereof, a copy of the original was presented as evidence. This is
not sufficient basis to convict the appellants.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed.

Basis:
The original is indispensable evidence for cases of falsification of document: “In criminal proceedings for the falsification
of a document, it is indispensable that the judges and courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated,
counterfeited, or falsified, in order that they may find, pursuant to the evidence produced in the cause, whether or not the
crime of falsification was committed, and also, at the same time, to enable them to determine the degree of each defendant's
liability in the falsification under prosecution. Through the lack of the original document containing the memorandum alleged
to be false, it is improper to hold, with only a copy of the said original in view, that the crime prosecuted was committed; in the
absence of the original document, it is improper to conclude, with only a copy of the said original in view, that there has been a
falsification of a document which was neither found nor exhibited, because, in such a case, even the existence of such original
document may be doubted.”

Nicasio Borje vs Sandiganbayan

GR No L-55436 November 25, 1983

Facts:
Borje was accused in an information for falsification of public documents. During trial, the authenticity of several official forms
pertaining to the payroll of Ducusin was placed in issue. Ultimately, the Sandiganbayan found Borje guilty of the crime
charged.

Hence the present petition, where Borje contends that corpus delicti was not established in the case because only the copies of
falsified documents were presented in court.

Issue: W/N the copies of the official forms in question is sufficient basis for proving falsification.

Held:
No. The Gregorio doctrine states that the original document is indispensable for cases of falsification of document. This
doctrine is still applicable despite development of copying devices. In this case, since only xerox copies of the official forms
alleged to have been falsified was presented, there is no sufficient basis for a conviction of falsification.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed and set aside.

Basis:
Gregorio doctrine still applicable despite development of copying devices: “Secondly, the Gregorio doctrine is still
tenable notwithstanding modern copying devices for a falsified document, passed off as an original can also be duplicated by
xeroxing and thereafter, certified as true copy of the original as in Exh. "D".”

Normallah Pacasum vs People of the Philippines

GR No 180314 April 16, 2009

Facts:
Pacasum was charged in an information for falsification of public documents for allegedly imitating the signature of a HRM
officer in her Employee Clearance to claim her salary. In the course of the trial, the prosecution presented as documentary
evidence before the Sandiganbayan a photocopy of the falsified Employee Clearance, among other documents.

8
The Sandiganbayan found Pacasum guilty of the crime charged. Hence, the instant petition where Pacasum argues, among
others, that the photocopied document should not have been given probative value in a falsification case.

Issue:
W/N the Sandiganbayan erred in admitting in evidence a photocopied document.

Held:
No. Secondary evidence may serve as basis for conviction of falsification if the original is unavailable for reasons enumerated
in Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the original Employee Clearance
was in the custody of Pacasum, who failed to produce the same despite several notices. Thus, the prosecution is justified in
presenting secondary evidence and the Sandiganbayan did not err in admitting the same.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed.

Basis:
Secondary evidence may serve as basis for conviction of falsification if original is unavailable: “This Court decrees that
even though the original of an alleged falsified document is not, or may no longer be produced in court, a criminal case for
falsification may still prosper if the person wishing to establish the contents of said document via secondary evidence or
substitutionary evidence can adequately show that the best or primary evidence — the original of the document — is
not available for any of the causes mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.”

Romeo Sison vs People of the Philippines GR No 108280-83; November 16, 1195

People vs AnnieFerrer, GR No 114931-33; November 16, 1195

Facts:
Informations for murder were filed against several Marcos loyalists. During trial, the prosecution presented witnesses and
documentary witnesses consisting of newspaper accounts and photographs taken during the mauling.

The trial court held the accused guilty of the crime charged. On appeal, the CA merely acquitted one of the accused and
increased the penalties of the rest. Hence, the present appeal, impugning the admissibility of the photographs because they
were not identified by the photographer.

Issue: W/N photographs are inadmissible in evidence for lack of proper identification.

Held:
No. Photographs may be identified by the photographer who took them or by any other competent witness who can attest to
the accuracy of the portrayal made in such documents. In this case, the absence of the testimony of the photographer who
produced the photographs submitted by the prosecution is not fatal to the identification of such photographs. The defense
identified the accused in the photographs and used the same to explain their presence in the mauling. The accused in effect
admitted the accuracy of the photos. Thus, the photos were admissible in evidence in the case at bar.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed with modifications as to the penalties.

Basis:
Photographs may be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness: “The rule in this jurisdiction is
that photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to
the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation
or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the
crime. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the
photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the
person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its
accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to
its exactness and accuracy.”

9
 College Assurance Plan vs Belfranlt Development
GR No 155604 November 22, 2007

Facts:
A building owned by Belfranlt and leased by CAP was razed by fire. Belfranlt made a demand for CAP to vacate the building
and pay for repairs. CAP did not repair the building. After two more unsuccessful demands, Belfranlt filed a complaint with the
RTC. The evidence presented by Belfranlt was the investigative report issued by the BFP pointing towards negligence as cause
of the fire. On this ground, the RTC ruled against CAP. On appeal, the CA merely modified the damages to be awarded. Hence,
this petition, where the admissibility of the BFP report is impugned because they were presented by Fireman Sitchon, an
officer who had no personal knowledge of the fire.

Issue: W/N the documents issued by the BFP are inadmissible in evidence for lack of proper identification.

Held:
No. Entries in official records are exempted from the rule excluding evidence obtained from persons other than the witness
taking the stand, otherwise known as the hearsay rule. In this case, the BFP investigative report, being part of official records,
is admissible even if authenticated by Fireman Sitchon who did not sign such report.

It is worth noting that the investigative report was prepared by the Fireman Sitchon. Further, the report was based on the
witnesses whose official duty was to make reports on such incidents.

Wherefore, the petition is denied.

Basis:
Entries in official records are exempted from the hearsay rule: “Contrary to petitioners' claim, Fireman Sitchon is
competent to identify and testify on Exh. "P-2" and Exh. "P-3" because, although he did not sign said documents, he personally
prepared the same. What Fireman Sitchon did not prepare were the documents which his investigation witnesses presented.
However, Fireman Sitchon emphasized that he interviewed said investigation witnesses namely, Ronald Estanislao, the
security guard on duty at the time of fire; and Dr. Zenaida Arcilla, manager of CAPP, before he prepared Exh. "P-2" and Exh. "P-
3." Hence, while Fireman Sitchon may have had no personal knowledge of the fire incident, Exh. "P-2" and Exh. "P-3," which he
prepared based on the statements of his investigation witnesses, especially that of Ronald Estanislao whose official duty it was
to report on the incident, are exceptions to the hearsay rule because these are entries in official records. Consequently, his
testimony on said documents are competent evidence of the contents thereof.”

People of the Philippines vs Angelo Zeta

GR No 178541 March 27, 2008

Facts:
An information filed before the RTC charging appellant of murder. Witnesses appeared to testify against appellant. The
primary witness was Aleine, the niece of Ramon’s common-law wife, who was living with him at the time. Accordingly, Aleine
invited appellant inside their house as she went up to wake Ramon. When Ramon came down, appellant gunned him dead.

The RTC rendered a decision convicting appellant of murder. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC decision. Hence, the
present appeal, alleging that there no moral certainty to Aleine’s identification because she only saw the side of his face.

Issue: W/N the positive identification of Aleine is enough to support a conviction.

Held:
10
Yes. A testimony, albeit incomplete, may be given probative value when in harmony with the documentary and object
evidence. In this case, documentary and object evidence where in harmony with the testimony of Aleine. Hence, the RTC,
affirmed by the CA, afforded probative value on Aleine’s testimony despite only seeing a side portion of the face of the
appellant. These findings are thus binding upon the SC.

Besides, a person can still be positively identified even with only a side portion of his/her face. This is especially true in times
when unusual acts of violence are being witnessed because witnesses can remember the event with a high degree of reliability.

Wherefore, the appeal is denied.

Basis:
A person can still be properly identified by looking at the side portion of his/her face: “x x x A person can still be
properly identified and recognized even by merely looking at the side portion of his face. To be sure, Aleine recognized and
identified appellant in the police line-up and during trial as the one who shot Ramon. Experience dictates that precisely
because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, witnesses can remember with a high degree of
reliability the identity of criminals at any given time. A startling or frightful experience creates an indelible impression in the
mind that can be recalled vividly. It bears stressing that Aleine was less than one meter away from appellant when the latter
shot Ramon. The crime scene was also well-lighted during the incident because there was a fluorescent bulb inside the house.”

Inconsistencies and deficiencies in testimonial evidence may be supplanted if in harmony with documentary and
object evidence: “The testimonies of Aleine and of the other prosecution witnesses are in harmony with the documentary and
object evidence submitted by the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found their testimonies to be credible and
trustworthy. The rule is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment
of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive
effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have been
affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.”

11
Original Document Rule

Section 2. Original document, Exceptions

Republic of the Philippines vs Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio Gimenez

GR No 174673 January 11, 2016

Facts:
The Republic filed a complaint for reconveyance of ill-gotten wealth against the Gimenez spouses before the Sandiganbayan.
The Republic failed to formally offer evidence despite several extensions by the Sandiganbayan. Thus, the Sandiganbayan
declared that the Republic waived its formal offer of evidence.

Gimenez filed a motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence. The Republic finally filed its formal offer of evidence. The
Sandiganbayan granted the former and denied the latter. Hence, the present petition.

The SC ruled that the Sandiganbayan should not have denied the formal offer of evidence by the Republic, despite being filed
belatedly. Courts should relax its rules in cases of recovery of ill-gotten wealth. With this issue settled, the next issue is
considered.

Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the demurrer to evidence by Gimenez.

Held:
Yes. Demurrer is proper when the evidence shows no right of relief. In deciding demurrer, the courts must consider totality of
evidence. In this case, the Sandiganbayan ruled on the demurrer based mainly on the Republic’s failure to formally offer its
evidence. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the probative value of the documentary evidence because they were mere certified
true copies, losing sight of the Rules which allow for the admission of secondary evidence. The Sandiganbayan also
disregarded the testimonial evidence presented by the Republic for no substantive reason. Courts cannot arbitrarily disregard
evidence in resolving a demurrer. Wherefore, the petition is granted.

Basis:
Demurrer is proper when the evidence shows no right of relief: “This court has laid down the guidelines in resolving a
demurrer to evidence: A demurrer to evidence may be issued when, upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no
right to relief. Where the plaintiff's evidence together with such inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn
therefrom does not warrant recovery against the defendant, a demurrer to evidence should be sustained.”

Totality of evidence must be considered in deciding on a demurrer: “Notably, the Sandiganbayan's evaluation of the
evidence presented by petitioner was cursory. Its main reason for granting the Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence
was that there was no evidence to consider due to petitioner's failure to file its Formal Offer of Evidence. It brushed off the
totality of evidence on which petitioner built its case.

Even assuming that no documentary evidence was properly offered, this court finds it clear from the second assailed
Resolution that the Sandiganbayan did not even consider other evidence presented by petitioner during the 19 years of trial.
The Sandiganbayan erred in ignoring petitioner's testimonial evidence without any basis or justification. Numerous exhibits
were offered as part of the testimonies of petitioner's witnesses. x x x The court cannot arbitrarily disregard evidence
especially when resolving a demurrer to evidence which tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence.”

12
 Heirs of Gregorio vs Court of Appeals
300 SCRA 565 (1998) / GR No 117609 December 29, 1998

Facts:
Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance of a property which title was allegedly acquired by Spouses Tan through forged
deeds of conveyance. Thereafter, the original of the said documents were burned in a building fire. Petitioners nevertheless
pushed through with the action for reconveyance.

The trial court rendered the assailed documents falsified and forged. On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court ruling and
declared the Spouses Tan’s ownership as valid. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: W/N the CA erred in upholding the best evidence rule when the original can no longer be produced.

Held:
No. The best evidence rule states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible
other than the original document itself. This rule is especially applicable in cases of forgery, where the original document is
indispensable for determining whether or not a signature was forged. A comparison based on a mere xerox copy cannot
produce reliable results. Thus, in this case, the fact of forgery cannot be established because the original document could no
longer be produced.

Wherefore, the petition is denied.

Basis:
The best evidence rule is especially applicable in forgery cases: “Basic is the rule of evidence that when the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances
mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to
the best evidence rule. This is especially true when the issue is that of forgery.”

Skunac Corporation vs Roberto Sylianteng

GR No 205879 Apirl 23, 2014

Facts:
A parcel of land is the subject of an ownership dispute between Skunac and Sylianteng. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of
Skunac and declared the TCT under the name of Sylianteng as null and void. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC ruling. Hence,
the present petition, where Skunac alleges that the duplicate Deed of Sale presented by Sylianteng should not have been
admitted for violating the best evidence rule.

Issue: W/N the lower courts erred in admitting in evidence the duplicate Deed of Sale introduced by Sylianteng.

Held:
No. The best evidence rule is applicable only when the issue pertains to the content of the document. If the issue pertains to
the existence of the document, any substitutionary or testimonial evidence is admissible. In this case, there is no issue as to the
contents when Sylianteng presented the duplicate Deed of Sale.

Nonetheless, the duplicate Deed of Sale is regarded as an original. A duplicate may be introduced in evidence without the
original, as it is equally considered an original. Wherefore, the petition is dismissed.

Basis:
Best evidence rule is applicable only when the issue pertains to the content of the document: “The best evidence rule is
inapplicable to the present case. The said rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry.
Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other
substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the original. In the instant case, what is being
questioned is the authenticity and due execution of the subject deed of sale. There is no real issue as to its contents.”

A duplicate original may be introduced in evidence without the original: “In any case, going to the matter of authenticity
and due execution of the assailed document, petitioners do not dispute that the copy of the deed of sale that respondents
13
submitted as part of their evidence is a duplicate of the original deed of sale dated June 20, 1958. It is settled that a signed
carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the original is known as a duplicate original and maybe
introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original.”

Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs Heirs of Maximo Alvarez

GR No 170604 September 2, 2013

Facts:
A complaint for quieting of title was filed by respondents against Margarita Prodon. Respondents pray that the entry in their
TCT stating that the subject property has been sold to Prodon be cancelled, on the ground that such deed of sale is inexistent.
In their reply, the petitioners could not produce the said deed of sale, but they submitted the Notarial Register containing the
same.

The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision. Hence, this petition.

Issue: W/N secondary evidence is admissible in the case at bar.

Held:
Yes. The best evidence rule is applicable only when the terms of writing are in issue. When the ground for an action for
quieting of title is one where the terms of a document is not material, the best evidence rule does not find application and
secondary evidence may be admitted.

In this case, the issue pertains to the existence or non-existence of the subject Deed of Sale. It does not involve the terms or
contents of the Deed of Sale. Hence, secondary evidence such as the Notarial Register is admissible in evidence as proof of the
existence of the Deed of Sale. The original need not be produced.

Wherefore, the assailed CA decision is affirmed.

Basis:
Best evidence rule is applicable only when the terms of writing are in issue: “But the evils of mistransmission of critical
facts, fraud, and misleading inferences arise only when the issue relates to the terms of the writing. Hence, the Best Evidence
Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts,
such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be
invoked. 19 In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even without accounting for the original.”

Best evidence rule is not applicable in an action for quieting of title if the action is based on non-existence of a
document: “The action for quieting of title may be based on the fact that a deed is invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable. The terms of the writing may or may not be material to an action for quieting of title, depending on the ground
alleged by the plaintiff. For instance, when an action for quieting of title is based on the unenforceability of a contract for not
complying with the Statute of Frauds, Article 1403 of the Civil Code specifically provides that evidence of the agreement
cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents. There is then no doubt that the Best Evidence
Rule will come into play.”

14
Section 4. Original of document

Capital Shoes Factory Ltd. vs Traveler Kids, Inc.

GR No 200065 Septe,ber 24, 2014

Facts:
Respondent TKI defaulted in its obligation under a contract with petitioner CSFL. Despite several demands, TKI was unable to
pay. This prompted CSFL to file a complaint for collection of a sum of money, wherein sales invoices and order slips were
introduced as evidence. TKI objected on the ground that the documents presented were mere photocopies.

The RTC admitted the documents presented by CSFL. TKI filed a certiorari petition assailing the admission made by the RTC.
The CA partially granted the petition, thereby denying admission of the invoices for being mere photocopies. Hence, this
petition.

Issue: W/N the invoices in question are admissible in evidence.

Held:
Yes. Duplicate originals are admissible in evidence based on Sec. 4 of Rule 130, Rules of Court. In this case, the testimony of
CSFL’s principal witness explains that invoices executed by CSFL for any transaction are always prepared in two copies at the
same time. The subject invoices there are considered duplicate originals and not mere photocopies. Consequently, either copy
is admissible in evidence.

Wherefore, the present petition is denied.

Basis:
Duplicate originals are admissible in evidence: “In Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies v. The Court of Appeals and Associated
Bank, it was stressed that duplicate originals were admissible as evidence. x x x It is undisputed that the documents presented
were duplicate originals and are therefore admissible as evidence. Further, it must be noted that respondent bank itself did
not bother to challenge the authenticity of the duplicate copies submitted by petitioner. x x x

The transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) clearly show that Chiu convincingly explained that CSFL usually prepared two
(2) copies of invoices for a particular transaction, giving one copy to a client and retaining the other copy. The Court combed
through her testimony and found nothing that would indicate that the documents offered were mere photocopies. She
remained firm and consistent with her statement that the subject invoices were duplicate originals as they were prepared at
the same time. The Court sees no reason why Section 4 (b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court should not apply. At any rate, those
exhibits can be admitted as part of the testimony of Chiu.”

Northern Mindanao Power Corporation vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue

GR No 185115 February 18, 2015

Facts:
Petitioner filed an administrative claim for refund due to its alleged incurrence of input VAT in its purchases from NPC. Since
the CIR allegedly did not act on the claim, petitioner elevated the matter with the CTA. Both the CTA division and en banc
denied the claim. Hence, the present appeal where petitioner avers that invoices are sufficient to establish the actual amount
of sale of services to NPC and sufficient to substantiate the refund claim.

Issue: W/N a VAT invoice is sufficient to prove sales of services.

Held:
No. A VAT invoice is the seller’s best proof of sales of goods or services; while a VAT receipt is the buyer’s best proof of
payment of goods or services. In the present case, petitioner as buyer should have presented a VAT receipt. The VAT invoice
was never intended by law to be interchangeable with a VAT receipt. Thus, petitioner’s claim has no sufficient basis.

Wherefore, the petition is denied.

15
Basis:
A VAT invoice is the seller’s best proof of sales while a VAT receipt is the buyer’s best proof of payment: “Section 113 of
the NIRC of 1997 provides that a VAT invoice is necessary for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties, while a
VAT official receipt properly pertains to every lease of goods or properties; as well as to every sale, barter or exchange of
services. x x x

A VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of goods or services to the buyer, while a VAT receipt is the buyer's best
evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. A VAT invoice and a VAT receipt should not be confused
and made to refer to one and the same thing. Certainly, neither does the law intend the two to be used alternatively.”

Section 5. When original document is unavailable

MCMP Construction vs Monark Equipment Corp

GR No 201001 November 10, 2014

Facts:
Petitioner MCMP failed to pay the fees as reflected in the invoice for the lease of the heavy equipment owned by respondent
Monark. This prompted Monark to file a collection suit. Alleging that the original contract was lost, Monark presented its file
copy which is a photocopy of the original. MCMP objected to the admission in evidence of the same.

The RTC ruled in favor of Monark. MCMP appealed but the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. Hence, this petition.

Issue: W/N the photocopy of the original contract was admissible in evidence.

Held:
Yes. The requisites for a party to present secondary evidence on the ground that the original was lost are as follows: existence,
loss, and absence of bad faith. In this case, the above requisites are found present. The testimony of Monark’s witness
explained that the original contract was lost, and diligent efforts were exerted to find the same but to no avail. Both parties did
not controvert such testimony. This was given credence by the RTC and CA, and thus, the SC will respect such evaluation.
Hence, Monark was justified in presenting secondary evidence.

Wherefore, petition is denied.

Basis:
Requisites for a party to present secondary evidence on the ground that the original was lost: existence, loss, and
absence of bad faith: “In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman, the Court set down the requirements before a
party may present secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original document whenever the original copy has been
lost: Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the
following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its
non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original
can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.”

16
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control

EDSA Shangri-La Hotel and Resort vs BF Corporation GR No 145842 June 27, 2008
Cynthia Roxas- Del Castillo vs BF Corporation GR No 145873 June 27, 2008

Facts:
The petitions stemmed from a collection suit filed by BF against ESHRI based on the latter’s failure to pay the former according
to the terms of their construction contract. Allegedly, BF was supposed to submit monthly progress billings to ESHRI which in
turn shall issue a progress payment certificate for the remittance of payment. However, ESHRI failed to issue the certificates
let alone remit payment.

The RTC ruled in favor of BF. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. Hence, the present petition assigning error in the part
of the lower court for admitting in evidence photocopies of progress billings.

Issue: W/N the lower court erred in admitting in evidence photocopies of the document in question.

Held:
No. Secondary evidence may be admitted in lieu of the original if the latter is within the custody of the adverse party who
refuses or fails to provide the same. Particularly, the following conditions must be met: proof of the document’s existence,
proof of its unavailability, and good faith in the part of the offeror.

In this case the testimonial evidence by BF sufficiently established the above requirements. The original documents exist and
were in the possession of ESHRI which refuses to produce the same upon request. Since the original could not be produced,
the secondary evidence presented by BF is admissible in evidence.

Wherefore, the assailed decision is affirmed.

Basis:
Requisites for the presentation of secondary evidence: existence, unavailability, and good faith: “Secondary evidence of
the contents of a written instrument or document refers to evidence other than the original instrument or document itself. A
party may present secondary evidence of the contents of a writing not only when the original is lost or destroyed, but also
when it is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party. In either instance, however, certain explanations must be
given before a party can resort to secondary evidence. x x x

Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the exception under Sec. 3 (b) of Rule 130. In other words, the
conditions sine qua non for the presentation and reception of the photocopies of the original document as secondary evidence
have been met. These are: (1) there is proof of the original document's execution or existence; (2) there is proof of the cause of
the original document's unavailability; and (3) the offeror is in good faith.”

Section 7. Summaries

Compania Maritima vs Allied Free Workers Union

GR No L-28999 May 24, 1977

Facts:
A written contract was entered into by Compania Maritima and Allied Free whereby the latter union agreed to perform
arrastre and stevedoring work for a fee. The contention arose from the company’s refusal to pay for the stevedoring work on
the ground that it should be charged against the shipowner according to the bill of lading.

Following a picket action by the union, the company sued for the rescission of the contract. The lower court granted the same.
The union sought to stay the execution of the lower court decision, but to no avail. Hence, the present appeal.

Issue: W/N the trial court erred in awarding damages on the basis of auditor’s reports.

17
Held:
Yes. For the presentation of secondary evidence on the ground that the original consists of numerous accounts, the offeror
must lay the following bases: the voluminous character of records and the summary report is accessible to the adverse party.
In this case, the company failed to prove the above and resorted to the submission of a private auditor’s report. This likewise
violated the rule that an audit made by a private auditor cannot serve as proof of original records, if there is no showing of
difficulty attending the production and examination of the records as evidence by the court. In sum, the auditor’s report does
not have probative value.

Basis:
Requisites for the presentation of secondary evidence on the ground that the original consists of numerous accounts:
“The company argues that the accountants' reports are admissible in evidence because of the rule that "when the original
consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole", the original writings need not be produced (Sec.
2[e], Rule 130, Rules of Court).

That rule cannot be applied in this case because the voluminous character of the records, on which the accountants' reports
were based, was not duly established (U. S. vs. Razon and Tayag, 37 Phil. 856, 861; 29 Am Jur 2nd 529).

It is also a requisite for the application of the rule that the records and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse
party so that the correctness of the summary may be tested on cross-examination (29 Am Jur 2nd 517-8; 32A C.J.S. 111).

Private audit reports are not admissible unless there is a showing of difficulty in the production of records and
examination thereof by the court as evidence: “What applies to this case is the general rule "that an audit made by, or the
testimony of, a private auditor, is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records, books of accounts, reports or the
like" (Anno: 52 ALR 1266).

That general rule cannot be relaxed in this case because the company failed to make a preliminary showing as to the difficulty
or impossibility attending the production of the records in court and their examination and analysis as evidence by the court
(29 Am Jur 2nd 529).”

Section 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record.

Section 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.

Parol Evidence Rule

Section 10. Evidence of written agreements.

Sps. Bonifacio and Lucia Paras vs Kimwa Construction and Development

GR No 171601 April 8, 2015

Facts:
An agreement was entered into between Sps. Paras and Kimwa, whereby the latter agreed to haul aggregates. After hauling
only 10,000 cubic meters of aggregates, Kimwa transferred to concession area to another person. Sps. Paras filed a complaint
alleging that Kimwa reneged on its obligation to haul 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates before May 15, 1995. Kimwa invoked
the parol evidence rule, because the agreement did not contain the obligation allegedly breached.

The RTC ruled in favor of Sps. Paras. On appeal, the CA reversed the same, faulting the RTC for admitting Sps. Paras’s parol
evidence. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: W/N parol evidence by Sps. Paras is admissible to modify the agreement between parties.

18
Held:
Yes. Parol evidence as a general rule is not admissible to modify the terms of a written contract. For parol evidence to be
admitted: first, the existence of any of the exceptions in Rule 130, Sec. 9 must be put in issue without objection by the adverse
party, and second, the parol evidence shall serve as the basis of the conclusion of the presenting party.

In this case, the crux of the complaint of Sps. Paras is that the agreement was founded on the parties’ supposed unwritten
understanding that the aggregates must be hauled before May 15 or else hauling would be rendered impossible. In effect, Sps.
Paras was able to put in issue an exception to the parol evidence rule. Consequently, the parol evidence became admissible and
the CA should have considered the same in rendering its decision.

Wherefore, the petition is granted.

Basis:
Parol evidence rule, definition: “Per this rule, reduction to written form, regardless of the formalities observed, "forbids any
addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that
different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.".”

Requisites in admitting parol evidence: “In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted: first,
that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party's pleading or has not been objected to by the
adverse party; and second, that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed
by the presenting party.”

Sps Salvador Abella and Alma Abella vs Sps Romeo Abella and Annie Abella
GR No 195166 July 8, 2015

Facts:
Petitioners filed a collection suit and damages against respondents on the account of the latter’s nonpayment of debt pursuant
to a loan contract. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners based on the terms of the acknowledgement receipt. On appeal, the CA
ruled that all payments made by respondents should not be applied in interest because the agreement contained no interest
rate. In effect, the principal obligation is fully paid.

Hence, the present petition, where petitioners argue that the acknowledgement receipt failed to show the complete intention
of the parties which is to impose a 2.5% monthly interest.

Issue: W/N the issue of admissibility of parol evidence was timely raised.

Held:
No. The issue of admitting parol evidence must be raised on trial stage. Raising the same during the appellate stage is too late.
In this case, petitioners raised the issue of admissibility of parol evidence for the first time in the Reply they filed with the
Supreme Court. It is therefore too late for petitioners to harp on the parol evidence rule. Petitioners can no longer argue for
the admission of parol evidence. Either way, the issue was never about the admissibility of the pieces of evidence but on the
manner of their appreciation by the courts

Basis:
Admissibility of parol evidence must be raised on trial stage: “The issue of admitting parol evidence is a matter that is
proper to the trial, not the appellate, stage of a case. Petitioners raised the issue of applying the exceptions to the Parol
Evidence Rule only in the Reply they filed before this court. This is the last pleading that either of the parties has filed in the
entire string of proceedings culminating in this Decision. It is, therefore, too late for petitioners to harp on this rule.”

19