lOMoARcPSD|13572525
Subject: Rules on Evidence
RULES ON EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE - It is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of
Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
Basis of the rule of evidence: the adoption to the
successful development of the truth; and a rule of evidence
at one time though necessary to the ascertainment of truth
should yield to the experience of a succeeding generation
whenever that experience has clearly demonstrated the
fallacy or unwisdom of the old rule.
Evidence Distinguished from Proof: Evidence is the
means of proof; effect of evidence, the established fact of
evidence
Classifications:
1. OBJECT – Directly addressed to the senses of the
court [Rule 130, Sec. 1]. Referred to as real evidence
or evidence by “autoptic preference”.
2. DOCUMENTARY – Consist of writing or any material
containing modes of written expression (i.e. words,
numbers, figures, symbols) offered as proof of their
contents.[Rule 130, Sec. 2]
3. TESTIMONIAL – Submitted to the court through the
testimony or deposition of a witness.
Other Classifications:
1. DIRECT – Proves the fact in dispute without aid of any
inference or presumption.
2. CIRCUMSTANTIAL – Proof of fact/s from which,
taken singly/collectively, the existence of the particular
fact in dispute may be inferred as
necessary/probable consequence. It is evidence of
relevant collateral facts.
3. CUMULATIVE – Evidence of the same kind and to the
same state of facts.
4. CORROBORATIVE – Additional evidence of a
different character to the same point.
5. PRIMA FACIE – That which, standing alone is
sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed.
6. CONCLUSIVE – That class of evidence which the law
does not allow to be contradicted.
7. PRIMARY – (Best evidence) The law regards these as
affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
8. SECONDARY – (Substitutionary evidence) Permitted
by law only when the best evidence is unavailable.
9. POSITIVE – When a witness affirms that a fact did or
did not occur (there is personal knowledge).
10. NEGATIVE – When witness states that he did not see
or know of the occurrence of a fact
EVIDENCE COMPARED
 PROOF – It is the result or effect of evidence; when the
requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has
been duly admitted and given weight, the result is called
the proof of such fact.
 FACTUM PROBANDUM – The ultimate fact or the fact
sought to be established. It refers to the proposition (e.g.
victim was stabbed).
 FACTUM PROBANS – The evidentiary fact or the fact
by which the factum probandum is to be established;
refers to the materials that establish the proposition (e.g.
bloody knife).
Downloaded by Mark Virgilio (mjmvirgilio@gmail.com)
1
Terms to know:
a. Irrelevant evidence - offered piece of evidence has
no probative value
b. Inadmissible evidence - offered evidence is
excluded by some rule of evidence
c. Incompetent evidence - offered evidence is not
qualified under the rules of testimonial evidence
d. Immaterial evidence – the offered evidential fact is
directed to prove some probandum which is not
proper in issue. The rule of substantive law and of
pleading are what determines immateriality
e. Conditional Admissibility – evidence is admissible
only in dependence upon other facts. It is received
on the express assurance of counsel, when
objection is manifested, that other facts will be duly
presented at a suitable opportunity before the case
is closed.
f. Multiple Admissibility - When a fact is offered for
one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it
satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for
that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule
which would be applicable to it offered for another
purpose does not exclude it.
INSTANCES WHEN PROOF CAN BE DISPENSED WITH
1. Res ipsa loquitur
2. Presumptions
3. Judicial notice
4. Judicial admissions
Kinds of presumptions:
1. Conclusive - which the law does not allow to be
controverted
2. Disputable - which are satisfactory if uncontradicted,
but which may be contradicted and overcome by other
a evidence
JUDICIAL NOTICE – cognizance of certain facts by the court
w/o proof because they are facts, which, by common
experience, are of universal knowledge among intelligent
persons w/in a country or community
Requisites:
1. matter of common knowledge
2. well & authoritatively settled and not doubted or
uncertain
3. known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the court
Judicial Admission – admission, verbal or written, made by
a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case;
does not require proof.
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE – that which is addressed
directly to the sense of the court without the intervention of a
witness, as by actual sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch.
A.K.A autopticproference.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – documents as evidence
consist of writings or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents
“The Best Evidence Rule”: The original document must be
produced.
Application of the Rule: Only if the contents or terms of the
writing or documents is directly in issue.
Example: Libel case, the news paper itself should be
produced. Falsification case, the document allegedly falsified
must be produced in court
Exception of the Rule: Secondary evidence can be
presented in lieu of the original in the following cases:
 lOMoARcPSD|13572525

Subject: Rules on Evidence

Original of a document
a. the contents of which are the subject of the inquiry
b. when a document is in two or more copies executed
at or about the same time with identical contents
c. when an entry is repeated in the regular course of
the business
Exceptions to the rule that only original documents may
be admissible:
a. when the original has been lost or destroyed
b. when the original is in the custody or control of the
party against whom it is offered, and the latter fails
to produce it
c. when the original is a public record in the custody of
a public officer or is recorded in a public office
d. when the original consists of numerous accounts or
cannot be examined by the court without great loss
of time
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
a. only original of the document is admissible.
b. Merely assures presentation of the original
document and bars non-original documents, etc..
BUT not evidence aliunde or parol evidence
c. Refers only to the factum probandum but not to the
interpretation of the document.
d. Original must be presented first before evidence
aliunde may be presented
SECONDARY EVIDENCE – that which shows that better or
primary evidence exists as to the proof of the fact in question.
It is that class of evidence which is relevant to the fact in
issue, it being first shown that the primary evidence of
the fact is not obtainable
2
CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS:
1. PUBLIC, consisting of:
 the written official acts, or records of the official acts
of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
 Documents acknowledged before a notary public,
except last wills and testaments; and
Note: Notarial documents may be presented in evidence
without further proof. The certificate of acknowledgement
is prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved.
 Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered therein.
Note: These documents may be proved by: (a) the
original record, or (b) a copy thereof attested by the legal
custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate
that such officer has the custody.
2. PRIVATE, consisting of all other writings.
Note: Before any private document offered as authentic
is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either by:
 Anyone who saw the document executed or written;
or
 Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified
as that which it is claimed to be.

When Secondary Evidence is Admissible A judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
a. original has been lost or destroyed a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
b. prove the existence or execution of the original officer;
c. prove the cause of the unavailability of the original, b. Collusion between the parties; or
is not due to the bad faith of the offeror. c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect
to the proceedings
Documents that do not need to be authenticated:
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (ORAL) – Forbids any addition to a. Public documents;
or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by b. Notarial documents;
testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing, of c. Ancient documents
the document, other or different terms were orally agreed
upon by the parties Ancient Document Rule - Where a private document is:
a. more than 30 years old,
Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule (must be alleged in b. is produced from a custody in which it would
the pleadings) [F-I-V-E] naturally be found if genuine, and
a. Failure of the written agreement to express the true c. is unblemished by any alterations or
intent & agreement of the parties circumstances of suspicion
b. Intrinsic ambiguity d. no other evidence of its authenticity need be
c. Validity of the written agreement given. (Rule 132, Sec. 21)
d. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
In what Instances must alterations in documents be
To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon accounted for by the producing party?
the ground of mistake, the concurrence of three things is a. The document being produced as genuine has
necessary: been altered;
b. The alteration appears to have been done after
a. mistake should be one of fact the execution of the document;
b. mistake should be mutual or common to both c. The alteration appears to have been in a part
parties to the instrument material to the question in dispute.
c. mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and
convincing evidence What explanations are satisfactory so as to make the
altered document admissible in evidence?
The producing party must show that the alteration was:
a. made by another;
Two kinds of ambiguities: b. made without his (the producing party’s)
a. patent (extrinsic) where the instrument on its face is concurrence;
unintelligible c. made with the consent of the parties affected by
b. latent (intrinsic) where the words of the instrument it;
are clear but their application to the circumstances d. otherwise properly or innocently made; or
is doubtful e. such that it did not change the meaning or
N.B.: the rule permits parol evidence to explain an language of the instrument.
intrinsic ambiguity

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS:

Downloaded by Mark Virgilio (mjmvirgilio@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13572525

Subject: Rules on Evidence

3
 CONSTRUCTION is the process or the art of b. person against whom the privilege is claimed is one
determining the sense, real meaning, or proper duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
explanation of obscure or ambiguous terms or provisions obstetrics
in a statute, written instrument or oral agreement, or the c. such information was acquired while he was
application of such subject to the case in question attending to the patient in his professional capacity
d. the information was necessary to enable him to act
 INTERPRETATION is the art or process of discovering in that capacity, and if disclosed, shall blacken the
and expounding the meaning of a statute, will, contract reputation of the patient
or other written document 4. Priest and penitent
Requisites:
a. clergyman or priest and a penitent
Rules in the interpretation of documents: b. confession of a penitential character
1. legal meaning the writing bears in the place of its c. made to the priest in his professional character
execution; d. confession is sanctioned by the church to which the
2. all provisions must be given effect; priest or religious officer belongs
3. intention of the parties must be pursued;
4. a particular intent will control a general intent 5. Public officers
inconsistent with it; Requisites:
5. circumstances of execution may be shown; a. confidential communication
6. terms are presumed to have been used in their b. made to or obtained by a public officer
primary and general acceptation; but evidence is c. obtained in the exercise of his public function
admissible to show an otherwise peculiar d. disclosure of the communication would be
signification; detrimental to the public interest
7. written words control printed;
8. experts & interpreters can be used to explain 6. Parental and Filial privilege - No person may be
characters difficult to be deciphered or language not compelled to testify against his parents, other direct
understood by the court; ascendants, children, or other direct descendants.
9. when terms were intended in different senses, that Notes:
sense is to prevail against either party in which he  This provision does not apply to spouses.
supposed the other understood it;  This provision means that you may testify if you
10. when different constructions are otherwise equally want, but you may not be compelled to testify.
proper, the one most favorable to the party in whose  This provision is subject to the qualification in Sec.
favor the provision was made will be taken; 215 of the Family Code, i.e. a descendant may be
11. construction in favor of natural right; compelled to testify against parents and
12. instrument may be construed according to usage grandparents IF the testimony is indispensable in a
crime against the descendant or by one parent
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE against the other.
GENERAL RULE: The following are not grounds for
disqualification:
1. Religious belief; ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
2. Political belief;
3. Interest in the outcome of the case; and ADMISSION - It is an act, declaration or omission as to a
4. Conviction of a crime relevant fact. It may be given by a party (in which case Rule
EXCEPTION: When provided for by law. 130, Sec. 26 will be applicable) or by a third-party.
1. Grounds for disqualification enumerated in the
Rules on Evidence: General Rule: Confessions of a defendant made to
2. Disqualification by reason of: witnesses are admissible against him, but are
3. Mental incapacity inadmissible against his co-defendant
4. Immaturity Exception:
5. Marriage  confessions on the stand
6. Death or insanity of adverse party  confessions not objected to
7. Privileged communication  adopted confession
 identical confession
 corroborated confession
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS  confession by conspirator (after conspiracy has
been shown & proven)
1. Marital Confidential communication
Requisites: Self-serving declaration - a declaration wherein:
a. spouses are legally married a. the testimony is favorable to the declarant;
b. privilege is claims with regard to a communication, b. it is made extrajudicially; and
oral or written, made during the marriage c. it is made in anticipation of litigation.
c. said communication was made confidentially
d. action or proceeding where the privilege is claimed Note: Self-serving declarations are not admissible.
is not by one against the other
Requisites for the admissibility of an admission:
2. Attorney-Client Privileged Communication a. must involve matters of fact and not of law;
Requisites: b. must be categorical and definite;
a. legal advice of any kind is sought c. must be knowingly and voluntarily made;
b. from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as d. must be adverse to the admitter’s interest
such
c. the communications relating to that purpose CONFESSION - It is the declaration of an accused
d. made in confidence acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
e. by the client offense necessarily included therein.
f. are at his instance permanently protected
g. from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser ADMISSION & CONFESSION DISTINGUISED
h. except that the protection may be waived
Admission Confession
3. Physicians and clients Definition Statement of fact which Declaration
Requisites: does not involve an acknowledging
a. civil case acknowledgement of one’s guilt of the

Downloaded by Mark Virgilio (mjmvirgilio@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13572525

Subject: Rules on Evidence

4
guilt or liability offense charged
Form May be express or tacit Must be express Civil cases:Not admission of liability; not admissible in
Made by Party or 3rd person Party himself evidence against offeror
Cases in Both criminal and civil Usually criminal Criminal cases: Admissible against accused as implied
which cases cases admission of guilt
applicable Exceptions:
 Quasi-offenses (criminal negligence)
Differentiate an admission and confession in criminal  Those offenses allowed by law to be
cases. compromised (e.g., Sec. 204, NIRC of 1977)

Admission Confession
Definition Statement by the Acknowledgme The following are not admissions of liability or guilt and
accused, direct or nt in express are therefore not admissible in evidence:
implied, of facts pertinent terms by a party a. Plea of guilty later withdrawn;
to the issue and tending, in a criminal b. Unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser
in connection with proof case of his guilt offense;
of other facts, to prove his of the crime c. Offer to pay or payment of medical, hospital or other
guilt charged expenses occasioned by an injury
Sufficienc Insufficient. Tends only to Sufficient
y to establish the ultimate fact RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE - the rights of a party
authorize of guilt. cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of
a another (i.e. a non-party), except in the following instances:
conviction
1. by partner, agent or other person jointly
interested with the party
Differentiate the effects of judicial and extrajudicial
Requisites:
confessions.
a. the partnership, agency or joint interest is
proven by evidence other than the act or
A judicial confessionis sufficient in itself to sustain a
declaration sought to be admitted
conviction, even in capital offenses. On the other hand,
b. the admission is within the scope of the
an extrajudicial confession is insufficient in itself to
partnership, agency or joint interest
sustain a conviction. It must be corroborated by
c. admission was made while the agency, p’ship
evidence of the corpus delicti
or joint interest was in existence
Requisites for the admissibility of extrajudicial
2. by conspirator
confessions?
Requisites:
a. conspiracy is first proved by evidence other
a. Must involve an express and categorical
than the admission itself
acknowledgment of guilt (US v. Corales);
b. admission relates to the common object
b. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal
c. that it has been made while the declarant was
offense (US v. Flores);
engaged in carrying out the conspiracy
c. Must have been given voluntarily (People v.
Nishishima);
3. by privies
d. Must have been made intelligently (Bilaan v. Cusi)
Requisites:
e. Must have been made with the assistance of
a. Relation of privity between party and declarant;
competent and independent counsel (Art III, Sec.
b. Admission was made by the declarant as
12, 1987 Constitution)
predecessor-in-interest, while holding title to the
property;
Rules governing extrajudicial confessions:
c. The admission was in relation to said property.
GENERAL RULE: The extrajudicial confession of an
Requisites for admission by silence:
accused is binding only upon himself and is not
a. Hearing and understanding of the statement by
admissible against his co-accused.
the party;
b. Opportunity and necessity of denying the
EXCEPTIONS:
statements;
1. Interlocking confessions, i.e. extrajudicial
c. Statement must refer to a matter affecting his
confessions independently made without collusion
right;
which are identical with each other in their material
d. Facts were within the knowledge of the party;
respects and confirmatory of the other (People v.
e. Facts admitted or the inference to be drawn
Encipido);
from his silence would be material to the issue
2. If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or
(Regalado)
adopted said confession by not questioning its
truthfulness (People v. Orenciada);
HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE - A witness can testify only to
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the
those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge.
confessant after being apprised of such confession
(People v. Narciso);
Independently relevant statement - It is a statement
4. If the accused are charged as co-conspirators of the
whose probative value is independent of its truth or
crime which was confessed by one of the accused
falsity. The mere fact of its utterance is relevant,
and said confession is used only as corroborative
evidence (People v. Linde);
Two kinds of independently relevant statements:
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial
1. Statements which are the very facts in issue;
evidence to show the probability of participation by
2. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the
the co-conspirator (People v. Condemena);
facts in issue (Francisco)
6. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant
(People v. Villanueva);
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession
Reasons for Excluding Hearsay:
is corroborated by other evidence of record (People
1. irresponsibility of the original declarant
v. Paz)
2. depreciation of truth in the process of repetition
3. opportunities for fraud would open
Rules on offer of compromise

Downloaded by Mark Virgilio (mjmvirgilio@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13572525

Subject: Rules on Evidence

4. tendency of such evidence to protect legal inquiries, Res gestae is the startling
and encourage the substitution of weaker for occurrence
stronger proofs. Exclamation may be prior
to, simultaneous with or
subsequent to the startling
occurrence
Exceptions to Hearsay Rule
5
Res gestae is the
equivocal act
Verbal act must be
contemporaneous with or
must accompany the
equivocal act

1. Dying declaration 7. Entries in the course of business

Requisites:
a. death is imminent
b. declarant is conscious of his impending death
c. declaration refers to material facts which
concern the identity of the deceased or the
accused, the cause & circumstances of the
killing
d. declarant would be competent to testify had he
survived any case wherein the subject is his
death.
2. Declaration against interest
Requisites:
a. declarant would not be available to testify
(dead, mentally incapacitated incompetent
etc..)
b. declaration must concern a fact cognizable by
declarant
c. circumstances must render it improbable that a
motive to falsify existed
3. Act or declaration against pedigree
Requisites:
a. declarant is dead or unable to testify
b. pedigree must be in issue
c. declarant must be a relative of the person
whose pedigree is in question
d. declaration must be made before the
controversy occurred – ante-litem motam
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
Requisites:
a. tradition or reputation is one existing in the
family
b. reputation or tradition was formed ante-litem
motam
c. witness testifying to the reputation or tradition is
a member of the family
5. Common reputation
Requisites:
a. that the matter to which the reputation refers to
is of public or general interest and more than 30
years old
b. that the reputation is one formed in the
community interested
c. it existed ante litem motam
6. Part of the res gestae
a. spontaneous exclamations
Requisites:
 the principal fact, the res gestae, must be a
startling occurrence
 statements must have been made before
the declarant had time to contrive or devise
 statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending
circumstances
b. Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts
Requisites:
 conduct characterized by the words must
be independently material to the issue
 conduct must be equivocal
 words must aid in giving legal significance
to the conduct
 words must accompany the conduct
Spontaneous Contemporaneous
exclamations verbal act
Requisites:
a. entrant made the entries in his professional
capacity or in the performance of a duty
b. entrant is dead, outside of the Phils. or unable
to testify
c. entries were made in the ordinary course of
business or duty
d. entries were made at or near the time of the
transaction to which it relates
e. entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entry
f. there must be more than one entry
8. Entries in official records
Requisites:
a. entry was made by a public officer or by
another person specially enjoined by law to do
so
b. made in the performance of his duties or by
another person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law
c. the public officer or the other person had
sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated,
acquired by him either personally or thru official
channels connected with the exercise of his
public functions
9. Commercial lists and the like
10. Learned treatises
11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
Requisites:
a. testimony was rendered in a former case
b. identity of parties
c. identity of subject matter
d. adverse party had opportunity to cross-examine
the witness
e. witness is dead, outside of the Phils., pr unable
to testify in the subsequent trial
THE OPINION RULE – The opinion of a witness is not
admissible, except in the following cases:
1. On a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he possesses, that is,
when he is an expert thereon;
2. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a
person, when he has knowledge of the person or
handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or expert
witness;
3. On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is
sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the latter
is an expert witness;
4. On the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance
of a person which he has observed; and
5. On ordinary matters known to all men of common
perception, such as the value of ordinary household
articles (Galian v. State Assurance Co., Ltd.)
RULES ON CHARACTER EVIDENCE
GENERAL RULE: Not admissible.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. In criminal cases:
a. Accused may prove his good moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in
the offense charged.
b. Prosecution may only prove accused’s bad
moral character pertinent to the moral trait
or involved in the offense charged during rebuttal.

Downloaded by Mark Virgilio (mjmvirgilio@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13572525

Subject: Rules on Evidence

6
c. The good or bad moral character of the 3. When there is difficulty is getting direct and
offended party may be proved if it tends to intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant,
establish in any reasonable degree the or a child of tender years, or is of feeble-mind, or a
probability or improbability of the offense deaf-mute
charged. 4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
5. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
2. In civil cases – Evidence of the moral character of a director, or managing agent of a public or private
party is admissible only when pertinent to the issue corporation or of a partnership or association which
of character involved in the case. is an adverse party
3. Evidence of a witness’ good moral character is
admissible only once such character has been MISLEADING QUESTION - A misleading question is one
impeached. which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the
witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It
Burden of Proof and Presumptions: is not allowed.
1. matters which need not be proved by a party to an
action are: What are the rights of a witness?
2. allegations contained in the complaint or answer 1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
immaterial to the issues insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
3. facts which are admitted or which are not denied in demeanor;
the answer, provided they have been sufficiently 2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
alleged justice require;
4. those which are the subject of an agreed statement 3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
of facts between parties, as well as those admitted pertinent to the issue;
by the party in the course of the proceedings in the 4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him
same case to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
5. those subject to judicial notice provided by law; or
6. facts which are legally presumed 5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
7. facts peculiarly w/in the knowledge of the opposite reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to
party a fact from which the fact in issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of
What are the rules on impeachment of witnesses? his previous final conviction for an offense.
Exceptions to the rule against repetition of
GENERAL RULE: The party producing a witness is not objections:
allowed to impeach his credibility. 1. where the question has not been answered, it is
necessary to repeat the objection when the
EXCEPTIONS: evidence is again offered or the question again
1. Unwilling or hostile witness – A witness may be asked
considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared 2. evidence of the same kind as that previously
by the court upon adequate showing of: admitted over objection
a. his adverse interest, 3. incompetency is shown later
b. unjustified reluctance to testify; or 4. objection refers to preliminary question it must be
c. his having misled the party into calling him to repeated when the same question is again asked
the witness stand. (Rule 132, Sec. 12) during the introduction of actual evidence
2. Witness who is an adverse party – 5. objection to evidence was sustained but reoffered at
a later stage of the trial
3. Officer, director, or managing agent of a public or 6. evidence is admitted on condition that its
private corporation or of a partnership or association competency or relevance be shown by further
which is an adverse party. evidence and the condition is not fulfilled, the
In these instances, such witnesses may be objection formerly interposed must be repeated or a
impeached by the party presenting him in all motion to strike out the evidence must be made
respects as if he had been called by the adverse 7. where the court reserves the ruling on objection, the
party, except by evidence of his bad character. objecting party must request a ruling or repeat the
objection
How may an adverse party’s witness be impeached?
1. By contradictory evidence;
2. By evidence that his general reputation for truth, Distinction between presumption of innocence and
honesty, or integrity is bad; reasonable doubt
3. By evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony Presumption of Reasonable Doubt
(a.k.a. “prior inconsistent statements”) Innocence
Conclusion drawn by Condition of mind
LAYING THE PREDICATE - law in favor of citizens produced by proof
1. Confronting the witness with the prior inconsistent resulting from evidence
statements with the circumstances under which they in the case
were made; Evidence introduced by Result of insufficient
2. Asking him whether he made such statements; and law to be considered by proof
3. Giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency. the court
(Rule 132, Sec. 13)

A witness may not be impeached by evidence of OFFER AND OBJECTION

particular wrongful acts. Except that it may be shown by
the examination of the witness, or the record of the
judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.
LEADING QUESTION - It is a question which suggests to
the witness the answer which the examining party
desires. It is not allowed, except:
1. On cross-examination;
2. On preliminary matters;
OFFER OF EVIDENCE – The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose
for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
When to make offer:
Testimony of a witness- at the time the witness is
called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence - after the
presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer

Downloaded by Mark Virgilio (mjmvirgilio@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|13572525

Subject: Rules on Evidence

shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be
done in writing.
Objections:
 Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made.
 Objection to a question propounded in the course of
the oral examination of a witness shall be made as
soon as the grounds therefor shall become
reasonably apparent.
 An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to
within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless
a different period is allowed by the court.
 The grounds for the objections must be specified.
7
Power of the court to stop further evidence. - The court
may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any
particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full
that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should
be exercised with caution.
Evidence on motion. - When a motion is based on facts not
appearing of record the court may hear the matter on
affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties,
but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or
partly on oral testimony or depositions.

When repetition of objection unnecessary. - When it

becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the
examination that the questions asked are of the same
class as those to which objection has been made
(whether sustained or overruled), it shall not be
necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for
the adverse party to record his continuing objection to
such class of questions.

Striking out answer. - Should a witness answer the

question before the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection
is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the
objection and order the answer given to be stricken off
the record.
On motion, the court may also order the striking out
of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or
otherwise improper.

Tender of excluded evidence:

a. If documents or things offered are excluded by the
court, the offeror may have the same attached to or
made part of the record.
b. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may
state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of
the proposed testimony.

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Quantum of Proofs

1. Preponderance of evidence (Civil Cases)- In

determining where the preponderance or superior weight
of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may
consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony,
their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number
of witnesses, though the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number.

2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt (Criminal Cases) -

does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall

not be sufficient ground for conviction - unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
 There is more than one circumstance;
 The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and
 The combination of all the circumstances' is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Substantial evidence (Administrative Cases) - that

amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Downloaded by Mark Virgilio (mjmvirgilio@gmail.com)