EVIDENCE

Christ the King College

IVO T. TOLENTINO, LLB (JD)

Instructor
 A.
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
1. Concept
of
Evidence
 The means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the
truth respecting a matter of fact [Sec. 1, Rule 128]
“Truth” is not necessarily the actual
truth, but one referred to as the judicial or
legal truth. [Riano, 2, 2016 Ed.]
 2. Scope and
Applicability of the
Rules of Evidence
a. Scope of
Application
 Under the Rules of Court
(ROC), the rules of evidence
are specifically applicable only
to judicial proceedings
[Sec. 1, Rule 128]
 Judicial proceedings are of THREE
KINDS ONLY:
1. Civil action – which is of two kinds:
a. ordinary civil action, and
b. special civil action
2. Criminal action

3. Special Proceeding [Sec. 3, Rule 1]

 Note: All other proceedings are
NONJUDICIAL, hence, application of
the rules of evidence in the ROC is not
mandatory unless provided to be so by
law or regulation [see Sec. 4, Rule 1]
b. Uniformity
of
Application
 General rule: The rules of
evidence shall be the same
in all courts and in all
trials and hearings
[Sec. 2, Rule 128]
 Exceptions: If otherwise
provided by:
1. Law [e.g. 1987 Constitution, statutes]

2. Rules of Court [Sec. 2, Rule 128].

3. SC issuances [e.g., Judicial Affidavit
Rule, Rules on Procedure for Environmental
Cases, Child Witness Rule, Rules on
Electronic Evidence, Rules on DNA
Evidence]
No Vested Right of Property in Rules of
Evidence
Any evidence inadmissible according to
the laws in force at the time the action
accrued, but admissible according to the
laws in force at the time of trial, is
receivable [Francisco 8, 1996 Ed., citing Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R. No. 1164
(1903)]
Rules of Evidence May be Waived

According to Francisco [9, 1996 Ed., citing American

cases], there are rules of evidence established

merely for the protection of the parties.

 If, according to the well-established
doctrine, the parties may waive such rules
during the trial of a case, there is no
reason why they cannot make the waiver
in a contract (ex. a contract of insurance requiring
the testimony of eyewitness as the only evidence
admissible concerning the death of the insured person).
 However, if the rule of evidence waived
by the parties has been established on
grounds of public policy, the waiver is
void (ex. Waiver of the privilege against
the disclosure of state secrets).
3. Distinguish:
Proof
vs.
Evidence
 Proof Evidence
Result or effect of Mode and manner of
evidence [2 Regalado 698, 2008 Ed.] proving competent facts
in judicial proceedings
[Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, (1948)]

The end result The means to an end

 Note: evidence is a relative
term; it signifies a relation
between facts: the factum
probans and factum
probandum
Riano 11, 2016 Ed.]
[Wigmore, Principles of Judicial Proof, 5, as stated in
 4. Distinguish:
Factum Probans
vs.
Factum Probandum
 Factum probans Factum probandum
Evidentiary fact Ultimate fact
Fact by which the Fact sought to be established
factum probandum is to
be established
Materials evidencing the Proposition
proposition In civil cases:
elements of the cause of action
In criminal cases:
elements of the crime [Prof. Avena]
[2 Regalado 698-699, 2008 Ed.]
 One must adduce during trial the factum
probans or the evidentiary facts by which
the factum probandum or the ultimate
fact can be established. [Dela Llana vs. Biong, G.R. No. 182356
(2018)]
Illustration:
If P claims to have been injured by the
negligence of D who denies have been
negligent, the negligence is the fact to be
established. It is the factum probandum.
The evidence offered by P constitutes the
material to prove the liability of D. The
totality of the evidence to prove the liability
is the factum probans. (Riano)
 5. Admissibility of
Evidence
Evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and not excluded by
the Constitution, the law or these Rules
[Sec. 3, Rule 128]
Admissibility does not concern weight
Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with
weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence
depends on its relevance and competence, while the
weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted
and its tendency to convince and persuade. Thus, a
particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its
evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within
the guidelines provided by the Rules of Court [Dela Llana v.
Biong, G.R. No. 182356 (2013)]
 Admissibility of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not the
circumstance (or evidence) is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the
probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an
issue [PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. C.A., G.R. No. 107518 (1998)]
 Since admissibility of evidence is determined
by its relevance and competence, admissibility
is, therefore, an affair of logic and law. On the
other hand, the weight to be given to such
evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided in
Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by
the Court.
 Thus, while evidence may be
admissible, it may be entitled to little or
no weight at all. Conversely, evidence
which may have evidentiary weight may
be inadmissible because a special rule
forbids its reception. [People v. Turco, G.R. No. 137757, (2000)]
 To emphasize, “a preliminary investigation is
merely preparatory to a trial; it is not a trial on the
merits.” Since “it cannot be expected that upon the
filing of the information in court the prosecutor
would have already presented all the evidence
necessary to secure a conviction of the accused,”
the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence
cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary
investigation. [Maza v. Judge Turla, G.R. No. 187094 (2017)].
a. Requisites for
Admissibility;
Exclusions
Requisites for Admissibility

a.Relevant to the issue; and

b.Not excluded by the Constitution, the

law or the ROC (“competent”) [Sec. 3, Rule
128]
 Relevant Competent
When the evidence Not excluded by
has such a relation to the Constitution,
the fact in issue as to the law, or the
induce belief in its Rules [Sec. 3,
Rule 128]
existence or
nonexistence [Sec. 4, Rule 128]
The Importance of Offer in Relation to
Admissibility
Parties are required to inform the courts
of the purpose of introducing their
respective exhibits to assist the latter in
ruling on their admissibility in case an
objection thereto is made [Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454
(2011)]
 The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The
purpose for which the evidence is offered
must be specified. [Sec. 34, Rule 132]
All evidence must be offered orally. [Sec. 35,
Rule 132]

•Offer of testimonial evidence - made at

the time the witness is called to testify
•Offer of documentary and object evidence
- made after the presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence
Objection
Objection to offer of evidence must be
made orally immediately after the offer is
made:
•Objection to the testimony of a witness
for lack of formal offer must be made
as soon as the witness begins to testify
•Objection as to a question propounded in
the course of the oral examination of a
witness must be made as soon as the
grounds therefor become reasonably
apparent

•The grounds for objections must be

specified [Sec. 36, Rule 132]
Exclusionary
rules of
evidence
 1. Constitutional
exclusionary rules
 Consequence Violation

Inadmissible for any Art III, Sec 2 (unreasonable

proceeding searches and seizure)

Art III, Sec 3 (privacy of

communication and
correspondence)
 Consequence
Inadmissible against the
accused, but may be used
by the offended party in a
suit for damages against the
violator
Violation
Art III, Sec 12 (right to
counsel, prohibition on torture,
force, violence, threat,
intimidation or other means
which vitiate the free will;
prohibition on secret detention
places, solitary,
incommunicado)
Art III, Sec 17 (right against
self-incrimination)
 It is settled that for an extrajudicial
confession to be admissible in evidence
against the accused, the same “must be (a)
voluntary, (b) made with the assistance of
a competent and independent counsel, (c)
express, and (d) in writing.”
 Moreover, Section 2 of Republic Act
No. 7438 requires that "any person
arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted
by counsel.”
 2. Statutory
exclusionary
rules
 a. Lack of documentary stamp tax to
documents required to have one makes
such document inadmissible as evidence
in court until the requisite stamp/s shall
have been affixed thereto and cancelled
[Sec. 201, NIRC];
 b. Any communication obtained by a
person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication, by
tapping any wire/cable or using any other
device/arrangement to secretly
overhear/intercept/record such
information by using any device, shall not
be admissible in evidence in any hearing
or investigation [Secs. 1 and 4, R.A. 4200 (Wire-Tapping Act)]
 Note: there must be a law that renders the
evidence inadmissible [Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos.
157294-95 (2006)]. In this case, the SC held that
nowhere in R.A. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law)
does it provide that an unlawful examination of
bank accounts shall render the evidence
obtained therefrom inadmissible in evidence.
 3. Exclusions
under the Rules
on Evidence
•Original document rule (previously
best evidence rule)

•Hearsay evidence rule

•Offer of compromise in civil cases

4. Exclusions
under Court
issuances
•Rule on Electronic Evidence, e.g.
compliance with authentication
requirements for electronic evidence

•Rule on Examination of a Child Witness,

e.g. sexual abuse shield rule

•Judicial Affidavit Rule

 Admissibility Weight
(Probative Value)
Refers to the questions Refers to the questions of
whether or not the evidence whether or not the evidence
is to be considered at all. proves an issue.

Whether it meets the various The weight has to do with

tests by which its reliability the effect of evidence
is to be determined. admitted, its tendency to
convince or persuade.
Doctrine of the “Fruit of the Poisonous
Tree”

Illegally obtained evidence cannot be

admitted because they are the “Fruit of
the poisonous tree.”
 E.g. Evidence obtained without a valid
search warrant subject to exceptions;
issuance of general warrants that
encourage law enforcers to go on fishing
expeditions (Under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution)
 Illegally seized evidence is obtained as a
direct result of the illegal act, whereas the
“fruit of the poisonous tree” is the indirect
result of the same illegal act. The “fruit of
the poisonous tree” is at least once removed
from the illegality seized evidence, but it is
equally inadmissible.
 The rule is based on the principle that
evidence illegally obtained by the State
should not be used to gain other evidence
because the originally illegally obtained
evidence taints all evidence subsequently
obtained. (People vs Bintaib, GR no. 218805, April 2, 2018)
 Note: This section could also be the
answer to the question on the “two kinds
of objection” that is the objection that the
evidence is not relevant to the issue and
secondly that is excluded by the rules. (Sec 3,
Rule 128)
 b. Relevance of
Evidence and
Collateral Matters
Relevancy

Evidence is relevant when it has “such a

relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence”
[Sec. 4, Rule 128]
 (e.g., evidence as to the age of a person
who has been raped is relevant in a
situation where the age would qualify the
offence to statutory rape)

Determinable by the rules of logic and

human experience [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
Collateral matters

Matters other than the fact in issue and

which are offered as a basis for inference
as to the existence or non-existence of the
facts in issue [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.]
 General rule: Evidence on collateral
matters is NOT allowed

Exceptions: When it tends in any

reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in
issue [Sec. 4, Rule 128]
 Note:
What the Rules prohibit is
evidence of irrelevant
collateral facts
[2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.]
 c. Multiple
Admissibility
 Where the evidence is relevant and
competent for two or more purposes, such
evidence should be admitted for any or all
the purposes for which it is offered,
provided it satisfies all the requisites of
law for its admissibility therefor [2 Regalado 706,
2008 Ed.]
 When a fact is offered for one purpose,
and is admissible insofar 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 if
offered for another purpose does not
exclude it. [Francisco 11, 1996 Ed.]
d. Conditional

Admissibility
 Where the evidence at the time of its offer
appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless
it is connected with the other facts to be
subsequently proved, such evidence may be
received on condition that the other facts will
be proved thereafter; otherwise, the evidence
already given shall be stricken out [2 Regalado 705,
2008 Ed.]
 Example: a copy of a writing may not
be considered competent evidence until
the original is proven to be lost or
destroyed

Conditional admissibility requires no

bad faith on the part of the proponent.
e. Curative
Admissibility
 The right of a party to introduce
incompetent evidence in his behalf where
the court has admitted incompetent
evidence adduced by the adverse party
Three theories (Wigmore)

1. American Rule – admission of

incompetent evidence, without objection
by the opponent, does not justify such
opponent in rebutting it by similar
incompetent evidence
2. English Rule – adverse party may
resort to similar inadmissible evidence
3. Massachussetts Rule – adverse party
may be permitted to introduce similar
incompetent evidence in order to avoid
a plain and unfair prejudice caused by
the admission of the other party’s
evidence
 Note:
none of these rules apply in
the Philippines because
there is no law or Rule that
allows it.
[Prof. Avena]
 f. Direct and
Circumstantial
Evidence
 Direct evidence Circumstantial evidence

Proves the fact in dispute Proof of facts from which,

without the aid of any taken collectively, the
inference or presumption existence of a particular fact
in dispute may be inferred
as a necessary or probable
consequence
[Francisco 2, 1996 Ed.]
 Requisites to warrant a conviction
based on circumstantial evidence

a. there is more than one circumstance;

b. the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and

c. the combination of all the

circumstances is such as to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Sec. 4,
Rule 133]
 The totality of the evidence must
constitute an unbroken chain showing
the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt [People v. Matito, G.R. No. 144405 (2004)]
Note: Circumstantial evidence is not a
weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct
evidence [People v. Matito, G.R. No. 144405 (2004)]
g. Positive and
Negative
Evidence
 Positive evidence Negative evidence
Witness affirms that a Witness states he/she
certain state of facts did not see or does not
did exist or that a know of the occurrence
certain event happened. of a fact

[2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]

h. Competent
and Credible
Evidence
 Competent Credible Evidence
Evidence
Not excluded by the Refers to probative
Constitution, the value or convincing
law, or the Rules [Sec. 3, weight
Rule 128]
 Competent Evidence Credible Evidence
Determined by the Weight involves the effect of
evidence admitted, its tendency to
prevailing exclusionary convince and persuade. It is not
rules of evidence determined mathematically by the
[2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
numerical superiority of the
witnesses testifying to a given
fact, but depends upon its
practical effect in inducing belief
on the part of the judge trying the
case [Francisco 11, 1996 Ed.]
 Competent Evidence Credible Evidence
Note:
Exclusionary rules may
affect due process. To the
extent that they might
prejudice substantive rights,
therefore, they cannot be
made to apply retroactively.
6. Burden of Proof
and Burden of
Evidence
 Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his or her claim or
defense by the amount of evidence
required by law. Burden of proof never
shifts. [Sec. 1, Rule 131]
•In civil cases, the burden of proof is on
the party who would be defeated if no
evidence were given on either side, the
plaintiff with respect to his complaint,
the defendant with respect to his
counterclaim, and the cross-claimant,
with respect to his cross-claim. [2 Regalado 816,
2008 Ed.]
•In criminal cases, the burden of proof
rests on the prosecution [Boac v. People, G.R. No. 180597
(2008)]
 Burden of evidence is the duty of a party
to present evidence sufficient to establish
or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima
facie case. Burden of evidence may shift
from one party to the other in the course of
the proceedings, depending on the
exigencies of the case. [Sec. 1, Rule 131]
 A party will have the burden of evidence only if
there is any factum probandum (whether
evidentiary or otherwise) that the adverse party has
already established (whether by law, rule, or by
virtue of evidence that he has presented) that he
(the potential proponent) has to overcome. A party
will not have any burden of evidence at all if the
adverse party has not established any factum
probandum in the first place [Prof. Avena]
 The burden of proof is generally determined
by the pleadings filed by the party; the burden
of evidence is generally determined by the
developments at the trial, or by the provisions
of the substantive law or procedural rules
which may relieve the party from presenting
evidence on the fact alleged, i.e., presumptions,
judicial notice and admissions [2 Regalado 816-817, 2008 Ed.]
 In both civil and criminal cases, the
burden of evidence lies with the party
who asserts an affirmative allegation [2
Regalado 817, 2008 Ed.]
Example:
In a case for collection of a sum of money, if
the defendant asserts that she has paid, then she
has the burden of proving that she had, not on the
creditor that she had not. While the creditor had
needed to prove the existence of a debt, the
burden shifts to the debtor because she alleged an
affirmative defense, which admits the creditor’s
allegation [Vitarich v. Losin, G.R. No. 181560 (2010)]
Equipoise Rule or Equipoise Doctrine
The doctrine refers to the situation where the
evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or
there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates. In this case, the decision should
be against the party with the burden of proof
[Rivera v. C.A., G.R. No. 115625 (1998); Marubeni v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, (2001)]
 In criminal cases, the equipoise rule
provides that where the evidence is evenly
balanced, the constitutional presumption
of innocence tilts the scales in favor of
the accused [Malana v. People, G.R. No. 173612, (2008)]
 7.
Presumptions
 Presumptions are inferences as to the
existence of a fact not actually known,
arising from its usual connection with
another which is known, or a conjecture
based on past experience as to what
course human affairs ordinarily take.
[University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)]
 A presumption can rest only upon ascertained
facts. It cannot be based on other
presumptions, assumptions, probabilities or
inferences [Francisco, 52]
Presumptions are not allegations, nor do
they supply their absence. Presumptions are
conclusions. They do not apply when there are
no facts or allegations to support them [University of
Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)]
 Presumption of fact
Praesumptiones hominis [2
Regalado 819, 2008 Ed.]
Those which the experience
of mankind has shown to be
valid, founded on general
knowledge and information;
essentially an Inference
Presumption of law
Praesumptiones juris [2 Regalado
819, 2008 Ed.]
Those which the law requires to
be drawn from the existence of
established facts in the absence
of contrary evidence; derived
from the law itself rather from
common logic or Probability
 Presumption of fact
e.g. Inference of guilt upon
discovery of bloodied
garment in possession of
accused
Presumption of law
In the absence of a legal
provision or ruling, there is
no presumption of law.
e.g. Presumption of innocence
in favor of the accused,
presumption of negligence of a
common carrier
 Conclusive Disputable
Inferences which the law Satisfactory if
makes so peremptory that uncontradicted, but may
it will not allow them to be contradicted and
be overturned by any overcome by other
contrary proof however evidence [Sec. 3, Rule 131]
strong [Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty, G.R.
No. 144268 (2006)]
a. Conclusive
Presumptions
 The technical definition of “conclusive
presumption” is implied by way of
contradistinction with that for the term
“disputable presumption” in Sec. 3 of Rule
131 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, a conclusive presumption is a class
of evidence which the law does not allow to
be contradicted. [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]
Conclusive presumptions in the ROC
[Sec. 2, Rule 131]:

a. A party is not permitted falsify a

thing whenever:
i. By his or her own declaration, act
or omission;
ii. He or she intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a
particular thing is true;
iii. To act upon such belief; and
iv. The litigation arises out of such
declaration act or omission
b. A tenant is not permitted to deny the
title of his or her landlord at the time of
the commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them
 These conclusive presumptions are
based upon the doctrine of estoppel in
pais, see Arts. 1431-1439, Civil Code [2
Regalado 820, 2008 Ed.]
 Once a contract of lease is shown to
exist between the parties, the lessee
cannot by any proof, however strong,
overturn the conclusive presumption that
the lessor has a valid title to or a better
right of possession to the subject premises
than the lessee [Santos v. National Statistics Office., G.R. No. 171129,
(2011)]
 What a tenant is estopped from denying
is the title of his landlord at the time of
the commencement of the landlord-
tenant relation. If the title asserted is one
that is alleged to have been acquired
subsequent to the commencement of that
relation, the presumption will not apply.
 Hence, the tenant may show that the
landlord's title has expired or been
conveyed to another or himself; and he is
not estopped to deny a claim for rent, if
he has been ousted or evicted by title
paramount [Ermitaño v Paglas, G.R. No. 174436 (2013)]
 Sources of conclusive
presumptions other
than the Rules of Court:
a. Law
 i. The decree of registration and the certificate
of title issued shall become incontrovertible,
upon the expiration of the one-year period within
which any person deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by such adjudication or
confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to
file in the proper court a petition for reopening
and review of the decree of registration [Sec. 32, P.D.
1529]
 ii. The child shall be considered
legitimate although the mother may have
declared against its legitimacy or may
have been sentenced as an adulteress. [Art.
167, FC].
 Factum probans that the child was
conceived or born during the marriage of its
parents conclusively establishes the factum
probandum of the legitimate status of that
child, Art. 167 is saying that any factum
probans presented and offered to prove the
truth of the latter declaration (of the mother)
will be inadmissible in evidence.
 b. SC
issuances
b. Disputable
Presumptions
a. Person is innocent of crime or wrong;
b. Unlawful act is done with an
unlawful intent;
c. Person intends the ordinary
consequences of his or her voluntary
act;
d. Person takes ordinary care of his or
her concerns;

e. Evidence willfully suppressed would

be adverse if produced;

f. Money paid by one to another was

due to the latter;
g. Thing delivered by one to another
belonged to the latter;

h. Obligation delivered up to the debtor

has been paid;

i. Prior rents or installments had been

paid when a receipt for the later ones is
produced;
j. A person found in possession of a
thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and doer of the
whole act; otherwise, that things which
a person possesses or exercises acts of
ownership over are owned by him or
her;
k. Person in possession of an order on
himself or herself for the payment of the
money, or the delivery of anything, has
paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly;
l. Person acting in a public office was
regularly appointed or elected to it;
m. Official duty has been regularly
performed; n. A court, or judge acting as
such, whether in the Philippines or
elsewhere, was acting in the lawful
exercise of jurisdiction;
o. All the matters within an issue raised
in a case were laid before the court and
passed upon by it; and in like manner
that all matters within an issue raised in
a dispute submitted for arbitration were
laid before the arbitrators and passed
upon by them;
p. Private transactions have been fair
and regular;

q. Ordinary course of business has been

followed;

r. There was a sufficient consideration

for a contract;
s. Negotiable instrument was given or
indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
t. An indorsement of a negotiable
instrument was made before the
instrument was overdue and at the place
where the instrument is dated;
u. A writing is truly dated;

v. Letter duly directed and mailed was

received in the regular course of the
mail;

w. Presumptions concerning absence:

1. Ordinary but continued absence of:
•7 years, it being unknown WON
the absentee still lives, he or she is
considered dead for all purposes,
except for those of succession
•10 years – the absentee shall be
considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession; but if he
disappeared after the age of 75
years, an absence of 5 years shall be
sufficient to open his or her
succession
•4 consecutive years – the spouse
present may contract a subsequent
marriage if s/he has a well-founded
belief that the absent spouse is
already dead; but where there is
danger of death, an absence of only
2 years shall be sufficient for
remarriage
➢ Note: before marrying again, the
present spouse must institute
summary proceedings for
declaration of presumptive death of
spouse
2. Qualified absence – The following
shall be considered dead for all
purposes including the division of the
estate among the heirs
■ A person on board a vessel lost
during a sea voyage, or an aircraft
which is missing, who has not been
heard of for 4 years since the loss of
the vessel or aircraft
■ A member of the armed forces who has
taken part in armed hostilities, and has
been missing for 4 years

■ A person who has been in danger of

death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known for
4 years
a. Acquiescence resulted from a belief
that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact

• “Acquiescence” – reluctant
acceptance without protest
b. Things have happened according to
the ordinary course of nature and the
ordinary habits of life

c. Persons acting as co-partners have

entered into a contract of co-
partnership;
d. A man and woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of
marriage;
e. Property acquired by a man and a
woman who are capacitated to marry
each other and who live exclusively
with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under
a void marriage, has been obtained by
their joint efforts, work or industry;
f. In cases of cohabitation by a man and a
woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who have acquired property
through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry, such
contributions and their corresponding shares
including joint deposits of money and
evidences of credit are equal;
g. Presumptions governing children of
women who contracted another
marriage within 300 days after
termination of her former marriage (in
the absence of proof to the contrary):
When Child was Born Presumption
Considered to have been
conceived during the former
Before 180 days after the marriage, provided it be
solemnization of the born within 300 days after
subsequent marriage the termination of the
former marriage
When Child was Born Presumption
Considered to have been
conceived during the
After 180 days following subsequent marriage, even
the celebration of the though it be born within the
subsequent marriage 300 days after the
termination of the former
marriage.
h. A thing once proved to exist
continues as long as is usual with things
of the nature;

i. The law has been obeyed;

j. A printed/published book, purporting
to be printed/published by public
authority, was so printed/published;
k. A printed/published book, purporting
to contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunals of the country where the book
is published, contains correct reports of
such cases;
l. A trustee or other person whose duty
it was to convey real property to a
particular person has actually conveyed
it to him when such presumption is
necessary to perfect the title of such
person or his successor in interest;
m. Presumptions regarding
survivorship: (Applicable for all
purposes except succession)

1. When 2 persons perish in the same

calamity
2. It is not shown who died first; and

3. There are no particular

circumstances from which the order
of death can be inferred
n. As between 2 or more persons called to
succeed each other: If there is a doubt as to
which of them died first, whoever alleges
the death of one prior to the other, shall
prove the same.
•In the absence of proof, they shall be
considered to have died at the same
time. [Sec. 3, Rule 131]
No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
There is no presumption of legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child born after 300 days
following the dissolution of marriage or the
separation of spouses. Whoever alleges the
legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must
prove his or her allegation [Sec. 4, Rule 131]
The adverse presumption of suppression
of evidence is not applicable when:
a. The suppression is not willful;
b. The evidence suppressed or withheld
is merely corroborative or cumulative;
c. The evidence is at the disposal of
both parties; and

d. The suppression is an exercise of a

privilege [Tarapen v. People, G.R. No. 173824 (2008)]
 The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty obtains only
when there is no deviation from the
regular performance of duty. Where the
official act in question is irregular on its
face, no presumption of regularity can
arise [People v. Casabuena, G.R. No. 186455 (2014)]
 When there is gross disregard of the
procedural safeguards set forth in Republic
Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), serious
uncertainty is generated as to the identity of the
seized items that the prosecution presented in
evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by
merely invoking the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duties [People v. Lagahit,
G.R. No. 200877 (2014)]
 c. Presumptions in civil
actions and proceedings;
against an accused in
criminal cases
Civil actions and proceedings
In all civil actions and proceedings not
otherwise provided for by the law or these
Rules, a presumption imposes on the party
against whom it is directed the burden of
going forward with evidence to rebut or meet
the presumption.
 If presumptions are inconsistent, the
presumption that is founded upon
weightier considerations of policy shall
apply.

If considerations of policy are of equal

weight, neither presumption applies. [Sec. 5,
Rule 131]
Criminal cases
If a presumed fact that established guilt, is
an element of the offense charged, or negates
a defense, the existence of the basic fact must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
presumed fact follows from the basic fact
beyond reasonable doubt. [Sec. 6, Rule 131]
8. Construction
of the Rules of
Evidence
 The Rules of Court, including the
Revised Rules on Evidence, shall be
liberally construed in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding [Sec. 6, Rule 1]
 Rules on Electronic Evidence shall
likewise be liberally construed [Sec. 2, Rule 2,
Rules on Electronic Evidence]
9. Quantum of
Evidence
 a. Proof
Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
 In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to
an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt 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 [Sec.
2, Rule 133]
 The burden is on the prosecution to
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
NOT on the accused to prove his/her
innocence [Boac v People, G.R. No. 180597, (2008)]
The prosecution must not rely on the
weakness of the evidence of the defense
[Ubales v People, G.R. No. 175692, (2008); People v. Hu, G.R. No. 182232, (2008)]
b. Preponderance
of Evidence
 Applicable quantum of evidence in civil
cases [Sec. 1, Rule 133]
Means that the evidence adduced by one
side is, as a whole, superior to or has
greater weight than that of the other [Habagat
Grill v. DMCUrban Property Developer, Inc., G.R. No. 155110, (2005); Bank of the Philippine
Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, (2008)]
In determining preponderance of
evidence, the court may consider:

1. All the facts and circumstances of the

case;
2. The witnesses’ manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they testify, 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;
3. Number of witnesses (although
preponderance is not necessarily with
the greater number) [Sec. 1, Rule 133]
c. Substantial
Evidence
 Degree of evidence required in cases
filed before administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies

It is the amount of relevant evidence

which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion. [Sec. 6, Rule 133]
 Also applies to petitions under the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo [Sec. 17, Rule on the Writ of Amparo]
and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas
data [Sec. 16, Rule on the Writ of Habeas data]
Substantial Evidence Rule
Factual findings, especially when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
accorded not only great respect but also
finality, and are deemed binding upon this
Court so long as they are supported by
substantial evidence [Tan Brothers Corp. v. Escudero, G.R. No.
188711 (2013)]
d. Clear and
Convincing
Evidence
 Clear and convincing evidence is more
than mere preponderance, but not to the
extent of such certainty as is required
beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal
cases [Manalo v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 102358 (1992)]
 The standard of proof required in
granting or denying bail in extradition
cases is “clear and convincing evidence”
that the potential extraditee is not a flight
risk and will abide with all the orders and
process of the extradition court [Government of
Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, (2007)]
 It must be added that the defenses of
denial and improper motive can only
prosper when substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence [People v. Colentava, G.R. No. 190348 (2015)]
 It is used for overturning disputable
presumptions, such as the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official
duties [Portuguez v. People, G.R. No. 194499, (2015)] or the
existence of a valuable consideration [Tolentino
v. Sps. Jerera, G.R. No. 179874 (2015)]
 Note however: The addressee's “direct
denial” of receipt of mail alleged to have
been mailed to it defeats the presumption in
Sec. 3(v), Rule 131 and shifts the burden
upon the party favored by the presumption
to prove that the mailed letter was indeed
received by the addressee [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Metro Star, G.R. No. 185371 (2010)]
 It is also the standard of proof for
invoking the justifying circumstance of
self-defense for the defense and proving
the aggravating circumstance of treachery
for the prosecution [People v. C.A.sas, G.R. No. 212565 (2015)]
 The former is because having admitted
the killing requires the accused to rely on
the strength of his own evidence, not on
the weakness of the Prosecution’s, which,
even if it were weak, could not be
disbelieved in view of his admission [People v.
Mediado, G.R. No. 169871 (2011)]
 END
of
General Principles