EVIDENCE (RULES 128-134)

EVIDENCE

• Under the Rules of Court (ROC),

the rules of evidence are
specifically applicable only to
judicial proceedings
• 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]
• 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).
 PROOF VS EVIDENCE

• Proof - Result or effect of evidence

• The end result
• Evidence- Mode and manner of proving
competent facts in judicial proceedings
[Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, (1948)]
• The means to an end
 EVIDENCE

• Evidence is the means, sanctioned by

these Rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting
a matter of fact.
• “Truth” is not necessarily the actual
truth, but one referred to as the
judicial or legal truth.
• Evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and not excluded
by the Constitution, the law or these
Rules.
• 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)]
 RELEVANT

• When the evidence has such a relation

to the fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or nonexistence [Sec. 4,
Rule 128]
 COMPETENT

• Not excluded by the Constitution, the

law, or the Rules [Sec. 3, Rule 128]
• Evidence must have such a relation to
the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence.
 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)]
• Evidence on collateral matters shall
not be allowed, except when it tends in
any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in
issue.
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]
 EXCLUSIONARY RULES OF EVIDENCE

• Art III, Sec 2 (unreasonable searches and seizure)

• Art III, Sec 3 (privacy of communication and correspondence)
• Inadmissible for any proceeding
• 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 in crimination)
• Inadmissible against the accused, but may be used by the
offended party in a suit for damages against the violator
EXCLUSIONS UNDER THE RULES ON EVIDENCE

• Original document rule (previously

best evidence rule)
• Hearsay evidence rule
• Offer of compromise in civil cases
 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
 DIRECT EVIDENCE

• Proves the fact in dispute without the aid

of any inference or presumption
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

• Proof of facts from which, taken

collectively, the existence of a
particular fact in dispute may be
inferred as a necessary or probable
consequence
 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]
 BURDEN OF PROOF

• 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, Rule131]
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.
In criminal cases, the burden of
proof rests on the prosecution [Boac
v. People, G.R. No. 180597 (2008)]
 JUDICIAL NOTICE

• Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that

judges may properly take and act on without proof
because these facts are already known to them. Put
differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact
without need of further traditional evidentiary support.
[Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859, (2011)]
 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

a. Facts of Judicial Notice

b. Judicial Admissions
c. Conclusive Presumptions
 WHEN MANDATORY

1. Existence and territorial extent of states;

2. Their political history, forms of government, and symbols of
nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the worldand their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
6. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the National
Government of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions
• Since we consider the act of cancellation by
President Macapagal-Arroyo of the proposed
ZTE- NBN Project during the meeting of
October 2, 2007 with the Chinese President in
China as an official act of the executive
department, the Court must take judicial notice
of such official act without need of evidence.
[Suplico v. NEDA, G.R. No. 178830 (2008)]
 WHEN DISCRETIONARY

1. Matters of public knowledge;

2. Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration; and
3. Matters ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions [Sec. 2,
Rule 129]
 REQUISITES

1. The matter must be one of common and general

knowledge;
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful
or uncertain
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction
of the court
 WHEN HEARING NECESSARY

During the Pre-Trial and the Trial The

court, motu proprio, or upon motion, shall
hear the parties on the propriety of taking
judicial notice of any matter.
 WITH RESPECT TO THE COURT’S OWN ACTS
AND RECORDS

A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records
in the same case, of facts established in prior
proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its
own records of another case between the same parties,
of the files of related cases in the same court, and of
public records on file in the same court [Republic v. C.A.,
G.R. No. 119288 (1997)]
With Respect to Records of Other Cases
 GENERAL RULE:

As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial

notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even
when such cases have been tried or are pending in the
same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases
may have been tried or are actually pending before the
same judge. [People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028 (1996)]
 EXCEPTIONS:

In the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to

all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the
original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the
record of a case pending before it, when:
1. With the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made
to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other
manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or
2. The original record of the former case or
any part of it, is actually withdrawn from
the archives by the court's direction, at the
request or with the consent of the parties,
and admitted as a part of the record of the
case then pending [US v Claveria, G.R.
No. G.R. No. 9282 (1915)].
 JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

To be a judicial admission, the same:

a. May be oral or written;
b. Must be made by a party to the case; and
c. Must be made in the course of the proceedings in the
same case. [Sec. 4, Rule 129]
• The admission, to be judicial, must be made in the
course of the proceedings in the same case. Thus,
an admission made in another judicial proceeding
will not be deemed a judicial admission in the case
where the admission is not made. Instead, it will be
considered an extrajudicial admission for purposes
of the other proceeding where suchadmission is
offered
 JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS MAY BE MADE

• a. the pleadings filed by the parties,

• b. in the course of the trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations, or
• c. in other stages of the judicial proceeding;
• ex. stipulation of facts in a pre-trial conference [People
v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028 (1996)], allegations in
motions not specifically denied [Republic v. de
Guzman, G.R. No. 175021 (2011)], pre trial,
depositions, written interrogatories or requests for
admission
The judicial admission does not
require proof.
 HOW JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS MAY
BE CONTRADICTED

• As an exception to the general rule, judicial

admissions may be contradicted only by
showing that:
1. It was made through palpable mistake; or
2. The imputed admission was not, in fact,
made.
OBJECT EVIDENCE
 OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

• Objects as evidence are those

addressed to the senses of the court.
Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order.
It speaks more eloquently than a hundred
witnesses.(Daayata vs. People, GR No. 205745)
A person’s appearance, where relevant,
is admissible as object evidence, the
same being addressed to the senses of
the court [People v. Rullepa, G.R. No.
131516 (2003)]
The right against self-incrimination cannot be
invoked against object evidence. [People v.
Malimit, G.R. No. 109775 (1996)]
 BASIC REQUISITES FOR
ADMISSIBILITY

a. Evidence must be relevant;

b. Evidence must be authenticated by a
competent witness;
c. Object must be formally offered [Sec.
34, Rule 132]
EVIDENCE MUST BE AUTHENTICATED

• To authenticate the object is to show

that the object is the very thing that is
either the subject matter of the lawsuit or
the very one involved to prove an issue
in the case
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

• Documents as evidence consist of writings,

recordings, photographs or any material
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers,
figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other
modes of written expression offered as proof of
their contents. Photographs include still
pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray fi lms,
motion pictures or videos.
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

a. The document must be relevant;

b. The evidence must be authenticated;
c. The document must be authenticated
by a competent witness;
d. The document must be formally offered
in evidence [Riano 132, 2016 Ed.]
Documentary evidence will generally
prevail over testimonial evidence.
(Gotesco Properties vs. Solidbank Corp,
GR No. 209452)
 ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE

• When the subject of inquiry is the

contents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record,
no evidence is admissible other than the
original document itself,
• Save for certain cases, the original
document must be presented during
trial when the subject of the inquiry is
the contents of the document.
 WHEN NOT APPLICABLE

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 (now original document rule) does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary
evidence is likewise admissible without need for accounting
for the original. [Republic v. Gimenez, G.R. No.
174673(2016)]
 EXCEPTION

(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be

produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter
fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
 EXCEPTION

(c) 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;
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office; and
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling
issue.
 ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT

• (a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or any

counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph
includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored
in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output
readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately, is an “original.”
• (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the
same impression as the original, or from the same
matrix, or by means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduce the original.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same
extent as an original unless (1) a genuine
question is raised as to the authenticity of
the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it
is unjust or inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the original
General Rule: A duplicate is admissible to
the same extent as an original.
• Exceptions:
1. a general question is raised as to
the authenticity of the original; or
2. in the circumstances, it is unjust
or inequitable to admit the duplicate
in lieu of the original. [Sec. 4, Rule
130]
 SECONDARY EVIDENCE

• When the original document has been lost or destroyed,

or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of
its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may
prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents
in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated.
• In order that secondary evidence may be
admissible, there must be proof by
satisfactory evidence of:
1. due execution of the original;
2. loss, destruction, or unavailability of all
such originals; and
3. reasonable diligence and good faith in
the search for or attempt to produce the
original. [Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc, G.R.
171701 (2012)]
• The correct order of proof is existence,
execution, loss, and contents. [Republic
v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 198393 (2018)]
• If the document is in the custody or under the control of
the adverse party, he or she must have reasonable notice
to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory
proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the
document, secondary evidence may be presented as in
the case of its loss.
 DUE EXECUTION

• Due execution of the document should be proved through

the testimony of either:
a. the person or persons who executed it;
b. the person before whom its execution was acknowledged;
or
c. any person who was present and saw it executed and
delivered, or who, after its execution and delivery, saw it and
recognized the signatures, or by a person to whom the parties
to the instruments had previously confessed the execution
thereof[Director of Lands v. C.A., G.R. No. L-29575(1971))
• The general rule concerning proof of a lost instrument is,
that reasonable search shall be made for it in the place
where it was last known to have been, and, if such search
does not discover it, then inquiry should be made of
persons most likely to have its custody, or who have some
reasons to know of its whereabouts. [Tan v. CA, G.R. No.
L-56866(1985)]
 SUMMARIES

• When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or

numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact
sought to be established is only the general result of the
whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in
the form of a chart, summary, or calculation.
• The originals shall be available for examination or copying,
or both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and
place. The court may order that they be produced in court.
 EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD

• When the original of a document is in

the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents
may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody
thereof.
 PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

• When the terms of an agreement have

been reduced to writing, it is considered
as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be, as between the
parties and their successors in interest,
no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement.
• The parol evidence rule forbids any
addition to or contradiction of the terms of
a written instrument by testimony or other
evidence purporting to show that, at or
before the execution of the parties' written
agreement, other or different terms were
agreed upon by the parties, varying the
purport of the written contract. [Felix Plazo
Urban Poor Settlers v. Lipat, G.R. No.
182409 (2017)]
 WHERE NOT APPLICABLE

It does not apply when third parties are

involved or those not privy to the written
instrument in question and does not base
a claim or assent a right originating in the
instrument [Lechugas v. C.A., G.R. No. L-
39972 & L-40300 (1986)]
 HOW PAROL EVIDENCE CAN BE
INTRODUCED

General rule: Ground/s for presenting

parol evidence is put in issue in a verified
pleading [Sec. 10, Rule 130]
• Exception: If the facts in the
pleadings all lead to the fact that it
is being put in issue then the Parol
Evidence exception may apply
[Sps. Paras v. Kimwa Corporation,
G. R. No. 171601(2015)]
HOWEVER, A PARTY MAY PRESENT EVIDENCE TO MODIFY, EXPLAIN
OR ADD TO THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN
AGREEMENT IF HE OR SHE PUTS IN ISSUE IN A VERIFIED PLEADING:

• (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written

agreement;
• (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
• (c) The validity of the written agreement; or
• (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
The document is clear on its face, but matters outside
the agreement create the ambiguity (Ex. “I bequeath this
land to my cousin George.” However, the testator has
two cousins named George)
 INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT

• Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning

• Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions
• Interpretation according to intention; general and particular
provisions
the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a
general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter
is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control
a general one that is inconsistent with it.
 INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO
CIRCUMSTANCES

• For the proper construction of an instrument, the

circumstances under which it was made, including the
situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may
be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of
those whose language he or she is to interpret
 PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS

• The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in

their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is
admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or
otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and
understood in the particular instance, in which case the
agreement must be construed accordingly.
WRITTEN WORDS CONTROL PRINTED
 EXPERTS AND INTERPRETERS TO BE
USED IN EXPLAINING CERTAIN WRITINGS
• When the terms of an agreement have been
intended in a different sense by the different parties
to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in
which he or she supposed the other understood it,
and when different constructions of a provision are
otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is
the most favorable to the party in whose favor the
provision was made.
CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF
NATURAL RIGHT
INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO
USAGE
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
 WHO MAY BE A WITNESS

• All persons who can perceive, and

perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses.
• A witness is one who, being present,
personally sees or perceives a thing, a
beholder, spectator or eyewitness. One
who testifies to what he has seen or
heard, or otherwise observed [Herrera
citing Black’s Law Dictionary
 WHEN DETERMINED

• Qualification of a witness is
determined at the time the said
witness is produced for examination
or at the taking of their depositions.
 CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS

• Credibility has nothing to do with

the law or the rules. It refers to the
weight and trustworthiness or
reliability of the testimony.
Basic Qualifications of a Witness
a. He/she can perceive i. Corollary to perception is that the
witness must have personal knowledge of the facts
surrounding the subject matter of his testimony [Sec. 22,
Rule130]
b. He/she can make known his perception i. This means that
he/she must have the ability to remember and communicate
the remembered perception
c. He/she must take an oath or affirmation [Sec. 1, Rule 132]
d. He/she must not possess any of the disqualifications
 THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT GROUNDS
FOR DISQUALIFICATION

• Religious or political belief, interest in

the outcome of the case, or conviction of
a crime, unless otherwise provided by
law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification
EFFECT OF INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT
MATTER

• A person is not disqualified by reason of

his interest in the subject matter. Interest
only affects credibility, not competency.
 EFFECT OF RELATIONSHIP

General rule: Mere relationship does not impair credibility

[People v. De Guzman, G.R. 130809 (2000)]
Exception: To warrant rejection, it must be clearly shown
that:
a. Testimony was inherently improbable or defective
b. Improper/evil motives had moved the witness to
incriminate falsely[People v. Daen Jr., G.R. No. 112015
(1995)]
A witness can testify only to those facts
which he or she knows of his or her
personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his or her own perception.
 MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE

During their marriage, the husband or the wife

cannot testify against the other without the consent
of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s
direct descendants or ascendants.
 ELEMENTS

1. During their marriage

i. The marriage must be valid and existing at the time of
the offer of the testimony
2. The husband or the wife cannot testify against the
other i. The “other” spouse must be a party to the action,
either as a plaintiff or defendant ii. Note: 2019 Revision
removed the words “for or”
3. Without the consent of the affected spouse
• Except: Spouse may testify against the
other even without the consent of the
latter
1. In a civil case by one against the other;
or
2. In a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct
descendants/ascendants [Sec. 23,
Rule130]
 RATIONALE

1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;

2. If one were to testify against the other, there is a
consequent danger of perjury;
3. Policy of the law is to guard the security and confidence
of private life, and to prevent domestic disunion and
unhappiness; and
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is
danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
testimony of the other[Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No.
143439 (2005)]
 DURATION

• General rule: During their marriage

[Sec. 23 Rule 130]
Exception: Where the marital and domestic
relations are so strained that there is no more
harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility
which may be disturbed, the reason based upon
such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case,
identity of interests disappears, and the consequent
danger of perjury based on that identity is non-
existent [Alvarez v.Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439
(2005)]
 DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

• The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,

cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to
any communication received in confidence by one from the
other during the marriage except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants
 SCOPE OF RULE

• The rule also includes utterance as to

facts or mere production of documents.
It does not only prevent disclosure of
matters communicated in nuptial
confidence but is an absolute prohibition
against the spouse’s testifying to any
facts affecting the other however these
facts may have been acquired.
 PRIVILEGE

• A privilege is a rule of law that, to protect

a particular relationship or interest,
either permits a witness to refrain from
giving testimony he otherwise could be
compelled to give, or permits someone
usually one of the parties, to prevent the
witness from revealing certain
information.
• Privilege may only be invoked by the
persons protected thereunder. It may
also be waived by the same persons,
either impliedly or expressly.
An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be
licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the
consent of the client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer,
or clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney be examined
without the consent of the client and his or her employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity, except in the following cases
WHO ARE COVERED BY THE PRIVILEGE?

Person reasonably believed by

An attorney the client to be licensed to
engage in the practice of law

Attorney’s secretary, Other persons assisting the

stenographer, or clerk, attorney
 WHAT ARE MATTERS COVERED BY
THE PRIVILEGE?

• 1. Any communication made by the client

• 2. Advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to,
• 3. Any fact the knowledge of which has
been acquired in such capacity. (Section
24(b), Rule 130).
• 1. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of
the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to
commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably
should have known to be a crime or fraud. (Section 24(b), Rule
130).
• 2. Claimants through same deceased client. As to a
communication relevant to an issue between parties who
claim through the same deceased client, regardless of
whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter
vivos transaction (Section 24(b), Rule 130).
• 3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As
to a communication relevant to an issue of
breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her
client, or by the client to his or her
lawyer (Section24 (b), Rule 130).
• 4. Document attested by the lawyer. As to a
communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested
document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness
(Section24 (b), Rule 130).
• 5. Joint clients. As to a communication
relevant to a matter of common interest
between two or more clients if the
communication was made by any of them to a
lawyer retained or consulted in common,
when offered in an action between any of the
clients, unless they have expressly agreed
otherwise. (Section24 (b), Rule 130).
 MARITAL PRIVILEGE

• Confidential nature of the privilege; to

preserve marital and domestic relations
 ELEMENTS

1. The husband or the wife

2. During or after the marriage
3. Cannot be examined
4. Without the consent of the other
5. As to any communication received in confidence by one
from the other during the marriage
• Except: Spouse may testify for or against the other even
without the consent of the latter
1. In a civil case by one against the other, or
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latter’s directdescendants or ascendants.
• A widow of a victim allegedly murdered may
testify as to her husband’s dying declaration as
to how he died since the same was not intended
to be confidential [US v. Antipolo, G.R. No. L-
13109 (1918)]
 WHEN NOT APPLICABLE

1. When the communication was not

intended to be kept in confidence
2. When the communication was made
prior to the marriage
3. Waiver of the privilege
 TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE

• Parental and filial privilege.

• No person shall be compelled to testify
against his or her parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct
descendants, except when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime
against that person or by one parent
against the other.
 WAIVER

1. Failure of the spouse to object; or

2. Calling spouse as witness on cross examination
3. Any conduct constructed as implied consent.
 PRIVILEGE RELATING TO TRADE
SECRETS

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

ADMISSION AND CONFESSION

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

 ADMISSION BY PARTY

• The act, declaration or omission of a

party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him or her.
• In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. Neither is evidence of
conduct nor statements made in compromise
negotiations admissible, except evidence otherwise
discoverable or offered for another purpose, such as
proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a
contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital
or other expenses occasioned by an injury, is not
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal
liability for the injury. 
• In criminal cases, except those
involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law
to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may
be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted
offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not
admissible in evidence against the accused who
made the plea or offer. Neither is any statement
made in the course of plea bargaining with the
prosecution, which does not result in a plea of
guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later
withdrawn, admissible.
 ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY

• The rights of a party cannot be

prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of
another, except as hereinafter
provided. 
 ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR
AGENT

• The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the

party to make a statement concerning the subject, or within
the scope of his or her authority, and during the existence of
the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against
such party after the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor,
or other person jointly interested with the party. 
 ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR.

• The act or declaration of a conspirator in

furtherance of the conspiracy and during
its existence may be given in evidence
against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act of declaration. 
 ADMISSION BY PRIVIES

• Where one derives title to property from

another, the latter's act, declaration, or
omission, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former if
done while the latter was holding the
title. 
 PRIVIES

• Persons who are partakers or have an

interest in any action or thing, or any
relation to another [Riano 262, 2016 Ed.,
citing Black’s Law Dictionary]
 ADMISSION BY SILENCE.

• An act or declaration made in the presence and within

the hearing or observation of a party who does or says
nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally
to call for action or comment if not true, and when
proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be
given in evidence against him or her.
 R E Q U I S I T E S:

1. Person heard or understood the statement;

2. That he was at a liberty to make a denial;
3. That the statement was about a matter affecting
his rights or in which he was interested and which
naturally calls for a response;
4. That the facts were within his knowledge; and
5. That the fact admitted from his silence is material
to the issue
[People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060 (1978)]
 WHEN NOT APPLICABLE

1. Statements adverse to the party were made in

the course of an official investigation [U.S. v. De
la Cruz, G.R. No. 4740 (1908)], as where he was
pointed out in the course of a custodial
investigation and was neither asked to reply nor
comment on such imputations [People v. Alegre,
G.R. No. L-30423 (1979)]
2. Party had justifiable reason to remain silent,
e.g. acting on advice of counsel
 CONFESSION

• The declaration of an accused

acknowledging his or her guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein, may be
given in evidence against him or her.
An acknowledgment in express
words or terms, by a party in a
criminal case, of his guilt of the
crime charged. [People v. Lorenzo,
G.R. No. 110107 (1995)]
 REQUISITES

1. Express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt [U.S. v.

Corrales, G.R. No. 9230 (1914)]
2. Facts admitted constitutes a criminal offense [U.S. v. Flores,
G.R. No. 9014 (1913)]
3. Given voluntarily [People v Nishishima, G.R. No. 35122
(1932)]
4. Intelligently made [Bilaan v Cusi, G.R. No. L-18179 (1962)],
realizing the importance or legal significance of the act [U.S. v.
Agatea, G.R. No. 15177 (1919)]
5. No violation of Secs. 12 and 17, Art. III of the Constitution [2
Regalado 765, 2008 Ed.]
If the accused admits having
committed the act in question but
alleges a justification therefore, the
same is merely an admission.
[Ladiana v. People, G.R. No. 144293
(2002)]
Any confession, including a re-
enactment, without admonition of the
right to silence and to counsel, and
without counsel chosen by the accused
is inadmissible in evidence. [People v.
Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959 (1996)]
HEARSAY
 HEARSAY

• Hearsay is a statement other than one

made by the declarant while testifying at
a trial or hearing, offered to prove the
truth of the facts asserted therein. 
If a party does not object to hearsay
evidence, the same is admissible, as
a party can waive his right to cross-
examine [People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-
47147 (1987)]
Repeated failure to cross-examine is
an implied waiver [Savory
Luncheonette v. Lakas ng
Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No. L-
38964 (1975)]
 ELEMENTS

1. Declarant is out of court

2. Out of court declaration is offered
as proof of its contents
3. Absence of opportunity for
crossexamination
 STATEMENT

• A statement is (1) an oral or written

assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of
a person, if it is intended by him or her
as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is
inadmissible except as otherwise
provided in these Rules.
 A S TAT E M E N T I S N O T H E A R S AY I F T H E D E C L A R A N T T E S T I F I E S AT T H E T R I A L O R
H E A R I N G A N D I S S U B J E C T TO C R O S S - E X A M I N AT I O N C O N C E R N I N G T H E S TAT E M E N T,

• a) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was

given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a
trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
• (b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered
to rebut an express or implied charge against the
declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
motive;
• or (c) one of identification of a person made after
perceiving him or her. 
 REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF
HEARSAY EVIDENCE

1. was not given under oath or solemn affirmation;

and
2. was not subject to cross-examination by opposing
counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and
articulateness of outof- court declarant or actor upon
whose reliability on which the worth of the out-ofcourt
testimony depends
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

• Dying declaration
• Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind.
• Declaration against interest.
• Act or declaration about pedigree
• Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.
• Common reputation.
• Part of the res gestae.
• Records of regularly conducted business activity.
• Entries in official records.
• Commercial lists and the like
• Learned treatises.
• Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding.
• Residual exception.
 DYING DE CLA RATION

a. Declaration of a dying person

b. Declaration was made under the consciousness of an
impending death
c. Declaration may be received in any case wherein his/her
death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death [Sec. 38, Rule 130]
d. Declarant would have been competent as a witness had he
survived [Geraldo v People, G.R. No. 173608 (2008)); and
e. Declarant should have died [People v.Macandog, G.R. No.
129534 and 1411691(2001)]
• As a general rule, when a
person is at the point of death,
every motive to falsehood is
silenced [People v Bacunawa,
G.R. No. 136859 (2001)]
 STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OR PERSON OF UNSOUND
MIND

• General rule: Any statement of the deceased or the person of

unsound mind may be received in evidence
a. In an action against:
1. an executor, administrator or otherrepresentative of a
deceased person;
OR
2. a person of unsound mind
b. Upon a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against suchperson of unsound mind
c. Where party or assignor of a party or a person in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of the deceased or before the
person became of unsound mind
d. Statement was made by the deceased or person of
unsound mind at a time where the matter had been recently
perceived byhim/her while his/her recollection was clear
Exception: The statement is inadmissible if made under
circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

a. Declarant is dead or unable to testify;

b. Declaration relates to a fact against the
interest of the declarant;
c. At the time he made said declaration,
declarant was aware that the same was
contrary to the declarant’s own interest; and
d. Declarant had no motive to falsify and
believed such declaration to be true [Sec.40,
Rule 130]
 WHEN NOT ADMISSIBLE

• General rule: If the statement tends to

expose the declarant to criminal liability
and is offered to exculpate the accused
• Exception: Admissible if
corroborating circumstances clearly
indicate the trustworthiness of the
statement [Sec. 40, Rule 130]
• Inability to testify means that the person
is dead, mentally incapacitated or
physically incompetent. Mere absence
from the jurisdiction does not make him
ipso facto unavailable. [Fuentes v. C.A.,
G.R. No.111692 (1996)]
 ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT
PEDIGREE

• Requisites for Admissibility

a. The act or declaration
b. Of a person deceased or unable to testify
c. In respect to the pedigree of another person related to him/her by
1. birth;
2. adoption;
3. marriage; or
4. in the absence thereof, with those family he/she was so intimately associated
as to be likely to have accurate information concerning his/her pedigree
d. May be received in evidence where the act/declaration
occurred before the controversy; and
e. Relationship between the declarant and the person whose
pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration (evidence aliunde) [Sec. 41, Rule 130]
 FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE

a. Witness must be a member, by

consanguinity, affinity, or adoption, of the
same family as the subject; and
b. Such reputation or tradition must have
existed in that family ante litem
motam(before the controversy) [Sec. 42,
Rule130]
 COMMON REPUTATION

• Definition: The definite opinion of the

community in which the fact to be
proved is known or exists. It means the
general or substantially undivided
reputation, as distinguished from a
partial or qualified one, although it need
not be unanimous [2Regalado, 787,
2008 Ed.]
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

a. Common reputation existed ante litem motam

b. Reputation pertains to:
1.boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the
community
2. events of general history important to the
community
3. marriage, or
4.moral character[Sec. 43, Rule 130]
 RES GESTAE — “THINGS DONE”

• Res gestae, as an exception to the hearsay rule, refers to

those exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately
before, during, or after the commission of the crime, when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement
of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant
to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement [DBP Pool of
Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio Mindanao Network,
Inc., G.R. No. 147039(2006)]
 INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT
STATEMENTS

• Statements or writings attributed to a

person not on the witness stand, which
are being offered not to prove the truth
of the facts stated therein, but only to
prove that such were actually made.
 TWO CLASSES OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT
STATEMENTS:

1. Statements which are the very facts in issue, and

2. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
They include the following:
a. Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his
mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other
emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as
illness and the like
c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be
made as to the state of mind of another, that is, the
knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the
latter;
d. Statements which may identify the date, place and
person in question; and
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness
[Estrada v.Desierto, G.R. No. 146710 (2001)]
 CHARACTER EVIDENCE

• Character distinguished from reputation 'Character' is what

a man is, and 'reputation’ is what he is supposed to be in
what people say he is. 'Character' depends on attributes
possessed, and 'reputation' on attributes which others
believe one to possess. The former signifies reality and the
latter merely what is accepted to be reality at present [Lim
v. C.A.,G.R. No. 91114 (1992)].
 GENERAL RULE:

• Evidence of a person’s character or a

trait of character is not admissible for the
purpose of proving action in conformity
therewith on a particular occasion [Sec.
54, Rule 130]
 E X C E P T I O N S :

a. Criminal cases [Sec. 54(a), Rule 130]

b. Civil case [Sec. 54(b), Rule 130]
c. In both civil and criminal cases [Sec. 54(c), Rule
130]
1. Evidence of good character of witness is not
admissible until such character has been
impeached
2. When the character or trait of character is an
essential element of a charge,claim or defense
 CRIMINAL CASES

1. Accused – May prove his/her good moral character, which is

pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
2. Prosecution – May not prove the bad moral character of the
accused, except in rebuttal.
3. Offended Party –May be proved if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.[Sec. 54, Rule 130]
 OFFER OF EVIDENCE

• General rule: The court shall consider

no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which
the evidence is offeredmust be specified
[Sec. 34, Rule 132]
Evidence not formally offered may be admissible when
two essential conditions concur:
a. the same must have been duly identified by testimony
duly recorded and,
b. the same must have been incorporated in the records
of the case
[Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454 (2011)]
 WHY FORMAL OFFER IS NECESSARY

• 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)]
 WHEN FORMAL OFFER IS NOT REQUIRED

• a. In a summary proceeding because it is a proceeding where there is

no full-blown trial;
• b. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of; @
• c. Documents, affidavits, and depositions used in rendering a
summary judgment;
• d. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or
administrative cases [Bantolino v. Coca Cola Bottlers, G.R. No.153660
(2003)]
• e. Lost objects previously marked, identified, described in the record,
and testified to by witness who had been subjects of cross
examination in respect to said objects [Tabuena v. C.A., G.R. No.
85423 (1991),citing People v. Napat-a, G.R. No. 84951(1989)]
THANK YOU