Evidence 2013 Bar Torregosa Notes

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS
2013 Bar Pre-Week Notes

2013 BAR PRE-WEEK NOTES
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Evidence as defined by the Revised Rules on Evidence
Evidence defined: means sanctioned by the Rules
of Court of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Section 1, Rule 128)
General Rule:
The rules of evidence do not apply in the following
cases/proceedings: (Section 4, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
(i)
Election cases
(ii)
Land registration
(iii)
Cadastral proceedings
(iv)
Naturalization proceedings
(v)
Insolvency proceedings
Exception: By analogy or in a suppletory character whenever practicable and
convenient (Section 4, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
B. Distinguish Evidence from Proof
Evidence is the medium, means, or tool by which a fact is proved or disproved;
while Proof is the effect or result of evidence, the conviction or persuasion of
the mind resulting from a consideration of evidence.
C. Distinguish Factum Probandum from Factum Probans
Evidence signifies relationship between two facts, namely:
(a) factum probandum, which is the fact or proposition in issue which evidence
seeks to prove or disprove
(b) factum probans, which is the evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in
issue
Example:
In an action for collection of a sum of money filed by A against B, the factum
probandum is the existence of the debt while the factum probans is the
promissory note signed by B in favor of A.
D. Classification of Evidence
(i)
Object/Real, Documentary and Testimonial evidence

Object/Real Evidence:
that which is directly addressed to the senses
of the court and consists of tangible things exhibited
or demonstrated in open court, in an ocular
inspection or at a place designated by the court for
its view or observation of an exhibition, experiment
or demonstration
Documentary Evidence: evidence consisting of writings or any
material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressed offered
as proof of their contents
Testimonial Evidence:
that which is submitted to the court through
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law

the testimony or deposition of a witness consisting of

the witness perception of past events or occurrence
being recollected by the witness and communicated
to the court; it is a reconstruction of past events
made by a witness through oral testimony,
deposition or any modes of expression or
communication
(ii)
Relevant, material and competent evidence

Relevant Evidence: Evidence having any value in reason as tending to
prove any matter probable in any action; logical
relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue
Material Evidence: Evidence directed to prove a fact in issue; it is
determined by whether the fact it intends to prove is
in issue or not; as to whether a fact is in issue or not
is in turn determined by the substantive law,
pleadings, pre-trial order, and by the admissions
made by parties; consequently, evidence may be
relevant but may be immaterial in a case
Competent Evidence:
Evidence
which is not excluded by the rules, the statute or the
Constitution
(iii)
Direct and circumstantial evidence

Direct Evidence:
that which proves the fact in dispute without
the aid of any inference or presumption
Circumstantial Evidence: indirectly proves a fact in issue through
inference form other
established facts as a
necessary or probable consequence
Classification of Circumstantial Evidence:
(1) Antecedent Circumstances such as moral character, habit,
customs, motive, plan, design
(2) Concomitant Circumstances such as opportunity,
incompatibility, alibi, subsequent circumstances, flight,
concealment, nervousness, despair, fingerprint, footprint,
articles left, blood stains, offer of compromise
(iv)
Cumulative and corroborative evidence

Corroborative Evidence: additional evidence of a different kind and
character tending to prove the same point
Cumulative Evidence:
additional evidence of the same kind tending
to prove the same point
(v)
Primary and secondary evidence

Primary Evidence: that which the law regards as affording the greatest
certainty of the fact in question; referred to in the
rules as the best evidence
Secondary Evidence:
that which is inferior to the primary evidence
and permitted by law only when the best evidence is
not available; referred to in the rules as
substitutionary evidence
(vi)
Positive and negative evidence

Positive Evidence: when witness affirms that a certain state of facts
does exist or a certain event occurred
Negative Evidence:
when witness states that a certain event did
not occur or a certain state of facts does not exist
(vii)
Expert evidence
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C TORREGOSA
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Conception Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law

(viii) Prima facie evidence and conclusive evidence

Prima facie Evidence:
kind of evidence, which, standing alone
unrebutted, is sufficient to support a conclusion
Conclusive Evidence:
that class of evidence which the law does not
allow to be contradicted
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
A. Distinguish Admissibility from Weight and Sufficiency
In order for evidence to serve its purpose of ascertaining the truth respecting a
matter of fact, it has to pass through the test of admissibility and weight and
sufficiency.
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether certain pieces of
evidence are to be considered at all. Evidence may be considered by the court
if it is relevant and competent. It is relevant when it has tendency in reason to
prove or disprove a fact in issue. It is competent when it is excluded by the
rules.
Weight and sufficiency of evidence refer to the question of whether the
admitted evidence proves or disproves an issue. It pertains to its tendency to
convince or persuade.
B. Elements of Admissibility of Evidence
(1) Relevancy logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, that
is whether the former tends to establish the probability or improbability of the
latter; it is governed by logic, common sense, and human experience
(2) Competency pertains to the issue of whether or not the evidence is
excluded by the rules; it is governed by laws or the rules
C. Kinds of Admissibility
(1) Multiple Admissibility
See cases of: Uniwide Sales vs Ikeda
People vs Yatco
(2) Conditional Admissibility
(3) Curative Admissibility
Curative Admissibility or fighting fire with fire applies only if the party
against whom the incompetent evidence is erroneously admitted
objected to its admission
D. Competency of Evidence
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the rules, law or the Constitution
Various Rules of Exclusion:
(A) Exclusionary Rules under the Constitution (Article III, 1987
Constitution)
(1) Right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Section 2)
People vs Marti
Right against unreasonable searches may be invoked only against
the State.
The property illegally seized may be used in evidence against the
officer responsible for the illegal seizure.
Exceptions to the requirement of search warrant:
(i)
Plain View Doctrine
Limitations:
(a)
Prior Justification for Intrusion - such as warrant
for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to
lawful arrest, and some other legitimate reason for
being present and connected to a search directed
against the accused
(b) Inadvertent Discovery of Evidence applies when
the police officer is not searching for evidence
Prepared by:

against the accused but inadvertently comes across

the incriminating object
People vs Musa
Once the valid portion of the search warrant has
been executed, the plain view doctrine cannot
provide any basis for further search
(c)
Illegality must be Immediately Apparent to the
police that the items that they observed may be
evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise
subject to seizure
People vs Musa
There must be a nexus between the item to be
seized and the criminal behavior of the accused
People vs Salanquit
The container must clearly betray its contents,
whether by its destructive configuration, its
transparency, or otherwise its contents are obvious
to an observer.
People vs Bollado
Object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight.
Where the object was inside a closed package, the
object itself is not in plain view and therefore, cannot
be seized without a warrant.
However, if the
package proclaims its contents, whether by its
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or its
contents are obvious to an observer, then the
contents are in plain view.
Plain view includes plain feel but the illegality must
immediately be apparent
(ii)
Waiver or Consented Search
Case Principle:
People vs Damaso
(iii)
Stop and Frisk or Terry Search
(iv)
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
(v)
Search of Moving Vehicles
(vi)
Customs Search
(2) Right to privacy and inviolability of communication (Section 3)
See cases of: Zulueta vs CA
Waterous Drug vs NLRC
(3) Right of person under investigation for an offense or Miranda Rights
doctrine (Sec 12)
Rights available:
(i)
Right to remain silent
(ii)
Right to competent and independent counsel
(iii)
Right to be informed of such rights
General Rule: rights cannot be waived
Exception: waiver in writing, signed by the accused, in the
presence of counsel
Exception to the exception: right to be informed of such rights
cannot be waived
People vs Baloloy
Right is available only during custodial investigation
RA 7438, People vs del Rosario
Police invitation constitutes custodial investigation
Police line-up not part of custodial investigation as it has not
shifted from investigatory to accusatory stage thus Miranda rights
not applicable
People vs Guillermo
Spontaneous statements or those not elicited through questioning
by law enforcement officers but given in ordinary manner are not
Prepared by:

covered by the Miranda doctrine

People vs Paynor
Rights refer only to testimonial compulsion
People vs de Guzman, People vs Lamsing
Miranda doctrine do not cover paraffin tests, photographing
(4) Right against self-incrimination (Section 17)
People vs Malimit
The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion but
testimonial compulsion. It does not apply when the evidence
sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an
object evidence
Right against self-incrimination does not cover the
following:
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(i)
substance emitted from the body
of the accused such as examination for gonorrhea (US vs
Tanting)
hair samples (Pp vs Rondero)
DNA samples (Pp vs Vallero, Pp vs Yatar)
fingerprinting, photographing and paraffin testing (Pp vs
Gallarde)
(v)
pregnancy test (Villaflor vs Summers)
Right against self-incrimination extends to the following:
(i)
compulsion for production of
documents,
papers,
and
chattels
(Regala
vs
Sandiganbayan)
(ii)
any attempt to furnish a specimen of the accuseds
handwriting in connection with prosecution for falsification
(Beltran vs Samson)
Right may be waived by:
(i)
failure to invoke it timely
(ii)
taking the witness stand and
voluntary testifies in which case he may be cross-examined
and asked incriminating questions on any matter he
testified during direct examination
People vs Judge Ayson
While the accused may testify on his own behalf subject to crossexamination, he may, while testifying, refuse to answer a specific
question the answer to which tends to incriminate him for some
crime other than that for which he is being prosecuted
Question is deemed incriminating if it tends to elicit an answer
that would expose the party/witness to possible criminal liability.
Thus, if question relates to a past criminality for which a witness
can no longer be prosecuted as when it has already prescribed or
he has already been acquitted or convicted, or where he has been
granted immunity, the right is not available.
How right may be exercised:
(a) Accused in Criminal Case accused may refuse to take the
stand altogether and need not wait for an incriminating question
to be asked; reason: the purpose for calling him is precisely to
incriminate him
(b) Party in Civil Case or Administrative Case party may invoke
the right as soon as incriminating question will be asked
Exception:
Civil or administrative case partakes of criminal
proceedings, the party may refuse to take the stand
altogether (Pascual vs Medical Board of Examiners,
Cabal vs Kapunan)
(c) Witness in any case right may be invoked when incriminating
question is propounded
Prepared by:

(B) Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws

(1) Anti-Wiretapping Act
Exception to AntiWire Tapping Law - R.A.
No.9372
(The
Human
Security Act)
Section 7 The provisions of R.A. No.4200
(Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police
of law enforcement official and the members of his team may,
upon order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record,
with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other
surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or
with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that
purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion,
or spoken or written words between members of a judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association or group
of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Exception:
Provided,
that
surveillance,
interception and recording shall not be allowed if the
communications are between:
(i)
lawyers and clients
(ii)
doctors and patients
(iii)
journalist and their sources
(iv)
confidential business correspondence
(2) Rape Shield Rule (RA 8505, An Act Providing Assistance and
Protection to Rape Victims)
(3) Sexual Abuse Shield Rule (Rule on Examination of Child Witness)
(4) Laws on Secrecy of Bank Deposits
(i) RA 1465, An Act Prohibiting Disclosure and Inquiry into Bank
Deposits
(ii) RA 6426, Foreign Currency Deposits Act of the Philippines
(5) Documentary Stamp Tax Laws (Article 201, NIRC)
(6) Anti-Voyeurism Act
(C) Exclusionary Rules under the Rules of Court
(1) Best Evidence Rule
(2) Parole Evidence Rule
(3) Opinion Rule
(4) Character Evidence Rule
(5) Hearsay Evidence Rule
(6) Rules on Disqualification of Witness
(7) Rules on Authentication of Documents
(8) Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
III. BEST EVIDENCE RULE
A.
Statement of the Rule

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the document itself (Section 3, Rule 130, Rules of
Court)
B. Scope of the Rule
Applies to all forms of documents containing written expressions, provided the
documetn is offered to prove its contents
C. Document defined refers to writings or any materials containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression such as drawings
(Sealer vs Lucas Film Ltd)
Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the content of the
Prepared by:

writing/document (the question is what the document says), the original of the
writing/document must be presented. What is stated in the document cannot be
proven by photocopy or oral recollection of a witness.
Republic vs. Imee Marcos-Manotok, et. al., G.R. No.171701, 8 February 2012
This case involves a civil action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth against the heirs of
the late Ferdinant Marcos. To prove that the respondents had interests in various
corporations and how they used dummies in acquiring and operating the businesses,
the Republic prensented mere photocopies f documents, consisting of letters, TSN of
proceedings before the PCGG, and affidavit of witnesses. The Republic did not deny
that what should be proved are the contents of these documents themselves. It is
thus imperative to submit the originals that could prove the Republics allegations,
without which the Republic could not prove that the respondents collaborated with
former President Marcos and Imelda Marcos and partcipated in the latters alleged
accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.
D. What is considered as original for purposes of best evidence rule:
(a) when the contents of which are the subject of inquiry, hence a photocopy may
be an original for purposes of the rule
(b) document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals
People vs Hon. Tan
A triplicate copy produced by the use of carbon is admissible without
accounting for the other copies
(c) when the entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied
from another at or near the time of transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals
E. Instances when best evidence rule does not apply and the original
writing need not be produced:
(1)
if the purpose is not to prove the contents of the writing but only to
show that the document exists, or has been executed or delivered, in such a
case, the oral testimony or other secondary evidence is enough to prove the
existence, issuance or delivery of the writing
People vs Tandoy
A photocopy of the marked peso bill is admissible since what is sought to be
proved is the existence of the marked money and not the contents thereof
Pacifico Arceo vs People
A photocopy of the check is admissible in a criminal prosecution for violation of
BP 22 because the gravamen of the offense is the act of issuance of a bum
check, thus the subejct of inquiry is the execution or the existence of the check
and not its contents
(2) if the writing or document is merely collateral or is connected in some way to
the fact in issue, otherwise known as Collateral Fact Rule
(3) if the purpose is to prove a fact that has an existence that is independent of
any writing, even though that fact has been reduced to or evidenced by a
writing,
Mayers vs US
A testimony of a witness given in a committee hearing may be proven by the
oral testimony of someone who heard it although the testimony was recorded,
thus the presentation of the transcript of the witness testimony is not
indispensable
(4) when the terms or contents of the document are not disputed
Consolidated Bank and Trust Company vs Del Monte Motorworks
When the terms/contents of a document are not disputed or are admitted by
the parties
(5) waiver
Dela Cruz vs Court of Appeals
Despite non-compliance with the requisites for introduction of secondary
Prepared by:

evidence, a secondary evidence, if not objected to, becomes admissible and is

as credible as the original
(6) if the subject of inquiry is not the contents of the document, but another matter
independent from the contents of the document.
Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and Sioson, G.R. No.177407, 9 February
2011
The subject of inquiry in this case is whether respondent doctors are liable for
gross negligence in removing the right functioning kidney of Editha instead of
the left non-functioning kidney, not the proper anatomical locations of Edithas
kidneys. Thus, it is not necessary to present the originals of the X-Ray Request
Form. Besides, the fact sought to be established by the admission of these
exhibits (x-ray request forms) that her kidneys wree both in their proper
anatomical locations at the time of the operation, need not be proved as it is
covered by mandatory judicial notice.
Tegimenta Chemical vs. Mary Anne Oco, G.R. No.175369, 27 February
2013
The subject of inquiry is not the payroll sheet of Tegeminta rather, the
thrust of this case is the abundance of evidence present to prove the allegation
that Oco abandoned her job by being on AWOL. Consequently, an employer
cannot be legally stumped by a payroll sheet, but must be able to submit
testimonial and other pieces of documentary evidence like leave forms, office
memos, warning letters and notices, to be able to prove that the employee
abandoned her work.
F. Exceptions to Best Evidence Rule:
(1)
original is lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced without bad faith on the
part of the offeror
De Vera vs. Aquilar
If there are more than one (1) original, all the originals must be accounted for
before secondary evidence may be introduced (De Vera vs. Aguilar)
Country Bankers Insurance vs. Lagman, G.R. No.165487, 13 July 2011
When there are more than one (1) original copy exists, it must appear
that all of them have been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court
before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be
used without accounting for the other originals.
(2)
original is in possession of adverse party
Edsa Hotel vs. BF Corporation
The notice to the adverse party may be in the form of (a) a motion for
the prduction of the original (Rule 27); or (b) made in open court in the
presence of the adverse party; or (c) via subpoena duces tecum, provided the
adverse party is given sufficient time to produce the original.
(3)
original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or recorded in a
public office which may be evidenced by a certified true copy thereof
(4)
original consists of numerous accounts or voluminous documents
Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers
The voluminous records must be made available/accessible to the adverse
party so that the correctness of the summary of the voluminous records may
be tested on cross-examination.
Under the foregoing exceptions, where the original writing is not available for one
reason or another,the next best evidence to prove its contents will be the following
secondary evidence in this order:
(1) copy of the writing
(2) another document reciting its contents
(3) testimony of a witness who has read or knows about it
IV. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Prepared by:

Statement of the 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, between
the parties and their successors in interests, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement.(Section 9, Rule 130)
Purpose of the rule:
to give certainty to written agreement,
preserve its reliability and protect its sanctity. This proceeds from
the premise that spoken words are admittedly unrelaible given the
frailty of human memory, unlike written contract which speaks of
uniform language.
The term parol means something oral, but for purposes of the rule, it means
extraneous evidence or evidence aliunde, either oral or written, which is outside of the
written contract between the parties.
Parol evidence rule becomes opeative when the issues in the litigation are the terms
of the written agreement.
Parol evidence rule presupposes the existence of a written agreement which is sought
to be modified, altered or varied by extraneous evidence, that is, evidence other than
the written agreement itself. The introduction of evidence which tends to vary the
terms of the written agreement is barred, because whatever is not found in the
written agreement is considered waived and abandoned.(Yu Tek vs. Gonzales)
INSTANCES WHERE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE DOES NOT APPLY:
(1) when the document in dispute is not a contract, like a mere receipt, since the rule
presupposes a written agreement (Cruz vs. Court of Appeals);
(2) when at least one of the parties to the case is not a party to the written
agreement, since the rule applies only to suits between parties to the written
contract and their successors-in-interest (Lechugas vs. Court of Appeals).
This is premised on the basic rule that only parties are bound by the terms of a
contract. However, while parol evidence rule has no application to a stranger to a
contract, a person who claims to be the beneficiary of an alleged stipulation pour
autrui may be considered a party to the contract and therefore he is precluded
from introducing oral evidence to vary the terms of a written contract. Moreover,
to preclude the application of the parol evidence rule, it must be shown that at
least one of the parties to the suit is not party or privy of a party to the written
instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a
right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.
A
beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui obviously bases his claim on the contract.
He therefore cannot claim to be a stranger to the contract and resist the
application of the parol evidence rule(Heirs of Mario Pacres vs. Heirs of
Cecilia Ygona, G.R. No.174719, 5 May 2010)
(3) when the prior or contemporaneous agreement is independent from or not
inconsistent with the terms of a written agreement (Robles vs. Lizarraga
Hermanos).
(4) where any of the exception to the parol evidence rule applies, in which case a
party may present parol evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the
written agreement, if he puts in issue in his pleadings the following:
(i)
an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement
(Palanca vs. Wilson & Co.,);
(ii)
the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties.(Enriquez vs. Ramos; Land Settlement
Development Corporation vs. Garcia);
(iii)
the validity of the written agreement, i.e., contracts without
consideration or where consent is vitiated by duress, force and
intimidation;
The operation of the parol evidence rule requires the existence of a valid
written agreement. It is, thus, not applicable in a proceeding where the
Prepared by:

(iv)
validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when the

contract may be void for lack of consideration. Considering that the
Deed of Sale has been shown to be void for being absolutely simulated
and for lack of consideration, the heirs of Alfonso are not precluded from
presenting evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement(Heirs of Ureta vs. Heirs of Ureta, G.R. No.165748, 14
September 2011)
the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successorsin-interest after the execution of the written agreement as when , as
when the parties subsequently modified the terms of their original
agreement (Canuto vs. Mariano).
Where the adverse party fails to object on time, parol evidence may be admitted by
the court to vary, alter or modify the terms of a written agreement (Willex Plastic
Industries Corp. vs. Court of Appeals)
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND PAROL EVIDENCE RULE:
(i)
In the Best Evidence Rule, the question to be answered is - what does the
document say?; while in Parol Evidence Rule, the question is what have the
parties to the contract agreed upon?
(ii)
The Best Evidence Rule establishes a preference for the original over a
secondary evidence; while Parol Evidence Rule is not concerned with primacy of
evidence but it presupposes that the original is available, meaning the Best
Evidence Rule has to be complied with;
(iii)
The Best Evidence Rule precludes the admission of the secondary evidence if
the original document is available; while the Parol Evidence Rule precludes the
admission of evidence other than the contents of the document to prove the
terms of a written agreement;
(iv)
The Best Evidence Rule can be invoked by any litigant to an action whether or
not said litigant is a party to the document involved; while the Parol Evidence
Rule can be invoked only against a party to the written agreement and their
successors-in-interest;
(v)
The Best Evidence Rule applies to all forms of documents; while Parol Evidence
Rule applies only to written contracts and wills.
V. EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS, CONFESSIONS, COMPROMISES AND RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Kinds of Admissions:
(a) Judicial Admission (Section 4, Rule 129)
(b) Extra-judicial admission (Section 26, Rule 130)
Kinds of Extra-judicial Admission:
(A) Admission by a Party(Admission Against Interest)
Statement of the Rule:
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to any relevant fact
maybe given in evidence against him ( Section 26, Rule 130)
Reason for the Rule is its inherent reliability, for no one would make an adverse
admission against himself if such is not true.
- Refers to an extra-judicial admission and the admission is against the interest
of the admitter. Thus, self-serving admission is not admissible.
- The rule on extra-judicial admission under Section 26, Rule 130 contemplates
of a situation where the declarant is not in court, but someone who had
heard/seen the admission testifies in court as to the admission made by the
declarant. In otherwords, the declarant himself is not the witness, because the
moment the declarant comes forward and testifies and reiterates in court his
extra-judicial admission, then such admission becomes a judicial admission.
Prepared by:
10

- Since the witness is not the declarant himself, the testimony of such witness,
insofar as the admission made by the declarant is concerned, is necessarilly
hearsay, considering that the witness has no personal knowledge as to the
truth or falsity of the admission and the declarant who is not in the witness
stand cannot be cross-examined by the party against whom the admission is
offered in evidence.
- But while an extra-judicial admission is necessarilly hearsay, under Section
26, Rule 130, the same is admissible against the declarant. The reason why an
admission - even if hearsay- is admissible is that, the declarant is not expected
to cross-examine himself. In otherwords, if what makes an extra-judicial
admission hearsay is the absence of oppurtunity of the party against whom the
admission is offered to cross-examine the person who made the extra-judicial
admission, then obviously such reason does not exist in case of an extrajudicial admission since the person who made the adamission is the same
person against whom the admission is offered in evidence.(Estrada vs.
Desierto)
- While the extra-judicial admission under Section 26, Rule 130 is not among
those exceptions to the hearsay rule enumerated under Sections 37 to 47 of
Rule 130, the Supreme Court categorically ruled in Estrada vs. Desierto that
admission under Section 26, Rule 130 is an exception to the hearsay evidence
rule.
- While admission under Section 26, Rule 130 and Declaration Against Interest
under Section 38, Rule 130 are both exceptions to hearsay evidence rule, they
are distinct from each other.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ADMISSION UNDER SECTION 26
AND DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST UNDER SECTION 38
(i) the admission under Section 26 is admissible against the declarant only;
while declaration against interest under Section 38 is admissible not only
against the admmitter but also against third party;
(ii) in admission under Section 26, the declarant need not be dead or unable to
testify; while in declaration against interest under Section 38 applies only if
the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
(iii)an admission under Section 38 may be made at any time even during the
trial; while declaration against interest is made before the controversy
arises.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION UNDER SECTION
26
AND JUDICIAL ADMISSION UNDER SECTION 4, RULE 29
(i) A judicial admission is made in the course of a judicial proceeding in the
same case; while an extra-judicial admission is made out of court or in a
judicial proceeding involving a different case other than the case where the
admission is introduced in evidence;
(ii) A judicial admission is binding and conclusive upon the admitter; while an
extra-judicial admission maybe contradicted by the admitter;
(iii)A judicial admission requires no proof and need not be formally offered;
while an extra-judicial admission requires proof and needs to be formally
offered in evidence.
(B) Res Inter Alios Acta
Two Branches of Res Inter Alios Acta:
(a) Admission by third party (Res Inter Alios Acta Rule of the First Branch)
Statement of the rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration or omission of another. (Section 28, Rule 130)
Reason behind the rule: since the third party-declarant cannot be crossPrepared by:
11

examined by the party against whom the act, declaration or omission is

offered, due process demands that the latter shall not be prejudiced by
the act, declaration or omission of the former.
- The res inter alios acta rule presupposes an extra-judicial admission,
because the declarant is not the one testifying in court, and therefore he
cannot be cross-examined by the party against whom the declaration is
offered in evidence. It contemplates of a situation where another person
(witness) testifies in court as to the act, declaration or omission made by
a party outside of court. The witness is a person who claims to have
heard or known of the extra-judicial admission made by a party
(declarant). If the declarant himself takes the witness stand and
reiterates in court his extra-judicial admission that he made outside of
court, his otherwise extra-judicial admission becomes a judicial
admission and, as such, it is admissible against another party. The
reason is obvious that other party against whom the admission is
offered in evidence has the oppurtunity to cross-examine the declarant
and, therefore, due process is complied with.
EXCEPTIONS TO RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE OF THE FIRST BRANCH:
(i) Admission by co-partner/agent/joint-owner/joint-debtor (Sec
29, Rule 130)
Reason for the exception since partners, co-owners and codebtors with respect to each other or agent in relation to his
principal, possess identity of interest and are similarly
circumstanced, they are deemed by law as one and the same
party, such that the admission made a partner, joint-owner, jointdebtor or agent is binding and admissible against the other
partners, joint-owners, joint-debtors or principal, because such
admission cannot be deemed as an admission made by a third
party (under Section 28, Rule 130) but an admission made by the
party himself, which is admissible under Section 26, Rule 130.
Requisites for the exception to apply:
(a) there must be an act or declaration made by a partner/jointowner/joint-debtor or agent;
(b) the act or declaration must be within the scope of the
authority of the partner/joint-owner/joint-debtor or agent and
made during the existence of the partnership/jointownership/joint-debt/agency;
(c) there must be an independent evidence of the existence of the
partnership/joint-ownership/joint-debt/agency.
(ii) Admission by a co-conspirator (Section 30, Rule 130)
Reason for the exception (same as that of an admission by a
partner/joint-owner/joint-debtor/agent).
(a) there must be an act or declaration made by a co-conspirator;
(b) the act or declaration must relate to the conspiracy and during
the existence of the conspiracy.
Thus, the extra-judicial admission made by a conspirator after
the crime was consummated is not admissible against the
other co-conspirators, precisely because such admission was
not made during the existence of conspiracy (People vs.
Quidato, 297 SCRA 1); and
(c) there must be an independent evidence of the conspiracy
other than the act or declaration made by the confessing
conspirator (People vs. Guittap, G.R. No.144621, 9 May
2003; People vs. Michael Bokingo, G.R. No.187536, 10
August 2011).
(iii) Admission by Privies (Section 31, Rule 130)
Prepared by:
12

Reason for the exception since the successor merely steps into
the shoes of the predecessor, they are deemed by law as
possessing the same interest and similarly circumstanced with
respect to the property acquired by the former from the latter,
such that the previous admission made by the predecessor while
still holding title to the property is binding and admissible against
the predecessor who is presently holding the title, because such
admission cannot be deemed as an admission by a third party
proscribed under the res inter alios acta rule.
(a) there must be an act, declaration or omission made by a
predecessor-in-interest;
(b) the act, declaration or omission relates to the property and
made while the predecessor (declarant) was still holding title
to the property;
Thus, if the act, declaration, or omission was made before the
predecessor (declarant) became the owner of the property
(City of Manila vs. Del Rosario) or after the predecessor
had parted with the ownership of the property to his
successor-in-interest (City of Manila vs. Del Rosario;
Gevero vs. IAC), then such act, declaration or omission is not
admissible against the successor.
(c) the title to the property is now being transferred to and
presently held by the successor-in-interest.
(b) Similar Acts or Previous Conduct Rule (Res Inter Alios Acta Rule of
the Second Branch)
Statement of the rule - Evidence that one did or did not do
a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did
not do the same or similar thing at another time.(Section 34, Rule
130)
Reason for the rule: Evidence of similar act s or occurences
compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the
complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of relevant
issues, and diverts the attention of the court from the issues
immediately before it. Hence, the evidentiary rule guards against
practical inconvenience of trying collateral issues and protracting the
trial and prevent surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants. (Cruz
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.126713, 27 July 1998).
While evidence of similar acts or previous conduct is inadmissible to
prove that the person did or did not do the same or similar conduct at
another time, it is, however, admissible to prove:
(i)
specific intent;
(ii)
knowledge;
(iii)
identity;
(iv)
plan;
(v)
system;
(vi)
scheme;
(vii) habit;
(viii) custom;
(ix) usage; and the like (Section 34, Rule 130)
OFFER OF COMPROMISE (Section 27, Rule 130)
A. In Civil Cases offer of compromise is not an admission of liability and is not
admissible against the offeror.
Reason for the rule: In civil cases, the policy is to encourage compromise.
B. In Criminal Cases an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
Prepared by:
13

evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

Exceptions:
(i)
in quasi-offenses/criminal negligence cases
(ii)
cases allowed by law to be compromised, such as in cases involving
criminal prosecution for violation of the Nstional Internal Revenue Code,
where compromise is allowed under Section 204 thereof.
(iii)
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty
to a lesser offense;
(iv)
Under the Good Samarita Rule, that is, an offer to pay or the payment
of medical, hospital or other expenses occassioned by an injury is not
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
OTHER FORMS OF OFFER OF COMPROMISE:
(i) Plea for forgiveness made by the accused, or by a member of his family or a third
party with the implied acquiscience or ratification of the accused (Pp vs. De
Guzman);
(ii) Offer of marriage made by the accused. But if the offer of marriage was made by
a third party (Muslim Imam) without the involvement of the accused, such offer
is not admissible as implied admission of guilt(People vs. Danny Godoy);
(iii)Offer of payment of money or anything of value, other than for medical or hospital
expenses occassioned by injury;
(iv)Offer of restitution.
VI. HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE
General Rule:
A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perception (Section 36,
Rule 130)
Reasons why hearsay evidence is inadmissible (Estrada vs Desierto):
1) Lack of cross-examination, since the witness is not the declarant and the
declarant is not in court
2) Absence of demeanor evidence, since the declarant is not the one testifying in
court
3) Absence of an oath, since the declarant is not the one testifying in court
(Section 1, Rule 132)
The determination of whether an evidence is hearsay or not depends on the purpose
for which the evidence is offered:
a) Hearsay rule applies if evidence is for the purpose of proving the truth of the
assertion/declaration/statement or otherwise offered for hearsay purposes;
b) If the evidence is offered for non-hearsay purposes, regardless of the truth or
falsity of the assertion/declaration/statement, it is not hearsay and therefore
admissible
An evidence is deemed to be offered for non-hearsay purposes if it is offered to prove
that
a
statement/assertion/declaration
was
made
and
such
statement/assertion/declaration is relevant to the case, regardless of its truth or
falsity. Meaning to say, such statement/assertion/declaration is INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT TO THE CASE.
An assertion/declaration/statement is independently relevant to the case, regardless
of its truth or falsity, when:
a) Such assertion/declaration/statement is the very fact in issue in the case, e.g.
prosecutions for the crimes of libel, oral defamation, threats; or
b) Such assertion/declaration/statement is a circumstantial evidence of a fact in
issue, such as:
a. The mental state, emotions, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-will, bias of teh
declarant;
Prepared by:
14

b.
c.
d.
e.
Physical condition, such as illness of the declarant;

The mental condition/state of mind of the listener;
Statement showing credibility of a witness, e.g. prior inconsistent staement;
Statement which may establish/identify the date, place, and person in
question
Cross-examination is necessary to determine the qualities of a witness by testing his:

a) Veracity sincerity or willingenss to tell the truth, that is, whether the witness
had any reason to lie;
b) Competency ability to tell the truth, which depends on three (3) factors:
i. observation - the ability to perceive the event (perception)
- the question here is did the witness perceive what he
describes, and did he perceive accurately?
ii. memory
- the ability to retain what is perceived
- the question here is has the witness retained an accurate
impression of his perception?
iii. transmission - the ability to transmit his recollection of the event
(narration)
- the question here is does his language convey that
impression accurately?
Hence, in order to encourage the witness to do his best with respect to each of these
factors, and to expose inaccuracies which may enter in, the witness shall ideally be
required to testify:
a) under oath;
b) in the personal presence of the trier of fact (demeanor evidence); and
c) under cross-examination.
The rule against the hearsay is designed to insure compliance with these ideal
condtions and when one of them is absent, the hearsay objection becomes pertinent.
The rule against hearsay evidence is to preserve the right of the parties to crossexamine the original persons who have knowledge of the transaction or event.
EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY:
A) DYING DECLARATION (Section 38, Rule 130)
Reasons for admissibility (Pp vs Cerilla, G.R. No. 177147, 28 November
2007):
a) necessity the declarants death renders it impossible his taking the
witness stand and it often happens that there is no other equally
satisfactory proof of the crime.
Allowing admission of a dying
declaration, therefore, prevents a failure of justice.
b) trustworthiness no person aware of his impending death would make a
careless and false accusation. Point of death is so solemn and awful
equal to an oath.
Requisites:
(Pp vs Cerilla, G.R. No. 177147, 28 November 2007; People vs.
Salafranca, G.R. No.173476, 22 February 2012; People vs. Dejillo, G.R.
No.185005, 10 December 2012):
1) The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of
the declarants death (not other persons death), which refers not only to
the facts of the assault itself, but also to matters both before and after the
assault having a direct causal connection with it.
Thus, statements
indicating deliberation and willfulness in the attack, indicating the reason or
motive for the killing, justifying the killing, or indicating the absence of
cause for the act are admissible
2) At the time the declaration was made, the declarant must be under the
consciousness of an impending death.
The rule is that, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be
Prepared by:
15

entertained by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the
rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration
admissible. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of
survival and looked at death as certainly impending. But take note of the
ratification doctrine, which states that a statement made under
circumstances which would not render it admissible as a dying declaration
becomes admissible as such if approved or repeated by the declarant after
he had abandoned all hope of recovery. In Pp vs Babiera (52 Phil 97),
although the statement in itself is inadmissible as an ante mortem
declaration, in as much as there is nothing to show that at the time he
made it, Severino Haro knew or firmly believed that he was at the point of
death, nevertheless, after having ratified its contents a week later when he
was near death as a result of his wounds, said declaration is admissible as a
part of that which he made ante mortem.
3) The declarant is competent as a witness.
Where the declarant would not have been a competent witness had he
surived, the proferred declarations will not be admissible. Accordingly,
declaration made by a child too young to be a competent witness or by an
insane incapable of understanding his own statements are not admissible.
However, the presumption is that, delcarant would have been competent.
(Geraldo and Ariate vs People, G.R. No. 173608, 20 November
2008)
4) The declaration must be offered in any case where the declarants death is
the subject of inquiry (Geraldo and Ariate vs People. G.R. No. 173608,
20 November 2008).
Note: The ruling in People vs Cerilla, where the Supreme Court held that the
declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or
parricide in which the declarant is a victim, is of doubtful accuracy because
Section 37, Rule 130 expressly provides that dying declaration may be
received in any case where the declarants death is the subject of inquiry as
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
Doctrine of Completeness in relation to dying declaration
(Pp vs De Joya, G.R. No. 75028, 8 November 1991)
- Under this doctrine, a dying declaration must be complete in itself. To be
complete, it does not mean that the declarant must recite everything; it is
enough that it be a full expression of all that the declarant intended to say as
conveying his meaning in respect of such fact.
- Reason for the rule: since the declarant was prevented by death or other
circumstance from saying all that he wished to say, what he did say might have
qualified by the statements which he was prevented from making. That
incomplete declaration is not therefore entitled to the presumption of
truthfulness which constitutes the basis upon which dying declarations are
received.
B) DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (Section 38, Rule 130)
Basis/Reasons for exception:
a) Trustworthiness no person would make a statement adverse to himself
unless it is true
b) Necessity the declarant is already dead or unable to testify; allowing it
prevents a failure of justice
Requisites:
1) The declarant is deceased or unable to testify because he is mentally
incapacitated or physically incompetent.
But mere absence of the declarant is not enough. The proponent must
serious effort to produce the declarant (Fuentes vs CA)
2) At the time the declaration was made, it was against the interest of the
declarant (Parel vs Prudencio)
C) ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE (Section 39, Rule 130)
Prepared by:
16

Reasons for exception:

a) Trustworthiness/reliability
b) Necessity
Pedigree refers to relationship, family genealogoy, birth, marriage, death the
date when and place where these facts occured and names of relatives
Requisites:
1) The declarant must be dead or unable to testify
2) The pedigree is in issue or is relevant thereto
3) The person whose pedigree is in question must be related to the declarant
by birth or marriage
4) The declaration must be made before the controversy, i.e. ante litem
motam, not only before commencement of suit, but before any controversy
has arisen thereon
5) The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in
question must be shown by evidence other than such declaration.
This contemplates of a situation where the party claiming (claimant) seeks
recovery against a relative common to both claimant and declarant, the
relationship of the declarant to the common relative may not be proved by
the declaration itself.
This applies where the subject of the declaration is the relationship
(pedigree) of a relative vis-a-vis another relative
Example: In an action to establish the status as an illegitimate daughter,
the claimant may introduce in evidence an act or declaration made by
her purported uncles who, by act or declaration, acknowledged the
claimant as an illegitimate daughter of their brother. Here, independent
evidence of pedigree is necessary before the act or declaration of the
childs purported uncles can be admitted as an exception to hearsay
An exception to the requirement of independent evidence of pedigree is
where the subject of the declaration is the declarants own relationsihp to
the claimant. Here, the claimant seeks to establish his relationship to the
declarant through the declarants own declaration.
Case showing exception: (Tison vs CA)
The niece/nephew (claimants) sought to establish their relationship to
their aunt through the aunts own declaration, in support of their claim
over a portion of the estate of the aunt which they claim to have
inherited. Here, there is no need for independent evidence of pedigree
other than the aunts own declaration.
D) FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE (Section 40, Rule
130)
Reasons for the Exception:
(i) trustworthiness/realibity - since pedigree involves matters known by family
members who are in the best position to know the facts; they are
expression of persons who must know the truth.
(ii) necessity - it is the best evidence that the nature of the case admits
and to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Two (2) parts:

(Jison vs. Court of Appeals)
(i) testimony of a family member; and
(ii) family possessions.
Prepared by:
17

Requisites:
(People vs. Alegrado)
(i) there must be a controversy in respect to pedigree of any of family
members;
(ii) there must be a reputation or a tradition regarding the pedigree of such
family member which existed prior to the controversy;
(iii)the witness testifying as such reputation or tradition must be a member of
the same family as the person whose pedigree is in question.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
(Section 39)
and FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE (Section
40)
In Section 39, the declarant is dead or unable to testify, and the witness, who
may be a family member or not, testifies as to the act or declaration made by
the declarant about the pedigree of a family member; while Section 40, does
not involve a deceased declarant or a declarant who is unable to testify, but a
witness, who must be a family member, testifying as to the family reputation or
tradition regarding the pedigree of another family member.
E. COMMON REPUTATION (Section 41, Rule 130)
Covers two (2) subjects:
(i)
matters of public or general interest more than thirty (30) years
old; and
(ii)
marriage or moral character.
Unlike pedigree (Sections 39 and 40), general reputation of marriage or
non-marriage may proceed from persons who are not members of the
family, in view of the public interest that is taken in the questions
involving marital relations (In Re: Mallari).
IN RE: Atty. Florencio Mallari
The Filipino citizenship of a lawyer (Atty. Florencio Mallari), whose license
was revoked upon finding that he is not a Filipino as his parents were
allegedly both chinese nationals, was established by the witnesses who
belonged to the same community all of whom testified that Ana, the
mother of Esteban (Florencios father) was unmarried and a Tagalog
and, therefore, a Filipino.
F. RES GESTAE (Section 42, Rule 130)
Reason for the Exception: its trustworthiness, given the absence of the
oppurtunity to concoct/fabricate since the statement was made spontaneously.
Two (2) Forms of Res Gestae:
(i) Spontaneous statement
Statement of the rule Statements made by a person
while a startling occurence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as part of the res gestae. X x x(Section 42, first
part, Rule 130)
It refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, the victim or spectator to a crime immediately before,
during and after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances
are such that the statements were made as spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by excitement of the occassion and there was no
oppurtunity for the declarant to deliberate and fabricate a false
statement(People vs. Esoy, G.R. No.185894, 7 April 2010)
The spontaneous statement was made during the startling occurence, or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto. If the statement was not
spontaneous, it is not admissible as res gestae(Talidano vs. Falcon
Prepared by:
18

Maritime & Allied Services)

The test is the absence of the oppurtunity to concoct or fabricate.
DBP Pool vs. Radio Mindanao Network
This involves an insurance claim against an insurance company, who
invoked as a defense the excepted risk clause of the policy, contending
that the fire was caused by rebellion which is an excepted risk. It was
held that the testimonies of the investigators that the fire was caused by
CPP-NPA rebels based on testimonies of some by-standers are not
admissible as part of res gestae, in view of the strong possibility that the
interview was not made spontaneously and before the by-standers had
the time to contrive or influenced by other factors, like exchange of
information, speculation, or idle talk.
For this exception to apply, the declarant must himself be competent to
testify had he been presented in court, so that if the declarant made a
statement not on his own personal knowledge but based on what he
heard from another, the testimony of the witness who heard the
statement uttered by the declarant is not admissible as part of res
gestae. (BAR 2011)
(ii) Verbal Acts
Statement of the rule Statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received
as part of the res gestae. (Section 42, second part, Rule 130)
G. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
Statement of the rule:
Entries made at, or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify,
who was in the position to know the facts therein stated, maybe received as
prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional
capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty(Section 43, Rule 130).
(i) trustworthiness - as the entries were made in the
ordinary course of business, then they are presumed to be accurate.
(ii) Necessity - as the entries were made in the ordinary course of
business by person in his professional capacity or in the performance of
duty, such entries are deemed by law as the best evidence available
and since the entrant is dead or unable to testify, allowing the admission
of such entries as evidence prevents a failure of justice.
Requisites:
(i) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
Canque vs. Court of Appeals
To prove the fact of delivery of certain construction materials, SOCOR
adduced in evidence its Book of Collectible Accounts as testified to by its
book keeper. The Supreme Court ruled that the Book of Collectible
Accounts is not admissible as entries in the course of business because:
(a) the entrant, who is the book keeper herself, is not dead or
unable to testify, as she in fact had testified; and
(b) the witness-entrant-book keeper admitted to having no
knowledge of the entries, which were based on the billings furnished
her by the project engineer;
Northwest Airlines vs. Chiong
While there is no necessity to bring into court all the employees who
individually made the entries in the Passenger Manifest and Passenger
Name Record, it is sufficient that the person who supervised them while
they are making the entries testify that the entries were prepared under
his supervision and that the entries were regularly entered in the course
Prepared by:
19

of business.
(ii) the entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they
refer;
(ii) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(iii) the entries were made in his professional capacity or in a performance of a
duty;
(iv) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
Failure to prove the existence of all the foregoing evidence renders the
evidence inadmissible under hearsay evidence rule (Patula vs. People, G.R.
No.164457, 11 April 2012)
H. ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Statement of the rule:
Entries in official records made in the
performance of his dutyby a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in
the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated(Section 44, Rule 130)
Reason for the Exception: its trusworthiness, based on the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty
Requisites:
(i) the entry was made by a public officer, or by a person
especially enjoined by law to do so;
Examples of persons enjoined by law to make report:
(a) persons authorized by law to solemnized marriage, because they are
required by law to submit copies of marriage contract to the Local
Civil Registrar of the place where the marriage was
solemnized(Family Code);
(b) Ship Captains, because they are required by law to keep a logbook
where to record all incidents occurring on board the vessel and all
decisions that he adopted (Article 612, Code of Commerce)
(ii) the entry must be made by a public officer in the performance of his duties,
or by such other person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by
law; and
(iii)that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts
therein stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through
official information, i.e., it must come from one under a legal duty to submit
the same.
Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. BIR
To prove service of the required Notice of Assessment, BIR presented a BIR
Record Book, containing lists of taxpayers names, nature and amount of tax,
the registry number and date of mailing of the Notice of Assessment, as
testified to by the records custodian. It was ruled that the BIR Record Book is
not admissible as entries in official records because:
(a) the entries made were not based on the personal knowledge of the records
custodian; and
(b) the records custodian did not attest to the fact that she acquired the reports
from persons under a legal duty to submit the same.
People vs. San Gabriel
A stabbing incident occurred and an eyewitness reported to the police station
where the police on duty recorded the incident in the police blotter (advance
information sheet). The accused argued that he should be acquitted, since he
is not the one named in the police blotter but another person. It was ruled that
the police blotter is not admissible as entries in official business, considering
that:
(a) the police officer who recorded the incident in the police blotter had no
personal knowledge of the facts therein stated; and
(b) the facts stated in the police blotter were not obtained by the police officer
through official information, since the eyewitness who reported the incident is
Prepared by:
20

not a person especially enjoined by law to make such report.

Malayan Insurance Company vs. Alberto and Reyes, G.R. No.194320, 1
February 2012.
The police report is not admissible under entries in official records, as the onspot investigator does not appear to have sufficient personal knowledge of the
facts stated in the report.
I. COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
Statement of the rule: Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other
published compilation is admissible as tending toprove the truth of any relevant
matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in
that occupation and is generally used
and relied upon
by them
therein(Section 45, Rule 130)
Reason for the Exception: its trustworthiness, it being generally used and relied
upon by persons engaged in an occupation.
Requisites:
(i) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
(ii) such statement is contained in the list, register, periodical or other
published compilation;
(iii)such compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that
occupation; and
(iv)it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation.
PNOC Shipping and Transport vs. Court of Appeals
This arose from a collision between two (2) vessels resulting in the damage and
sinking of one of the colliding vessels. The owner of the sinking vessel sued for
damages, representing the replacement value of the boat and its equipment.
To prove the replacement value, the plaintiff presented its general manager
to testify on some price quotations provided by various suppliers. It was held
that the price quotations are not admissible as commercial lists, because
they were issued personally to the plaintiff who requested for them from
dealers of similar equipment. These are not published in any lists, register,
periodical or other compilation on the relevant subject matter. Moreover, they
are not standard handbooks or periodicals, containing date of everyday
professional need and relied upon in the work of the occupation. They are
merely letters responding to the queries of plaintiffs manager.
J. LEARNED TREATIES
Statement of the rule: a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject
of history, law, science or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of the
matter stated therein.(Section 46, Rule 130)
Reason for the Exception: trustworthiness, it being based on the works of
experts.
Published treatise, periodicals or pamphlets on the subject of history, law,
science or art are admissible if:
(i) the court takes judicial notice of them; or
(ii) a witness expert on the subject testifies that the writer of the statement in
the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling
as expert in the subject.
K. TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING
Statement of the rule the testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or
unable to testify, given in a former case or proceedings, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, maybe given in
evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine
Prepared by:
21

him.(Section 47, Rule 130)

Reasons for the Exception(i) Necessity since the witness/deponent is already dead and unable to
testify, allowing its admission as evidence prevents a failure of justice.
(ii) Trustworthiness since the adverse party had the opportunity to crossexamine the witness/deponent.
Requisites:
(i) the witness/deponent is dead;
Tan vs. Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court ruled that subsequent failure or refusal to appear at
the present case or hostility since testifying at the first trial does not
amount to inability to testify, but such inability proceeding from a grave
cause, almost amounting to death, as when the witness is old and has
lost the power of speech. Here, the witness in question were available.
Only, they refused to testify. No other person that prevented them is
cited.Certainly, they do not come within the purview of those unable to
testify.
(ii) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the
same interests;
Manliclic vs. Calaunan
The TSNs of the testimonies of the witnesses in the criminal case (who
are now unavailable to testify in the civil case) are not admissible ,
considering that the employer was not a party to the criminal case and
had no opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses.
(iii) the former case involved the same subject matter as that in the present
case, although on a different cause of action;
(iv) the former case involved the same issue involved in the present case;
(v) the adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine the
witness/deponent.
L. ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST
Statement of the rule An act, declaration or omission of a party as to any
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.(Section 26, Rule 130)
(i) trustworthiness no person would make a statement adverse to himself
unless he believes it to be true.
(ii) the requirement of cross-examination does not apply, since the declarant is
not expected to cross-examine himself.
While not one of those enumerated under the Rules of Court as exceptions to
hearsay evidence rule, admission against interest under Section 26, Rule 130
was declared by the Supreme Court as an exception to hearsay in the case of
Estrada vs. Desierto.
M. HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN CHILD
ABUSE CASE (Sec 28, Rules in the
Examination of Child Witness)
Statement of the rule - A statement made by a child witness describing any act
or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay
rule, maybe admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding,
subject to the following rules:
(a)
before such hearsay statement maybe admitted, its proponent
shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such
statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to
object.
(b)
if the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the
adverse party, require the child to be present at the presentation
of the hearsay evidence/statement for cross-examination.
Prepared by:
22

(c)
if the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be

proved by the proponent. But his hearsay testimony shall be
admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence.
The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following

situations:
(i) is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental
illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological injury; or
(ii) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.
Factors to consider in ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay
statement:
(a) whether there is a motive to lie;
(b) the general character of the declarant child;
(c) whether more than one (1) person heard the statement;
(d) whether the statement was spontaneous;
(e) the timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant
child and the witness;
(f) cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant
child;
(g) the possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(h) the circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no
reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of
the accused.
N. IN PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING WRIT OF AMPARO
Gen. Avelino Razon, et al. vs. Mary Jean Tagitis, et al.
Given the unique evidentiary difficulties presented by enforced
disappearances cases, the fair and proper rule is to consider any evidence
otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent
with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduced our rules to
the most basic test of reason- i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue
at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of evidence adduced. Thus,
even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic
minimum test. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held it duly established that
Col. Kasim informed the respondent and her friends, based on the
informants letter, that Tagitis, reputedly a liason for the JI and who had been
under surveillance since January 2007, was in good hands and under
custodial investigation for complicity with the JI after he was seen talking to one
Omar Patik and a certain Santos of Bulacan,a Balik-Islam charged with
terrorism. This despite the fact that the informants letter was allegedly
already destroyed and the probative value thereof was not based on the
personal knowledge of the witnesses but on the knowledge of some other
person not on the witness stand (the informant).
VII. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Testimonial evidence consists of a witness perception of past events as
recollected and communicated by him orally or in such other forms of
communication. It is a re-construction of past events made by a witness.
General rule: the testimony of a witness must be given orally (Section 1, Rule
132).
Exceptions:(Section 1, Rule 132)
(i)
when witness is incapacitated to speak;
(ii)
when questions call for a different mode of answer;
(iii)
where the rules allow testimony to be given in affidavit form (such as in cases
governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure)
Prepared by:
23

QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS:
(i)
can perceive (observation acquired from personal knowledge)
(ii)
and in perceiving, he can make known his perception to others (memory and
communication)
(iii)
he must take an oath or affirmation
(iv)
must not possess any of the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules.
The following are NOT grounds for disqualification of a witness:
(a)
religious belief;
(b)
political affiliation;
(c)
interest in the outcome of the case;
(d)
conviction of a crime, except:
(i) a person convicted of the crimes of falsification, perjury or false testimony
is disqualified from being a witness in a Will. Thus, he is disqualified from
testifying in a probate proceedings;
(ii) a person convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude is disqualified
from being a state witness. Thus, he cannot testify as a state witness in a
criminal case filed against him and his other co-accused.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS:
(A) Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or insanity(Section 21,
Rule 130)
A person incapable of making known his perception to others is disqualified as
a witness, provided the incapacity or insanity must exist at the time of his
production for examination.
Incapacity/insanity at the time of observation of the event that the witness is
asked to testify does not disqualify the witness from testifying so long as he is
competent at the time of his production as a witness, but it affects his
credibility.
(B) Disqualification by reason of immaturity(Section 21, Rule 130)
Refers to children whose mental maturity is such as to render them:
(i) incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined; and
(ii) of relating them truthfully.
But under the Rules on the Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No.00-07SC), every child is presumed competent. Thus, the party who alleges the
contrary must prove that the child witness is disqualified by reason of his
mental immaturity.
(C) Disqualification by reason of marriage, otherwise known as marital
disqualification rule or spousal immunity (Section 22, Rule 130)
Purposes of the rule:
(a) preserve marital relations and promote domestic peace;
(b) prevent perjury.
Requisites:
(i) must be legally married;
Alvarez vs. Ramirez
Even if the spouses are still legally married but their relationship is
already strained, the marital disqualification rule or spousal immunity
does not apply, and therefore, the wife may testify against his husband.
The reason for this rule is that, when the spouses are already
estranged, there is no more domestic peace to preserve.
(ii) the witness-spouse could either be a party to the case or not, but the other
spouse must
be a party;
(iii)the testimony may be for or against the party-spouse; and
Prepared by:
24

(iv)the testimony is offered during the marriage, not before and not after its
dissolution.
Applies to any case/action/proceedings and covers testimonial, object or
documentary evidence. Thus, either spouse may not be compelled to produce
documents or object evidence may be incriminate the other.
The marital disqualification rule or spousal immunity ceases upon dissolution
of the marriage either by death or other grounds.
Exceptions to Marital Disqualification Rule or Spousal Immunity:
(i) in a civil case by one spouses against the other; and
(ii) in a criminal case involving a crime committed by one spouse against the
witness-spouse,
or against the direct descendants or ascendants of the witnessspouse.
(D) Disqualification by Reason of Death or Insanity, otherwise known as
the Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule (Section
23, Rule 130)
Purpose of the rule:
(i) to avoid perjury, since the other party is already dead, the temptation on
the party of the surviving party to resort to falsehood is high;
(ii) to level playing field, as the dead party is no longer around to tell his own
tale and refute that of the surviving party.
Requisites:
(i) the defendant in the case is the executor, administrator or a representative
of the deceased or person of unsound mind;
Guererro vs. St. Claire Realty, et al.
The Dead Man Statute does not apply and, therefore, a witness may
testify on a fact which took place prior to the death of the deceased,
considering that the defendants in the case were sued in their personal
and individual capacity as buyers of the lot in question, and not as
representatives of the deceased from whom they purchased the subject
lot.
(ii) the suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of the deceased
person or of unsound mind.
Conversely, if the estate of the deceased person or the person of
unsound mind is the claimant or counter-claimant, the rule does not
apply.
Tongco vs. Vianzon
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply,
since the plaintiff or claimant
is the estate of the deceased husband
as represented by the executor and the case for recovery of property is
filed against the widow.
Razon vs. IAC
since the plaintiff or claimant in the case is the estate of the deceased
person and the case is filed against the defendant to recover the shares
of stocks belonging to the deceased now being represented by his
estate.
Goni vs. Court of Appeals
because the witness testified to substantiate the counterclaim of the
estate of the deceased against the plaintiff in the case. Thus, insofar
as the counterclaim is concerned, the estate of the deceased person is
deemed to be the claimant, although it is the defending party insofar
as the complaint of the plaintiff is concerned.
(iii) the witness is the plaintiff or the assignor of that party-plaintiff, or a
Prepared by:
25

person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted. If the witness is somebody

else, the rule does not apply.
Guerrero vs. Saint Claire Realty
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification rule does not apply,
since the witness is an ordinary witness, not the plaintiff nor the
assignor of the plaintiff nor the person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted.
Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf
since the plaintiff is a Corporation and the witness, although officer of
the Corporation, is not the plaintiff itself.
Other important principles relative to Dead Man Statute or
Survivorship Disqualification Rule:
(a)
Objection based on Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification
Rule is deemed waived by failure to object timely or by cross-examining
the witness on the matter otherwise inadmissible under the rule.
(Abraham vs. Recto-Kasten)
(b)
The rule does not apply if the matter subject of the testimony of an
otherwise disqualified witness refers to a transaction or event entered
into by the deceased through an agent and the agent is still alive. The
reason for this rule being that, since the agent has personal knowledge
of the transaction having entered into the same on behalf of the
principal, the agent can very well protect the interest of his principal
who is now deceased, and therefore, the estate of the deceased cannot
be deemed to be at a disadvantage as the agent can always controvert
whatever falsehood the surviving party may peddle in the court about
the transaction in question. (Goni vs. Court of Appeals)
(c)
The disqualification covers testimony regarding facts that occurred or
transpired prior to the death of the deceased against whose estate
the case is filed; it does not apply if the witness would testify that a
certain fact or event did not occur. (Mendezona vs. Vda De Goitia)
(E) Disqualification by Reason of Privilege Communication (Section 24,
Rule 130)
Purpose/s of the rule:
(i) to encourage full disclosure of information necessary for effective
performance of duties/obligations;
(ii) to preserve and protect confidential information.
General
Principles
Common
To
All
Kinds
of
Privilege
Communications:
(I) Who may assert/invoke the privilege?
(i) Being personal in nature, this can only be claimed by the holder of
the privilege, that is, the person whose interest or relationship is sought
to be protected ((i.e. communicating spouse, client, patient, penitent);
(ii) In case the holder is absent when the testimony is sought, the
court or other party may assert although the privilege is personal;
(iii) the persons to whom the privilege communication was transmitted
(the recipient spouse, lawyer, physician, priest), provided the holder
is alive and has not waived the privilege.
(II) The privilege communication rule survives the death of the holder.
(III) The privilege communication rule cannot be invoked to perpetrate crime
or injustice.
Privileged Communication:
(A) Marital Privilege Communication
Requisites:
(a) spouses must be legally married.
(b) the case involves communication, oral or written, made during the
Prepared by:
26

marriage.
(c) the communication was made confidentially.
Pp vs. Carlos
The letter of the wife addressed to the husband which was seized by
the police was held to be admissible in evidence, because a
confidential information which fell to the hands of a stranger, whether
legally or illegally, ceases to be confidential.
Exceptions to the Marital Privilege Communication Rule:
(i)
civil case by one against the other;
(ii)
criminal case committed by one against the
other or the latters direct ascendants/descendants.
(B) Attorney-Client Privilege Communication Rule
Requisites:
(a) there must be a communication made by client to the attorney or
an advice given by the attorney to a client;
(b) the communication or advice must have been given in confidence.
Barton vs. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil
a letter of a client sent to his lawyer which eventually found its
way to the hands of the adverse party was held to be admissible
in evidence, because a confidential information which fell to the
hands of a stranger, whether legally or illegally, ceases to be
confidential.
(c) The communication or advice must have been given
either in the course of professional employment or with a view of
professional employment respecting past acts or crimes.
Pp vs. Sandiganbayan
the testimony of the lawyer pertaining to the information relayed
to him by his client about the details of an on-going crime was
held to be not covered by the attorney-client privilege
communication rule, as this rule applies only to information
respecting past acts or crimes, not present or future crimes.
Important Principles relative to Lawyer-Client Privilege
Communication Rule:
(i) identity of a client is not privilege, except if disclosure of identity
would implicate the client to the very activity for which the lawyer is
engaged by the client (Regala vs. Sandiganbayan).
(ii) the privilege is waived by failure to seasonably object or by crossexamining the witness precisely on the matter otherwise covered by
the confidentiality rule (Orient Insurance vs. Revilla).
(C) Physician-Patient Privilege Communication Rule
Requisites:
(i) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is a person
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
Krohn vs. Court of Appeals
the husband was not disqualified from testifying on the
psychiatric evaluation report prepared by his wifes physician
who examined her, because the husband is not a person
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
(ii) the information which cannot be disclosed refers to:
(a) any advice given to patient;
(b) any treatment given to patient; or
(c) any information acquired in attending to the patient,
provided the advice, treatment or information was made or acquired
in a professional capacity and necessary to enable him to act in such
capacity.
Professional capacity means that the physician, surgeon or
obstetrician attends to the patient for either curative or
Prepared by:
27

preventive treatment. Thus, autopsy not covered and only the

tenor of the advice, treatment or information is prohibited from
being disclosed, not the fact of consultation (Lim vs. Court of
Appeals)
(iii) the information sought to be disclosed would tend to blacken
the reputation of the patient.
(iv) the privilege is claimed or invoked only in civil cases or special
proceedings, for the rule does not apply in criminal cases.
Related Provisions under Rule 28 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure (Mental and Physical Examination)
(a) Section 3. Report of findings.
If requested by the party examined, the party causing the
examination to be made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed
written report to the examining physician setting out his findings
and conclusions. After such request and delivery, the party
causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon
request to receive from the party examined of like report of any
examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same mental
or physical condition. If the party examined refuses to deliver
such report, the court on motion and notice may make an order
requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if the physician
fails or refuses to make such report the court may exclude his
testimony if offered at the trial.
(b) Section 4. Waiver of Privilege.
By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so
ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party
examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any
other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of
every other person who has examined or may thereafter
examine him in respect of the same mental or physical
examination.
(D) Priest-Penitent Privilege Communication Rule
Requisites:
(i) there must be a confession made to or advice given by a priest or
minister in his professional character in the course of a discipline
enjoined by the church to which he belongs;
(ii) the priest/minister must be duly ordained or consecrated by
his sect.
(E) Privilege Communication Rule by Reason of Public Office
Requisites:
(i) there must be a communication made to the public officer in
official confidence;
(ii) the public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such
information;
(iii) the disqualification attaches during the officers term or
office or even afterwards.
(F) Testimonial Privilege (Section 25, Rule 130)
No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
Related provision under Article 215 of the Family Code:
No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against
his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is
indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent
against the other
Either under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court or under Article
Prepared by:
28

215 of the Family Code, testimonial privilege is not a disqualification

rule but only a privilege not to be compelled to testify as a witness.
Thus, if the holder of the privilege wishes to testify, the party against
whom his testimony is offered in evidence cannot object.
VIII. OPINION RULE
Generally, opinion of a witness is not admissible (Section 48, Rule 130).
Reason - cases should be decided based on facts.
Exceptions to the general rule:
(i)
Expert opinion - the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess maybe
received in evidence (Section 49, Rule 130);
(ii) Opinion of ordinary witness:
(a) the opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given may be received in
evidence regarding
(1) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(2) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(3) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted.
(b) the witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
IX. CHARACTER EVIDENCE:
Generally, evidence of a persons character is not admissible (Section 51, Rule
130). Reason - cases should be decided based on the acts or omissions complained
of, and not on the character or personalities of the parties involved.
Exceptions to the general rule:
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged;
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged;
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved
if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability of the
offense charged.
Correlate this with the Rape Shield Rule under R.A. No.8505 otherwise
known as Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998, which provides
that In prosecution for rape, evidence of complainants past sexual conduct,
opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only
to the extent that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant
to the case
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of party in a civil case is admissible only
when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) Evidence of good character of a witness:
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached (Section 14, Rule 132).
Reason the good character of a witness is presumed.
X. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE:
(A) Order in the examination of an individual witness (Section 4, Rule
132):
(i) direct examination by the proponent;
Prepared by:
29

(ii) cross-examination by the opponent;

(iii) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(iv) Re-cross examination by the proponent.
(B) Recalling a witness after the examination of a witness
by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be
recalled without leave of court.
The court will grant or
withhold leave as the interest of justice may require (Section
9, Rule 132).
(C) Objectionable questions:
(i) Leading question a question which suggests
to the witness the answer which the examiner desires is
not allowed (Section10, Rule 132).
Exceptions: A leading question maybe allowed(1) On cross-examination;
(2) On preliminary matters;
(3) when there is difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answer from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of
tender years, or is feeble mind, or deaf-mute;
(4) of an unwilling or hostile witness;
(5) of an adverse party- witness.
(ii) Misleading question a question which
assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness,
or contrary to that which he has previously stated is not
allowed.
(D) Impeachment of adverse partys witness (Section 11, Rule 132):
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called by:
(i) contradictory evidence;
(ii) evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity
is bad; or
(iii) evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent
with his present testimony.
A witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful act,
except that the witness may be proved to have been convicted of an offense
by:
(i) by the examination of the witness regarding the fact of prior
conviction; or
(ii) by the record of the court decision convicting him of an offense.
(E) Requisites for impeaching the witness of the adverse party by evidence
of inconsistent statement:
(i) the statement must be related to him, with the circumstances of the
times and places and the persons present;
(ii) the witness must be asked whether he made such statements;
(iii) and if admits that he did so, then he must be allowed to explain the
inconsistency
between
his
prior
statement
and
his
present
testimony(Section 13, Rule 132).
(F) A party may not impeach his own witness (Section 12, Rule 132).
Reason: by calling the witness to the stand, the proponent vouches to the
credibility and honesty of his witness.
Exceptions: (Section 12, Rule 132)
(i) if the witness is hostile or unwilling; or
(ii) if the witness is the adverse party or the officer, director, managing
agent of a c
orporation or partnership or association which is an
adverse party.
XI. OFFER AND OBJECTION
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified (Section 24, Rule
132). If the purpose is not specified, the evidence must be excluded (Uniwide
Sales vs. Titan-Ikeda).
Prepared by:
30

Exception:
As long as the evidence has been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and
incorporated in the records of the case, the evidence may still be considered by the
court even if not formally offered (Pp vs. Libnao).
Reasons why the purpose must be specified:
(i) To enable the adverse party to make intelligent objection to the formal
offer;
(ii) To enable the court to rule properly on the objection, since an evidence
maybe admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another purpose under
the
principle of multiple
admissibility ( Uniwide Sales vs. TitanIkeda).
Time to make a formal offer of evidence (Section 35, Rule 132) the time to
make a formal offer depends on the kind of evidence being formally offered:
(1) If evidence consists of oral testimony of witnesses the offer must be made at
the time the witness is called to testify.
Query:
What is the effect if the witness was allowed to testify
without the proponent making a formal offer of the proposed
testimony but the adverse party did not also object thereto
before the witness was able to testify and complete his
testimony?
Answer:
The testimony is admissible as the adverse party was deemed to
have waived his right to the objection.
Concepcion Catuira vs. CA
Facts: Catuira was charged with two (2) counts of Estafa for issuing
bouncing checks. During the trial, the prosecution presented the
private complainant who completed her testimony without a formal
offer having been made. As soon as the prosecution rested its case, the
accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the testimony
of the witness is inadmissible in evidence for lack of formal offer.
Ruling:
(i) The reason for requiring that evidence be formally offered is to
enable the court to
rule intelligently on the objection to the questions
asked.
(ii) As a general rule, the proponent must show its relevancy,
materiality and competency. Where the proponent offers evidence
deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any
reason, the latter may object to its admission. But this is a mere
privilege which can be waived. Necessarily, the objection must be
made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence where there is opportunity
to speak may operate as a waiver of the objection.
(iii) While it is true that the prosecution failed to offer the
questioned testimony when private complainant was called to the
witness stand, the accused waived this procedural error by failing to
object at the appropriate time, i.e., when the ground for objection
became reasonably manifest the moment with witness was called to
testify without any prior offer having been made by the proponent.
(2) Object/documentary evidence the formal offer must be made after the
presentation of a partys testimonial evidence or witnesses.
Such offer must be done orally, unless allowed by the court to be made in
writing.
Time to make objection (Section 36, Rule 132) It depends on the kind of
evidence being objected to:
(1) If oral testimony:
(i) objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made (Catuira vs. CA)
Prepared by:
31

(ii)objection to question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a

witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become
reasonably manifest.
(2) If object/documentary evidence:
(i) objection to object/documentary evidence offered orally shall be made
immediately after the offer is made;
(ii) objection to object/documentary evidence offered in writing shall be made
three (3) days after notice of the offer, unless a different period is allowed by
the court.
Query:
What is the effect if an inadmissible object/documentary

evidence was objected to at the time it was introduced, identified and
marked as exhibit but not objected to when formally offered?
Anwer:
The evidence otherwise inadmissible must be
admitted/considered (Interpacific Transit, Inc. vs. Aviles).
Reason:
Objection to object/documentary evidence must be made
at the time it is formally offered, not earlier. Objection prior to formal
offer is pre-mature.
The identification of the object/documentary
evidence before it is marked as an exhibit does not constitute formal
offer. Objection to the identification and marking is not equivalent to
objection to the object/documentary evidence when it is formally
offered. What really matters is the objection made at the time it is
formally offered as an evidence.
Query:
What is the effect if an inadmissible object/documentary
evidence was not objected to during its introduction, identification and
marking but was objected to during the formal offer? Does the failure to
object during the introduction, identification and marking constitute a
waiver of the privilege to object resulting in the evidence otherwise
inadmissible becoming admissible.
Answer:
The object/documentary evidence must be excluded
(Macasiray vs. People of the Philippines).
Reason:
Since objection to object/documentary evidence must be
made only after the offer is made and not at any other time, no waiver
of the privilege to object shall take place by the failure to object when
the object/documentary evidence was marked, identified and
introduced during the trial, obviously because it was not the proper
time to make objection.
Query:
What must an adverse party do when it becomes
reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that
the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to
which objection has been made, whether sustained or overruled by the
court?
Answer:
It shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, but it is
sufficient to record a continuing objection to such class of questions
(Section 37, Rule 132)
Query:
When must the court make a ruling on the objection?
Answer:
It must be given immediately after the objection is raised,
unless the court desires to take reasonable time to inform itself on the
question presented(Section 38, Rule 132)
Query:
May the court suspend the ruling by simply stating
that the objection is noted or that the objection will be considered
when the court resolves the case on the merits?
Answer:
No, the reservation or holding in abeyance of a ruling on
an objection is disadvantageous and prejudicial to the party interposing
the objection. Without the definite ruling, the party objecting would be
left in the dark as to what proper course of action to take under the
Prepared by:
32

circumstances.
Query:
What is the remedy of the proponent if his proposed
evidence is excluded by the court?
Answer:
The proponent may resort to Tender of Excluded
Evidence otherwise known as Offer of Proof (Section 40, Rule
132) in the following manner:
(i)
if
the
excluded
evidence
is
object/documentary
by
attaching it to making it part of
the records of the case;
(ii) if the
excluded evidence is testimonial
by stating for the record the
name
and
other
personal
circumstances of the witness
and the substance of the
proposed testimony.
XII. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS:
For purposes of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or
private.
The following are Public Documents: (Section 19, Rule 132)
(i) written official acts or records of official acts of sovereign authorities,
official bodies/tribunals and public officers of the Philippines or foreign
country;
(ii) documents acknowledged before a notary public, except wills and
testament;
(iii) public records of private documents kept in the Philippines.
A Private Document is one not falling under any of the foregoing enumerations of
public documents.
Query:
Answer:
What is the probative value of public documents as evidence?

(i) documents consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein;
(ii) all other public documents are evidence, even against a third
person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of
the latter.
Query: How may a public document be proved in court?

Answer: It depends on the kind of public document sought to be proved
(a) If it consists of written official acts or records of
official acts, it may be proved:
(a) by its official publication, whether the public document
is kept in the Philippines or abroad; or
(b) if it is kept in the Philippines, by its certified true copy,
duly attested by the legal custodian thereof; or
(c) if it is kept outside of the Philippines, by its certified
true copy duly attested by the legal custodian and must be
accompanied by a certification issued by the Philippine Consular
Officer stationed in the country where the document is kept that
the custodian is legally authorized and is in custody thereof.
Query:
What must an attestation
of a copy of a public document state/contain?
Prepared by:
33

Answer:
The
attestation
must
state in substance that the copy is a correct copy of
the original (Section 25, Rule 132)
Query:
state/contain?
What must a consular certification

Answer:
It must state that the
officer who attested a certified true copy of a public
document is an authorized legal custodian and that
he has the legal custody of the original public
document.
Query:
What kind of public
document, kept outside of the Philippines, needs to
be accompanied with a consular certification if
sought to be proved by its certified true copy duly
attested by its legal custodian?
Answer:
By express provision of
Section 24, Rule 132, only those public documents
consisting of written official acts or records of
official
acts
of
sovereign
authority/official
bodies/public officers as mentioned in Section 19(a)
of Rule 132 need to be accompanied with consular
certification that the officer who attested the
certified true copy thereof is
authorized legal
custodian and that he has the legal custody of the
original document (Heirs of Arcilla vs. Teodoro).
(b) If it consists of document acknowledged before a notary

public, it may be presented in evidence without further proof,
considering that the certificate of acknowledgement is prima facie
evidence of its due execution (Section 30, Rule 132).
(c) If it consists of public records, kept in the Philippines, of
some private documents, it may be proved:
(a) by the original record; or
(b) by a copy thereof attested by the legal custodian of
the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has
the custody(Section 27, Rule 132).
Query:
How may a private document be proved?
Answer: It depends on the purpose of the offer:
(a) if the private document is offered to be authentic, its
due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(1) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker (Section 22, Rule 132), to wit:
(a) by any witness who believes it to
be the handwriting of such person because he has seen
the person write;
(b) by any witness who has seen
writings purporting to be those of such person upon which
the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person;
(c) by comparison, made by the court or a
witness, with:
(i) writings admitted or treated as genuine by the
party against whom the evidence is offered; or
(ii) writings proved to be genuine to the satisfaction
of the judge.
Prepared by:
34

Instances where private document may be received in evidence without

authentication:
(i)
In case of an ancient document, that is, a private document more than thirty
(30) years old, produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
(Section 21, Rule 132);
(ii)
where the private document is not offered as an authentic document, in which
case it only needs to be identified as that which it is claimed to be (Section
20, Rule 132).
Query:
Answer:
What is the rule if a document offered in evidence is written in an

unofficial language (neither in English nor in Filipino)?
The document is inadmissible in evidence, unless accompanied by a
translation into Filipino or English ( Section 33, Rule 132).
XIII. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Hierarchy of Evidence:
(1) proof beyond reasonable doubt applied in criminal cases
(2) preponderance of evidence applied in civil cases
(3) substantial evidence applied in administrative cases and in proceedings
involving Writ of Amparo(Section 17, Amparo Rule)
Query:
Answer:
What is the evidentiary weight of an extra-judicial confession?

It is not sufficient to convict the accused, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti (Section 3, Rule 133)
Query:
What needs to be corroborated by corpus delicti, the
extra-judicial confession itself or the testimony of the person who heard
the extra-judicial confession?
Answer:
What must be corroborated is the extrajudicial confession
and not the testimony of the person to whom the confession was made,
and the corroborative evidence required is not the testimony of another
person who also heard the confession but the evidence of corpus delicti
(People vs. Lorenzo).
Answer:
Query:
Answer:
Query:
Is it required that all elements of the crime charged must
be established by independent evidence apart from the extrajudicial
confession?
Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court does not mean that every
element of the crime charged must be clearly established by
independent evidence apart from the confession. It means merely that
there should be some evidence tending to show the commission of the
crime apart from the confession.
Otherwise, the utility of the
confession as a species of proof would vanish if it were necessary, in
addition to the confession, to adduce other evidence sufficient o justify
a conviction independently of such confession. In other words, the
other evidence need not , independently of the confession, establish
the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Lorenzo).
Is circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction?
Yes, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following
requisites are present:
(i) there must be more than one circumstance;
(ii) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and
(iii)the combination of all circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Prepared by:
35

PRINCIPLES RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF

EVIDENCE:
(i) Equipoise Rule where the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is
doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having
the burden of proof loses. Hence, if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one of
which is consistent with innocence and the other consistent with
guilt, the former should prevail, for then the evidence does not
suffice to produce a conviction (Abarquez vs. People).
(ii) Actors Rule - where the testimonies of witnesses on one and the same factual
issue are inconsistent with each other, the testimony of the witness
whose action is more connected to the point at issue should be
given more credence. Thus, as between the carpenter and the
tenant, the latter should be given more credence, being more
closely connected to the point at issue, that is, whether the
improvements are found on the litigated lot. For while a carpenter
would not concern himself with the title of the property, a lessee
would normally look into the title of the property leased, including
its precise location and boundaries (Heirs of Vicente Reyes vs.
Court of Appeals).
XIV. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE RULE
(A) Applicable to:
(a) civil actions/proceedings
(b) quasi-judicial and administrative cases
(c) criminal actions (Amendment took effect on October 14, 2002)
(B) Definition of Terms:
(a) Electronic data message refers to information generated, sent, received pr
stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
(b) Electronic document - refers to information or representation of information,
data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression ,described or
however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It
includes digitally signed documents or any print-out or output, readable by sight
or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document.
NPC vs. Codilla
The operative fact that makes a document electronic is that it is
completely processed electronically. Thus, a manually signed print-out
of a computer-generated document cannot be considered as electronic
document, precisely because not all the data found therein are
processed electronically.
MCC Sales vs. S-Sangyung The intention of the framers in enacting the Electronic Commerce Act
is to promote and treat a paperless writing as functional equivalent of a
paper-based document. Thus, an ordinary facsimile transmission
which involves a paper-based information or data, which is scanned,
sent through telephone line, and reprinted at the receiving cannot be
considered as electronic document, because it involves a paperbased original information as sent and a paper-based facsimile
copy as received.
(c) Ephemeral electronic communication - refers to telephone conversations, text
messages, chat room sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.
(C) Requisites for admissibility of an electronic document:
Prepared by:
36

(a) it must be relevant

(b) it must be competent (not excluded by the rules).
Thus, it must comply with the Best Evidence Rule, the rule on
Authentication, and other rules of exclusions.
(c) It must be formally offered in evidence.
(D) Electronic document in relation to Best Evidence Rule
For purposes of the Best Evidence Rule, when the contents of an electronic
document are the subject of inquiry, the original must be presented.
(E) The original of an electronic document
An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a print-out or output readable
by sight or other means, shown to reflect the date accurately(Section 1,
Rule 4). Thus, as it is now, there is no longer any need to present to the
court the diskette containing electronic data.
(F) A copy of an electronic document maybe regarded as equivalent
of the original
(a) when a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same
time with identical contents; or
(b) it is a counterpart produced by:
(i) the same impression as the original; or
(ii) from the same matrix; or
(iii) by mechanical or electronic re-recording; or
(iv) by chemical reproduction; or
(v) by other equivalent techniques which accurately produces the
original.
Exceptions:
(a) a genuine issue is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in
lieu of the original
(G) Authentication of electronic document:
Authentication is required only if the electronic document is private and is
offered as authentic, by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person
purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices
as maybe authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication
of electronic documents were applied to the document;
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge.
Prepared by:
37

Evidence 2013 Bar Torregosa Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence 2013 Bar Torregosa Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

2013 Bar Pre-Week Notes

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

Object/Real, Documentary and Testimonial evidence

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

the testimony or deposition of a witness consisting of

Relevant, material and competent evidence

Direct and circumstantial evidence

Cumulative and corroborative evidence

Primary and secondary evidence

Positive and negative evidence

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

(viii) Prima facie evidence and conclusive evidence

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

against the accused but inadvertently comes across

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

covered by the Miranda doctrine

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

(B) Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws

Statement of the Rule

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

evidence, a secondary evidence, if not objected to, becomes admissible and is

IV. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

Statement of the Rule

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when the

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

examined by the party against whom the act, declaration or omission is

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

Physical condition, such as illness of the declarant;

Cross-examination is necessary to determine the qualities of a witness by testing his:

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

Reasons for exception:

Two (2) parts:

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

Maritime & Allied Services)

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

not a person especially enjoined by law to make such report.

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

him.(Section 47, Rule 130)

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

if the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be

The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted. If the witness is somebody

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

preventive treatment. Thus, autopsy not covered and only the

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

215 of the Family Code, testimonial privilege is not a disqualification

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

(ii) cross-examination by the opponent;

EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS