Object Evidence VS Documentary Evidence

How do we know that an evidence is an object evidence or a documentary

evidence?

A whiteboard marker, can it be submitted as object evidence?

Answer: Not necessarily. Perhaps no but not Necessarily.

Example: a Deed of Donation, when it is offered in evidence. Is it

necessarily an object evidence?
Answer: Not necessarily. It may not be a documentary evidence even if it
is a document.
This is an object but not necessarily an object evidence because of the
definition of Section 2, Rule 130 - the definition of documentary evidence.
If the definition in Sec. 2, Rule 130 is not complied with, the evidence is
not a documentary evidence, hence, it is an object evidence.

Two Types of Documentary Evidence (per Sec. 2, Rule 130)

1. In writing
2. Any other material containing words, letters, etc., offered as proof of
their contents.

If a Deed of Sale is offered in evidence to prove that a deed of sale exists,

to prove it was executed, the deed of sale is not offered to prove its
content. It is not therefore not a documentary evidence, even if it is a
document. It is an object evidence!!

Documentary evidence to prove its contents.

In 2006, there is simple question. May a private document be an object

evidence and documentary evidence at the same time?

What if Im accused of the crime of homicide. I was pointed by a witness

during the trial. Am I considered an object evidence?
YES.
But if a text is tattooed/written on my chest Is it born to love or born to
live? Is my chest considered a documentary evidence?
YES, because my chest is being offered as proof of the contents of what is
written there. Therefore, they must show my original chest.

Why are we supposed to distinguish whether an evidence it is a

documentary evidence and object evidence?
Because there are some rules which should never made to apply to object
evidence, on documentary evidence.

If an object evidence is offered, do not say - Objection you honor, not the
best evidence!
[GR] The best evidence rule apply only to documentary evidence!!!

If an object evidence is offered, and you say Objection your honor,

parol!
WRONG! Parol evidence does not apply to object evidence.

If the evidence is an object evidence, and you say Objection your honor,
hearsay!
WRONG! Hearsay evidence does not apply to object evidence.

If the evidence is object evidence, and you say objection your honor!
Hearsay!
Thats better. The hearsay evidence rule does not apply to an object
evidence.
The hearsay evidence rule applies to documentary evidence or a
testimonial evidence.

If what is being offered in court is merely a replica of the real object, you
do not say. But you do not say Not the best evidence! You only say
Objection your honor, not the real thing!
The other name for object is real evidence. You only say Objection your
honor, thats only a replica. The court will understand it. But do not say
Objection your honor, not the best evidence! NO, thats a crime in
evidence.

The prosecutor does not file a complaint, he files an information.

There is no such thing as Revised Rules of Court [only in the minds of Rex
Bookstore]. Rule 1, Section provides that - these rules shall be known and
cited as the Rules of Court.

One of the most misunderstood rules is the Best Evidence Rule. People
think it is the highest form of evidence rule. WRONG. Section 3, Rule 130
does not even say highest form of evidence.

When a witness said that he is a lessee and the opposing counsel say that
Objection your honor, the best evidence is a lease contract! WRONG.
When the witness says that there is a lease contract he does not
necessarily mean that there is a written contract because a contract can
be oral [express & implied] based on Art. 1305 of the Civil Code. The
witness merely said that they have a contract with the lessor. Besides, the
evidence being mentioned here is merely testimonial. And in testimonial
evidence, the best evidence rule does not apply. Only when the evidence
offered is a documentary evidence.
Contract umpugan ng dalawang diwa.

First question to be asked in Best Evidence Rule, is there a documentary

evidence involved?
Is there a writing where

Example: Your honor, I am offering as evidence a Deed of Sale. This is

offered to prove the size and length of the paper of the contract. The
opposing counsel said Objection your honor, not the best evidence! The
judge answered Overruled! Is the court correct?
YES! It does not apply because there is no question as to the contents of
the deed of sale.

Simple Questions: Describe the best evidence rule. When does best
evidence rule apply?

Your honor my first exhibit is a Deed of Sale between the plaintiff and the
defendant. The purpose of which to prove the purchase price agreed upon
in the deed of sale in paragraph 7.
The judge court said Overrule! Is the judge correct? NO. The judge is
wrong because the issue is the contents of the deed of sale.

Pag ang issue ang nakasulat, ipakita mo ang original because the best
evidence rule applies.

Example: Dean Riano, as the principal sponsor and lawyer of the one of
the parties in an annulment case, failed to bring the marriage contract.
However, he saw in the audience a co-principal sponsor, whom he invited
to testify before the court.
Riano: What did you witnessed during the day of the wedding?
Witness: I saw the plaintiff married to the defendant, officiated by a priest.
Opposing Counsel: Objection your honor, not the best evidence. The
witness should have brought the marriage contract.
Judge: Sustained!
Riano: Your honor may I request for a reconsideration?
Judge: Why, Why? You should brought the marriage contract.
Riano: You honor I respectfully submit that the best evidence rule here
does not apply because the question center only in the visual observation
of the witness. There was no question of a document your honor. And a
witness could testify on matters of her own perception. As long as he
perceives and in perceiving he can communicate her perception to others,
he is qualified to be a witness and could testify on that.
Judge: I think you are right. Thats why you do not object and object
because the court is getting confused. Okay proceed.
[Pinagbigyan ko ang opposing counsel]
Riano: How long did the ceremony lasts?
Opposing Counsel: Objection your honor, irrelevant.
Judge: Sustained!
Riano: [di na ako nagreklamo, alam ko naman talaga irrelevant]
What have you observed after the wedding?
Witness: I saw the assistant of the priest approached the husband, and
asked him to sign something.
Riano: Is there anything that happen?
Witness: The assistant approached also the wife and asked her to sign
something. He also approached me and asked me to sign the marriage
contract.
Opposing counsel: Objection your honor, there is now a marriage contract
involved. The best evidence is the marriage contract and not the
testimony of the witness.
Judge: Huh! This time, sustained!
Riano: Your honor, may I respectfully request for another reconsideration?
Judge: Another reconsideration? It is obvious. You were already talking
about the marriage contract.
Riano: Yes honor. But there was yet no question as to the content of the
document. We only have one element of the application of the best
evidence rule. The second element is that the subject of the inquiry is the

content of the document, there is no question of that your honor. This is

why I respectfully move for a reconsideration.
Judge: Punyeta! You are right again.
[for the purpose of illustration]
Riano: when you look at the contract, how old is the bride? How old is the
groom?
Opposing counsel: Overruled!
Question: Is the judge correct?
Answer: NO. The judge is wrong. This time the best evidence rule applies.

Ace was arrested in a but-bust operation. Drugs and money were

confiscated. Money was presented to prove that there was a sale. During
the trial, they confiscated 100k peso bills, but it was photocopy of actual
money. Are the photocopies of the actual bills considered object evidence
of documentary evidence?
Answer: OBJECT! because they were offered to prove the existence of
money in the transaction. And when you talk about the existence, you are
not talking about what is written on it. Thats object evidence.
Ace objected, saying it is not the best evidence. Is Ace correct?
Answer: NO. because when it is an object evidence, the best evidence rule
does not apply. It only applies when the evidence is a documentary
evidence.

Documentary evidence the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the

document.

When the best evidence rule applies, what are you supposed to do?
You are supposed to present the original. The original name of the best
evidence rule is original document rule.

The reason for offering the original. In England. The origin of the best
evidence rule is a quarrel over a parcel of land. One is saying he already
bought it from the seller. While the seller said he did sell the land. The
buyer was required to present the bill of sale (in England/ Deed of Sale in
Phils). The buyer presented the bill of sale to the court, but the judge
asked where is the wax imprint? [the counterpart of notarial seal here in
the PH]. The buyer answered: that since he lived 50 miles away, he was
apprehensive of bringing the actual bill of sale. So, he copied the contents
(even the style of handwriting) of the bill of sale. The court then answered;
You know, you may be wrong, you may be right. Thats why comeback
next week and bring the original bill of sale because we want to decide
based on an accurate document.

Americans realized that in some instances you cannot present the original.
For what reasons:
It was lost; it was destroyed; it is in the position of other party. Rule 130,
Section 5 & 6[bar material]

Illustration: where is the original Mr. Witness? Witness answered: I cannot

bring the original because it was lost. That was the exchange during the
direct examination.

During the formal offer of evidence, can you now offer a photocopy on the
ground that the original was already lost?
Formal Offer: the plaintiff presents his testimonial evidence.

[50:00] Lecture in BacolodSir di ho ako pumasa last bar examang

isipin mo sa next bar you did not make, para you will make it. It is only a
delayed success. STUDY. RELAX. TANDAAN MO MY SUCCESS IS DELAYED
BY SUPREME COURT. SUCCESS DOES NOT MEAN YOU TAKE THE BAR EXAM
ONCE.
KUNG VALEDICTORIAN NGA DYAN HINDI PUMAPASA AGAD. MAY MGA
JUDGES AT PROSECUTOR NA DI AGAD PUMASA.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (In America, part of Law on Contracts) will never
apply to an oral contracts. It must be set forth in writing.

Is it possible for a sale of land to be valid? YES. The problem is its

enforceability and registration, because of Statute of Frauds (1403, Civil
Code), which one of the grounds of Motion to Dismiss (Rule 16). And if it is
dismissed on the ground of Statute of Frauds, it cannot be re-filed (Section
5, Rule 16).

You cannot register an oral sale of land. [di natin irerehistro ditto ang mga
bunganga lang]
You may sue him - action for specific performance to deliver a deed of
sale. Go to RTC because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

1483, Civil Code definition of contract.

Parol evidence rule comes in only after the agreement has been put in
writing.
M1: Pare binili mo daw ang lupa ni Juan
M2: Tingnan mo ang aming kasulatan
M1: Sabi ni Bayani ganito raw ang presyo
M2: Sandali magkano ang nakalagay sa kontrata natin, 5 million. Anong
sabi ni Bayani?
M1: 4 million.
M2: Wag mo pakinggan si Bayani, ang kanyang sinasabi parol. Ang
tingnan mo lang ang kasulatan. Because the kasulatan embodies the
agreement of the parties. It is one which reflects the intention of the
parties.
Kung gusto mo malaman ang nakasulat sa kasulatan, tingnan mo ang
kasulatan. Wag kang maniniwala sa iba kasi ang sinasabi nila ay parol.
Parol means something outside the writing, extraneous. It is called
evidence alleunde.

So, kung meron nang kasulatan, di ka pwedeng magpakita ng ebidensya

na hindi nakasaad sa kasulatan.
Evidence that contradicts the writingmodifies the writing.

Sir gusto ko magpakita ng parol, pwede ba? YES pwede yan PANO? May
process dyan.
GR: Di pwede magpakita ng parol
Sa iyong pleading batikusin mo ang kasulatan, sabihin mo na VIMFU ang
kasulatan.

So ang parol rule ay napakaganda pero hindi mo maririnig sa korte. Dahil

lahat ng abugado alam kung pano iiwasan ang objection.
If you already put the issue in the pleading, parol evidence related to the
issue is now allowed.
Sec. 10-19 are for your reading delights. Not asked since 1913.