Evidence Reviewer

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer
Evidence
RULE 128
General Provisions
SECTION 1 . Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining
in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
Sec. 2 . Scope. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a)
Concept of Evidence
1. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact (Sec. 1, Rule 128).
2. Generally, the mode or manner of proving factual allegations in a complaint, information or
petition is through witnesses who are placed in the witness stand to testify on what they
personally know of the case and/or to identify relevant documents. They are presented voluntarily
or through the coercive process of subpoena ad testificandum. Evidence is also secured by
resorting to modes of discoveries, such as:
a. Taking of depositions of any person, oral or written (Rule 23);
b. Serving of interrogatories to parties (Rule 25);
c. Serving of requests for admission by the adverse party (Rule 25);
d. Production and inspection of documents (Rule 27); and
e. Examination of physical and mental conditions of persons (Rule 28).
Note:
A matter may also be proved by means of affidavit, such as in motions based on facts not appearing on
record, in cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, and those filed in administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies.
The basis of evidence is the adaptation to the successful development of the truth; and a rule of evidence
at one time though necessary to the ascertainment of truth should yield to the experience of a succeeding
generation whenever that experience has clearly demonstrated the fallacy or unwisdom of the old rule
(Funk vs. US, 391).
Note:
As a general rule the rules on evidence apply only on judicial proceedings.
Note:
The rules of court does not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and
insolvency proceedings, and other cases, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient
Note:
Page 1 of 97
The rules on electronic evidence apply to all civil actions and proceedings as well as quasi-judicial and
administrative cases
Note:
The purpose of evidence is to prove the veracity or truthfulness of a fact in issue. Hence, as a general rule,
evidence need only to be presented if there is a controversy as to the facts of the case, otherwise all the
courts needs to do is to apply the law to the given set of facts, hence ripe for judicial determination
through judgment on the pleadings.
Proof vs evidence
Evidence Proof
Medium of proof Effect and result of evidence
Means to the end End result
1. Proof is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely the probative
effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration
of evidence
2. Evidence is the medium or means by which a fact is proved or disproved. Proof is the effect of
evidence because without evidence there is no proof.
Sec. 3 . Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is
not excluded by the law or these rules. (3a)
Sec. 4 . Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue. (4a)
Requisites for the admissibility of evidence

1. Relevancy, requires that the evidence must be relevant
2. Competency, requires that the evidence must not be excluded by the rules
Relevancy
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Relevancy further requires that the immediate fact proven must have a connection to the ultimate issue.
Note:
It is the relation to the fact in issue (disputed fact) which makes evidence either relevant or irrelevant.
Note:
Evidence on the credibility of witnesses or lack of it is always relevant.
Competency
Competency refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received in evidence.

Page 2 of 97
Note:
An objection based on incompetency of evidence must specify the ground for its incompetence such as
leading, hearsay or parole.
Admissibility (1998)
The barangay captain reported to the police that X was illegally keeping in his house in the
barangay an Armalite M16 rifle. On the strength of that information, the police
conducted a search of the house of X and indeed found said rifle. The police raiders
seized the rifle and brought X to the police station. During the investigation, he
voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement that he was possessing said rifle without license or
authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel. During the trial of X for illegal
possession of firearm, the prosecution submitted in evidence the rifle. Sworn Statement
and Waiver of Right to Counsel, individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of the:
1. Rifle; [2%]
2. Sworn Statement; and [2%1
3. Waiver of Right to Counsel of X. [1%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was seized without a proper search
warrant. A warrantless search is not justified. There was time to secure a search warrant.
(People us. Encinada G.R. No. 116720, October 2. 1997 and other cases)
2. The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence because it was taken without informing
him of his custodial rights and without the assistance of counsel which should be
independent and competent and preferably of the choice of the accused. (People us.
Januario, 267 SCRA 608.)
3. The waiver of his right to counsel is not admissible because it was made without the
assistance of counsel of his choice. (People us. Gomez, 270 SCRA 433.)
Acting on a tip by an informant, police officers stopped a car being driven by D and ordered
him to open the trunk. The officers found a bag containing several kilos of cocaine. They seized
the car and the cocaine as evidence and placed D under arrest. Without advising him of
his right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney, they questioned him
regarding the cocaine. In reply, D said, I dont know anything about it. It isnt even my car. D
was charged with illegal possession of cocaine, a prohibited drug. Upon motion
of D, the court suppressed the use of cocaine as evidence and dismissed the
charges against him. D commenced proceedings against the police for the recovery of his car.
In his direct examination, D testified that he owned the car but had registered it in the name
of a friend for convenience. On cross-examination, the attorney representing the police
Page 3 of 97
asked, After your arrest, did you not tell the arresting officers that it wasnt your car?
If you were Ds attorney, would you object to the question? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because his admission made when he was questioned after he was placed under
arrest was in violation of his constitutional right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice. Hence, it is inadmissible in
evidence. [Constitution, Art. III, sec. 12; R.A. 7438 (1992), sec, 2; People v. Mahinay, 302
SCRA 455].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, because the question did not lay the predicate to justify the cross-examination question.
Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA suspects, Max and Brix, both aged 22, in the act of
robbing a grocery in Ermita. As he handcuffed them he noted a pistol tucked in Max's waist
and a dagger hidden under Brix's shirt, which he promptly confiscated. At the police
investigation room, Max and Brix orally waived their right to counsel and to remain
silent. Then under oath, they freely answered questions asked by the police desk officer.
Thereafter they signed their sworn statements before the police captain, a lawyer.
Max admitted his part in the robbery, his possession of a pistol and his ownership of the
packet of shabu found in his pocket. Brix admitted his role in the robbery and his possession
of a dagger. But they denied being NPA hit men. In due course, proper charges were filed
by the City Prosecutor against both arrestees before the MM RTC.
May the written statements signed and sworn to by Max and Brix be admitted by the
trial court as evidence for the prosecution? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The sworn written statements of Max and Brix may not be admitted in evidence,
because they were not assisted by counsel. Even if the police captain before whom they
signed the statements was a lawyer, he was not functioning as a lawyer, nor can he be
considered as an independent counsel. Waiver of the right to a lawyer must be done in writing
and in the presence of independent counsel. (People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 11999];
People v. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533 [1999]).
Collateral matter
The term connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in dispute.

Page 4 of 97
General rule:
Evidence proving the existence of collateral matters is not allowed
Exceptions:
When the evidence presented tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability
of the fact in issue. In other words it has a tendency to corroborate or supplement facts established
previously by direct evidence, or to induce belief as to the probability or improbability of a fact in issue
Illustration
Evidence of the proof moral character of the accused is generally in inadmissible save in cases where
moral trait is pertinent to the offense charged.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Sec. 51 . Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:
(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 or improbability of the offense charged.
(b)In Civil Cases:

Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the
issue of character involved in the case.
(c)In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)
Sec. 14 . Evidence of good character of witness. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached. (17)
Character Evidence (2002)
D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V to death with an iron pipe.
A. May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had a good reputation for
peacefulness and non- violence? Why? (2%)
B. May D introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 5 of 97
A. The prosecution may introduce evidence of the good or even bad moral character of the
victim if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged. [Rule 130, sec. 51 a (3)]. In this case, the evidence is not relevant.
B. Yes, D may introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V. 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 a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent
or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (Rule
130, sec. 34).
Note:
The moral character of the accused in a criminal case is generally not susceptible to attack by the
prosecution unless made in rebuttal and in response to evidence presented by the accused seeking to prove
his good moral character.
Instances where character evidence is admissible:

1. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved by the accused if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
2. The accused may prove his good moral character when pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
3. In civil cases evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible only when pertinent to the
issue of character involved in the case
4. Evidence of the good moral character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been
impeached.
OPINION RULE
Sec. 48 . General rule. The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following
sections. (42)
Sec. 49 . Opinion of expert witness. The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, may be received in evidence. (43a)
Sec. 50 . Opinion of ordinary witnesses. The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may
be received in evidence regarding
a. the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
b. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person. (44a)
Note:
Opinion evidence or opinions of a witness is inadmissible except in the following instances:

Page 6 of 97
1. When the opinion is that of an expert, the opinion of a witness requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence
2. When the opinion is that of an ordinary witness provided that the proper basis of the opinion is
given and the subject of the opinion is any of the following matters:
a. The identity of a person about whom the witness has adequate knowledge
b. The handwriting of the person of which the witness has adequate knowledge
c. The mental sanity of a person of which the witness has adequate knowledge
d. The impressions of the witness on the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person
Hearsay; Exception; Res Gestae; Opinion of Ordinary Witness (2005)
Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of
jewelry and money. Dencio then brought Candida, Marcela's maid, to a bedroom where he
raped her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: "Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!"
After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house with the loot. Candida then untied
Marcela and rushed to the police station about a kilometer away and told Police
Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged into the house of Marcela, tied the latter
to a chair and robbed her of her jewelry and money. Candida also related to the police
officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. The policeman noticed that Candida
was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with robbery with rape.
During the trial, Candida can no longer be located. (8%)
a) If the prosecution presents Police Officer Roberto Maawa to testify on what Candida had
told him, would such testimony of the policeman be hearsay? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The testimony of the policeman is not hearsay. It is part of the res gestae. It is also an
independently relevant statement. The police officer testified of his own personal knowledge,
not to the truth of Candida's statement, i.e., that she told him, despite her pleas, Dencio
had raped her. (People v. Gaddi,G.R. No. 74065, February 27,1989)
b) If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida to be hysterical and on the verge of
collapse, would such testimony be considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, it cannot be considered as opinion, because he was testifying on what he actually

observed. The last paragraph of Sec. 50, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Evidence, expressly
provides that a witness may testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person.

Page 7 of 97
Opinion Rule (1994)
At Nolans trial for possession and use of the prohibited drug, known as shabu:, his
girlfriend Kim, testified that on a particular day, he would see Nolan very prim and proper, alert
and sharp, but that three days after, he would appear haggard, tired and overly nervous at the
slightest sound he would hear. Nolan objects to the admissibility of Kims testimony on the
ground that Kim merely stated her opinion without having been first qualified as expert
witness.
Should you, as judge, exclude the testimony of Kim?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The testimony of Kim should not be excluded. Even though Kim is not an expert
witness, Kim may testify on her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance
of a person. (Sec. 50, last par., Rule 130).
PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
Sec. 34 . Similar acts as evidence. 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; but it
may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like. (48a)
Illustration:
Evidence of other crimes, acts or wrongs of the accused is admissible to show that the offense for which
he is currently charged and the said previous similar acts show the signature or handiwork of the
accused, because of identical modus operandi
Comment:
In order words, the similar acts may be offered to show that they share distinctive features as the offense
for which the accused is charged.
Admissibility vs credibility
The term admissible means that the evidence is of such character the court, pursuant to the rules of
evidence, is bound to receive it or to allow it to be introduced at the trial, whereas credibility refers to the
worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a witness worthy of belief. The meaning of credibility in
law is exactly what it means in ordinary usage, otherwise stated it means believability. Hence after
competence of a witness is allowed, the consideration of his credibility follows
Admissibility vs probative value

Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while
probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.

Page 8 of 97
Tenets of credibility
1. Jurisprudence has laid down some basic rules on credibility such as:
a. Whether or not a witness or an evidence is credible is an issue addressed to the judgment
of the trial court
b. Findings of credibility of the trial court will generally be respected on appeal; even
findings of fact of the CA, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and
binding upon the parties and not reviewable by the SC
c. Credibility or lack of it is largely determined by human behavior
2. The determination of the credibility of a witness is within the domain of the trial court.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

False in one thing, false in everything. This doctrine means that if the testimony of a witness on a material
issue is willfully false and given with an intent to deceive, the jury may disregard all the witnesss
testimony
Criticisms on the defense of alibi

As a defense, alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful
witnesses. It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and convincing evidence. It cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime.
Requisites of alibi to prosper:

1. The presence of the accused in another place at the time of the commission of the offense
2. The physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
Note:
Positive evidence normally enjoys more weight than a negative testimony. In short, a testimony that a fact
exists enjoys more weight than a testimony that the same fact does not exist. A denial is a negative
evidence
Factum probans and factum probandum
Factum probandum Factum Probans

Proposition to be established Material evidencing the proposition
Conceived of as hypothetical; that which Conceived of for practical purposes as
one party affirms and the other denies existent, and is offered as such for the
consideration of the court
Factum probandum
The fact or proposition to be established
Factum probans
The fact or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established

Page 9 of 97
Note:
Factum probandum is the fact to be proved; the fact which is in issue and to which the evidence is
directed. On the other hand, factum probans is the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact
in issue.
Multiple admissibility
Refers to the instances where a proffered evidence is admissible for 2 or more purposes, sometime
evidence is admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another or vice versa or admissible in favor of
one party but not in respect to another party.
Admissibility; Private Document (2005)
May a private document be offered, and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and
as object evidence? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A private document may be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and
as object evidence depending on the purpose for which the document is offered. If offered to
prove its existence, condition or for any purpose other than the contents of a document, the same
is considered as object evidence. When the private document is offered as proof of its contents,
the same is considered as documentary evidence.
Conditional admissibility
A piece of evidence, the relevancy of which is not apparent at the time it was offered but the relevance of
which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered. The proponent of
the evidence may ask that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime subject to the condition
that he is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later time. If the connection is not shown as
promised, the court may, upon motion of the adverse party, strike out from the record the evidence that
was previously conditionally admitted.
Curative admissibility
Under the concept of curative admissibility, in situations where the court erroneously received
incompetent evidence over the objection of the other party, the court must give the party against whom
the evidence was admitted the chance to contradict the evidence received by the court to counteract the
prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused him
Direct evidence
Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact without the need to make an inference from
another fact.

Page 10 of 97
Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue by making an inference from
a previously established fact.
Note:
In a criminal case, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant conviction provided the following
requisites are present:
1. There is more than one circumstance
2. The facts from which the inference are derived are proven
3. The combination of all circumstances is such as to exclude each and every hypothesis consistent
with innocence.
Comment:
Circumstantial evidence may be a basis for conviction and such conviction can be upheld provided the
circumstance proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that
points to the accused to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person beyond any reasonable doubt.
Note:
When evidence admits 2 interpretations one of which is consistent with guilt and the other with
innocence, the accused must be acquitted.
Liberal Construction of the Rules of Evidence

1. Court litigations are primarily for the search of truth, and a liberal interpretation of the rules by
which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out
the truth (People vs. Ebias, 342 SCRA 675).
2. Liberal interpretation means such equitable construction as will enlarge the letter of rule to
accomplish its intended purpose, carry out its intent, or promote justice. It is that construction
which expands the meaning of the rule to meet cases which are clearly within the spirit or reason
thereof or which gives a rule its generally accepted meaning to the end that the most
comprehensive application thereof may be accorded, without doing violence to any of its terms.
In short, liberal construction means that the words should receive a fair and reasonable
interpretation, so as to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action or
proceeding (Agpalo, Statutory Construction, p. 287 [1998]).
Cumulative evidence
Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind (testimonial, object or documentary evidence)
that tends to prove the same fact. When 2 or more witnesses testify that they saw the event which the first
witness claimed he saw, the subsequent testimonies constitute cumulative evidence.
Corroborative evidence
The term connotes evidence which tends to confirm, validate or strengthen evidence already presented,

Page 11 of 97
Comment:
Corroborative evidence does not require that the evidence supporting another evidence be of the same
kind it is sufficient if it confirms, validate or strengthen evidence already presented.
Positive and negative evidence

An evidence is positive when it tends to affirm that a certain state of fact do exist or that a certain event
happened. Whereas a negative evidence, like a denial, denies the existence of a state of facts or the
happening of an event.
Note:
The rules on evidence are liberally construed when its strict interpretation would result to a denial of
justice. However to justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment
of the requirements have always been required.
Note:
No vested right on the permanency of the rules and will always be subject to the rule making power of the
SC, subject only to the prohibition on ex post facto laws.
Note:
In civil cases a person who alleges a fact has the onus probandi or burden of proving it.
Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law (Sec. 1, Rule 131) it is fixed and does not
shift during trial. The burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to
overthrow the prima facie evidence against him. The burden of going forward with the evidence may shift
from one side to the other as the exigencies of the trial require.
Burden of proof Burden of evidence

Denotes the duty of establishing the truth of a Means the necessity of going forward with the
given proposition or issue by such quantum of evidence to meet the prima facie case created
evidence as the law demands in the case in which against him.
the issue arises, whether civil or criminal.
It remains with the party alleging facts and never It shifts from side to side as the trial of the case
shifts to the other party. He who alleges the progresses and evidence is introduced by the
affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, respective parties.
and the same never parts.
Note:
In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, the highest is proof beyond reasonable doubt, followed by clear
and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order (Manalo vs.
Roldan-Confessor, 215 SCRA 808; ERB vs. CA, 357 SCRA 30 [2001]).
Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Which is required for conviction of an accused in criminal case, means that which is the logical and
inevitable result of the evidence on record, exclusive of any other consideration, of the moral certainty of
Page 12 of 97
the guilt of the accused or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required (People vs. Bacalso, 191 SCRA 557 [1991]).
Clear and convincing evidence

It refers to that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm
belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established; it is more than preponderance but not to
the extent of such moral certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases (Blacks
Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1979). It is often said that to overcome a disputable presumption of law, clear
and convincing evidence is required. For instance, to contradict the presumption of validity and regularity
in favor of a notarial or public document, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than
preponderant (Yturalde vs. Azurin, 28 SCRA 407 [1969]). The presumption that law enforcers have
regularly performed their duties requires that proof of frame-up, which can be made with ease, must be
strong, clear and convincing (People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 [1994]). An accused who invokes self-
defense must prove it by clear and convincing evidence (People vs. Sazon, 189 SCRA 700 [1990]).
Preponderance of evidence
It is the degree of evidence required in civil cases. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto (Republic vs. CA, 204 SCRA 160
[1991]).
In determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence the courts may consider the following:
1. All the facts and circumstances of the case
2. The witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing
the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability
or improbability of their testimony
3. The witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same
may ultimately appear in the trial
4. The number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is not with the greater
number. It requires more than quantity but of quality
Equipoise or equiponderance doctrine

The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt
on which side the evidence preponderates. In this case the decision should be against the party with the
burden of proof having failed to proof his allegation. This doctrine is based on the principle that no one
shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law
Substantial evidence
It is that which is required to reach a conclusion in administrative proceedings or to establish a fact before
administrative and quasi-judicial bodies. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It means more than a scintilla but may
be somewhat less than preponderance, even if other reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise
(Manalo vs. Roldan-Confessor, supra).

Page 13 of 97
Preponderance vs. Substantial Evidence (2003)
Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one

side is superior to that of the other. This is applicable in civil cases. (Sec. 1 of Rule 133;
Municipality of Moncada v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil, 184 [1912]).
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This is applicable in case filed
before administrative or quasi- judicial bodies. (Sec. 5 of Rule 133)
Evidence in civil cases distinguished from evidence in criminal case

1. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a preponderance of
evidence. In criminal cases, the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
2. In civil cases an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed
by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt
3. Generally in civil cases, there is no presumption for or against a party. In criminal cases, the accused
enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Factors to consider in assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic evidence

1. The reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated
2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified
3. The integrity of the information and communication system
4. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and
information system the nature and quality of the information.
5. Other factors which the court may consider
What Need Not Be Proved
SECTION 1 . Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature,
the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)

Page 14 of 97
Sec. 2 . Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which
are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to
judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)
Note:
When judicial notice is mandatory no motion or hearing is required for the court to take judicial notice of
a fact.
Note:
When the matter is subject to discretionary judicial notice, a hearing may be necessary before judicial
notice is taken on the matter.
The following are matters subject to mandatory judicial notice:

(T,H,A,P,L2,O,M)
1. The existence and territorial extent of states
2. The political history and forms of government and symbols of nationality of states
3. The law of nations
4. The admiralty and maritime courts of the worlds and their seals
5. The political constitution and the history of the Philippines
6. The official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines
7. The laws of nature
8. The measure of time
9. The geographical divisions
Note:
Under the principle of discretionary judicial notice, a court may take judicial notice of matters which are
of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Requisites of discretionary judicial knowledge

1. The matter must be one of common knowledge
2. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt
3. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court
Sec. 3 . Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the trial, the court, on its own initiative,
or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow
the parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on
request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon
if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)
Note:
The distinction between during and after trial is that in the former the court may announce its intention to
take judicial notice of something, whereas in the latter stage no announcement is needed or required and
Page 15 of 97
the court may motu proprio take judicial notice of any fact if and when appropriate. In both instance it
may be by virtue of a motion or the courts own initiative and the court in either case may grant a hearing
not to prove the issues of the case but for the determination the propriety of taking judicial notice.
Note:
It is not appropriate for a judge to consider a fact, although within his personal knowledge but not proved
in evidence nor subject of judicial notice.
Sec. 4 . Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only
by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)
Note:
An admission to be considered as a judicial admission must comply with the following:
1. An admission was made by a party
2. The admission was made in the course of the proceedings in the present case
Note:
Hence if made in a different proceeding it is not a judicial admission in the present case but an
extrajudicial admission.
Extrajudicial confession
Is an admission made out of court or even in a proceeding other than the one under consideration.
Note:
A pleading made for a trial but not submitted or filed has 2 effects, they are:
1. If signed by the party litigant, it is an extrajudicial admission
2. If signed by the Attorney only, it is not an admission
The reasoning is because the authority of the attorney to make statements for the client extends only to
statements made in open court or in pleadings filed with the court.
Note:
Admissions made in a pleading filed with the court are judicial admissions which in turn may be
categorized as actual admissions, where a party categorically admits a material allegations made by the
adverse party or an inferred allegations like when a party fails to specifically deny material allegations or
averments in the complaint.
Instances of implied admissions

1. Failure to deny under oath of usurious interest sought to be recovered
2. Implied admission in actionable documents:
a. When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, the genuineness and due
execution of the same instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party
under oath, specifically denies them and sets forth what he claims to be the facts
Page 16 of 97
b. Failure to deny genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not
preclude a party from arguing against the document by evidence of fraud, mistake,
compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel and want of consideration.
c. He is however precluded from arguing the document is forgery because the genuineness
of the document has been impliedly admitted by his failure to deny the same under oath
Note:
Admissions made in the pre-trial and made during depositions, interrogatories or requests for admission
are also deemed judicial admissions because they are made in the course of the proceedings of the case.
Rules with respect to request for admission

1. Under sec 1 rule 26, a party, at any time after the issues have been joined, may file and serve
upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any
material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request. The request may also
be of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request
2. When there is a request for admission by a party, each of the matters of which an admission is
requested shall be deemed admitted unless within the period designated in the request, which
shall not be less than 15 days after service of the request, the party to whom the request is
directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either:
a. Denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or
b. Setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those
matters
3. Under sec 3 of rule 26, any admission made pursuant to the request for admission is for the
purpose of the pending action only. The admission shall not be considered as one for any other
purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding.
4. The 15 day period in which the party to whom the request for admission is directed may be
extended as the court may allow on motion.
5. If the sworn statement is not filed and served, each of the matters of which an admission is
requested shall be deemed admitted.
Comment:
If an admission is deemed a judicial admission it is not required to be proved in court and may be taken
into consideration by the court in rendering its judgment whereas if the admission is deemed an
extrajudicial admission the same must be presented and proved in court in order for the court to take the
same into consideration.
Note:
If the receiving party failed to respond, the matters requested to be admitted are deemed to admitted in the
form of a judicial admission hence even if the same is not formally submitted in evidence, the material
facts stated in the said admission must be considered by the courts in arriving at its judgment.

Page 17 of 97
Note:
That admissions in pre-trial cases are generally deemed as judicial admissions being part of the
proceedings of the court however the exception is where the case that is pending is a criminal case, such
admission to constitute implied admission must be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and his
counsel otherwise the same cannot be used as evidence against the accused in trial.
Note:
Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, they lose their status as pleadings and the
admissions made therein not carried over to the amended pleading cease to be judicial admissions and to
be utilized as extrajudicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in
evidence.
Note:
Admissions made in dismissed pleadings are at best extrajudicial admissions and must be formally
offered in evidence to have any evidentiary weight
Note:
Hypothetical admissions in a MD admits the truth of the factual and material allegations in the complaint
since it partakes of a demurrer. The admission extends only to such matters of fact that have been
sufficiently pleaded and not to mere epithets charging fraud, allegation of legal conclusions or erroneous
statements of law, inferences from facts not stated matter of evidences or irrelevant matters.
Note:
Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon a client. Even the negligence of counsel binds the
client. This rule is not however, without exception. In cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel
deprives the client of due process or when its application will result to the outright deprivation of the
clients property liberty or when the interest of justice so require, relief is accorded the client who
suffered by reason of the lawyers gross or palpable mistake or negligence.
Consequences of judicial admissions

1. They do not require proof
2. They cannot be contradicted except upon showing that:
a. They were made through palpable mistake; or
b. That no such admission was made
Rules as to judicial notice of foreign laws

1. Under the doctrine of processual presumption, the courts of the forum will not take judicial notice
of the law prevailing in another country, foreign laws must be alleged and proved. In the absence
of proof the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction hearing
the case.
2. Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court such as when the law is
generally well known, had been ruled upon in the previous cases before it and none of the parties
claim otherwise, the court may take judicial notice of the foreign law

Page 18 of 97
3. When the foreign law is part of a published treatise periodical or pamphlet and the writer is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject, the court may take judicial notice
of the treatise containing the foreign law.
Note:
To prove the foreign law, the requirements of Secs. 24 and 25, Rule 132 must be complied with, that is,
by an official publication or by a duly attested and authenticated copy thereof. The provisions of the
foreign law may also be the subject of judicial admission under Sec. 4, Rule 129. Absent any of the
foregoing evidence or admission, the foreign law is presumed to the same as that in the Philippines, under
the so-called doctrine of processual presumption
Judicial Notice; Evidence; Foreign Law (1997)
a) Give three instances when a Philippine court can take judicial notice of a foreign law.
b) How do you prove a written foreign law?
c) Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of defendant but no
evidence was presented to prove the existence of said law, what is the presumption to be
taken by the court as to the wordings of said law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The three instances when a Philippine court can take judicial notice of a foreign law are: (1)
when the Philippine courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law (Moran. Vol. 5, p.
34, 1980 edition); (2) when the foreign law refers to the law of nations and (3) when it
refers to a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the subject of law if the court
takes judicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof is recognized in his profession or
calling as expert on the subject
(b) A written foreign law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a

copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
has the custody, if the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by
the seal of his office (Sec. 24, Rule 132, Zalamea v. CA, 228 SCRA 23).
(c) The presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law are the same as the local law.
(Northwest Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 192; Moran, Vol. 6. page 34, 1980
edition; Lim v. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472). This is known as the PROCESSUAL
PRESUMPTION.

Page 19 of 97
Note:
When the foreign law refers to the law refers to the laws of the nations, said law is subject to a mandatory
judicial notice under sec 1 of rule 129 the reason being that under the incorporation clause in the 1987
constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land thus they are technically in the nature of local laws and hence are subject to a mandatory
judicial notice
Judicial notice of municipal ordinances

1. MTC must take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they
sit
2. An RTC should also take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities
within their jurisdiction but only when so required by law, such as:
a. When a law specifically requires them to have notice of all ordinances passed therein
b. An RTC must take judicial notice of municipal ordinances on appeal to it from the MTC
in which the latter judicial took notice
3. The CA may take juridical notice of municipal ordinances because nothing in the rules prohibits
it from taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Judicial notice of a courts own acts and records

A court may take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case however as a rule, courts
are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when
such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both
cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge.
Exceptions:
1. When the absence of any objection, with the knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of
said other cases are clearly referred to by the title and the number in a pending action and adopted
or read into the record of the latter
2. When the original record of the other case or any part of it is actually withdrawn from the
archives at the courts discretion upon the request, or with the consent of the parties and admitted
as part of the record of the pending case.
Holdings of the SC
1. Courts can take JD of the general increase in rentals
2. The supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls cannot be considered of common knowledge or
of general notoriety, taking judicial notice of said matter is erroneous
3. The court cannot take JD of a persons address or office even if they are popular
4. A court cannot take JD of an administrative regulation or of a statue that is not yet effective
Judicial Notice; Evidence (2005)
Explain briefly whether the RTC may, motu proprio, take judicial notice of: (5%)
1. The street name of methamphetamine hydro-chloride is shabu.

Page 20 of 97
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The RTC may motu proprio take judicial notice of the street name of methamphetamine
hydrochloride is shabu, considering the chemical composition of shabu. (People v.
Macasling, GM, No. 90342, May 27, 1993)
2. Ordinances approved by municipalities under its territorial jurisdiction;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the absence of statutory authority, the RTC may not take judicial notice of ordinances
approved by municipalities under their territorial jurisdiction, except on appeal from the
municipal trial courts, which took judicial notice of the ordinance in question. (U.S.
v. Blanco, G.R, No. 12435, November 9,1917; U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699, August
26, 1915)
3. Foreign laws;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The RTC may not generally take judicial notice of foreign laws (In re Estate of Johnson,
G.R. No. 12767, November 16, 1918; Fluemer v. Hix, G.R. No. 32636, March 17, 1930),
which must be proved like any other matter of fact (Sy Joe Lieng v. Sy Quia, G.R. No. 4718,
March 19, 1910) except in a few instances, the court in the exercise of its sound judicial
discretion, may take notice of foreign laws when Philippine courts are evidently familiar
with them, such as the Spanish Civil Code, which had taken effect in the Philippines, and other
allied legislation. (Pardo v. Republic, G.R. No. L- 2248 January 23, 1950; Delgado v. Republic,
G.R. No. L- 2546, January .28, 1950)
4. Rules and Regulations issued by quasi- judicial bodies implementing statutes;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The RTC may take judicial notice of Rules and Regulations issued by quasi-
judicial bodies implementing statutes, because they are capable of unquestionable
demonstration (Chattamal v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 16347, November 3,1920),
unless the law itself considers such rules as an integral part of the statute, in which case
judicial notice becomes mandatory.
5. Rape may be committed even in public places.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 21 of 97
The RTC may take judicial notice of the fact that rape may be committed even in public places.
The "public setting" of the rape is not an indication of consent. (People v. Tongson, G.R.
No. 91261, February 18, 1991) The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the fact
that a man overcome by perversity and beastly passion chooses neither the time, place,
occasion nor victim. (People v, Barcelona, G.R. No. 82589, October 31, 1990)
Presumptions
Presumption
It is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from
another fact or groups of fact found or otherwise established in the action. Stated otherwise a presumption
is mandated by law and establishes a legal relation between or among facts.
Kinds of presumptions
1. Conclusive presumptions (juris et de jure)
2. Disputable presumptions (presumptions juris tantum)
Note:
A conclusive presumption bars the presentation and admissibility of evidence or of any evidence tending
to rebut the presumption. This presumption is in reality a rule of law.
Other classification of presumption

1. Presumption of law, is a presumption which the law requires to be made from a set of facts
2. Presumption of fact (presumption hominis), when the assumption is made from the facts without
any direction or positive requirement of law.
Conclusive presumptions in the RRC

1. Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it: (estoppel in Pais)
2. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of
the relation of landlord and tenant between them (Sec. 2, Rule 131). (estoppel by deed)
Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
Page 22 of 97
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the
taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or exercises
acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the delivery
of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the
lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by
it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration
were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and
at the place where the instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he
is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an
absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five
years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among
the heirs:
1. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has
not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
2. A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing
for four years;
3. A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has
not been known for four years;
4. If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for
the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying
again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family
Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice
to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law
or fact;

Page 23 of 97
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits
of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under
void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other
and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money, property or
industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and
evidences of credit are equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three
hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the
absence of proof to the contrary:
1. A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be
born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
2. A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born
within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was
so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has
actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person
or his successor in interest;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as
wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular
circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities
resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have
survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to
have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as
to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove

Page 24 of 97
the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time.
(5a)
Sec. 4 . No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child

born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses.
Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. (6)
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

(Rule 130)
Sec. 26 . Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
may be given in evidence against him. (22)
Admission
Is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. It is a voluntary acknowledgment made
by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action.
Admissions vs declarations against interest

1. A declaration against interest to be admitted, the declarant must be dead or unable to testify.
Whereas an admission is admissible even if the person making the admission is alive and is in
court
2. A declaration against interest is made before the controversy arises; an admission is made at any
time, even during trial
3. A declaration against interest is made against ones pecuniary or moral interest; an admission is
admissible as long as it is inconsistent with his present claim or defense and need not be against
ones pecuniary or moral interest
4. A declaration against interest is admissible even against 3rd persons; an admission is admissible
only against the party making the admission.
5. A declaration against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. Whereas an admission is not an
exception to any rule
Effects of admission
An admission by a party may be given as evidence against him and not admissible in his favor because it
would be self-serving evidence
Adoptive admission
This admission occurs when a person manifests his assent to the statements of another person.
Sec. 27 . Offer of compromise not admissible. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by
law to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
Page 25 of 97
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not
admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. (24a)
Instances of offeror of compromise which does not constitute an implied admission of guilt
1. In civil cases
2. In any of the following criminal cases:
a. In quasi-offenses cases
b. Cases where the law allows to be compromised
3. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense
4. offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury
Admissibility; Offer to Marry; Circumstantial Evidence (1998)
A was accused of having raped X.

Rule on the admissibility of the following pieces of evidence:
1. an offer of A to marry X; and (3%]

2. a pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime which the court, over the
objection of A, required him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as an Implied admission of guilt because

rape cases are not allowed to be compromised. (Sec. 27 of Rule 13O; People vs. Domingo, 226
SCRA 156.)
2. The pair of short pants, which fit the accused well, is circumstantial evidence of his guilt,
although standing alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused cannot object to
the court requiring him to put the short pants on. It is not part of his right against self-
incrimination because it is a mere physical act.
Admissibility; Offer to Pay Expenses (1997)
A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the hospital and offered to pay for his
hospitalization expenses. After the filing of the criminal case against A for serious physical
injuries through reckless imprudence. A's insurance carrier offered to pay for the injuries and
damages suffered by B. The offer was rejected because B considered the amount offered as
inadequate.
a) Is the offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B admissible in evidence?

Page 26 of 97
b) Is the offer by A's insurance carrier to pay for the injuries and damages of B
admissible in evidence?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B is not admissible in

evidence to prove his guilt in both the civil and criminal cases. (Rule 130, Sec. 27, fourth par.).
(b) No. It is irrelevant. The obligation of the insurance company is based on the
contract of insurance and is not admissible in evidence against the accused because it was
not offered by the accused but by the insurance company which is not his agent.
Sec. 28 . Admission by third party. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (25a)
Res inter alios acta rule

Things done by strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them
2 branches of the res inter alios acta rule:

1. The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of
another
2. The rule that evidence of a previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible to prove
that one did or did not do the same act at another time
Note:
Under the first branch of res inter alios acta rule, that whatever one says or does or omits to do should
only affect him but should not affect or prejudice others. Thus an admission of guilt by a person should
not be admissible against another. Note must be taken that the rule references extrajudicial declarations
only and does not extend to statements made in open court against another.
Offer of Evidence; res inter alios acta (2003)
X and Y were charged with murder. Upon application of the prosecution, Y was
discharged from the Information to be utilized as a state witness. The prosecutor
presented Y as witness but forgot to state the purpose of his testimony much less offer it in
evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to kill the victim but it was X who actually shot the
victim. The testimony of Y was the only material evidence establishing the guilt of X. Y
was thoroughly cross-examined by the defense counsel. After the prosecution rested
its case, the defense filed a motion for demurrer to evidence based on the following
grounds.
(a) The testimony of Y should be excluded because its purpose was not initially stated
and it was not formally offered in evidence as required by Section 34, Rule 132 of
the Revised Rules of Evidence; and
Page 27 of 97
(b) Ys testimony is not admissible against X pursuant to the rule on res inter alios
acta.
Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the above grounds. (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The demurrer to the evidence should be denied because:
a) The testimony of Y should not be excluded because the defense counsel did not
object to his testimony despite the fact that the prosecutor forgot to state its purpose or offer
it in evidence. Moreover, the defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined Y and thus waived the
objection.
b) The res inter alios acta rule does not apply because Y testified in open court and was
subjected to cross examination.
Confession; Affidavit of Recantation (1998)
1. If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial
confession implicating his co-accused in the crime charged, is that testimony admissible in
evidence against the latter? [3%]
2. What is the probative value of a witness' Affidavit of Recantation? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial
confession, because he can be subjected to cross-examination.
2. On the probative value of an affidavit of recantation, courts look with

disfavor upon recantations because they can easily be secured from witnesses, usually
through intimidation or for a monetary consideration, Recanted testimony is
exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will be repudiated. (Molina vs.
People. 259 SCRA 138.)
Exceptions to the res inter allios acta rule (first branch):

1. Admission by a co-partner or agent
2. Admission by a co-conspirator
3. Admission by privies
The ratione is that the person making the above statements is under the same circumstances as the person
against whom it is offered. Such circumstances give him substantially the same interest and the same
motive to make a statement about certain matter.
Page 28 of 97
Note:
The rule is admissions made by the person is admissible to him (res inter allios acta rule) and
cannot extend to other persons, but if it falls within the exception, it is admissible against all of
them
Sec. 29 . Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the
party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may
be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint
debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. (26a)
Requisites of admissibility of admission of co-partner/agent/co-owner/joint debtor

1. The declaration or act of the partner and agent must have been made or done within the scope of
his authority
2. The declaration or act of the partner and agent must have been made or done during the existence
of the partnership or agency
3. The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by evidence other than the declaration or act
of the partner or agent
Note:
Any declaration made before the partnership or agency existed or those made after are not admissible
against the other partners or the principal but remains admissible against the person making the
declaration
Sec. 30 . Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the

conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. (27)
Requisites:
1. The declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the conspiracy
2. The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than the declaration or the act.
Thus:
Incriminating declarations of co-conspirators made in the absence of or without the knowledge
(admission by silence) of the others AFTER the conspiracy has come to an end is inadmissible
Note:
The rule barring admission unless the above elements concur is applicable only to extrajudicial
confessions hence if the co-accused takes the witness stand and repeats his extrajudicial confession as a
witness, are no longer extrajudicial but may be deemed as judicial admission/confession hence admissible
against him and all the others who he has implicated. The reason for the distinction is that in extrajudicial
confession the co-accused was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the confessant whereas if he
made the declarations or confession in open court, his co-accused may cross-examine him.
Page 29 of 97
Sec. 31 . Admission by privies. Where one derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence
against the former. (28)
Privies
Are persons who are partaker or have an interest in any action or thing, or any relation to another.
Requisites:
1. There must be an act, declaration or an omission by a predecessor-in-interest
2. The act, declaration or omission of the predecessor must have occurred while he was holding the
title to the property
3. The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to the property
Sec. 32 . Admission by silence. An act or declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as
naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so,
may be given in evidence against him. (23a)
Admission by silence
Arises when a statement by a person in the presence of a party to the action, criminal or civil, such
statements contains assertions against the party , which if untrue would be sufficient cause for the party to
deny. His failure to deny or speak against the statement is admissible as an admission.
Note:
The ratione is if an accusation is made, and a reasonable person would have denied the same if it were
false, the failure to deny the accusation by the person accused is an implied admission of the truth of the
accusation.
Requisites of silence to be admissible as admission by silence:

1. That the party against whom it will be presented heard and understood the statement
2. That he was at liberty to make a denial
3. That the statement was about a matter affecting his rights or in which he was interested and which
naturally calls for a response
4. That the facts were within his knowledge
5. That the fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue
Sec. 33 . Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. (29a)
Confession
A confession is a specific type of admission which refers only to an acknowledgment of guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein.

Page 30 of 97
Note:
Based on the definition an admission may be implied whereas a confession cannot be implied and must be
made in express, direct and positive terms, acknowledging his guilt
Note:
Sec. 3 . Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. An extrajudicial confession
made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti. (3)
Corpus delicti
Refers to the body of the crime, strictly speaking, it means the actual commission of the crime and
someone criminally responsible therefore.
Note:
A judicial confession unlike a extrajudicial confession will warrant the conviction of the accused without
proof of the corpus delicti independent of judicial confession
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

(Rule 130)
SECTION 1 . Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the
court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by
the court. (1a)
Real evidence
It consists of tangible things like a gun, a broken glass, a piece of bloody clothing or the defective ladder
that caused the plaintiff to fall. It is not a replica or a mere representation of a thing but the actual thing
itself.
Requisites of admissibility of object evidence

1. It must be relevant and competent
2. The evidence must be authenticated by a competent witness
3. The object must be formally offered
Admissibility; Object or Real Evidence (1994)
At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in
evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the buy-bust operation. Ace
objects to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence
Rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original.
a) Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or documentary evidence?

b) Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?

Page 31 of 97
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The photocopy of the marked bills is real (object) evidence not documentary
evidence, because the marked bills are real evidence.
b) Yes, the photocopy is admissible in evidence, because the best evidence rule does
not apply to object or real evidence.
Authenticate
There must be a competent witness who will identify the object as the actual thing involved in the
litigation.
Note:
It is basic in the law on evidence that every object or documentary evidence requires statements from a
witness to make its way into the realm of admissible evidence, every evidence must be sponsored by a
witness.
Note:
To authenticate the object, the witness must have capacity and actual personal knowledge of the facts
sufficient to identify the object as the very thing involved in the litigation. This is because a witness can
only testify to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his
own perception.
Laying the foundation

Refers to the problem in showing that the object sought to be admitted is in fact the real thing and not a
mere substitute or representation of the real thing.
Categories of object witness for purposes of authentication of an object or for laying the foundation
1. Objects that have readily identifiable marks (unique objects)
2. Objects that are made readily identifiable (objects made unique)
3. Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked (non-unique objects)
Modes of authentication (akin itich):

1. Unique objects may be authenticated by a statement that he has personal knowledge of what is
unique about the object evidence (serial number) and assert that the object shown to him in court
is the same or substantially in the same condition when he saw it and allege that those same
unique characteristic are those of the object he is identifying in court
2. Items made unique may be authenticated by stating that he made the thing acquire a unique
characteristic like placing identifying marks on it and by stating what he did to make the object
identifiable and that the object presented to him for identification in court has the characteristics
he made in court
3. Non-unique objects, may be authenticated by establishing a chain of custody by testimonies of
witnesses who received the object or had custody over it regardless of the briefness of the
possession, stating how he received it, how he handled it to prevent substitution and how it was
Page 32 of 97
transferred to another until the thing has been brought to court. However the courts has held that
not every custodian need be presented as long as one of the chains testifies and his testimony
negates the possibility of tampering, his testimony alone is adequate to prove the chain of
custody.
Demonstrative evidence
It is not the actual thing but it is referred to as demonstrative because it represents or demonstrates the real
thing.
Test of admissibility of demonstrative evidence:

Does the evidence sufficient and accurately represent the object it seeks to demonstrate or represent? if it
does, the evidence would be admissible.
Note:
Admissibility of demonstrative evidence, provided that it is relevant and competent, is within the
discretion of the trial court and shall not be interfered with unless there is a showing of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Kinds of demonstrative evidence:

1. Photographs
2. Motion pictures and recordings diagrams, models and maps
3. X ray pictures
4. Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments
Requirements under the rules on electronic evidence of admissibility of (photographic, video evidence of
events acts or transactions:
1. They must be shown, presented or displayed in court
2. Their being identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by
some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof
Note:
The authentication need not be made by the recorder himself but by some other person who testify as to
the accuracy of the recording.
Note:
The word view used in section 1 of rule 130 covers the presentation of evidence in the court if
susceptible or the conducting of an ocular inspection of the thing being offered if not susceptible of being
brought in court.
Note:
Ocular inspection is part and parcel of the trial and must be made in the presence of the parties or at least
after giving them of notice of the same.

Page 33 of 97
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
(Rule 130)
Sec. 2 . Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as
proof of their contents. (n)
2 categories of documentary evidence:

1. Writings
2. Any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression.
Note:
Documents to be deemed as documentary evidence must be offered as proof of their contents since if they
are offered for some other purpose, they would not be deemed documents but mere objects. The relevancy
of this determination is to determine whether the rules with respect to documentary or real evidence shall
govern.
Note:
Electronic documents are the functional equivalents of paper-based documents, any reference to a
document under the rules on evidence shall be deemed to include electronic documents (sec 1 rule 3 REE)
Admissibility; Private Document (2005)
May a private document be offered, and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and
as object evidence? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it can be considered as both documentary and object evidence. A private document
may be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
evidence. A document can also be considered as an object for purposes of the case.
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.
Documentary evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words,

numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions, offered as proof of
their contents. (Sec. 2, Rule 130, Rules
Hence, a private document may be presented as object evidence in order to 'establish

certain physical evidence or characteristics that are visible on the paper and writings that
comprise the document.
Admissibility; Electronic Evidence (2003)

Page 34 of 97
a) State the rule on the admissibility of an electronic evidence.

b) When is an electronic evidence regarded as being the equivalent of an original document
under the Best Evidence Rule? 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an
electronic document as defined in these Rules. (Sec. 1 of Rule 3, Rules of Electronic
Evidence effective August 1, 2001).
An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility

prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by these Rules. (Sec. 2 of Rule 3, Id.). The authenticity of any
private electronic document must be proved by evidence that it had been digitally
signed and other appropriate security measures have been applied. (Sec. 2 of Rule 5, Id.).
(b) An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under
the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown
to reflect the data accurately. (Sec. 1 of Rule 4)
Rules affecting admissibility of documentary evidence:

1. Authentication rule
2. Best evidence rule
3. Parol evidence rule
4. Hearsay rule
Requisites of documentary evidence:

1. It must be relevant and competent
2. The evidence must be authenticated by a competent witness
3. The document must be formally offered in evidence
Best evidence Rule

(Rule 130)
BEST EVIDENCE RULE

The term does not imply superiority over other classes of evidence but a mere statement which must be
read as the original document rule.
Admissibility; Rules of Evidence (1997)
Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
(a) Dead Man Rule
(b) Parol Evidence Rule
Page 35 of 97
(c) Best Evidence Rule

(d) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession
(e) The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil cases
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The reasons behind the following rules are as follows:
(a) DEAD MAN RULE: if death has closed the lips of one party, the policy of the law is to close
the lips of the other. (Goni v. Court ofAppeals, L-77434. September 23, 1986, 144
SCRA 222). This is to prevent the temptation to perjury because death has already sealed
the lips of the party.
(b) PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: It is designed to give certainty to a transaction which has been
reduced to writing, because written evidence is much more certain and accurate than that
which rests on fleeting memory only. (Francisco, Rules of Court Vol. VII, Part I. p. 154)
(c) BEST EVIDENCE RULE: This Rule is adopted for the prevention of fraud and is
declared to be essential to the pure administration of justice. (Moran, Vol. 5, p. 12.) If a
party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it, the presumption naturally arises that
the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes. (Francisco. Rules of Court, vol.
VII. Part I, pp, 121,122)
(d) An illegally obtained extrajudicial confession nullifies the intrinsic validity of the
confession and renders it unreliable as evidence of the truth. (Moran, vol. 5, p. 257) it is the
fruit of a poisonous tree.
(e) The reason for the rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil case as an
admission of any liability is that parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. Courts
should endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair
compromise. (Art. 2029, Civil Code). During pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to
consider the possibility of an amicable settlement. (Sec. 1[a] of former Rule 20: Sec. 2 [a]
of new Rule 16).
Requisites of the applicability of the best evidence rule:

1. The subject matter must involves a document
2. The subject of the inquiry is the content of the document
Note:
Whenever the content of a document is in issue or the inquiry is about the content of a document the same
must be presented and in its original form otherwise the best evidence rule would be violated.

Page 36 of 97
Note
That the purpose of the presentation of the document must neither be about its existence or the
truthfulness of the contents. Since in the former, the rules on object evidence governs whereas in the latter
the hearsay rule governs. In this scenarios the original need not be presented.
Comment:
The best evidence rule is only applicable when a document is being presented as documentary evidence
and the subject of the inquiry is the contents thereof, and what is being presented is not the original
thereof, the best evidence rule provides for situations where the original of the document being presented
need not be presented in court and a copy thereof would serve as sufficient.
Note:
When a document is involved in the inquiry but the document is only collaterally in issue, the best
evidence rule does not apply. A document is collaterally in issue when the purpose of introducing the
document is not to establish its terms but to show facts that have no reference to its contents like its
existence, condition, execution or delivery.
Hence:
An oral testimony may be objected to on the grounds of best evidence rule where what is being
sought to be proven is the contents of the document, without presenting the original of the
document.
Note:
Once the best evidence rule is deemed applicable, the rule requires the presentation of the original
document, and not a copy of the document. So long as the original is available and the situation does not
fall within the exception no other evidence can be substituted for the original and a violation thereof
would bar the admission of any copy thereof.
Note:
The best evidence rule is subject to waiver and the failure of the other party to object to its presentation
will result to the waiver of the rule.
Sec. 3 . Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself,
except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them
is only the general result of the whole; and

Page 37 of 97
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office. (2a)
Other exceptions:
1. When the original document is outside or beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court
2. Where the original is not susceptible of being presented in court such as where the original
consists of inscriptions on immovable objects and monuments.
Requisites of the exception that the original consist of numerous accounts, secondary evidence is
admissible:
1. If the original consist of numerous accounts or other documents
2. They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time; and
3. The fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole
4. The voluminous record must be made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the
summary of the voluminous records may be tested on cross-examination
Sec. 4 . Original of document.

(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a 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.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another
at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals. (3a)
Requisites of originality under par c:

1. There must be entries made and repeated in the regular course of business
2. The entries must be at or near the time of the transaction.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Sec. 5 . When original document is unavailable. When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and
the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by
a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated. (4a)
Requisites of presentation of secondary evidence:

1. The offeror must prove the execution and existence of the original document
2. The offeror must show that the cause of unavailability was not due to his bad faith.
Note:
The due execution and authenticity of the document must be proved either:
1. By anyone who say the document executed or written
2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker
Page 38 of 97
Note:
Before secondary evidence can be presented, it is imperative that all the originals of a deed must be
accounted for
Note:
The loss or destruction of the document need not be shown to be beyond all possibility of a mistake, a
reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient like by showing that there was a bona fide and diligent
search was made and that it was fruitless.
Note:
That the presentation of secondary evidence must be in the following order:
1. A copy of the original
2. A recital of the contents of the documents in some authentic document
3. By the testimony of a witness
Remedy; Lost Documents; Secondary Evidence (1992)
Ajax Power Corporation, a utility company, sued in the RTC to enforce a supposed right
of way over a property owned by Simplicio. At the ensuing trial, Ajax presented its
retired field auditor who testified that he knows for a fact that a certain sum of money was
periodically paid to Simplicio for some time as consideration for a right of way pursuant to a
written contract. The original contract was not presented. Instead, a purported copy,
identified by the retired field auditor as such, was formally offered as part of his testimony.
Rejected by the trial court, it was finally made the subject of an offer of proof by Ajax.
Can Ajax validly claim that it had sufficiently met its burden of proving the existence of
the contract establishing its right of way? Explain,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Ajax had not sufficiently met the burden of proving the existence of the written contract
because. It had not laid the basis for the admission of a purported copy thereof as
secondary evidence. Ajax should have first proven the execution of the original document and
its loss or destruction. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130
Sec. 6 . When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. If the document is in
the custody or under the control of adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If
after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)
Note:
A party who seeks to introduce a document in the possession of the adverse party must lay the foundation
for its introduction by complying with the following requisites:
1. That the original exists
Page 39 of 97
2. That said document is under the custody or control of the adverse party
3. The proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse party reasonable notice to produce
the original document
4. That the adverse party failed to produce the original document despite the reasonable notice
Sec. 7 . Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. When the original of
document is in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be
proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)
Sec. 8 . Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. A party who calls for the production
of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)
Note:
The fact that a party sought the production of a document and does not offer it in evidence does not give
rise to an unfavorable implication on his part
Note:
When only one document is signed and thereafter photo copied, the one made and actually signed is the
original under the best evidence rule. The rule is different when all copies are made at the same time and
they were all signed or only one is signed but by means of a carbon paper, the single signature was
impressed upon all the other copies, all are deemed originals.
Best Evidence Rule (1997)
When A loaned a sum of money to B. A typed a single copy of the promissory note,
which they both signed A made two photo (xeroxed) copies of the promissory note, giving
one copy to B and retaining the other copy. A entrusted the typewritten copy to his
counsel for safekeeping. The copy with A's counsel was destroyed when the law
office was burned.
a) In an action to collect on the promissory note, which is deemed to be the "original"

copy for the purpose of the "Best Evidence Rule"?
b) Can the photocopies in the hands of the parties be considered "duplicate original
copies"?
c) As counsel for A, how will you prove the loan given to A and B?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The copy that was signed and lost is the only "original" copy for purposes of the
Best Evidence Rule. (Sec. 4 [b] of Rule 130).
(b) No, They are not duplicate original copies because there are photocopies which
were not signed (Mahilum v. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 482), They constitute
secondary evidence. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130).
Page 40 of 97
(c) The loan given by A to B may be proved by secondary evidence through the xeroxed
copies of the promissory note. The rules provide that when the original document is lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offerer, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may
prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document,
or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130).
Parol Evidence Rule (2001)
Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of money based on a
promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that although the
promissory note says that it is payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is payable
immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may, upon request of Lucio give the
latter up to 120 days to pay the note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that
the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety
days time. Also, since the original note was with Lucio and the latter would not surrender to
Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a place about one days trip from where
he received the notice to produce the note and in spite of such notice to produce the same within
six hours from receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of
the note which was executed at the same time as the original and with identical
contents.
a) Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true
agreement or contents of the promissory note? Why? (2%)
b) Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro present a copy of the promissory note and have it
admitted as valid evidence in his favor? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint that the promissory note does not
express the true intent and agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the
parol evidence rule. [Sec. 9(b) of Rule 130, Rules of Court]
b) Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a duplicate original and with identical
contents. Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce the original of the note is excusable because
he was not given reasonable notice, as requirement under the Rules before secondary evidence
may be presented. (Sec. 6 of Rule 130, Rules of Court)
Comment:
Note the document is deemed as an original since the document was executed at the same time as the
original with identical contents thus falling under par b of section 4 of rule 130 which states:
Page 41 of 97
When a 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
Note:
The promissory note is an actionable document and the original or a copy thereof should have been
attached to the complaint. (Sec. 7 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). In such a case, the
genuineness and due execution of the note, if not denied under oath, would be deemed admitted. (Sec.
8 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Originals under the REE (rules on electronic evidence)

1. The original of the electronic document is its printout or output readable by sight or other means,
shown to reflect the date accurately
2. The copies of the printout or output readable by sight referred to in the immediately preceding
paragraph are also deemed originals where the copies were executed at or about the same time
with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or
from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original
3. When there exist however, a genuine question as to the authenticity of the original or when the
circumstances would make it unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original, the
copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent of the original
Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)

1. Meaning of electronic evidence; electronic data massage
a. Electronic evidence is that which use of electronic data message as evidence.
b. Electronic data message refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means (Sec. 1(g), Rule 2).
2. Probative value of electronic documents or evidentiary weight; method of proof

a. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. Whenever a
rule of evidence to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or
any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document
(Sec. 1, Rule 3).
b. Admissibility. An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the
rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules and related laws and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 3).
c. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. In assessing the evidentiary weight of an
electronic document, the following factors may be considered:
i. The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or
communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures,
controls, tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data
message or document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant
agreement;
ii. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
Page 42 of 97
iii. The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is

recorded or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer
programs or software used as well as programming errors;
iv. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
v. The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication
and information system upon which the electronic data message or electronic
document was based; or
vi. Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity
of the electronic document or electronic data message (Sec. 1, Rule 7).
d. Method of proof: affidavit of evidence. All matters relating to the admissibility and
evidentiary weight of an electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating
facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The
affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters
contained therein (Sec. 1, Rule 9).
e. Method of proof: cross-examination of deponent. The affiant shall be made to affirm the
contents of the affidavit in open court and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by
the adverse party (Sec. 2, Rule 9).
3. Authentication of electronic documents and electronic signatures

a. Burden of proving authenticity. The person seeking to introduce an electronic document
in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided
in this Rule (Sec. 1, Rule 5).
b. Manner of authentication. Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
i. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have
signed the same;
ii. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be
authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic
documents were applied to the document; or
iii. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the
judge (Sec. 2, Rule 5).
c. Proof of electronically notarized document. A document electronically notarized in
accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a
public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court (Sec. 3,
Rule 5).
d. Electronic signature. An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated in the
manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the
signature or a person on a written document (Sec. 1, Rule 6).
e. Authentication of electronic signatures. An electronic signature may be authenticated in
any of the following manners:
i. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature
and verify the same;
ii. By any other means provided by law; or
Page 43 of 97
iii. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of
the electronic signature (Sec. 2, Rule 6).
f. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic signature. Upon the authentication of an
electronic signature, it shall be presumed that:
i. The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;
ii. The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of
authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to
indicate such persons consent to the transaction embodied therein; and
iii. The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic signature
without error or fault (Sec. 3, Rule 6).
g. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures. Upon the authentication of a
digital signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to those mentioned in the immediately
preceding section, that:
i. The information contained in a certificate is correct;
ii. The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate;
iii. The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the
time it was signed; and
iv. A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein (Sec.
4, Rule 6).
4. Electronic documents and the hearsay rule

a. Electronic document refers to information or the 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 and any print-
out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic
data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term electronic
document may be used interchangeably with electronic data message (Sec. 1(h), Rule 2).
b. 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 printout or
output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately (Sec. 1, Rule
4).
c. Copies as equivalent to the originals. When a document is in two or more copies executed
at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the
same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic
re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the
equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same
extent as the original if:
i. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
ii. In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of
the original (Sec. 2, Rule 4).
Page 44 of 97
d. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of

acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other
similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of regular course of
conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means,
all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 8).
e. Overcoming the presumption. The presumption provided for in Sec. 1, Rule 8, may be
overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information of the
method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof (Sec. 2, Rule
8).
5. Audio, photographic, video and ephemeral evidence

a. Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be
admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be
identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some
other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11).
b. Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who
was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or
unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.
A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall

be covered by the immediately preceding section.
If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document,

then the provisions of Rule 5 (authentication of electronic documents) shall apply (Sec. 2,
Rule 11).
c. Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone conversations, text messages,

chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained (Sec. 1(k), Rule 2).
Parol evidence Rule

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Sec. 9 .Evidence of written agreements. 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 interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement
if he puts in issue in his pleading:

Page 45 of 97
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)
Parol evidence
It means extraneous evidence or evidence aliunde. A used in the rules of court, the term refers not only to
oral but also to written evidences as long as they are outside of or extraneous to the written contract. It
renders the content of the written agreement final and complete thereby barring the presentation of
evidence for the any of the following purpose:
1. Modify
2. explain
3. add to terms of the written agreement
Reason for the parol evidence rule:

The parol evidence rule is designed to give certainty to written transactions, to preserve the reliability and
to protect the sanctity of written agreements
Note:
The 4th exception provided in this rule necessarily implies that the prohibition of presentation of an
agreement other than that embodied in the written contract covers only agreement made at the time and
prior to the execution of the said contract and by express provision does not extend to future agreement
between the parties or their assigns note however due to the present phraseology of the rule on parole
evidence, it is necessary that the party seeking to present evidence aliunde must purposely put in issue the
fact that subsequent agreement/s has been made modifying the written contract as it is.
Note:
The parole evidence rule covers only suits between the parties of the written contract and has no
application to a third party and as such, the third party may present evidence aliunde.
Exception to the parole evidence rule (FIVE)

To put in issue in the pleadings any of the following:
1. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
2. There is an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement
3. The validity of the agreement
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.

Page 46 of 97
Note:
The operative fact is the placing in issue of any of the above exception in order to be allowed to present
parole evidence.
Intrinsic or latent ambiguity

Is one which is not apparent on the face of the instrument but which lies in the person or thing that is the
subject of the document or deed.
Comment:
Intrinsic ambiguity is any ambiguity that is not perceptible by the mere reading of the instrument and as
such may only be resolved by presentation of evidence found outside of the instrument. Thus if the
ambiguity is extrinsic (apparent on the face of the contract or instrument), parole evidence is not
admissible.
Note:
American jurisprudence also refers to a situation where an ambiguity partakes of the nature of both patent
and latent ambiguity, that is, an intermediate ambiguity because the words of the writing, though
seemingly clear and admits of two interpretations. Parol evidence, in such a case, is admissible to clarify
the ambiguity provided that the matter is put in issue by the pleader. (Regalado Remedial Law
Compendium citing Am. Jur.)
Requisites of exception mistake:

1. The mistake must be mutual
2. The mistake must be one of fact and not of law
3. The mistake must be clear and convincing
Best evidence rule vs parole evidence rule

1. The best evidence rule establishes a preference of the original document over the secondary
evidence thereof. The parol evidence rule is not concerned with the primacy of the evidence but
presupposes that the original is available
2. The best evidence rule precludes the admission of the secondary evidence if the original
document is available. The parole evidence rule precludes the admission of other evidence to
prove the terms of a document other than the contents of the document itself
3. 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. The parol evidence rule can be invoked only by the parties to the
document and their successors in interest.
4. The best evidence rule applies to all forms of writing. The parol evidence applies to written
agreements and wills
Note:
Same as in best evidence rule the parole evidence rule is susceptible of waiver by failing to object to it
during its presentation or at the time it is being offered.

Page 47 of 97
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

(Rule 132)
Sec. 19 . Classes of Documents. For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are
either public or private.
Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered
therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
Note:
The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as
evidence in court. Public documents, as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, are
self-authenticating and require no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.
Note:
Both real and documentary evidence must be authenticated. With respect to real evidence it is
authenticated by testimony of a competent witness stating that the real evidence is the thing which it
purports to be. Whereas in documentary evidence it is authenticated by the means mentioned above.
Note:
In order for private documents offered as documentary evidences to be admissible they must be
authenticated. They are authenticated by proving their due execution and genuineness.
Authentication under the REE requires any of the following means:

1. by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same
2. by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the SC
or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document
3. by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
Document
The SC has defined a document as a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something
is proved, evidenced or set forth
Public document:
1. written official acts of the sovereign authority
2. records of the official acts of the sovereign authority
3. notarized documents except last wills and testament
Page 48 of 97
4. public records of private documents required by law to be entered in a public record
Note:
Evidence of due execution and genuineness is not required with respect to public document which only
applies to private documents. Such requirement may be dispensed with provided the following requisites
are present:
1. it is an ancient document, a private document that is more than 30 years old
2. it is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine and is unblemished
by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion.
3. Failure of the adverse party to specifically deny under oath the due execution and genuineness of
the document
Although testimony as to its due execution and genuineness is dispensed with, nonetheless testimony
must be offered identifying the document as an ancient document and all the other elements so provided.
Confession; Affidavit of Recantation (1998)
1. If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial
confession implicating his co-accused in the crime charged, is that testimony admissible in
evidence against the latter? [3%]
2. What is the probative value of a witness' Affidavit of Recantation? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial
confession, because he can be subjected to cross-examination.
2. On the probative value of an affidavit of recantation, courts look with

disfavor upon recantations because they can easily be secured from witnesses, usually
through intimidation or for a monetary consideration, Recanted testimony is
exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will be repudiated. (Molina vs.
People. 259 SCRA 138.)
Sec. 20 . Proof of private document. Before any private document offered as authentic is received
in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
Page 49 of 97
2 ways of proving genuineness and due execution of a private document:

1. anyone who saw the document executed or written
2. by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
Note:
Where the document is offered in evidence not as authentic, its genuineness or due execution need not be
proved and requires only to be identified as that which it is claimed to be
Sec. 21 . When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. Where a private
document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally
be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given. (22a)
Sec. 22 . How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting of a person may be proved
by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged,
and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a)
How to prove genuineness of a handwriting:

1. By any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of a person because
a. He has seen the person write
b. He has seen writing purporting to be the person whose handwriting is being proved 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 witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the document is offered or proved to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the judge
Sec. 23 . Public documents as evidence. 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 therein stated.
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. (24a)
Sec. 24 . Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or

Page 50 of 97
by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)
Proof of official acts:

1. By official publication thereof
2. By a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record or by his deputy and
accompanied by a certificate that such officer has custody.
Note:
If the document is kept in a foreign country, the certificate required in number 2 above may be made by:
1. Secretary of the embassy or legation
2. Consul general
3. Consul
4. Vice consul
5. Consular agent
6. Any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept
Attestation
As required in number 2 above must state in substance:
1. That the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof, as the case may be
2. It must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any or if he be the clerk of
court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Sec. 25 . What attestation of copy must state. Whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be
under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a
seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
Sec. 26 . Irremovability of public record. Any public record, an official copy of which is
admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order
of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case.
(27a)
Sec. 27 . Public record of a private document. An authorized public record of a private

document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal
custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a)
How to prove public record

1. Original record
2. A copy thereof attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that
such officer has the custody

Page 51 of 97
Sec. 28 . Proof of lack of record. A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of
an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor
is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is
admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (29)
Requisites of proof of lack of record

1. It must be in writing
2. Signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy
3. It must contain a statement that:
a. There has been a diligent search of the record
b. That despite the diligent search, no record is found to exist in the records of his office.
4. The statement must be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody of official
records
Sec. 29 . How judicial record impeached. Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
(b) collusion between the parties, or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (30a)
Note:
Judicial records refers to the records of judicial proceedings. It does not only include official entries or
files or the official acts of judicial officers, but also the judgment of the court.
Sec. 30 . Proof of notarial documents. Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document
involved. (31a)
Sec. 31 . Alteration in document, how to explain. The party producing a document as genuine
which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to
the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was made
by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
was otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or
language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
(32a)
Acceptable explanations for alterations found in a document sought to be authenticated:

1. that the alteration was made by another without his concurrence
2. that the alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it
3. that the alteration was properly or innocently made
4. that the alteration did not anyway change the meaning or language of the instrument
Sec. 32 . Seal. There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents
insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)
Page 52 of 97
Sec. 33 . Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. Documents written in an unofficial

language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or
Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such
translation prepared before trial. (34a)
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
(Rule 130)
Testimonial evidence
It is the evidence from the mouth of a witness as distinguished from real and documentary evidence. It is
sometimes called viva voce evidence which literally means living voice or by word of mouth. In this
kind of evidence, a human being is called to the stand, is asked questions, and answers the questions
asked of him
Note:
As a general rule, a person who takes the stand as a witness, is presumed to be qualified to testify. A party
who desires to question the competence of a witness must do so by making a timely objection as soon as
the facts tending to show competency are apparent.
1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
Sec. 20 . Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all
persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be
witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless
otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)
Qualifications of a W
1. the witness can perceive
2. the witness can make known his perception to others
3. the witness must take either an oath or affirmation
4. the witness must not possess the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules
Note:
A person is DQ to be a witness if he is incapable of understanding the duty to tell the truth. An oath or
affirmation is necessary for the witness to recognize the duty to tell the truth. The purpose of the oath
requirement is to assist the judge to determine whether the witness understands the nature of an oath,
realizes the moral duty to tell the truth, and understands the prospects of being punished for a falsehood

Page 53 of 97
Note:
The requirement is an oath or affirmation (confirmation of the truthfulness of their statements) the
purpose of providing for affirmation is that some witness may not be willing to make an oath due to
religious or other valid grounds hence they are required to make an affirmation
Note:
A witness can only testify to matters of his personal knowledge and if his testimony is not based on his
personal knowledge the same is deemed incompetent or inadmissible by reason of hearsay. The first
requirement stated above refers to personal knowledge, in the sense that a witness is allowed to testify
only on what he perceived thus based on his own personal knowledge.
Requisites of witness can make known his perception to others:

1. the ability to remember what has been perceived
2. the ability to communicate the remembered perception
Competency is a matter of law or in this jurisdiction a matter of rule. Whereas credibility of the witness
has nothing to do with the law or the rules, it refers to the weight and trustworthiness of reliability of the
testimony. Hence a witness may be competent but not credible
Witness; Competency of the Witness vs. Credibility of the Witness (2004)
Distinguish Competency of the witness and credibility of the witness.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Competency of the witness refers to a witness who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known his perception to others (Sec. 20 of Rule 130), while credibility of the witness
refers to a witness whose testimony is believable.
Note:
Absent any law or rule requiring additional qualifications or disqualification of a witness the list stated
above is exclusive. A sample of a law prescribing an additional requirement is a person previously
convicted of perjury or falsification cannot be allowed to be a witnessed to a will, corollary he cannot be
presented as a witness in the allowance of the will.
Sec. 21 . Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. The following persons

cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that
they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a)

Page 54 of 97
Requisites of paragraph a:
1. The witness must be incapable of making known his perception to others
2. Such incapacity must exist at the time of his production for examination.
Note:
Incapacity at the time of the observation will not render him incompetent but will grossly affect his
credibility
Requisites of DQ by reason of immaturity

1. The mental maturity of the witness must render him incapable of perceiving the facts respecting
which he is examined
2. He is incapable of relating his perception truthfully.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS

(A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. - Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the examination
of child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in
all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses.
Section 2. Objectives. - The objectives of this Rule are to create and maintain an environment that will
allow children to give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage children to
testify in legal proceedings, and facilitate the ascertainment of truth.
Section 3. Construction of the Rule. - This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best interests of
the child and to promote maximum accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to the
constitutional rights of the accused.
Section 4. Definitions. -
(a) A "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18)
years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as
unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.
Section 6. Competency. - Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall
conduct a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish
truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.
(a) Proof of necessity. - A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of
necessity of competency examination. The age of the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a
competency examination.

Page 55 of 97
(b) Burden of proof. - To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of
proof lies on the party challenging his competence.
(c) Persons allowed at competency examination. Only the following are allowed to attend a
competency examination:
(1) The judge and necessary court personnel;

(2) The counsel for the parties;
(3) The guardian ad litem;
(4) One or more support persons for the child; and
(5) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in
his absence.
(d) Conduct of examination. - Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted

only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he
may, in his discretion, ask the child.
(e) Developmentally appropriate questions. - The questions asked at the competency examination
shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child; shall not be related to the
issues at trial; and shall focus on the ability of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish
between truth and falsehood, and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
(f) Continuing duty to assess competence. - The court has the duty of continuously assessing the
competence of the child throughout his testimony.
Section 7. Oath or affirmation. - Before testifying, a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.
Section 8. Examination of a child witness. - The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or
any proceeding shall be done in open court. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question
calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may, however,
move the court to allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 9. Interpreter for child. -

(a) When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said
languages due to his developmental level, fear, shyness, disability, or other similar reason, an interpreter
whom the child can understand and who understands the child may be appointed by the court, motu
proprio or upon motion, to interpret for the child.
(b) If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only person who can serve as an interpreter for
the child, he shall not be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the child. The interpreter,
however, who is also a witness, shall testify ahead of the child.
(c) An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to make a true and accurate interpretation

Page 56 of 97
(f) A "support person" is a person chosen by the child to accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial
proceeding or deposition to provide emotional support for him.
(g) "Best interests of the child" means the totality of the circumstances and conditions as are most
congenial to the survival, protection, and feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to his
physical, psychological, and emotional development. It also means the least detrimental available
alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the child.
Section 10. Facilitator to pose questions to child. -

(a) The court may, motu proprio or upon motion, appoint a facilitator if it determines that the child is
unable to understand or respond to questions asked. The facilitator may be a child psychologist,
psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader, parent, or relative.
(b) If the court appoints a facilitator, the respective counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the
child only through the facilitator. The questions shall either be in the words used by counsel or, if the
child is not likely to understand the same, in words that are comprehensible to the child and which convey
the meaning intended by counsel.
(c) The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose questions to the child according to the meaning
intended by counsel.
Section 11. Support persons. -
(a) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be
accompanied by one or two persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional support.
(1) Both support persons shall remain within the view of the child during his testimony.
(2) One of the support persons may accompany the child to the witness stand, provided the
support person does not completely obscure the child from the view of the opposing party, judge,
or hearing officer.
(3) The court may allow the support person to hold the hand of the child or take other appropriate
steps to provide emotional support to the child in the course of the proceedings.
(4) The court shall instruct the support persons not to prompt, sway, or influence the child during
his testimony.
(b) If the support person chosen by the child is also a witness, the court may disapprove the choice if it is
sufficiently established that the attendance of the support person during the testimony of the child would
pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting the content of the testimony of the child.
(c) If the support person who is also a witness is allowed by the court, his testimony shall be presented
ahead of the testimony of the child.
Section 14. Testimony during appropriate hours. - The court may order that the testimony of the child
should be taken during a time of day when the child is well-rested.

Page 57 of 97
Section 15. Recess during testimony. -

The child may be allowed reasonable periods of relief while undergoing direct, cross, re-direct, and re-
cross examinations as often as necessary depending on his developmental level.
Section 16. Testimonial aids. - The court shall permit a child to use dolls, anatomically-correct dolls,
puppets, drawings, mannequins, or any other appropriate demonstrative device to assist him in his
testimony.
Section 17. Emotional security item. - While testifying, a child shall be allowed to have an item of his
own choosing such as a blanket, toy, or doll.
Section 18. Approaching the witness. - The court may prohibit a counsel from approaching a child if it
appears that the child is fearful of or intimidated by the counsel.
Section 19. Mode of questioning. - The court shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as
to (1) facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to
the developmental level of the child, (3) protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and
(4) avoid waste of time.
The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form.
Section 20. Leading questions. - The court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a
child if the same will further the interests of justice.
Section 21. Objections to questions. - Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to
mislead, confuse, frighten, or intimidate the child.
Section 22. Corroboration. - Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony,
if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the
standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases.
Section 23. Excluding the public. - When a child testifies, the court may order the exclusion from the
courtroom of all persons, including members of the press, who do not have a direct interest in the
case. Such an order may be made to protect the right to privacy of the child or if the court determines on
the record that requiring the child to testify in open court would cause psychological harm to him, hinder
the ascertainment of truth, or result in his inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment,
fear, or timidity. In making its order, the court shall consider the developmental level of the child, the
nature of the crime, the nature of his testimony regarding the crime, his relationship to the accused and to
persons attending the trial, his desires, and the interests of his parents or legal guardian. The court may,
motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of such
character as to be offensive to decency or public morals. The court may also, on motion of the accused,
exclude the public from trial, except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.

Page 58 of 97
Section 24. Persons prohibited from entering and leaving courtroom. - The court may order that persons
attending the trial shall not enter or leave the courtroom during the testimony of the child.
Section 25. Live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the child is a victim or a witness. -
(a) The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the testimony of the child
be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television.
Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he shall consult the prosecutor or
counsel and shall defer to the judgment of the prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of applying
for an order. In case the guardian ad litem is convinced that the decision of the prosecutor or counsel not
to apply will cause the child serious emotional trauma, he himself may apply for the order.
The person seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days before the trial date, unless the court
finds on the record that the need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable.
(b) The court may motu proprio hear and determine, with notice to the parties, the need for taking the
testimony of the child through live-link television.
(c) The judge may question the child in chambers, or in some comfortable place other than the courtroom,
in the presence of the support person, guardian ad litem, prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The
questions of the judge shall not be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about
testifying in the courtroom.
(d) The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, whose presence or conduct causes fear to
the child.
(e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-link television and stating the reasons
therefor. It shall consider the following factors:
(1) The age and level of development of the child;

(2) His physical and mental health, including any mental or physical disability;
(3) Any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced by him;
(4) The nature of the alleged abuse;
(5) Any threats against the child;
(6) His relationship with the accused or adverse party;
(7) His reaction to any prior encounters with the accused in court or elsewhere;
(8) His reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed with him by parents or
professionals;
(9) Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to testifying;
(10) Testimony of expert or lay witnesses;
(11) The custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of his family regarding
the events about which he will testify; and
(12) Other relevant factors, such as court atmosphere and formalities of court procedure.
Page 59 of 97
(f) The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a
substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the
accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must be of a kind which
would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link television:
(1) The child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in the presence of the guardian
ad litem; one or both of his support persons; the facilitator and interpreter, if any; a court officer
appointed by the court; persons necessary to operate the closed-circuit television equipment; and
other persons whose presence are determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-
being of the child;
(2) The judge, prosecutor, accused, and counsel for the parties shall be in the courtroom. The
testimony of the child shall be transmitted by live-link television into the courtroom for viewing
and hearing by the judge, prosecutor, counsel for the parties, accused, victim, and the public
unless excluded.
(3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial, the court may allow the child to
enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying the accused, or the court may allow the
child to identify the accused by observing the image of the latter on a television monitor.
(4) The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the testimony that it finds
just and appropriate, taking into consideration the best interests of the child.
(h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices which
shall be made part of the court record and shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section
31(b).
Witness; Examination of a Child Witness; via Live-Link TV (2005)
When may the trial court order that the testimony of a child be taken by live-link television?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The testimony of a child may be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial

likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the
accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must be of a kind
which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child. (See
Sec. 25, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness).
Section 26. Screens, one-way mirrors, and other devices to shield child from accused. -
(a) The prosecutor or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the chair of the child or that a
screen or other device be placed in the courtroom in such a manner that the child cannot see the accused
while testifying. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he shall consult with
the prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and third paragraphs of section 25(a) of this Rule. The
court shall issue an order stating the reasons and describing the approved courtroom arrangement.

Page 60 of 97
(b) If the court grants an application to shield the child from the accused while testifying in the
courtroom, the courtroom shall be arranged to enable the accused to view the child.
Section 27. Videotaped deposition. -

(a) The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may apply for an order that a deposition be taken of the
testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape. Before the guardian ad litem
applies for an order under this section, he shall consult with the prosecutor or counsel subject to the
second and third paragraphs of section 25(a).
(b) If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial, it shall issue an order
that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by videotape.
(c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. Objections to deposition testimony or
evidence, or parts thereof, and the grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall be ruled upon at the
time of the taking of the deposition. The other persons who may be permitted to be present at the
proceeding are:
(1) The prosecutor;
(2) The defense counsel;
(4) The accused, subject to sub-section (e);
(5) Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and
well-being of the child;
(6) One or both of his support persons, the facilitator and interpreter, if any;
(7) The court stenographer; and
(8) Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment.
(d) The rights of the accused during trial, especially the right to counsel and to confront and cross-
examine the child, shall not be violated during the deposition.
(e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to testify in the physical presence
of the accused, the court may direct the latter to be excluded from the room in which the deposition
is conducted. In case of exclusion of the accused, the court shall order that the testimony of the
child be taken by live-link television in accordance with section 25 of this Rule. If the accused is
excluded from the deposition, it is not necessary that the child be able to view an image of the
accused.
(f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and stenographically recorded. The videotape and the
stenographic notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of the court where the case is pending for safekeeping
and shall be made a part of the record.
(g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that it finds just and appropriate,
taking into consideration the best interests of the child, the constitutional rights of the accused, and other
relevant factors.

Page 61 of 97
(h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be subject to a protective order as provided in
section 31(b).
(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a reason stated in section
25(f) of this Rule, or is unavailable for any reason described in section 4(c), Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, the court may admit into evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his
testimony at the trial. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons therefor.
(j) After the original videotaping but before or during trial, any party may file any motion for additional
videotaping on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The court may order an additional videotaped
deposition to receive the newly discovered evidence.
Section 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. - A statement made by a child describing any act or
attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in
evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
(a) Before such hearsay statement may be 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. 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 statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. When the child is
unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and
circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the following
factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;

(2) The general character of the declarant child;
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness;
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the
declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be
exposed to severe psychological injury; or
(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his
attendance by process or other reasonable means.

Page 62 of 97
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by
other admissible evidence.
Section 29. Admissibility of videotaped and audiotaped in-depth investigative or disclosure interviews in
child abuse cases. - The court may admit videotape and audiotape in-depth investigative or disclosure
interviews as evidence, under the following conditions:
(a) The child witness is unable to testify in court on grounds and under conditions established
under section 28 (c).
(b) The interview of the child was conducted by duly trained members of a multidisciplinary team
or representatives of law enforcement or child protective services in situations where child abuse
is suspected so as to determine whether child abuse occurred.
(c) The party offering the videotape or audiotape must prove that:
(1) the videotape or audiotape discloses the identity of all individuals present and at all
times includes their images and voices;
(2) the statement was not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the child to
make a particular statement or is clearly shown to be the statement of the child and not
the product of improper suggestion;
(3) the videotape and audiotape machine or device was capable of recording testimony;
(4) the person operating the device was competent to operate it;
(5) the videotape or audiotape is authentic and correct; and
(6) it has been duly preserved.
The individual conducting the interview of the child shall be available at trial for examination by any
party. Before the videotape or audiotape is offered in evidence, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity
to view or listen to it and shall be furnished a copy of a written transcript of the proceedings.
The fact that an investigative interview is not videotaped or audiotaped as required by this section
shall not by itself constitute a basis to exclude from evidence out-of-court statements or testimony of
the child. It may, however, be considered in determining the reliability of the statements of the child
describing abuse.
Section 30. Sexual abuse shield rule. -
(a) Inadmissible evidence. - The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding
involving alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
(b) Exception. - Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a
person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible.
Page 63 of 97
A party intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial, specifically describing the evidence and
stating the purpose for which it is offered, unless the court, for good cause, requires a different time for
filing or permits filing during trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of
the motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child, his
guardian ad litem, the parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. The motion and the record
of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in
section 31(b). The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent.
Section 31. Protection of privacy and safety. -
(a) Confidentiality of records. - Any record regarding a child shall be confidential and kept under seal.
Except upon written request and order of the court, a record shall only be released to the following:
(1) Members of the court staff for administrative use;

(2) The prosecuting attorney;
(3) Defense counsel;
(5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies; and
(6) Other persons as determined by the court.
(b) Protective order. - Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part of the court record shall be under
a protective order that provides as follows:
(1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their counsel, their expert witness, and the guardian ad
litem.
(2) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any person mentioned in sub-section (a)
to any other person, except as necessary for the trial.
(3) No person shall be granted access to the tape, its transcription or any part thereof unless he
signs a written affirmation that he has received and read a copy of the protective order; that he
submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order; and that in case of
violation thereof, he will be subject to the contempt power of the court.
(4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made available to the parties, their counsel,
and respective agents shall bear the following cautionary notice:
"This object or document and the contents thereof are subject to a protective order issued by the court in
(case title), (case number) . They shall not be examined, inspected, read, viewed, or copied by any person,
or disclosed to any person, except as provided in the protective order. No additional copies of the tape or
any of its portion shall be made, given, sold, or shown to any person without prior court order. Any

Page 64 of 97
person violating such protective order is subject to the contempt power of the court and other penalties
prescribed by law."
(5) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person except as ordered by the court.
(6) Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all copies of the tape and any transcripts thereof shall be
returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping unless the period is extended by the court on motion
of a party.
(7) This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of the court.
(c) Additional protective orders. - The court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, the child, his
parents, legal guardian, or the guardian ad litem, issue additional orders to protect the privacy of the child.
(d) Publication of identity contemptuous. - Whoever publishes or causes to be published in any format the
name, address, telephone number, school, or other identifying information of a child who is or is alleged
to be a victim or accused of a crime or a witness thereof, or an immediate family of the child shall be
liable to the contempt power of the court.
(e) Physical safety of child; exclusion of evidence. - A child has a right at any court proceeding not to
testify regarding personal identifying information, including his name, address, telephone number, school,
and other information that could endanger his physical safety or his family. The court may, however,
require the child to testify regarding personal identifying information in the interest of justice.
(f) Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes. - Any videotape or audiotape of a child produced under the
provisions of this Rule or otherwise made part of the court record shall be destroyed after five (5) years
have elapsed from the date of entry of judgment.
(g) Records of youthful offender. - Where a youthful offender has been charged before any city or
provincial prosecutor or before any municipal judge and the charges have been ordered dropped, all the
records of the case shall be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to
anyone for any purpose whatsoever.
Where a youthful offender has been charged and the court acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits
him to an institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to Chapter 3 of P. D. No. 603, all the records
of his case shall also be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone
except to determine if a defendant may have his sentence suspended under Article 192 of P. D. No. 603 or
if he may be granted probation under the provisions of P. D. No. 968 or to enforce his civil liability, if
said liability has been imposed in the criminal action. The youthful offender concerned shall not be held
under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his
failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him
for any purpose.
"Records" within the meaning of this sub-section shall include those which may be in the files of the
National Bureau of Investigation and with any police department or government agency which may have
been involved in the case. (Art. 200, P. D. No. 603)
Page 65 of 97
Sec. 22 . Disqualification by reason of marriage. During their marriage, neither the husband nor
the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a
civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)
Note:
This is called the marital DQ rule which is different from the marital privilege rule under section 24
Note:
The DQ extends not only on matters against the spouse but even to matters favorable to him so long as his
consent is not given and it is not of the listed exceptions
Note:
The prohibition stands so long as the marriage subsist regardless of the content of the testimony or the
documents required to be produced, save the listed exceptions, whereas with respect to confidential
matters related to one another by reason of their being spouses sec 24 forbids the same being offered as
evidence against one of them
Requisites:
1. The spouses must be legally married
2. Marriage between the spouses is still valid and subsisting
3. The spouse timely objects to the competency of the wife
Note:
Failure to object results to a waiver of this provision
Exceptions:
1. In civil cases by one against the other
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other, or the latters ascendants or
descendants.
Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (1989)
Ody sued spouses Cesar and Baby for a sum of money and damages. At the trial, Ody
called Baby as his first witness. Baby objected, joined by Cesar, on the ground that she
may not be compelled to testify against her husband. Ody insisted and contended that after all,
she would just be questioned about a conference they had with the barangay captain,
a matter which is not confidential in nature. The trial court ruled in favor of Ody. Was the
ruling proper? Will your answer be the same if the matters to be testified on were known
to Baby or acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 66 of 97
No. Under the Rules on Evidence, a wife cannot be examined for or against her husband
without his consent, except in civil cases by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other. Since the case was filed by Ody against the
spouses Cesar and Baby, Baby cannot be compelled to testify for or against Cesar without his
consent. (Lezama vs. Rodriguez, 23 SCRA 1166).
The answer would be the same if the matters to be testified on were known to Baby or
acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar, because the marital disqualification rule
may be invoked with respect to testimony on any fact. It is immaterial whether such matters
were known to Baby before or after her marriage to Cesar.
Vida and Romeo are legally married. Romeo is charged to court with the crime of
serious physical injuries committed against Selmo, son of Vida, stepson of Romeo. Vida
witnessed the infliction of the injuries on Selmo by Romeo. The public prosecutor called
Vida to the witness stand and offered her testimony as an eyewitness. Counsel for
Romeo objected on the ground of the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of Court.
a) Is the objection valid? (3%)

b) Will your answer be the same if Vidas testimony is offered in a civil case for recovery
of personal property filed by Selmo against Romeo? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse, one exception is if the testimony of the spouse is
in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latters direct
descendants or ascendants. (Sec, 22, Rule 130). The case falls under this exception
because Selma is the direct descendant of the spouse Vide.
(b) No. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. The exception provided by the
rules is in a civil case by one spouse against the other. The case here involves a case by
Selmo for the recovery of personal property against Vidas spouse, Romeo.
XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of promoting and facilitating child prostitution and
other sexual abuses under Rep. Act No. 7610. The principal witness against him
was his Filipina wife, ABC. Earlier, she had complained that XYZ's hotel was being
used as a center for sex tourism and child trafficking. The defense counsel for XYZ objected
to the testimony of ABC at the trial of the child prostitution case and the
introduction of the affidavits she executed against her husband as a violation of
espousal confidentiality and marital privilege rule. It turned out that DEF, the minor
Page 67 of 97
daughter of ABC by her first husband who was a Filipino, was molested by XYZ earlier.
Thus, ABC had filed for legal separation from XYZ since last year.
May the court admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife, ABC, against her husband,
XYZ, in the criminal case involving child prostitution? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The court may admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife against her
husband in the criminal case where it involves child prostitution of the wife's daughter. It
is not covered by the marital privilege rule. One exception thereof is where the crime is
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. A
crime by the husband against the daughter is a crime against the wife and directly attacks or
vitally impairs the conjugal relation. SCRA 270 [1975]).
Leticia was estranged from her husband Paul for more than a year due to his suspicion
that she was having an affair with Manuel their neighbor. She was temporarily living with
her sister in Pasig City. For unknown reasons, the house of Leticia's sister was burned,
killing the latter. Leticia survived. She saw her husband in the vicinity during the incident. Later
he was charged with arson in an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
During the trial, the prosecutor called Leticia to the witness stand and offered her testimony to
prove that her husband committed arson. Can Leticia testify over the objection of her
husband on the ground of marital privilege? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Leticia cannot testify over the objection of her husband, not under marital privilege
which is inapplicable and which can be waived, but she would be barred under Sec. 22 of Rule
130, which prohibits her from testifying and which cannot be waived (Alvarez v. Ramirez,
G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Leticia may testify over the objection of her husband. The disqualification of a witness
by reason of marriage under Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court has its
exceptions as where the marital relations are so strained that there is no more harmony
to be preserved. The acts of Paul eradicate all major aspects of marital life. On the other
hand, the State has an interest in punishing the guilty and exonerating the innocent, and
must have the right to offer the testimony of Leticia over the objection of her husband
(Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).

Page 68 of 97
Sec. 23 . Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. Parties or assignor of

parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind,
upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of
unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound mind. (20a)
Elements Survivorship DQ rule or dead mans statute: (P,W,E,T)

1. The defendant in the case is the executor or administrator or a representative of the deceased or
the person of unsound mind
2. The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said deceased or person of unsound
mind
3. The witness is the plaintiff, or his assignor of that party or a person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted
4. The subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind
Note:
The dead mans statute is a disqualification of plaintiff to testify on matters occurring before the death of
the defendant filed against his estate hence the prohibition does not extend to a disinterested witness or a
third person so long as he is not the plaintiff or the person to whom the deceased transacted with.
Note:
This rule applies only to a civil case or a special proceeding.
Note:
The object of the rule is to guard against temptation to give false testimony in regard to the transaction on
the part of the surviving party and thereby put the parties upon equal terms. Hence the person filing a
claim against the estate of the deceased is barred from testifying over any matter or transaction which
occurred prior to the death or the insanity of the defendant since the latter cannot respond to the
allegations of the plaintiff since he is dead.
Limitations of the dead mans statute:

1. Its prohibition extends only to testimonies of the plaintiff or an assignor of the plaintiff or one on
whose behalf the claim against the estate is prosecuted
2. It covers only testimonial evidence from the parties mentioned
3. It is subject to waiver by:
a. Failure to object
b. Cross examining the witness
c. Submitting rebuttal evidence

Page 69 of 97
Hearsay; Exception; Dead Man Statute (2001)

Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the administrator of the estate of deceased
Juan, for the recovery of a car which is part of the latters estate. During the trial, Maximo
presented witness Mariano who testified that he was present when Maximo and Juan agreed
that the latter would pay a rental of P20,000.00 for the use of Maximos car for one
month after which Juan should immediately return the car to Maximo. Pedro objected to the
admission of Marianos testimony.
If you were the judge, would you sustain Pedros objection? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the testimony is admissible in evidence because witness Mariano who testified as to
what Maximo and Juan, the deceased person agreed upon, is not disqualified to
testify on the agreement. Those disqualified are parties or assignors of parties to a
case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against the administrator or Juans
estate, upon a claim or demand against his estate as to any matter of fact occurring before
Juans death. (Sec. 23 of Rule 130)
Sec. 24 . Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.

The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for
a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him
or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which
would blacken the reputation of the patient;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be
examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional
character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest
belongs;

Page 70 of 97
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)
Requisites of Marital privileged communications:

1. There must be a valid marriage between the spouses
2. There is a communication made in confidence by one to the other
3. The confidential communication must have been made during the marriage
Note:
The DQ survives the dissolution of a marriage but only with respect to confidential communication
expressed by one spouse to the other during the subsistence of the marriage.
Note:
Confidential information does not cover communications that are not intended to be confidential because
they were uttered in the presence of third parties since they are not confidential.
Marital DQ vs marital privileged communication rule:

1. When the marital privileged communication rule applies, the spouse affected by the adverse
testimony may object to the testimony even after the dissolution of the marriage. The MDQ rule
on the other hand can no longer be invoked once the marriage is dissolved. It may be asserted
during the marriage
2. The marital DQ rule requires that the spouse for or against whom the testimony is offered is a
party to the action. This is not required n MPCR
3. MDQR the prohibition is a testimony for or against the other. In MPCR, prohibits the
examination of a spouse as to matters related in confidence to the other spouse.
Attorney-Client Privilege
Requisites:
1. There must be communication made by the client to the attorney or an advice given by the
attorney to his client
2. The communication or advice must have been given in confidence
3. The communication or advice must have been given either in the course of the professional
employment or with a view to profession employment
Note:
There are US authorities who follow the rule that so long as the person consulting has the honest belief
that the person consulted is a lawyer, and the communication given is in the course of the professional
relationship or in view thereof the same is covered by the prohibition.
Note:
The privilege does not extend to communications where the clients purpose is the furtherance of a future
intended crime or fraud or for the purpose of committing a crime or a tort or those made in furtherance of
Page 71 of 97
illicit activity however the discussion covering such crimes after they have been committed is covered by
the privileged.
Note:
As a rule the identity of the parties are not privilege nor the fact that a lawyer was consulted, however
under the last link doctrine, a non-privileged information, such as the identity of the client, is
protected if the revelation of such information would necessarily reveal privileged information.
Note:
The DQ extends to the lawyers staff who by reason of their employment acquired such information.
Note:
The communication must be confidential either by their nature or was intended to be confidential hence
communication uttered in the presence of others not part of the staff or necessary parties, essential 3 rd
persons are not covered by this privilege.
Note:
The privilege is not applicable or does not extend to a suit between one against the other, although such
communication is still privilege and cannot be used in a separate case for or against one of them.
Note:
The privilege is owned by the client and is personal to him. It is he who can invoke the privilege, thus if
the privilege is waived by the client no one else including the attorney can invoke it.
Note:
The protection of the privilege generally survives the death of the client. Although there had been cases
where the privilege was not made to apply in cases involving the validity or interpretation of the clients
will. Where there is an attack on the validity of the will, communications made to the atty on the drawing
of the will, while confidential during the life time of the client are not intended to require secrecy
after his death.
Physician-patient privilege
Note:
This is only applicable to civil cases by express provision of the rules, and under the reasoning that the
interest of the public in criminal prosecution should be deemed more important than the secrecy of the
communication
Covered communication
1. Any advice given to the client
2. Any treatment given to the client
3. Any information acquired in attending such patient provided that the advice, treatment or
information:
a. was made or acquired in a professional capacity and
Page 72 of 97
b. was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity

c. that the information sought to be disclosed would tend to blacken the reputation of the
patient
Note:
It survives the death of the patient
Limitations:
1. does not extend to criminal prosecutions
2. information must refer to an curative or preventive advice, treatment or information thus
autopsies are not privileged since they are not intended for a treatment
3. the privilege does not extend to shield the commission of a crime (plastic surgery evasion;
purchase of drugs: not curative nor preventive)
Priest/Minister-penitent privileged
Note:
The person making the confession holds the privilege and the priest or minister hearing the confession in
his professional capacity is prohibited from making a disclosure of the confession without consent of the
person confessing and extends to the advice given by the priest
Note:
The priest or minister must be duly ordained or consecrated by his sect as such since the privilege applies
only to confessions made in his professional capacity
Note:
The privileges mentioned above extends to electronic devices under the REE sec 3 rule 3
Privilege Communication (1998)
C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife W for judicial declaration of nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. In the trial, the following testified over the objection of
W: C, H and D, a doctor of medicine who used to treat W. Rule on W's objections which are the
following:
1. H cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital privilege; [1%]
2. C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine on parental privilege; and [2%]
3. D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged communication
between patient and physician. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in the annulment case under Rule 36 of the
Family Code because it is a civil case filed by one against the other, (Sec. 22 , Rule 130. Rules
of Court.)
Page 73 of 97
2. The doctrine of parental privilege cannot likewise be invoked by W as against the testimony of
C, their child. C may not be compelled to testify but is free to testify against her. (Sec. 25.
Rule 130. Rules of Court; Art. 215, Family Code.)
3. D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to testify against W over her objection
as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have
acquired in his professional capacity. (Sec. 24 [c], Rule 130. Rules of Court.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the doctor's testimony is pursuant to the requirement of establishing the

psychological incapacity of W, and he is the expert called upon to testify for the purpose,
then it should be allowed. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, 26S SCRA 198.)
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
Sec. 25 . Parental and filial privilege. No person may be compelled to testify against his parents,
other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a)
Note:
A person may not be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or direct
ascendants but if done willingly there is no valid objection.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Sec. 10 . Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. The language of a writing is to be
interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended
otherwise. (8)
Sec. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. In the construction of an
instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be
adopted as will give effect to all.
Sec. 12 . Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. In the construction of
an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision
are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that
is inconsistent with it.
Sec. 13 . Interpretation according to circumstances. For the proper construction of an instrument, the
circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to

Page 74 of 97
it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret.
(11)
Sec. 14 . Peculiar signification of terms. The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in
their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical,
or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which
case the agreement must be construed accordingly. (12)
Sec. 15 . Written words control printed. When an instrument consists partly of written words and
partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter. (13)
Sec. 16 . Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. When the characters in
which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the
court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. (14)
Sec. 17 . Of Two constructions, which preferred. When the terms of an agreement have been intended
in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he
supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally
proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.
(15)
Sec. 18 . Construction in favor of natural right. When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted. (16)
Sec. 19 . Interpretation according to usage. An instrument may be construed according to usage, in

order to determine its true character. (17)
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
(Rule 130)
SECTION 1 . Examination to be done in open court. The examination of witnesses presented in a

trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the
witness shall be given orally. (1a)
General rule:
Examination of witness must be made in open court and unless the question calls for a different mode, the
answer of the witness shall be given orally

Page 75 of 97
Exceptions to examinations made in open court and made orally:

1. affidavits of parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same
in summary procedures, to wit:
Sec. 15. Procedure of trial. At the trial, the affidavits submitted by the parties shall
constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same. Witnesses
who testified may be subjected to cross-examination, redirect or re-cross
examination. Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall not be considered as
competent evidence for the party presenting the affidavit, but the adverse party may
utilize the same for any admissible purpose.
XXXX
2. In civil cases, depositions need not be taken in open court. They may be taken before a notary
public.
3. In criminal cases, either party may utilize the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of the
country, or one who is unavailable or unable to testify despite the exercise of due diligence, even
if the testimony was one used in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, provided
the said proceeding involved the same parties and subject matter and the averse party had the
opportunity to cross-examine the witness
Oath
Is an outward pledge made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God or a solemn appeal to the
supreme being in attestation of the truth of some statement.
Affirmation
Is a substituted for an oath and is a solemn and formal declaration that the witness will tell the truth
Note:
If the witness refuses to take an oath or affirmation the testimony may be barred,
Note:
No required wordings is provided so long as it can be taken that the witness understands the his duty to
tell the truth and that he will tell the truth the same is complied with, enforcement by a judge to used
words like I swear is deemed an abuse of discretion where the religious beliefs of the witness shall be
violated.
Note:
The answers of the witness shall be given orally except if:
1. The witness is incapacitated to speak
2. The question calls for a different mode of answer
Note:

Page 76 of 97
Unless the case is covered by the rules on summary procedure the witnesses must be presented in court an
examined therein and answers orally, a mere presentation of affidavits even if done with the right to cross
examination is insufficient.
Sec.2 . Proceedings to be recorded. The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the
questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or
any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of
shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or
recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such
proceedings. (2a)
Sec. 3 . Rights and obligations of a witness. A witness must answer questions, although his answer
may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of a witness:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law; or
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact at
issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to
the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)
Note:
The right against self-incrimination is not available only to testimonial evidence, and does not extend to
purely mechanical acts or the fact that the accused is being subjected to a medical examination
Note:
A witness has a right to not to answer a question which will degrade him unless the degrading answer is
the very fact in issue or refers to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed.
Note:
A question regarding a previous final conviction is not degrading and by express provision of the rules
must be answered
Sec. 4 . Order in the examination of an individual witness. The order in which the individual
witness may be examined is as follows;
(a)Direct examination by the proponent;
(b)Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c)Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d)Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4)
Page 77 of 97
Sec. 5 . Direct examination. Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the

party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (5a)
Sec. 6 . Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in
the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
Sec. 7 . Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. After the cross-examination of the witness
has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his
answers given during the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination, questions on matters not
dealt with during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (12)
Sec. 8 . Re-cross-examination. Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse
party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (13)
Sec. 9 . Recalling witness. After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded,
the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in
its discretion, as the interests of justice may require. (14)
Witness; Examination of Witnesses (1997)
a) Aside from asking a witness to explain and supplement his answer in the cross-
examination, can the proponent ask in re-direct examination questions on matters not dealt
with during cross- examination?
b) Aside from asking the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, can the
opponent in his re-cross-examination ask questions on matters not dealt with during the
re-direct?
c) After plaintiff has formally submitted his evidence, he realized that he had
forgotten to present what he considered an important evidence. Can he recall a
witness?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, on redirect examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-
may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sec. 7 of Rule 132).
(b) Yes, the opponent in his re-cross-examination may also ask questions on such other
matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sec. 8. Rule 132).
Page 78 of 97
(c) Yes, after formally submitting his evidence, the plaintiff can recall a witness with leave
of court. The court may grant or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of justice may
require. (Sec. 9. Rule 132).
Note:
If the witness dies prior to the termination of the cross examination, the testimony not covered by the
cross examination may be stricken out of the record unless the failure to cross is attributable to the other
party as in the case that the witness was always available for cross but due to the delay caused by the said
party he was not crossed or unless the witness was sufficiently crossed already.
Sec. 10 . Leading and misleading questions. A question which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)
Sec. 11 . Impeachment of adverse party's witness. A witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for
truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that
it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been
convicted of an offense. (15)
Note:
It is prohibited to impeach a witness by enumerating the wrongful acts done by him either by means of
testimonies of others or from the witness himself the only exception is showing his prior conviction in the
following manner:
1. During his examination
2. By presenting the record of his prior conviction.
It is improper to illicit this information from the lips of another witness.
Sec. 12 . Party may not impeach his own witness. Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.

Page 79 of 97
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate
showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into
calling him to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be
impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party,
except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the
adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-
in-chief. (6a, 7a)
Note:
As a general rule only the party against whom the witness is presented has the right to impeach the
witness.
Grounds/exceptions to impeach ones own witness

1. When the said witness is an adverse party or is an officer, director or managing agent of a
corporation, partnership or association which is an adverse party
2. When the witness has been judicial declared a hostile witness by reason of:
a. The witness possesses an interest adverse to the party calling him or
b. there is adequate showing that the reluctance of the witness is unjustified or
c. that he misled the party into calling him as a witness
Sec. 13 . How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. Before a witness can be
impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places
and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed
to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any
question is put to him concerning them. (16)
Sec. 14 . Evidence of good character of witness. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached. (17)
Note:
The rule is with respect to witnesses evidence of good moral character is improper unless the same has
been question or impeached by the other party, on the other hand, with respect to the accused, the other
party cannot present evidence as to the bad character of the witness unless the accused proves his good
moral character save certain exceptions.
Note:
In impeaching witnesses the testimonies or evidence presented to impeach their character must refer to
their truthfulness, integrity and honesty thus limiting itself to matters affecting his credibility.

Page 80 of 97
Sec. 15 . Exclusion and separation of witnesses. On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude
from the court any witness not at the time under examination, so that he may not hear the
testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be
prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. (18)
Sec. 16 . When witness may refer to memorandum. A witness may be allowed to refresh his
memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the
time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was
fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case the
writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he
chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may
testify from such writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is
able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such
evidence must be received with caution. (10a)
Memorandum (1996)
X states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being asked but he cannot recall
them now. When handed a written record of the facts he testifies that the facts are correctly
stated, but that he has never seen the writing before.
Is the writing admissible as past recollection recorded? Explain,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because for the written record to be admissible as past recollection recorded. It must
have been written or recorded by X or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. (Sec. 16 of Rule 132) But
in this case X has never seen the writing before.
Sec. 17 . When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder admissible.
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one
party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. (11a)
Sec. 18 . Right to respect writing shown to witness. Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it
may be inspected by the adverse party. (9a)

Page 81 of 97
TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
(Rule 130)
Sec. 36 . Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. A witness can
testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
Note:
Hearsay evidence if not objected to is deemed admitted since the latter has waived it.
Note:
A person must only testify on the fact which he has personal knowledge about and as a general exception
a person may testify as to statements made of another if the purpose of the testimony is to show the state
of mind, mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention ill-will or good faith and other emotions of the
person being repeated (exception to the opinion rule: a person may testify as to his impression of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of another). Thus the purpose is not to prove the veracity of
the actual statements but to show the perception of the witness of what was the state of mind of the person
being repeated at that precise moment thus the purpose is non-hearsay
Hearsay evidence
It is a statement, other than the one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered
in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Elements of hearsay evidence:

1. There must be an out of court statement regardless of form
2. That the statement made out of court is repeated and offered by the witness
3. To prove the truth of the matters asserted by the statement.
Ratione of the hearsay rule

The reason that a witness is required to testify only on matters personally known to him is so that his
credibility, accuracy of perception and recollection can be tested before the court through cross
examination. Hence in hearsay evidence since the person who had the personal knowledge is not present
or being presented as a witness he is not subject to cross examination.
Hearsay Evidence vs. Opinion Evidence (2004)
Distinguish Hearsay evidence and opinion evidence.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hearsay evidence consists of testimony that is not based on personal knowledge of the
person testifying, (see Sec. 36, Rule 130), while opinion evidence is expert evidence
based on the personal knowledge skill, experience or training of the person testifying and
evidence of an ordinary witness on limited matters (Sec. 50, Id.)
Page 82 of 97
Samples of non-hearsay evidence:

1. Testimony about a conversation overheard, not to prove the veracity of the content of the
conversation but to show that the conversation actually occurred was made
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Note:
If a statement does not comply with the requisites above stated it is not hearsay, thus a testimony
presented not based on personal knowledge is note hearsay if the purpose is not to prove the veracity of
the statement made outside of court
Independently relevant statements

It is a doctrine that a declarants statement may have relevance to an issue in a case from the mere fact
that the words were spoken or written, irrespective of the truth or falsity of the assertion.
Samples of Independently relevant statements/non-hearsay purpose:

1. To prove a conversation actually transpired and not the truthfulness of the content
2. To determine the state of mind of the outside declarant
3. To prove the sanity of the outside declarant
4. To prove the effect or the state of mind of the listener
Testimony; Independent Relevant Statement (1999)
A overheard B call X a thief. In an action for defamation filed by X against B, is the

testimony of A offered to prove the fact of utterance i.e., that B called X a thief,
admissible in evidence? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The testimony of A who overheard B call X a thief is admissible in evidence as an

independently relevant statement. It is offered in evidence only to prove the tenor thereof,
not to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. Independently relevant statements
include statements which are on the very facts in issue or those which are circumstantial
evidence thereof. The hearsay rule does not apply.(See People vs. Gaddi, 170 SCRA 649)
Note:
The samples stated above the person who heard them will be testifying on what he heard and not on the
truthfulness of the statements therein, thus he is testifying based on his personal knowledge
Hearsay; Inapplicable (2003)
X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the court, X
was arrested by police operatives. They seized from his person a handgun. A charge for

Page 83 of 97
illegal possession of firearm was also filed against him. In a press conference called by
the police, X admitted that he had robbed the victim of jewelry valued at P500,000.00.
The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. The prosecution
presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report to the reporter who was present
during the press conference stating that X admitted the robbery. It likewise presented a
certification of the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that the accused had no
license to carry any firearm. The certifying officer, however, was not presented as a witness.
Both pieces of evidence were objected to by the defense. (6%)
a) Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence against X?

b) Is the certification of the PNP Firearm and Explosive Office without the certifying
officer testifying on it admissible in evidence against X?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence against X. regardless of the truth or
falsity of a statement, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be
shown where the fact that it is made is relevant. Evidence as to the making of such
statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute
a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such fact.
(Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18 [1992])
(b) Yes, the certification is admissible in evidence against X because a written

statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy
that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the
records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as
evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry.
Exceptions to hearsay rule (I,D2,F,A,P2,C,E,E,L,T) 12

1. Independently relevant statements
2. Dying declaration
3. Declaration against interest.
4. Act or declaration about pedigree
5. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
6. Common reputation
7. Part of res gestae
8. Entries in the course of business
9. Entries in official records
10. Commercial lists and the like.
11. Learned treatises
12. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.

Page 84 of 97
Sec. 37 . Dying declaration. The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of
an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. (31a)
Requisites:
1. A declaration was made by a dying person
2. The declarant is conscious and certain of his impending death
3. That the declaration refers to the cause and circumstances surrounding the death of the declarant
and not of anyone else
4. That the declaration is offered in a case where the declarants death is the subject of inquiry
Note:
It may be received in favor of the accused, if compliant with the above requisites is admissible in any case
(civil, criminal or special) so long as the main subject of inquiry is the cause of death or the circumstances
surrounding such death.
Hearsay; Exception; Dying Declaration (1998)
What are the requisites of Dying Declaration. [2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration are: (a) the declaration is
made by the deceased under the consciousness of his impending death; (b) the deceased
was at the time competent as a witness; (c) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant's death; and (d) the declaration is offered in a (criminal) case
wherein the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry
Hearsay; Exceptions; Dying Declaration (1999)
The accused was charged with robbery and homicide. The victim suffered several stab
wounds. It appears that eleven (11) hours after the crime, while the victim was being
brought to the hospital in a jeep, with his brother and a policeman as companions, the victim
was asked certain questions which he answered, pointing to the accused as his
assailant. His answers were put down in writing, but since he was a in a critical condition,
his brother and the policeman signed the statement. Is the statement admissible as a
dying declaration? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The statement is admissible as a dying declaration if the victim subsequently

died and his answers were made under the consciousness of impending death (Sec. 37
of Rule 130). The fact that he did not sign the statement point to the accused as his assailant,
Page 85 of 97
because he was in critical condition, does not affect its admissibility as a dying
declaration. A dying declaration need not be in writing (People v. Viovicente, 286 SCRA
1)
Sec. 38 . Declaration against interest. The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is asserted in the declaration was at the time
it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would
not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. (32a)
Elements:
1. The declaration is made by a person who is deceased or is unable to testify
2. The declaration is against his interest
3. He must be aware that it was against his interest
Sec. 39 . Act or declaration about pedigree. The act or declaration of a person deceased, or
unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage,
may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between
the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree"
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places
where these fast occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree. (33a)
Elements:
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify
2. That the declarant is related by birth or marriage to the person whose pedigree is in issue
3. The declaration was made before the controversy
4. The relationship between the 2 persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration
Sec. 40 . Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. The reputation or tradition existing
in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be
received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on
rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (34a)
Elements:
1. A statement by a member of the family either by consanguinity or affinity
2. The statement is about the reputation or tradition of the family in respect to the pedigree of any
member of the family
3. The reputation or tradition is one existing previous to the controversy

Page 86 of 97
Admissibility; Proof of Filiation; Action of Partition (2000)
Linda and spouses Arnulfo and Regina Ceres were co-owners of a parcel of land. Linda
died intestate and without any issue. Ten (10) persons headed by Jocelyn, claiming to be
the collateral relatives of the deceased Linda, filed an action for partition with the RTC
praying for the segregation of Lindas share, submitting in support of their petition the
baptismal certificates of seven of the petitioners, a family bible belonging to Linda in
which the names of the petitioners have been entered, a photocopy of the birth
certificate of Jocelyn, and a certification of the local civil registrar that its office had been
completely razed by fire. The spouses Ceres refused to partition on the following grounds: 1) the
baptismal certificates of the parish priest are evidence only of the administration of the
sacrament of baptism and they do not prove filiation of the alleged collateral relatives of the
deceased; 2) entry in the family bible is hearsay; 3) the certification of the registrar on non-
availability of the records of birth does not prove filiation: 4) in partition cases where filiation
to the deceased is in dispute, prior and separate judicial declaration of heirship in a
settlement of estate proceedings is necessary; and 5) there is need for publication as real
property is involved. As counsel for Jocelyn and her co-petitioners, argue against the
objections of the spouses Ceres so as to convince the court to allow the partition. Discuss
each of the five (5) arguments briefly but completely. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) The baptismal certificate can show filiation or prove pedigree. It is one of the other
means allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws to show pedigree. (Trinidad v.
Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 188 [1998]; Heirs of ILgnacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, 300
SCRA 345 [1998]).
(2) Entries in the family bible may be received as evidence of pedigree. (Sec. 40, Rule
130, Rules of Court).
(3) The certification by the civil registrar of the non- availability of records is needed to
justify the presentation of secondary evidence, which is the photocopy of the birth
certificate of Jocelyn. (Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, supra.) (comment best
evidence rule)
(4) Declaration of heirship in a settlement proceeding is not necessary. It can be made in the
ordinary action for partition wherein the heirs are exercising the right pertaining to the
decedent, their predecessor-in- interest, to ask for partition as co-owners (Id.)
(5) Even if real property is involved, no publication is necessary, because what is

sought is the mere segregation of Lindas share in the property. (Sec. 1 of Rule 69; Id.)

Page 87 of 97
Comment:
Partition is being sought of the co-owned property of the deceased and the SPS not the settlement of the
estate, hence judicial declaration is not required at the proceeding neither is publication since the same is
will only be required in the settlement of the estate of Linda, who by the way is not related to the SPS.
Sec. 41 . Common reputation. Common reputation existing previous to the controversy,

respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or
moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be
received as evidence of common reputation. (35)
Note:
Common reputation in the community may be presented in evidence to establish a matter of public or
general interest like marriage or moral character but it cannot establish pedigree
Sec. 42 . Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material
to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. (36a)
2 parts rest gestae

1. Startling occurrence
2. Verbal acts
Elements of startling occurrence:

1. That there is a startling event or occurrence taking place
2. That while the event is taking place or immediately prior to or subsequent thereto, a statement has
been made
3. That the statement relates to the circumstances of the startling event or occurrence
Objection to startling occurrence:

1. The event that took place is not startling or surprising not sufficient to excite the senses
2. That the utterance is was not made during or immediately prior or subsequent to the startling
occurrence
3. That the statement does not relate to the event
4. Credibility of the witness
Verbal act
They are statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance. It presupposes a conduct that is equivocal or ambiguous, one which in itself does not signify
anything when taken separately. It is the statement contemporaneous with the act that identifies or
indicates the character, purpose or motive of the act

Page 88 of 97
Spontaneous statements Verbal acts

Statement or exclamation made immediately after Utterances which accompany some act or conduct
some exciting occasion by a participant or to which it is desired to give a legal effect. When
spectator and asserting the circumstances of that such act has intrinsically no definite legal
occasion as it is observed by him. significance, or only an ambiguous one, its legal
purport or tenor may be ascertained by
considering the words accompanying it, and these
utterances thus enter merely as verbal part of the
act.
The res gestae is the startling occurrence; The res gestae is the equivocal act;
Spontaneous exclamation may be prior to, Verbal act must be contemporaneous with or must
simultaneous with, or subsequent to the startling accompany the equivocal act to be admissible.
occurrence.
Reason for admissibility: Reason for admissibility:
Trustworthiness and necessitybecause The motive, character and object of an act are
statements are made instinctively, and because frequently indicated by what was said by the
said natural and spontaneous utterances are more person engaged in the act.
convincing than the testimony of the same person
on the stand.
Hearsay Evidence (2002)
Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a vehicular accident.
Julieta, a witness in court, testifies that Romeo told her (Julieta) that he (Romeo) heard
Antonio, a witness to the accident, give an excited account of the accident immediately
after its occurrence. Is Julietas testimony admissible against Romeo over proper and
timely objection? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Julietas testimony is not admissible against Romeo, because while the excited
account of Antonio, a witness to the accident, was told to Romeo, it was only Romeo
who told Julieta about it, which makes it hearsay.
Sec. 43 . Entries in the course of business. Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to
which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
therein stated, may be 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. (37a)
Elements:
1. Entries were made at, or near the time of the transactions referred to
2. Such entries were made by a person deceased, or unable to testify
3. The person making the entries was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries
4. The person making the entries did so in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty
and in the regular course of business

Page 89 of 97
Note:
Under the REE business records are exempted from the hearsay rule
Sec. 44 . Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in the performance of his
duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (38)
Sec. 45 . Commercial lists and the like. 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 to prove 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. (39)
Sec. 46 . Learned treatises. A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history,

law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court
takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in 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. (40a)
Sec. 47 . Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. The testimony or deposition of a

witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the
adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. (41a)
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

(Rule 132)
Sec. 34 . Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)
Sec. 35 . When to make offer. As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at
the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial
evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)
Note:
The offer of documentary and real evidence refers to the time evidence is formally offered (after all the
testimonial evidence at the close or before the party rests) and not at the time they are submitted for
identification, marking introduction during trial.

Page 90 of 97
Offer of Evidence (1997)
A trial court cannot take into consideration in deciding a case an evidence that
has not been "formally offered". When are the following pieces of evidence formally offered?
(a) Testimonial evidence

(b) Documentary evidence
(c) Object evidence
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Testimonial evidence is formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify. (Rule
132. Sec. 35, first par.).
(b) Documentary evidence is formally offered after the presentation of the testimonial
evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 35, second par.).
(c) The same is true with object evidence. It is also offered after the presentation of the
testimonial evidence.
Instance where an offer for evidence is not required:

1. In summary proceedings because it is a proceeding where there is no full blown trial
2. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of
3. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in rendering a summary judgment
4. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or administrative cases
5. Lost objects previously marked, identified, described in the record and testified to by witnesses
who had been subjects of cross examination in respect to said objects
Sec. 36 . Objection. Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made
as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the unless a
different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
Admissibility; Objections (1997)
What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Given an example of each.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 91 of 97
Two kinds of objections are: (1) the evidence being presented is not relevant to the
issue; and (2) the evidence is incompetent or excluded by the law or the rules, (Sec. 3, Rule
138). An example of the first is when the prosecution offers as evidence the alleged
offer of an Insurance company to pay for the damages suffered by the victim in a
homicide case.(See 1997 No. 14).
Examples of the second are evidence obtained in violation of the Constitutional

prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and confessions and admissions in
violation of the rights of a person under custodial Investigation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1) Specific objections: Example: parol evidence and best evidence rule

General Objections: Example: continuing objections (Sec. 37 of Rule 132).
2) The two kinds of objections are: (1) objection to a question propounded in the course of
the oral examination of the witness and (2) objection to an offer of evidence in writing.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent otherwise, it is
waived. An offer of objection in writing shall be made within three (3) days after notice of the
offer, unless a different period is allowed by the court. In both instances the grounds for
objection must be specified. An example of the first is when the witness is being cross-
examined and the cross examination is on a matter not relevant. An example of the second is
that the evidence offered is not the best evidence.
Formal objections
It is one directed against the alleged defect in the formulation of the question. (leading question)
Substantive objections
Are objections made and directed against the very nature of the evidence either because it is irrelevant or
incompetent.
Note:
Failure to object would constitute a waiver, such waiver extends only to the right to interpose an objection
but not the credibility of the evidence nor to the weight proposed by the offering party. Thus the waiver
extends only to the relevancy and competency of the evidence presented.
Sec. 37 . When repetition of objection unnecessary. When it becomes reasonably apparent in the
course of the examination of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as
those to which objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall
not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his
continuing objection to such class of questions. (37a)

Page 92 of 97
Note:
Where a continuing objection had been interposed on the prohibited testimony, the objection is deemed
waived where the objecting counsel cross-examined the witness on the very matter subject of the
prohibition.
Sec. 38 . Ruling. The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the
ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it
is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the objection is
based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must
specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)
Sec. 39 . Striking out answer. Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had
the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the
record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
Instances when a motion to strike is proper:

1. When the answer is premature
2. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant, incompetent or otherwise improper
3. When the answer is unresponsive
4. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross examination through no fault of the cross
examining party
5. When the testimony was allowed conditionally and the condition for its admissibility was not
fulfilled
Sec. 40 . Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by
the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence
excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of
the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. (n)
Note:
This is otherwise known as offer of proof.
Witness; Utilized as State Witness; Procedure (2006)
As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, you are convinced that he can be utilized
as a state witness. What procedure will you take? (2.5%)

Page 93 of 97
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, the procedure that can be followed for the
accused to be utilized as a state witness is to ask the Prosecutor to recommend that the accused
be made a state witness. It is the Prosecutor who must recommend and move for the acceptance
of the accused as a state witness. The accused may also apply under the Witness
Protection Program
Judicial Affidavit Rule
Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the
reception of evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims cases
under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate
Courts;
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including
the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of
the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.1
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be
uniformly referred to here as the "court."
Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. - (a) The parties
shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later
than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions
and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses' direct
testimonies; and
(2) The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits
and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits
1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.

Page 94 of 97
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his possession,
he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial
affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that
original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for
comparison during the preliminary conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing
which the latter shall not be admitted.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when allowed
by existing rules.
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to
the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and
shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and
the place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so
under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized
by law to administer the same.
Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer.
(a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who
conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding
answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding
the latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment.
Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither
the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail
himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of
Page 95 of 97
Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as
when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex parte.
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial
affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of
the presentation of the witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his
affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on
the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under
the initials of an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under
Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to
cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party
who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active
part in examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit
the answers that it needs for resolving the issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last
witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits,
piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the
particular exhibit.
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if
any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and
authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers,
the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions.
(a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved;
or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the
pre-trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach
to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C,
and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to
Page 96 of 97
the court within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private
prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so
on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear
before the court to testify.
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. - (a) A party who fails to submit
the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission.
The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a
valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not
less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing
of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to
have waived his client's right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however,
allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or
trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and
provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a
fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court and the
rules of procedure governing investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence are repealed or modified insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.
Section 12. Effectivity. - This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two
newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.

Page 97 of 97

Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Requisites for the admissibility of evidence

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

(a)In Criminal Cases:

(b)In Civil Cases:

Character Evidence (2002)

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Instances where character evidence is admissible:

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Hearsay; Exception; Res Gestae; Opinion of Ordinary Witness (2005)

No, it cannot be considered as opinion, because he was testifying on what he actually

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Opinion Rule (1994)

Should you, as judge, exclude the testimony of Kim?

PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE

Admissibility vs probative value

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Criticisms on the defense of alibi

Requisites of alibi to prosper:

Factum probans and factum probandum

Factum probandum Factum Probans

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Admissibility; Private Document (2005)

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Liberal Construction of the Rules of Evidence

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Positive and negative evidence

Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

Burden of proof Burden of evidence

Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Clear and convincing evidence

Equipoise or equiponderance doctrine

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Preponderance vs. Substantial Evidence (2003)

Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence. 4%

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable

Evidence in civil cases distinguished from evidence in criminal case

Factors to consider in assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic evidence

What Need Not Be Proved

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

The following are matters subject to mandatory judicial notice:

Requisites of discretionary judicial knowledge

Instances of implied admissions

Rules with respect to request for admission

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Consequences of judicial admissions

Rules as to judicial notice of foreign laws

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Judicial Notice; Evidence; Foreign Law (1997)

(b) A written foreign law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Judicial notice of municipal ordinances

Judicial notice of a courts own acts and records

Judicial Notice; Evidence (2005)

1. The street name of methamphetamine hydro-chloride is shabu.

2. Ordinances approved by municipalities under its territorial jurisdiction;

4. Rules and Regulations issued by quasi- judicial bodies implementing statutes;

5. Rape may be committed even in public places.

Neil Rivera Personal Reviewer

Other classification of presumption