You are on page 1of 4

R 128 S.

1 Judicial Evidence- is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Under R 132 s. 34, courts as a rule, are not authorized to consider evidence which has not been formally offered.
S. 2 Scope. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings except as those otherwise provided by law or those rules such as those enumerated under Sec. 4
R 1 which technical rules of evidence are not binding and the ff. are: 1. Naturalization (rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable) ,2. Insovency, 3. Cadastral proceedings, 4. Other cases
as may be provided by law; 5. Land registration cases; 6. Election cases.
The following are some of the evidence excluded by rules:
1. Best Evidence Rule(R. 130 sec. 3)- When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document. 2. Parol Evidence (R.
130 sec. 9)- When the terms of the agreement has 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. 3. Hearsay Evidence(R. 130 s. 36)- a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows
of his personal knowledge, that is which are derive from his own perception. 4. Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases (R. 130 s. 27)- An offer of compromise is not admission of any liability and
is not admissible in evidence against the offer. 5. Disqualification of witness by reason of mental incapacity (r. 130 s.21); 6. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party (R.
130 s. 23); 7. Disqualification by reason of marriage (R. 130 s. 22); 8. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications (R. 130 s. 24)
The following are the evidence excluded by the Constitution: 1. Those obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures ( Const. Art. 3 s. 2); 2. Those obtained in
violation of the right to privacy of communication and correspondence (Const. Art. 3 s. 3); 3. Confessions and admissions obtained in violation of the rights of a person under investigation for
the commission of an offense (Const. Art. 3 s 12); 4. Those obtained in violation of the right against self-incrimination (Const. Art. 3 s. 17) 5. Any confession, admission or statement obtained
as a result of torture; 6. Any listened to, intercepted and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, or any information which have been
secured in violation of the provisions of the Human Security Act shall absolutely inadmissible in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding or
hearing. 7. Evidence obtained in violation of R.A. 4200 or the Anti-wire tapping Act, shall not be admissible in evidence in J, Quasi J, L, or Administrative proceedings.
= Administrative Agencies, bodies, Labor cases, Board of medicine, CSC, NLRC (submission of additional doc. For the 1 st time on appeal on NLRC), quasi-judicial proceedings (affidavits daw
hearsay) , are not bound by the technical rules of evidence.
Evidence is Required: All facts in issue and relevant facts must be proven by evidence. When Not Required Exceptions: 1. Facts which are the subject of judicial notice; 2. Facts which are
admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficiently alleged; 3. Facts which are legally presumed; 4. Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of
facts between the parties as well as those admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case; 5. Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party, and 6.
Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues.
= The Rules on Electronic Evidence does not apply to Criminal actions. They apply only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.
= In People vs. Enojas Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to criminal cases.
Evidence distinguish on civil and criminal cases. 1. In CivC, party having the burden of proof must prove by preponderance of evidence. In Crim cases, the guilt of the accused has to be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. 2. In Civil Case, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In Crim case, may be
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. 3. In Civil, presumption of innocence does not apply. In crim case, constitutional presumption of innocence applies.
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. 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.
Proof vs. evidence. Proof is the effect or result of evidence, while evidence is the medium of proof.
Factum Probandum is the fact or proposition to be established. Factum Probans- the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established.
Factum Probandum In civil cases- refers to the elements of a cause of action from the point of view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from the standpoint of the defendant.
Factum Probandum in Crim case- includes all matters that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction when the accused pleads not guilty.
Gen. Rule: No vested rights in the rules of evidence. Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is determined in accordance with the law in force at the time the evidence is presented. Rules
of evidence may be waived. When an otherwise objectionable evidence is not objected to, the evidence becomes admissible because of waiver. = The Parties may stipulate Waiving the rules
on evidence provided that it is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

Sec. 3 Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules.
Homicide-witness swears that accused killed the victim bec. His boyhood friend told him. The testimony, although relevant, is not admissible bec. Witness was not testifying based on his
personal knowledge of the event. It is hearsay and this type of evidence is as a rule, excluded by the rules. In short, the testimony offered is relevant but incompetent.
Homicide- wife of accused testified Still testimony is relevant but incompetent.
Relevancy of Evidence or Relevant Evidence. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
S is indebted to a bank. The objection of S that the question is impertinent or irrelevant should be sustained. The issue in the case is the indebtedness of the defendant to the bank and not
the indebtedness of the accountant of S to the bank.
Collateral matters- a matter is collateral when it is on a parallel or diverging line merely additional or auxiliary.
Competent evidence- is one that is not excluded by law or rules in a particular case.
Admissibility of evidence- refers to the question of whether or not the evidence is to be considered at all
Probative value of evidence- refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
Multiple Admissibility- when proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes.
Conditional Admissibility- when the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces
of evidence not yet offered. The proponent may ask the court that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime, subject to the condition that he going to establish its relevancy
and competency at a later time.
Curative Admissibility-allows a party to introduce inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing partys previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice
caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence.
Direct Evidence- proves of fact without the need to make an inference from another fact.
Circumstantial or Indirect Evidence- is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established. In Criminal case
the requisites are: 1. There is more than one circumstance; 2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; 3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility. A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the Crime scene. Ans. The evidence may be admissible as a circumstantial evidence of
his liability although not sufficient in itself to support a conviction because there is only one circumstance.
Cumulative Evidence- evidence of the same kind and character as that already given and that tends to prove the same proposition.
Corroborative Evidence- is one that is supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen or confirm it.
Positive Evidence- when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does exist or that a certain event happened.
Negative Evidence- when witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.
Falsus in Uno, falsus in omnibus- false in one thing, false in everything. It means that if the testimony of a witness on material issue is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive,
the jury may disregard all the witness testimony.
Alibi and denial-are self -serving negative evidence;they are inherently weak and must be rejected when the identity of the accused is satisfactorily and categorically established by the
eyewitnesses to the offense, especially when such eyewitnesses have no ill-motive to testify falsely.
Admissibility of alibi and denial- To be exonerated, the defense of alibi must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. It must be demonstrated that the person charged with the
crime was not only somewhere else when the offense was committed, but was so far away that it would be physically impossible to be at the place of the crime at the time of its commission.
The reason is that no person can be in two places at the same time.
Frame up- this defense must adduce in clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.
Al was accused of raping Lourdes. The defense presented Als wife, son and daughter. Will the fact that the version of the defense is corroborated by 3 witnesses suffice to acquit Al? Why?
Ans. The corroboration of the version of the defense by the 3 witnesses is not sufficient for acquittal. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses due to its being capable of easy fabrication. It cannot
prevail over the positive identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime. For Alibi to prevail, the defense must establish by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically
impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and not merely that the accused was somewhere else.
Non- Flight- is not, by itself, a valid defense against the prosecutions allegations because non-flight does not signify innocence. It is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors.. But
Flight is indicative of guilt.
Rule 131 S. 1. 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.
Burden of Evidence- is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence against him.
Action on a quasi-delict- the plaintiff has he burden of proving that the fault or negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injuries he sustained.
Civil Cases- a party (Plaintiff) who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it with the requisite quantum of evidence (Preponderance of Evidence). He must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of that of the opponent.
Exception: Civil Case Claimed against Common Carrier- in suits against a common carrier, the passenger-plaintiff does not have the burden of proving the defendant carriers negligence
since common carriers are presumed to have been at fault, or to have acted negligently in case of death or injuries to passengers. Defendant has the burden of proof to show that he
observed the Extraordinary diligence required by law.
Action based on a Breach of contract of carriage- Defendant has the burden of proof. Plaintiff only to prove 1. The existence of the contract; 2. The fact of non-performance by the carrier.
Eminent Domain Case- the local government that seeks to expropriate private property has the burden of proving that the elements for the valid exercise of the right of eminent domain have
been complied with.
Termination Cases- employer to show that dismissal is valid.
Disbarment Cases- the complainant- the case must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension. SC held
that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary.
Administrative Proceeding- Complainant. Substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Equipoise rule or Equiponderance doctrine- it is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This refers to a situation where
the evidence of the parties is 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. In
Criminal case the presumption of innocence shall favor.
Presumption- is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found. It is not evidence.
Inference- is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn from other facts.
Kinds of Presumptions: 1. Presumption of law- is an assumption which the law requires to be made from a set of facts (Accused is innocent; Common Carrier presumed fault. 2.
Presumption of fact- when the assumption is made from the facts without any direction or positive requirement of a law.
Conclusive presumption- when the presumption becomes irrebuttable upon the presentation of the evidence and any evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible.
Prima Facie Evidence(Presumptive Evidence)- That which, standing alone unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed.
Rule 131 S. 2 Conclusive presumptions. The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
1. (Estoppel in Pais) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led to 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
= Doctrine of Estoppel- an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Estoppel
is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in interest.
Laches- Failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.
2. (Estoppel by Deed) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
Disputable Presumption- if it may be contradicted or overcome by the other evidence. This is a species of evidence that may be accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to
uphold the contention for which it stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence.
Rule 131 S. 3 Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (1) That a person is
innocent of crime or wrong; (2) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;(3) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act; (4) That a person takes
ordinary care of his concerns; (5) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced; (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter; (6) 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; (7) That official duty has been regularly performed; (8)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. (9) That the law has been obeyed; (10) That a writing is truly dated;
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
Proof beyond reasonable doubt (R 133 Sec. 2). In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
= In every criminal prosecution, the state must prove beyond reasonable doubt, all the element of the crime charge and the participation of the accused.
Preponderance of Evidence (R. 133 Se. 1)- In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider: 1. all the facts and circumstances of the case, 2. the witnesses'
manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, 3. Witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also
consider 4. the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
Substantial evidence ( R. 133 Sec. 5.) In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies (NLRC) (Workmens compensation) (Labor Cases) (Agrarian) , a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING AGAINST JUDGES
The Quantum of Proof required to support administrative charges(sexual harassment by a court employee) against Judges (sheriff) should be more than substantial evidence and requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt because administrative proceeding against judges are highly penal in character and thus should be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases.
OIC-CLERK OF COURT; Process Server -unexplained wealth- substantial evidence. Petition for Writ of amparo- Substantial Evidence
Administrative Cases are Independent from Criminal Cases- Thus an absolution from Criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa.
Clear and Convincing Evidence- evidence is CCE if it produces in the mind of the trier of a fact a firm belief or conviction as to allegation sought to be established. It is more than
preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt.
Extradition Cases; Self-Defense ; Frame up; extortion; alibi; denial- being sui generis, the standard proof required is clear and convincing evidence.
Judicial Notice is Mandatory when (Rule 129 S. 1) : a court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence of 1. Existence and territorial extent of states; 2. Political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality of state; 3. Law of nations; 4. Political constitution and history of the Philippines; 5. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Phil.; 6. Laws of nature; 7. Measure of time; 8. Geographical divisions.
Judicial Notice is Discretionary (S. 2) . a court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to
judges because of their judicial functions.
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.
BAR- How should the matter be resolved on appeal? The judgement should be reversed on appeal. The trial judge erred when he took judicial notice of Massachusetts law on the basis of his
personal knowledge of the said law. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and the judge is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of
a fact the basis of his action. It is a basis rule that courts of the forum will not take judicial notice of the law prevailing another country. Foreign law must be alleged and proved.
Doctrine of Processual Presumption- In general, in the absent of statutory requirement to the contrary, 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 any of the evidence or admission, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines.
3 Instances when a foreign court can take judicial notice of a foreign law: 1. Doctrine of Processual presumption; 2. When the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court, such as
the law is well-known and had been the rules by previous cases; 3. Where the foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet.
Judicial Notice of Municipal Ordinances: 1. Inferior courts should take mandatory judicial notice of municipal or city ordinances in force in their territorial jurisdiction. The RTC should take
judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities when: a. so required by law; or 2. On appeal to it from the inferior court in which the latter judicial took notice of.
= Lower courts, from the Court of Appeals down to the lowest level, must take judicial notice of decisions of the Supreme Court, as they are in fact duty bound to know the rulings of the
high tribunal and to apply them in the adjudication of the cases they being part of the legal system.
= A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case . Exception, 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 or same judge.
Judicial admissions (Rule 129 S. 4). 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.
= Any Admissions made in the course of the proceedings are binding and conclusive upon the parties.
Admission made in a document drafted for purposes of filing a pleading but never filed, is not a judicial admission. If signed by the party it is deemed an extrajudicial admission. If signed by
attorney, it is not an admission by the party because the authority of the atty. To make statements for the client extends only to statement made in open court or in pleadings filed with the
court.
Admissions in pleadings and motions, answer are deemed judicial admissions. Thus such party who made the admissions is precluded from denying the same unless there is proof of
palpable mistake.
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS
= The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of the written instrument or documents amounts to a judicial admission. He is therefor precluded from arguing that the document is
a forgery bec. The genuineness of the document has been impliedly admitted by his failure to deny the same under oath. In one case plaintiff failed to reply from answer the allegation of
dacion en pago and confirmation of statement so defendant file a demurrer. The SC held that failure of the plaintiff to file a reply and deny the dacion and confirmation statement under oath
constitutes a judicial admission of the genuineness and due execution of said document.
Admissions in the Pre-trial of Civil CASES- Admissions in the pre-trial or pre-trial briefs as well as those made during the depositions, interrogatories or requests for admissions, are all
deemed judicial admissions because they are made in the course of the proceedings of the case. Party is estopped from claiming otherwise.
Admissions in Pre-trial of Criminal Cases. An admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a criminal case is not necessarily admissible against him. To be admissible, the admissions
should be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise , they cannot be used against the accused. But the stipulation of facts made by the prosecution and defense
counsel during trial in open court is automatically reduced in writing and contained in the official transcript of proceedings had in court.
BAR BEMBOL WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE. During pre-trial bembol offered to settle. Ans. Bembos offer is a judicial admission. A judicial admission is one that is verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case. Bembol is a party to the case. The offer was made in course of a pre-trial which is a part of a judicial proceeding.
BAR- Plaintiff A send a request for admission B did not replay. Ans The plaintiff is correct. The Rules of Court requires the other party to file and serve a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matter of which an admission is requested. Failure to do so will result in an implied admission of each of the matters of which an admission is requested. Application dayun.
Admission is amended pleading the superseded pleading also in dismissed pleadings becomes extrajudicial admissions which must be proven.
Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client.
EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS: 1. They do not require proof; 2. They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party making it.
= The admission made in the course of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations, or stipulations, cannot be controverted by the party making such admission; they become
conclusive on him, and all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored.
Extra-Judicial Admissions- are those made out of court, or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration.

RULE 130 OBJECT EVIDENCE


S. 1. Object 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 by the court.
Requisites for admissibility of an object or real evidence: 1. Evidence must be both relevant and competent; 2. Evidence must be authenticated; 3. Authentication must be made by a
competent witness; 4. Object must be formally offered in evidence.
= The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence because no testimonial compulsion was involved.
Demonstrative Evidence (object evidence jpun)- is not the actual thing but it is referred to as demonstrative because it represents the real thing( map, photograph).
View of an Object or Scene- it is going out of the courtroom to observe places and objects.
Categories of Object Evidence: 1. Objects that have readily identifiable marks; 2. Objects that are made readily identifiable; 3. Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked.
Chain of Custody in Drug Cases- means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and
custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence and the final disposition.
DNA- Deoxyribonucleic Acid, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. It can be found in blood, saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus,
urine, skin tissue and vaginal and rectal cells.
DNA Profile- is the genetic information derived from DNA testing of biological samples obtained from a person where such biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that
person.
DNA Evidence- totality of the DNA profiles, results directly generated from the DNA testing of biological sample.
As private prosecutor, I would impugn the probative value of the evidence by showing errors in any of the ff.
Guidelines in Assessing the Probative value of DNA evidence: 1. How the samples were collected; 2. How they were handled; 3. The possibility of contamination of the samples; 4. The
procedure followed in analyzing the samples; 5. Whether the proper standard and procedure were followed in the test; 6. The qualification of the analyst.
Polygraph test or lie detector tests- operates on the principle that stress causes physiological changes in the body which can be measured to indicate whether the subject of the examination
is telling the truth.
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.
Photocopy of Marked bills- is a real or object evidence and not a documentary evidence. To be documentary evidence, the same must be offered as proof of their contents.
State the Rule on Admissibility of Electronic Documents. Electronic Evidence are admissible in evidence. Whenever the rules of evidence refer to the terms of a writing, document, record,
instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in the Rules on electronic Evidence. If it is a private
electronic document offered as authentic, its authenticity need to be proven by the person introducing the document before it is admitted in evidence.
Why best Evidence rule a Misnomer- because despite the word best the rule does not proclaim itself as the highest and most reliable evidence in the hierarchy of evidence. It is not
intended to mean the most superior evidence. It is the original document rule or the primary evidence rule.
Best Evidence Rule. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document.
Exception: 1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; 2. When the original is under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; 3. 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; 4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.
= The underlying purpose of the best evidence rule is the prevention of fraud or mistake in the proof of the contents of a writing.
BAR- A loaned a money to B with 2 photocopies. As counsel for A, how will you prove the loan given to A to B. Ans. The load may be proved by the photocopy as long as A lays the foundation
or lays the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence, to wit: 1. The existence and due execution of the original; 2. The loss of the original without bad faith on his part.
Original of document. 1. the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.2. It is in two or more copies executed at the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals.3. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at the time of the transaction.
Parol Evidence Rule- When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their
successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
Parol Evidence Rule 130 Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing( whether public or private document), 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: (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.
BAR-MR. CALVO- The question is objectionable under the parol evidence rule. Cite R 130 S. 9. Hence, a party cannot introduce any evidence as to the terms of the agreement other than
those found in the deed of sale.
BAR PEDRO AND LUCIO- Will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true agreement or contents of the promissory not? Ans. Pedro may be allowed to testify as to the true agreement between
Lucio and him. Under the parol evidence rule, a party may present evidence to show that the written agreement failed to express the true intent of the parties provided such matter was put
in issue in the pleading. Pedro complied with this requirement by putting the matter in issue.

Document- define as a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidence or set forth. However, for documents to be documentary evidence, it must
be offered as proof of their contents.
Public documents are: 1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; 2.
Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last will; 3. Public records.
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.
Authentication of Private documents is not required: 1. When the document is an ancient one; 2. When the genuineness and authenticity of the document has been specifically denied
under oath by the adverse party; 3. When the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; 4. When the document is not being offered as authentic.
(Ancient Document) When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. Where a private document is more than thirty (30) 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.
How to prove Genuineness of a Handwriting. may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, and has acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. It may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court.
Public documents as evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facieevidence 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.
Special Power of Attorney Executed abroad is inadmissible in evidence if not complied with the rule which is 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 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.
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.
Admission- any statement of fact made by a party against his interest. Express Admissions- are those made in definite, certain and unequivocal language. Implied Admissions- are those
which may be inferred from the acts, declarations or omissions of a party.
Distinguished. Admission- is a statement of fact which does not involve an acknowledgement of guilt or liability. It may be express or tacit. May be made by third person. Confession-It
involves an acknowledgment of guilt and liability. Must be express. Can be made only by the party himself.
Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of a partner or agent within the scope of his authority, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
Admission by privies. One derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
Admission by silence. An act or declaration made within the hearing 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, may be given in evidence against him.
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.
Judicial Confession- one made before a court in which a case is pending. Extra-Judicial Confession- one made in any other place.
Evidence of Similar Conduct. 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.
Res inter alios acta rule- literary means things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them.
2 Branches: 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 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.

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.

1. Qualification of Witnesses all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known 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.
Disqualification; reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. The following persons cannot be witnesses: 1. 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; 2. Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts.
Disqualification by reason of marriage. During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (Jurisprudence: When an offense is
directly attacks and impairs the conjugal relations, the marital relations between the two have become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace to be preserved, thus there is no
longer reason to apply the marital disqualification rule) (Collateral relatives like uncles, aunties, cousins or nephews and nieces are not covered by the exceptions because they are neither
direct descendants nor ascendants.
Disqualification; reason of privileged communication. The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: 1. The husband or the wife, during or
after the marriage(1. VALID), cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in (2. CONFIDENCE) by one from the other (3. 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; 2. 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 in the course of 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; 3. 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 would blacken the reputation of the patient; 4. 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; 5. A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence.
Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. Parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator 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.
Parental and filial privilege. No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
3. Admissions and Confessions
Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
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) an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or
an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to 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.
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.
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.
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.
Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may be given in evidence against him.
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence
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.
HEARSAY
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.
Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule
1. Dying declaration. The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
2. 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 may be received in evidence against himself
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Common reputation. Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest more than 30 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.
5. Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance may be given in evidence as part of res gestae.
6. 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 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 regular course of business or duty.
7. 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.
8. Commercial lists 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
9. Learned treatises. A published treatise, periodical 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.
10. 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.
Opinion Rule
General rule. The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections.
1. Opinion of expert witness. The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
2. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding: 1. the identity of a person about whom he has adequate
knowledge; 2. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; 3. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
Character Evidence. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:
1. 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.
2. 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.

A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
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.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings.
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; 5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation.
Order in the examination of an individual witness:
1. Direct examination. Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
2. Cross-examination. Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination 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.
3. Re-direct examination 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.
4. 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.
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: 1. On cross examination; 2. On preliminary matters; 3. 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; 4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; 5. 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.
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.
Evidence of good character of witness. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached.

You might also like