You are on page 1of 14

Best Evidence Rule (Sec.

3 of Rule 130)

Q: What is Best Evidence Rule?

A:
GR: It provides that when the subject of the
inquiry is the contents of the document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself.

XPNs: LCNP
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 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;
3. When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which
ca nnot 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;
Note: The voluminous records must be
made accessible to the adverse party so
that the correctness of the portion
produced or summary of the document
may be tested on cross-examination.
4. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office (Sec. 3)

Note: Where the issue is only as to


whether such a document was actually
executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best
evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible.
Secondary Evidence (Sec 5-7)

Section 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.

Section 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)

Section 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.

Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its affiant/maker
did not take the witness stand.21 The sworn statement of Ignacio is of this kind. The affidavit
was not identified and its averments were not affirmed by affiant Ignacio. Accordingly,
Exhibit "3" must be excluded from the judicial proceedings being an inadmissible hearsay
evidence. It cannot be deemed a declaration against interest for the matter to be considered
as an exception to the hearsay rule because the declarant was not the seller (Emilio), but
his father (Ignacio). Exhibit "4," on the other hand, is considered secondary evidence being
a mere photocopy which, in this case, cannot be admitted to prove the contents of the
purported undated handwritten receipt. The best evidence rule requires that the highest
available degree of proof must be produced. For documentary evidence, the contents of a
document are best proved by the production of the document itself to the exclusion of
secondary or substitutionary evidence, pursuant to Rule 130, Section 322.

A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which
states that: when the original 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.
Accordingly, the offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to satisfactorily prove the
predicates thereof, namely: (1) the execution or existence of the original; (2) the loss and
destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) the unavailability of the
original is not due to bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror. Proof of the due
execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the basis for the
introduction of secondary evidence.23 In MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong
Corporation,24 it was held that where the missing document is the foundation of the action,
more strictness in proof is required than where the document is only collaterally involved.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (Sec. 9 of Rule 130)

Q: What is Parol Evidence?

A: It is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence)


which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a
complete and enforceable agreement embodied in
a document (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 730, 2008 ed.). It
may refer to testimonial, real or documentary
evidence.
a. APPLICATION OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Q: What are the requisites for the application of


the parol evidence rule?

A:
1. There must be a valid contract;
2. The terms of the agreement must be
reduced to writing;
3. The dispute is between the parties or their
successors-in-interest; and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the
agreement.

WHEN PAROL EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED

Q: What is Parol Evidence Rule?

A: It states that 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 (Sec. 9).

Note: Parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not
properly be invoked by either party to the litigation
against the other, where at least one party to the suit
is not a party or privy of a party to the written
instrument in question and does not base a claim or
assert a right originating in the instrument of the
relation established thereby. Thus, if one of the parties
to the case is a complete stranger to the contract
involved therein, he is not bound by this rule and can
introduce extrinsic evidence against the efficacy of the
writing. (Lechugas v. CA et.al., G.R. Nos. L-39972 & L40300,
Aug. 6,
1986)

Q: What are the exceptions to the parol evidence


rule? IIVE

A: A party may present evidence to modify, explain


or add to the terms of the written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleadings(Condition sine qua non) the following:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;
2. Failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent of the parties thereto;
3. Validity of the written agreement; or
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after
the execution of the written agreement.
(Sec. 9)

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE (Sec. 28 & 34 of Rule 130)

Q: What is the principle of res inter alios acta alteri


nocere non debet?

A: This principle literally means “things done


between strangers ought not to injure those who
are not parties to it”. It has two branches:
1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
by an act, declaration, or omission of
another (Sec. 28).
2. 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
(Sec. 34).

Q: What are the exceptions to the res inter alios


acta rule (first branch)?

A:
1. Admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec.
29, Rule 130);
2. Admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30,
Rule 130); and
3. Admission by privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130)

Q: What does the rule prohibit? (2


nd
Branch of the
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule)

A: It prohibits the admission of the so-called


“propensity evidence” which is 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.

Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the


defendant to meet allegations that are not
mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his
defense, raises a variety of relevant issues, and
diverts the attention of the court from the issues
immediately before it. Hence, the evidentiary rule
guards the practical inconvenience of trying
collateral issues and protracting the trial and
prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to
litigants. (Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 126713, July 27,
1998).
B. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
1. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Q: What are the facts that need not be proved?

A:
1. Those which the courts may take judicial
notice (Rule 129);
2. Those that are judicially admitted (Rule
129);
3. Those that are conclusively presumed (Rule
131); and
4. Those that are disputably presumed but
uncontradicted (Rule 131).

Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next


succeeding section, 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.

REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF HEARSAY


EVIDENCE
Q: What is the hearsay rule? (Sec. 36 of Rule 130)
A: It states that a witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of based on his personal
knowledge or those which are derived from his own
perception. (2007 Bar Question)

Q: What is the rationale of excluding hearsay


evidence?

A: There is no opportunity for cross-examination


hence it is not subject to the test of truth.

Q: What are independently relevant statements?


A: These are statements which are relevant
independently of whether they are true or not.
They are neither hearsay nor an exception to the
hearsay rule as the purpose thereof is not to prove
the truth of the declaration or document (Estrada v.
Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & 146738, Apr. 3,
2001).

They are relevant since they are the facts in issue or


are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.

Q: What are the classifications of independently


relevant statements?

A:
1. Those statements which are the very facts
in issue;
2. Those statements which are
circumstantial evidence of the fact in
issue. It includes the following:
a. Statements of a person showing his
state of mind, that is, his mental
condition, knowledge, belief,
intention, ill-will and other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show
his physical condition, as illness and
the like;
c. Statements of a person from which
an inference may be made as to the
state of mind of another, i.e., the
knowledge, belief, motive, good or
bad faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Statements which may identify the
date, place and person in question;
and
e. Statements showing the lack of
credibility of a witness.
c. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

Q: What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule?


DDAFCREECLT

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

(1) DYING DECLARATION (SEC. 37)

Q: Define dying declaration.

A: The ante mortem statements made by a person


after the mortal wound has been inflicted under the
belief that the death is certain, stating the fact
concerning the cause of and the circumstances
surrounding the attack.

Q: What are the requisites of dying declaration to


be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule?

A:
1. The declaration is one made by a dying person;
2. The declaration was made by said dying person
under a consciousness of his impending death;
3. The declaration refers to the cause and
circumstances surrounding the death of the
declarant and not of anyone else;
4. The declaration is offered in a case wherein
the declarant’s death is the subject of the
inquiry; and
5. The declarant is competent as a witness
had he survived. (Geraldo v. People, G.R.
No. 173608, Nov. 20, 2008; Riano,
Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p.
370, 2009 ed.)

Q: What factors should be considered in


determining whether the declarant is conscious of
his impending death?
A:
1. Utterances;
2. Actual character and seriousness of his
wounds; and
3. By the declarant’s conduct and the
circumstances at the time he made the
declaration, whether he expected to
survive his injury.

Note: A dying declaration may be oral or written. If


oral, the witness who heard it may testify thereto
without the necessity of reproducing the word of the
decedent, if he is able to give the substance thereof.
An unsigned dying declaration may be used as a
memorandum by the witness who took it down
(People v. Boller, G.R. Nos. 144222-24, Apr. 3, 2002).

Q: What is res gestae?

A: It is a Latin phrase which literally means "things


done." As an exception to the hearsay rule, it refers
to those exclamations and statements by either the
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime
immediately before, during or immediately after
the commission of the crime, when the
circumstances are such that the statements were
made as spontaneous reactions or utterances
inspired by the excitement of the occasion, and
there was no opportunity for the declarant to
deliberate and fabricate a false statement (Capila v.
People, G.R. No. 146161, July 17, 2006).

Q: What are the requisites for the admissibility of


res gestae?

A:
1. The principal act or the res gestae is a
startling occurrence;
2. The statement is spontaneous or was
made before the declarant had time to
contrive or devise, and the statement is
made during the occurrence or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto;
and
3. The statement made must concern the
occurrence in question and it’s
immediately attending circumstances
(Capila v. People, G.R. No. 146161, July
17, 2006).

HAROLD V. TAMARGO, G.R. No. 177727

An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a


conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:

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 or declaration.
This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to
the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against co-
conspirators provided that the conspiracy is shown by independent evidence
aside from the extrajudicial confession.[36]Thus, in order that the admission of a
conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that
(a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself (b)
the admission relates to the common object and (c) it has been made while the
declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.[37] Otherwise, it cannot be
used against the alleged co-conspirators without violating their constitutional right
to be confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-examine them.[38]

Here, aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later on recanted,
no other piece of evidence was presented to prove the alleged conspiracy. There
was no other prosecution evidence, direct or circumstantial, which the extrajudicial
confession could corroborate. Therefore, the recanted confession of Columna,
which was the sole evidence against respondents, had no probative value and was
inadmissible as evidence against them.

HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION RULE:


WHEN A MOTION TO DISMISS IS FILED, THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF
THE COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED TO BE HYPOTHETICALLY ADMITTED. THIS
HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION, EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO THE RELEVANT AND
MATERIAL FACTS WELL PLEADED IN THE COMPLAINT, BUT ALSO TO
INFERENCES THAT MAY BE FAIRLY DEDUCED FROM THEM.

RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS

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.

(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted
only if corroborated by other admissible evidence.

3. DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

Q: Who are disqualified to be witnesses under the


rules? MMDP-MAMDPEP

A: Those who are:


1. Disqualified by reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity;
2. Disqualified by reason of marriage/ Spousal Immunity/Marital
Disqualification Rule(Rule 22);
3. Disqualified by reason of death or insanity of
adverse party(sec.23); and
4. Disqualified on the ground of privileged
communication:
a. Marital privilege(Sec.24a) ;
b. Attorney-client privilege;
c. Doctor-patient privilege;
d. Minister-penitent privilege; or
e. Public officer as regards communications
made in official confidence.
f. Executive Privilege
g. Parental & Filial Privilege (Sec. 25)

Note: The qualifications and disqualifications of


witnesses are determined as of the time they are
produced for examination in court or at the taking of
the depositions.

DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF DEATH OR


INSANITY OF THE ADVERSE PARTY (DEAD MAN
STATUTE/SURVIVING PARTIES RULE)

Sec. 23 Rule 130

Q: What are the elements for the application of


the rule?

A:
1. The defendant in the case is the executor
or the administrator or a representative
of the deceased or the person of unsound
mind;
2. The case is against the executor or the
administrator or a representative of the /witness
is the plaintiff/assignor/person on whose behalf
the case is prosecuted
deceased or the person of unsound mind;
3. The subject matter of the action is a claim
or demand against the estate of a
deceased person or a person of unsound
mind; and
4. 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.

ADMISSION BY SILENCE

Q: When is there an admission by silence?

A: There is admission by silence when a party does


or says nothing when he hears or observes an act or
declaration made in his presence when such 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. Such may be given in evidence
against him. (Sec. 32, Rule 130)

Opinion Evidence Section 48,49,50


Character Evidence 51

You might also like