STP Notes - Evidence (v.1)

(Reference: Justice Abad’s lecture, Dean Riano’s book)
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)
• To be considered as evidence, it must be “sanctioned or allowed by the Rules of Court.

• It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the rules of Court. i.e. hearsay evidence, a coerced
judicial confession of the accused, an evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional rights,
even if ultimately shown to correspond to the truth.
• Truth referred to is judicial or legal truth.
• A mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.
• Evidence means proving a fact.
• Implied from the definition of “evidence” is the need for the introduction of evidence when the
court has to resolve a question of fact. Where no factual issue exist in a case, there is no ned to
present evidence because where the case presents a question of law, such question is resolved
by the mere application of the relevant statutes of this jurisdiction to which no evidence is
required.
• Question of law – exist when there is doubt or controversy which concerns the correct
application of law or jurisprudence to a certain given set of facts; or when the issue does not call
for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of
facts being admitted.
• Instances when evidence is no longer required to prove an assertion:
o When pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact.
o When there is an agreement by the parties, as when they have stipulated on the facts
involved in the case.
o Matters on judicial notice.
o When the law presumes the truth of a fact
▪ i.e. negligence of a common carrier this is because Art. 1756 of the civil code
establishes a presumption that “in case of death or injuries to passengers,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted tion
▪ negligently
o When a rule presumes the truth of a fact. (presumptions)
▪ Conclusive presumption
▪ Disputable presumption
• Exception to the rule that “Rules on evidence apply equally to civil and criminal”
o Dying declaration are ante mortem statements made by a person after the mortal
wound have been inflicted under the belief that the death is certain, stating the fact
concerning the cause of and the circumstances surrounding the attack. – This is an
exception to the hearsay rule and only applies in criminal cases
• The rule on evidence is a substantive law.
o A substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, or regulates rights
concerning life, liberty or property or the powers of agencies or instruments for the
administration of public affairs, which when violated gives rise to a cause of action.
◄NK► EVIDENCE |1
o Procedural/remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and
obligations created by the substantive law.
• The provisions of the Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative cases.
• Rules on electronic evidence does not apply to criminal actions. They only apply to civil actions,
quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.
• Ephemeral communications – refers to telephone communications, text messages, chatroom
sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained.
- Are now admissible evidence subject to certain conditions. (not recorded or
retained.)
- It may be proven by a person who was a party to the communication or has
personal knowledge thereof.
• Distinctions between evidence in civil cases and evidence in criminal cases:
Civil Cases Criminal Cases
Burden of proof : preponderance of evidence – Burden of proof : guilt beyond reasonable
greater weight of evidence doubt – no other logical explanation can be
derived from the facts except that the
defendant committed the crime
Offer of compromise is not an admission of any An offer of compromise by the accuses may be
liability and is not admissible in evidence received in evidence as an implied admission of
against offeror guilt except those involving quasi-offenses
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to
be compromised.
Presumption of innocence does not apply, and The accuses enjoys the constitutional
generally no presumption for or against a party presumption of innocence
except in certain cases provided for by law.
Concept of “confession” does not apply to civil Confession applies. Confession is the
cases which use the more appropriate term, declaration of an accused acknowledging his
“admission” guilt of the offense charged.
Evidence of moral character (good or bad) of a Prosecution is not allowed to prove the bad
party is admissible as long as it is pertinent to moral character of the accused even If it is
the issue of character involved in the case. pertinent to the moral trait involved. It can only
do so in rebuttal.
The rule on disqualification by reason of death Does not apply. This is because the rule
or insanity applies only to civil cases or special involves a claim or demand against the estate
proceedings of the deceased or the person of unsound
mind.
The privileged communication rule on patient- Physician-patient rule does not apply
physician relationship has reference only to
civil cases
The rule on admission by a conspirator does Rule applies.
not apply
No extra-judicial confession The rule on extra-judicial confession applies to
the accused
• Proof – is not eh “evidence” itself. There is only proof because there is evidence. It is merely the
probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a
consideration of the evidence.
-Effect or result of evidence
• Evidence – medium of proof.
FACTUM PROBANDUM (object of evidence) FACTUM PROBANS (means of ascertaining)

The fact or proposition to be established The facts or material evidencing the fact or
proposition to be established
Fact that is in issue in a case and to which Probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the
evidence is directed fact in issue.
Factum probandum in a civil case refers to the
elements of a cause of action alleged in the
complaint as denied specifically by the
defendant.
• Factum probandum in a criminal case includes all matters that the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction when the accused pleads not guilty.
• The mere filing of the complaint or information does not ipso facto give rise to a factum
probandum.
• Rules on evidence must be construed liberally, they are mere tools intended to facilitate rather
than frustrate the attainment of justice.
• The rules on evidence may be waived. When an otherwise objectionable evidence is not
objected to, the evidence becomes admissible because of waiver.
• As long as no law or principles of morality, good customs, and public policy are transgressed or
no rights of third persons are violated, the rules on evidence may be waived by the parties.
Section 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)
• Principle of uniformity – rules on evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings.
• Apply only to judicial proceedings.
• Administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules on evidence.
• Rules on Evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings which are summary in nature and
decisions may be made on the basis of position papers.
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)
• For evidence to be admissible, two elements must concur, namely:

o The evidence is relevant (relevance) – That none but facts having rational probative
value are admissible
o The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competence) – That all facts having rational
probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids them
• Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or rules.
• No evidence is admissible unless it is relevant. However, relevancy alone does not make the
evidence admissible.
• Not necessarily credible evidence. It simply means that the evidence is of such character that
the court, pursuant to the rules of evidence, is bound to receive it or to allow it to be introduced
at the trial.
• When will the court determine/decide that the evidence is admissible or not?
o For object evidence – when it is presented for the court’s view or evaluation
o For testimonial evidence – When the question seeking to elicit inadmissible testimony is
had, you have to object and the judge will decide whether the question seeks to elicit
inadmissible testimonial evidence.
o For documentary evidence – when it is formally offered before the party rests its case.
• The objection to the admissibility of the evidence must be made at the same time that it is
presented or as soon as the ground for objection becomes evident.
o When the time for objection is not evident – Motion to strike out of the record once it
becomes apparent
• When there is doubt as to the admissibility of the evidence, the court shall admit the evidence.
• When shall evidence be disallowed even if the same is relevant and competent?
o When it will:
a) Cause prejudice
b) Only confuse the issue (when the same is of little value on the issue presented)
c) Cause undue delay (when the same is pf little value on the issue presented)
d) Case needless presentation of cumulative evidence
Section 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)
• Relevance - one of logic. It deals with the rational relationship between the evidence and the
fact to be proved.
- To be relevant, the evidence must have a probative value. It must be able to
persuade you as to the factum probandum.
- The evidence adduced should be directed to the matters in dispute an any evidence
which has neither direct not indirect relationship to such matters must be set aside
as irrelevant.
- If the evidence induces belief as to the existence or non-existence of the fact in
issue, the evidence is relevant.
- Requires that the immediate facts proved must have a connection to the ultimate
issue.
- Test to determine relevance (matter of inference) – The test is, therefore, one of
logic, common sense and experience.
- Two aspects of relevance
1. CONNECTEDNESS – evidence is directed toward a fact in issue or connected
to it; “is the issue directed to the fact in issue? Is it connected to it?”
2. PROBATIVE VALUE – evidence has a tendency to establish the proposition
sough to be proved. “can it persuade”
- A ruling on the evidence’s relevance is not subject to an appeal since it is merely an
interlocutory order. Its ruing is subject to the discretion of the trial court judge.
o XPN: grave abuse of discretion
• Competence – Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by the law or rules in a particular
case.
- Is a matter or rule or law. “is the evidence allowed by the law or rules?”
- If it is allowed, the evidence is competent. It if it not allowed, the evidence is
incompetent.
- Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to the eligibility of an
evidence to be received as such.
- When applied to a witness, the term “competence” refers to the qualifications of
the witness. It refers to his eligibility to take the stand and testify.
- If evidence offered is objected to on the ground that it is incompetent, such
objection is not an accepted form of objection because it is a general objection. The
objection should specify the ground for its incompetence such as:
▪ Leading
▪ Misleading
▪ Hearsay
▪ Parol
- One who challenges has the burden of showing whether an evidence is competent
or not.
*** IMPORTANT***
 Relevance – logic and common sense
2 aspects of relevance:
1. Connectedness
2. Probative value – ability to prove something.
 Competence – law and rules
• A matter is collateral when it is on a “parallel or diverging line”, merely “additional” or

“auxiliary”. This term connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the
matter in dispute.
• When collateral matters allowed:
o GR: Evidence on a collateral matter is not allowed. It is not allowed because it does not
have a direct relevance to the issue of the case.
o XPN: a collateral matter may be admitted if it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
- While the collateral evidence may not bear directly on the issue, it will be admitted
if it has tendency to induce belief as to the probability or improbability of the issues
of the case as when it would have the effect of corroborating or supplementing
facts preciously established by direct evidence
• Kinds of collateral matters:
1. Antecedent – Those that precede the fact in issue
▪ Ex. The accused was seen entering the room of the victim before he was shot
▪ Ex. Motive or plan
2. Concomitant – those that surround or accompany the fact in issue. May establish an
opportunity to commit the crime or incompatibility of committing it
▪ Ex. Someone saw the accused holding the gun
3. Subsequent – Those that occur following the happening of the fact in issue
▪ Ex. Someone saw the accused run out of the room of the victim.
• Motive – inner drive that causes a person to act in a certain way. It is important if there is
serious doubt as to the identity of the culprit.
• Evidence on the credibility of a witness, or lack of it, is always relevant. In every proceeding, the
credibility of the witness is always an issue because it has the inherent tendency to prove or
disprove the truthfulness of his assertion and, consequently, the probative value of the
proffered evidence.
- For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but must also be credible in itself such as the common experience of
mankind can approve as probable under the circumstance.
- Importance of credibility of witness is highlighted by the rules which allow the
adverse party to test such credibility through a process called “cross-examination”.
It includes questions designed to test the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness,
his freedom from interest of bias, or the reverse. It, likewise, covers inquiries into
matters that elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
• Admissibility of evidence – refers to the question of whether the evidence is to be considered at
all.
-should not be equated with the weight of evidence (tendency to convince and
persuade).
-It depends on the relevance and competence.
• Probative value – refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
• Multiple admissibility – Proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes.
o Party must state such with clarity or state the purpose in which the evidence is
presented.
• Conditional admissibility – It happens frequently that 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 of the evidence may ask the court 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 – allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer
the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any
unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence. It should not be
invoked where evidence was properly admitted.
• Direct Evidence – proves a fact without that need to make an inference from another fact.
• Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence – that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in
issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established.
- Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the established
circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and to the
hypotheses that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other hypothesis that he
is not.
- Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential since to insist on direct testimony
would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and denying proper protection to
the community.
- Applies when no witness saw the commission of a crime.
- Requisites:
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.
4. ***Must constitute an unbroken chain that inexorably leads to one fair
conclusion : the accused committed the crime to the exclusion of all others.
• Cumulative evidence – evidence of the same kind and character as that already given which
tends to prove the same proposition.
• Corroborative evidence- supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen or confirm
it.
-It is the additional evidence of a different character to the same point.
-Connotes evidence which tends to confirm, validate, or strengthen evidence already
presented.
-usually different type from that previously offered but which tends to prove the same
fact.
-necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth or
that his observations are inaccurate.
-2nd witnesses are usually considered as corroborative witness in Philippine Courts
-A testimony of a corroborative witness is not always required because a testimony of
one witness may already convict.
• Positive evidence – witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does exist or that a
certain event happened.
• Negative evidence – witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged
to exist does not actually exist.
• When there is a discrepancy between what the witness said in his affidavit and his testimony
made in open court, the latter would be given greater weight than the testimonies in the
affidavit.
CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS

Worthiness of belied, that quality which “Believability”
renders a witness worthy of belief.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
• Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – “false in one thing, false in everything”

-Particularly applied to the testimony of a witness who may be considered unworthy of
belief as to all the rest of his evidence if he is shown to have testified falsely in all detail.
-rarely applied in modern trend.
-Before it can be applied, it must be shown to have willfully falsified the truth on one or
more material point.
• Alibi; denial – It is a settled doctrine that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and must be
rejected when the identity of the accused is satisfactorily and categorically established by the eye
witness to the offense, especially when such eyewitnesses have no ill-motive to testify falsely.
-positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can be easily fabricated and is
inherently unreliable.
-not always false and without merit. Sometimes, the fact that the accused was
somewhere else may just be the plain and unvarnished truth.
-While by nature, an alibi is a weak one, it assumes significance and strength where the
evidence for the prosecution is intrinsically weak
-Physical impossibility refers to the distance and facility of access between the situs
criminis and the location of the accused when the crime was committed.
-The defense of alibi matter if supported by other evidence.
• Frame-up – allegations of frame-up by police officers are common and standard defenses in most
dangerous drugs cases. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in
a regular and proper manner.
• Flight or non-flight
- Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt. However, when flight is unexplained, it is
a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.
- Non-flight does not signify innocence.
RULE 129
• Based on the maxim “What is known need not be proved”, hence when the rule is invokes, the
court may dispense with the presentation of evidence on judicially-cognizable facts.
• Taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that
the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof.
• Function: displaces evidence for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve,
and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof.
• When the court takes judicial notice of a matter, the court accepts and recognizes the same
without necessity of formal proof. Evidence shall be dispensed with because the matter is so
well known and is of common knowledge not to be disputable.
• Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a
fact, not generally or professionally known, as the basis of his action.
• A judge may not take judicial notice of a fact which he personally knows if it is not part of the
evidence or not a fact generally known within its territorial jurisdiction.
• When judicial notice may be taken:
o during the trial of the case. The court, during the trial, may announce its intention to
take judicial notice of any matter. It may do so on its own initiative or on the request of
any party and allow the parties to be heard.
o After the trial and before judgement.
o 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.
• It is well settled that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts,
they must be alleged and proved.
o In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as the laws of
the jurisdiction hearing the case under the doctrine of “processual presumption”.
• MTC should take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which
they sit.
• RTC must take judicial notice also of municipal ordinances in cases on appeal to it from the
inferior court in which the latter took judicial notice.
• CA may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it
from taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable demonstration.
• A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case.
• GR: 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.
XPN: a. when in the absence of any objection and with the knowledge of the opposing party, the
contents of said other case are clearly referred to by title and number in a pending action and
adopted or read into the record of the latter.
b. when the original record of the other case or any part of it is actually withdrawn from the
archives at the court’s discretion upon the request, or with the consent, of the parties, and
admitted as part of the record of the pending case.
• Courts have taken judicial notice of the practices of banks and other financial institutions.
(discretionary judicial notice)
• Duty of the litigant with respect to their claims against each other:
o Prove all the facts that the court ought to know with respect to his claim.
o A party does not need to prove every fact that needs to support him because there are
facts that the court can take judicial notice of.
• A court can only take judicial notice of affidavits which are offered as evidence.
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)
• When the matter is subject to a mandatory judicial notice, no motion or hearing is necessary for
the court to take judicial notice of such matter because it is what it says it is. “mandatory”
Section 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)
• Requisites of discretionary judicial notice

1. It must be of common knowledge
2. It must be settled beyond reasonable doubt
3. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction.
• Things of common knowledge – generally accepted by the mind of mankind or those accepted
by the rational mind
• Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration – those that re certain in specific and
professional matters.
• The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially-known is that of
notoriety. Hence, it can be said that the judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public
records and facts of general notoriety.
• Test to taking judicial notice of matters of public knowledge – When it is notoriously known
(well known/famous). It is notoriously known as to make a judge or the court to assume its
existence without proof or without presenting evidence.
• A judicially-noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either
1. Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
2. Capable of accurate and ready determination of resorting to sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questionable.
• Things of “common knowledge” of which courts take judicial notice of, are matters coming to
the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be
matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and
unquestioned demonstration.
Section 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)
• Justice Abad : motu proprio and upon motion of the parties

• Purpose: to determine the propriety of the taking of judicial notice because a party can dispute
such.
Section 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)
• Judicial admission requires no proof. They are legally binding on the party making the admission.
• To be a judicial admission, certain elements must be considered.
1. The same must be made by a party to the case.
2. The admission, to be judicial, must be made in the course of the proceedings in the
same case.
3. No particular form
• The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case constitutes judicial admission.
• A party may make judicial admissions in:
a) The pleadings
b) During trial, either verbal or written manifestations or stipulations

c) In other stages of the judicial proceedings.
• Admissions made in the pleadings of a part are deemed judicial admissions.
• A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it. He cannot thereafter contradict it.
The exception is found only in those rare instances when the trial court, in the exercise of its
discretion and because of strong reasons to support its stand, may relieve a party from the
consequences of his admission.
• An admission in a pleading may e an actual admission as when a party categorically admits a
material allegation made by the adverse party. An admission may, likewise, be inferred from the
failure to specifically deny the material allegations in the other party’s pleadings.
• 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.
• An admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a criminal case is not necessarily admissible
against him. To be admissible, the conditions set forth by Rule 118, Sec. 2 must be complied
with. (reduced in writing, signed by the accused and counsel)
• Admissions in a superseded pleading are to be considered as extrajudicial admissions which
must be proven. To be utilized as extrajudicial admissions, they must, in order to have such
effect, be formally offered in evidence.
• Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial admissions.
• Effects of judicial admissions:
a) They do not require proof
b) They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party making it.
• How judicial admissions may be contradicted.
a) By showing that the admission was made through a palpable mistake (clear to the mind
or plain to see)
b) By showing that no such admission was made.
RULE 130
Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
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)
• It is the real thing itself. It consist of tangible things.

• Appeals to the real senses of the court. Instead of relying on the recollection of the witness, an
object evidence will enable the court to have its own firsthand perception of the evidence.
• Even a human being may be a form of real evidence. Were the racial characteristics of a party
are at issue, the court may, at its discretion, view the person concerned.
• Covers the entire range of senses.
• Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence - where the physical evidence runs counter to the testimonial
evidence, the physical evidence should prevail.
• Requisites for the admissibility of object evidence:

a) The evidence must be relevant
b) The evidence must be authenticated – it must be shown that it is the very thing that is
either the subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the
case.
-there must be someone who should identify the object to be the actual thing
involved in the litigation. This someone is a witness.
-To comply with the element of competence as an essential ingredient of
admissibility.
c) The authentication must be made by a competent witness
d) The object must be formally offered in evidence.
• An object evidence, being inanimate, cannot speak for itself. It cannot present itself to the court
as an exhibit. Even a supposedly ancient document (a private document that is more than 30
years old produces from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine and is
unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion) requires a witness to testify on
the characteristics of the document even if it no longer requires authentication.
• The evidence must be “sponsored” by a witness. To authenticate the object, the witness must
have the capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved in the litigation.
• Right against self incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence because there is no
testimonial compulsion involved.
• When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by
the court. In this sense, object evidence has been referred to as an “autoptic” evidence.
• The court may make an ocular inspection of a contested land to resolve questions of fact raised
by the parties.
• It is well recognized that the court has an inherent power to order a view when there is a need
to do so.
• The inspection may be made inside or outside the courtroom. An inspection or view outside the
courtroom should be made in the presence of the parties or at least with previous notice to
them.
• DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE – is not the actual thing but it is referred to as “demonstrative”
because it represents or demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly “real” evidence because it
is not the very thing involved in the case.
o 2 kinds:
▪ Selected – give specimen of genuine handwriting to experts who use standards
of comparison
▪ Prepared – making of an object specifically used for trial. For example : scale
model of a building
-The admissibility of this type largely relies on the laying of the proper foundation for
the evidence. “Does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent the object it
seeks to demonstrate or represent?
-Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, photographic evidence of events, acts or
transactions shall be admissible in evidence provided that:
a) It shall be presented, displayed, and shown to the court
b) It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by either
I. The person who made the recording
II. Some other person competent to testify on the accuracy
thereof

-Motion pictures and recordings – courts would require
a) Detailed testimony as to the qualifications of the operator

b) Detailed description of the equipment used
c) Conditions under which the photograph and the recordings were taken
-Diagrams, models and maps – these types of demonstrative evidence are presented to
indicate the relative locations or positions of the objects and persons.
a) Relevance
b) Identified by a witness who is familiar with what the evidence depicts
c) An accurate representation of the scene it portrays
• Alternative for need objects which cannot be brought to court (ie. Buildings, machines, trucks)
o Ocular inspection. When you are there, manifest your observations. Manifest all the
things that are good for your case and let it be placed on record.
• Categories of object evidence:
a) Unique objects – objects that have readily identifiable marks
b) Objects made unique – objects that are made readily identifiable
c) Non-unique objects – objects with no identifying marks
-must be established by a chain of custody – to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.
-Chain of custody in a buy-bust situation
I. Seizure and marking of the confiscated drugs recovered from
the accused.
II. Turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer
III. Turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory and examination
IV. Turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the
forensic chemist to the court
-marking – placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials
and signature on the items seized.
-in case of failure to comply, authorities must show that:
I. The non-compliance must be of justifiable grounds
II. The apprehending officer/team must have properly preserved
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
• DNA evidence – deoxyribonucleir acid, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all
living organisms.
-DNA testing is avalid means of determining paternity
-Guidelines:
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 standards and procedure were followed in
conducting the tests
6. The qualification of the analyst who conducted the test.
- The Rule on DNA Evidence is the primary rule to be applied whenever DNA Evidence is
offered, used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in:

1. criminal actions
2. civil actions
3. special proceedings
-For an order to be issued, there must be a further showing that:
a) A biological sample exists that has relevance to the case;
b) The biological sample i. was not previously subjected to the DNA testing
requested; ii. If it was previously subjected to DNA testing, the results
may require confirmation for good reasons
c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically-valid technique
d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information
that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case
e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing.
- The court may motu proprio order a DNA testing
-Testing without a prior court order is allowed if done before a suit or proceeding is
commenced at the request if any party, including law enforcement agencies.
-An order granting DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be
appealable.
Remedy: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
-The determination of the probative value of the DNA evidence rests upon sound
judicial assessment taking into consideration the following matters:
a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were
collected, how they were handles, and the possibility of contamination
of the samples;
b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the
procedure, and compliance with the scientifically-valid standards in
conducting the tests;
c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including its accreditation and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the test; if the laboratory is
not accredited, the court shall consider the relevant experience of the
laboratory in forensic casework and its credibility shall be properly
established.
d) The reliability of the testing result
-Post-conviction DNA Testing – test after his conviction. It may be available to the
prosecution or the person convicted by final and executory judgment, provided that the
following requirements are met:
a) A biological sample exist

b) Such sample is relevant to the case
c) The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the
judgement of conviction.
-DNA profiles and all the results or other information obtained from DNA testing are
confidential. Whoever discloses, utilizes, or publishes in any form any information
concerning a DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect
contempt of the court.

• Paraffin test – have been considered as inconclusive by the Court because scientific experts
concur in the view that paraffin tests have proved extremely unreliable in use. It can only
establish the existence of nitrates on the hand. It is not conclusive owing to several factors like
wind direction, firing at a hard object, using a long barrel or a low caliber gun and profuse
perspiration.
• Polygraph test – 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.
-Courts reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the purpose of
establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime because it has not yet
attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or
deception.
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 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)
• Documents, as evidence, do not exclusively refer to writings. They may refer to any other
material like objects as long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression and offered as proof of their contents.
• Two categories of documents as evidence:
o Writings – those easily recognizable instruments like written contracts and wills.
o Any other material containing modes of written expressions – those which are not
traditionally considered as writings but are actually objects which contain modes of
written expression.
• For such writings or materials to be deemed documentary evidence, the same must be offered
as proof of their contents. If proved for some other purposes, the writings or materials would
not be deemed documentary evidence but merely object evidence.
• An electronic document, also known interchangeably as electronic data message, does not only
refer to the information itself. It also refers to the representation of that information. Whether
it be the information itself or its representation, for the document to be deemed “electronic”, it
is important that it be received, recorder, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved, or produced
electronically.
• The rule also emphasizes that an electronic document is one that may be used for any of the
following purposes:
o To establish a right
o To extinguish an obligation
o To prove or affirm a fact
• Electronic documents are the functional equivalents of paper-based documents.
• Rule 5 Section 2. 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:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the
same;

(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by
the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the
document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
• Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified by law, may be presented in
evidence without further proof , the certificate of acknowledgement being prima facie evidence
of the execution of the instrument or document involved.
• It would, therefore, be critical to remember that whenever a documentary evidence is involved,
the best evidence rule, parol evidence rule, and hearsay rule, or any one of these rules may
come into play. (does not apply when the evidence is offered as an object evidence)
1. Best Evidence Rule
• It is not intended to mean the “most superior” evidence. More accurately, it is the “original
document” rule or the “primary evidence” rule
• It only applies when evidence is documentary.
• Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry relates to the contents of a document,
no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.
• The rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of a writing is the subject of judicial inquiry.
• Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or existed, or on
the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not
apply and even testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other subtitutionary evidence is,
likewise, admissible without need to account for the original.
• Purpose:
o Ensures that the exact contents of a document are brought before the court.
o Acts as an insurance against fraud
o The copy of the original is not as reliable as the latter because of possible inaccuracy in
the process of copying and the danger of erroneous transmission of the original.
• Best evidence rule may be waived if not raised in the trial.
• When a document is involved in the inquiry but the document is only collaterally in issue, the
best evidence rule does not apply.
• The first step in applying the best evidence rule is to determine the matter inquired into. If the
inquiry involves a document, and its contents are the subject of the same inquiry, the best
evidence rule applies and must, therefore, be complied with.
• If the original cannot be presented, the second step now comes to play. This step involves two
stages. (1) finding an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present the original; and (2)
presenting a secondary evidence allowed by the Rules of Court.
• “present the original, except when you can justify its unavailability in the manner provided for by
the Rules of Court.”
Section 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
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office. (2a)
• Secondary evidence other than the original itself.

• Secondary evidence, like a copy of the original, is admissible as an exception of the original writing
has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the party
offering the secondary evidence.
Section 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)
• There are instances when subsequent documents are also regarded as originals
o There must be entries made and repeated in the regular course of business
o The entries must be made at or near the time of the transaction
• Rules on Electronic evidence
o Rule 4 Section 1. 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.
o Rule 4 Section 2. Copies as equivalent of 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:

(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the
original.
o The court concluded that the terms “electronic data message” and “electronic
document”, does not include facsimile transmission and cannot be considered as
electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.
2. Secondary Evidence
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. (4a)
• Secondary evidence may be admitted only by laying the basis for its production:
a) The offeror must prove the existence and execution of the original document
b) The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability such as the loss or destruction of
the original
c) The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith
• After complying with the requirements for laying the basis for the introduction of secondary
evidence, the offeror may now be allowed to prove the contents of the documents by secondary
evidence.
• Based on the rules, the presentation of secondary evidence should be in the following order:
a) A copy of the original
b) A recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document
c) By the testimony of witness.
• Correct order of proof is as followes:
1. Existence
2. Execution
3. Loss
4. Contents
• Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the original consist of numerous
accounts:
a) If the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
b) Such accounts or documents cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
c) The fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole.
- The main reason for this exception lies in the determination by the court that production of
the original writings and their examination in court would result in great loss of time considering
that the evidence desired from the voluminous accounts is only the general result of the whole
like a summary of the accounts.
-A proper foundation for the introduction of a summary may be established through the
testimony of the person responsible for the summary’s preparation, or the person who
supervised the preparation of the summary.

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)
• Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody or
control of the adverse party:
a) That the original exist
b) That the said document is under the custody or control of the adverse party
c) That the proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse party reasonable
notice to produce the original document
d) That the adverse party failed to produce the original document despite the reasonable
notice.
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. (2a)
• Public records are generally not to be removed from the places where they are recorded and
kept.
• Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the original is a public document:
- “Certified true copy of the original. – This certified copy is issued by the public officer in
custody of the public records.
Section 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)
• If the Party who calls for the production of a document does not offer the same in evidence, no
unfavorable imference may be drawn from such failure.
3. Parol Evidence Rule
• It is parol evidence rule that has direct application to the law on contracts.
• The decision of the parties to reduce the agreement in written form is critical to the application
of the parol evidence rule. When they executed a written agreement, the parol evidence rule
ipso facto comes into play.
• 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.
• What impleaded mistake would allow parol evidence to modify the agreement:
o Mistake of fact either mutual to the parties or the innocent party is a victim of the unfair
dealing of the other
• What are required before parol evidence may be admitted on the ground of mistake:
o It must be shown that the mistake is one of fact
o It must be common to both parties or one of the party is a victim of the unfair dealing of
the other

o It must be raised in issue
• In order to prove such mistake, clear and convincing evidence is necessary.
Section 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:
(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)
• The terms “parol” evidence means something “oral” or verbal but with reference to contracts, it
means extraneous evidence or evidence aliunde.
• It also refers to written evidence which are outside of or extraneous to the written contract
between the parties.
• The parol evidence rule becomes operative when the issues in the litigation are the terms of a
written contract.
• Q: What have the parties agreed upon? A: “look into the written agreement and not elsewhere
because only the contents of the written agreement are admissible in evidence.”
• There is no need to look into any other source because such sources are inadmissible for any of
the following purposes: a. modify; b. explain; or c. add to the terms of the written agreement.
(Because the writing is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon)
• Parol evidence rule is designed to give certainty to written transactions, preserve the reliability
and protect the sanctity of written agreements.
• Rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document.
• Parol evidence does not apply to persons who are not parties to a deed and do not base their
claim on it. Only the parties and successor-in-interest are bound by the parol evidence.
• The parol evidence rule does not cover future agreement. Subsequent agreements/changes are
allowed even after the signing of the contract. However, in order for it to be introduced, such
subsequent agreement must first be put in issue in the pleadings.
• The rule applies to a contractual obligations.
• XPN to parol evidence rule: A party may present evidence when he desires to modify, explain or
add to the terms of the written agreement by putting in issue in the pleading any of the
following:
a) An intrinsic ambiguity , mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement;

- Intrinsic ambiguity – one which is not apparent on the face of the document but
which lies in the person or thing that is the subject of the document or deed.
- In this type, the document is clear on its face but matters outside the agreement
create the ambiguity.
- The rule allowing parol evidence particularly refers only to intrinsic ambiguity in the
writing. Where the ambiguity is extrinsic or patent, parol evidence will not be
admitted even if the same is put in issue in the pleading.
- An extrinsic ambiguity is that which appears on the very face of the instrument, and
arises from the defective, obscure, or insensible language used.
- Intermediate ambiguity – words seem clear but is actually equivocal and admits of
two interpretations.
b) Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
- This only means that despite the meeting of the minds, the true agreement of the
parties is not reflected in the instrument
- When there is a meeting of the minds between the parties, but their true intention
is not expressed in the instrument by any causes one of the parties may ask for the
reformation of the instrument. In an action for reformation of the instrument unfer
Art. 1359 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff may introduce parol evidence to show the
real intention of the parties. Reformation cannot be brought to reform any of the
following: a. simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed; b. wills;
c. when the real agreement is void.
- If there is no meeting of the minds between the parties because of mistake, fraud,
inequitable conduct, accident, the proper remedy is not reformation of the
instrument but an action for annulment because the contract is rendered voidable
by the vitiation of the consent of one of the parties.
c) The validity of the written agreement;
d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest
after the execution of the written agreement.
• Introducing parol evidence means offering extrinsic or extraneous evidence that would modify,
explain or add to the terms of the written agreement, but parol evidence may only be allowed if,
any of the matters mentioned above is put in issue in the pleadings. Without complying with
these requirements, parol evidence cannot be introduced.
• The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to invoke the benefits of the rule. This waiver
may be made by failure to object to the introduction of evidence aliunde.
• Admissibility is not equivalent of probative value or credibility.
Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule

Establishes a preference for original document Is not concerned with the primacy of evidence
over a secondary evidence thereof but presupposes that the original is available
Precludes the admission of secondary evidence of Precludes the admission of other evidence to
the original document is available prove the terms of a document other than the
contents of the document itself for the purposes
of varying the terms of the writing
Can be invoked by any litigant to an action Can be invoked only by the parties to the
whether or not said litigant is a party to the document and their successors-in-interest.
document involved

Applies to all forms of writing Applies only to written agreements (contracts)
and wills
One should not look into any writing, he must If the subject of the inquiry are the terms of the
look at the original one. written agreement, one must read the
agreement itself and not seek guidance on
sources outside the writing.
4. Interpretation Of Documents
Section 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)
Section 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. (9)
Section 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. (10)
Section 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 it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those who language he is
to interpret. (11)
Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 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)

Section 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)
Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. — An instrument may be construed according to usage, in
order to determine its true character. (17)
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
• Testimonial or oral evidence is evidence elicited 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. The person who gives the testimony is called a “witness”.
• Competence when applied to a witness means that he is fit or eligible to testify on a particular
matter in a judicial proceeding.
• Competence therefor refers to his personal qualifications to testify. Competence also includes
the absence of any factor that would disqualify him from being a witness.
• Introduction of every kind of evidence, whether it be object, demonstrative or documentary
evidence, need the intervention of a witness. The admission of any evidence requires its
identification by a witness.
• Without a witness, no evidence can ever be authenticated. Even the so-called “self-
authenticating documents” need a witness to identify the document. Being inanimate, a
document or an object cannot speak for itself.
• 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 an
objection as soon as the facts tending to shoe incompetency are apparent.
1. Qualification of Witnesses
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. (18a)
• Basic qualification:
a) He can perceive
b) He can make known his perception to others
c) He must take either an oath or affirmation
d) He must not possess any of the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules.
• What abilities must a witness have:
a) Observe (the testimonial quality of assertion)
b) Remember (the testimonial quality of memory)
c) Relate (The testimonial quality of narration)
d) Recognize a duty to tell the truth (the testimonial quality of sincerity)

• A person is not qualified to be a witness if he is incapable of understanding the duty to tell the
truth. The oath of a witness signifies that he is swearing to the Creator “to tell the truth and
nothing but the truth” and that if he does not, he will later on answer for all the lies he is guilty
of.
• A witness must be able to perceive an event. The witness must have personal knowledge of the
facts surrounding the subject matter of this testimony. “witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal knowledge” Without this personal knowledge, the witness lacks
the competence to testify
• The ability of the witness to make known his perception to the court involves two factors: (a)
ability to remember what has been perceived; (b) ability to communicate the remembered
perception. If he cannot remember what he perceived, he cannot be competent witness.
• Deaf-mutes are not necessarily incompetent as witnesses. They are competent where they can:
(1) understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) comprehend facts they are going to
testify; (3) communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
Competence Credibiity
Is a matter of law or rule Refers to the weight and trustworthiness or
reliability of the testimony
Has reference to the basic qualifications of a Refers to the believability of a witness and and
witness as his capacity to perceive and has nothing to do with the law or the rules. It
communicate his perception to others. It also refers to the weight and trustworthiness or
includes the absence of any of the reliability of the testimony.
disqualification imposed upon a witness
• Prevaricating witness – one who has given contradicting testimonies

• It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely
on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things.
• Weight given to a testimony of a child victim of rape:
o Full weight and credit. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
sincerity.
• A ruling of the judge on the competency of the witness is not appealable because it is an
interlocutory order. The determination of such question rests primarily with the trial judge. It
will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.
• What is the remedy for erroneous disqualification of witness>
o The remedy is appeal, not certiorari. You should assign it as an error. The appellate
court can, however, remand the case for the taking of the excluded testimony.
Section 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)

• To be disqualified as a witness by reason of mental incapacity, the following must concur:
a) The person must be incapable of intelligently making known his perception to others;
and
b) His incapacity must exist at the time of his production for examination.
• Mental incapacity of a witness at the time of his perception of the events subject of the
testimony does not affect his competency as long as he is competent at the time he is produced
for examination to make known his perception to others.
• To be disqualified by reason of immaturity, the following must concur:
a) The mental maturity of the witness must render him incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which he is examined;
b) He is incapable of relating his perception truthfully.
• Note that, in disqualification by reason of mental incapacity, the incompetence of the witness
must exist, not at the time of his perception of the facts, but at the time he is produced for
examination, and consists in his ability to intelligently make known what he has perceived.
• In disqualification by reason of immaturity, the incompetence of the witness must occur at the
time he perceives the event including his incapacity to relate his perceptions truthfully.
• Child witness – any person who, at the time of giving testimony, is below 18 years or is over 18
but is found by the court to be unable to take care of himself or protect himself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition.
• Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. This is the presumption established by the
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness and to rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by
a child, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence.
• When the court finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish the truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell
the truth in court, the court shall conduct a competency examination of the child. The court may
do so motu proprio or on motion of a party.
• The competency examination of the child witness is not open to public, only the following are
allowed to attend the examination:
a) The judge and necessary court personnel
b) The counsel for the parties
c) The guardian ad litem
d) One or more support persons for the child
e) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in
his absence.
• The competency examination shall be conducted only by the judge. The counsel of the parties
are not allowed to ask questions, if they desire to ask, they cannot do so directly. Instead, they
are allowed to submit questions to the judge which he may ask the child in his discretion.
• The questions asked at the competency examination shall be appropriate to his age and
development level and must focus on the ability of the child to remember, communicate,
distinguish between the truth and falsehood and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
• 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.
• Who are disqualified on the ground of mental immaturity?

o Children whose mental incapacity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts representing which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.
o Requisites:
▪ The mental maturity of the witness must render him incapable of perceiving the
facts representing which he is examined
▪ He is incapable of relating his perception truthfully.
• Is it required that a child is able to define the meaning of the word “oath”
o No, an adequate sense of the impropriety of the falsehood is all that is necessary like
“punta ka sa hell”
Section 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)
• Based on the society’s intent to preserve the marriage relations and promote domestic pace.
• Reason for the rule:
1. There is identity of interest between husband and wife
2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is a consequent danger of perjury
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the
risk of occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of punishing one spouse
through the hostile testimony of the other.
• The prohibition extends not only to a testimony adverse to the spouse but also a testimony in
favor of the spouse. It also extends to both criminal and civil cases.
• They should be validly married in order to claim the privilege. And the privilege may only be
invoked during the marriage.
• Hence the rule does not prohibit a testimony for or against the other spouse after the marriage
is dissolved. When the marriage is dissolved, the rule can no longer be invoked.
• The other spouse must be a party to the case.
• If the testimony is offered during the existence of the marriage, it does not matter if the facts
subject of the testimony occurred or came to the knowledge of the witness-spouse before the
marriage.
• The rule can be waived.
• Exceptions to the marital disqualification rule:
1. In a civil case by one against the other;
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the others, or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants
• The rule does not preclude the wife from testifying when it involves other parties or accused.
• This prohibition would cover a testimony by the estranged spouse because a separation “de
fact” does not sever the marriage bonds and the spouses remain legally married to each other.
XPN: where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more
harmony to be preserved now peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason
based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such case, identity of interests
disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of private life, which the law

aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which through their absence, merely leave
a void in the unhappy home.
-> It should depend on whether or not the separation in fact of husband and wife
appears of permanent kind. In such a case, the desired harmoy in their relationship is no
longer present. But, if the circumstances shows a chance of reconciliation, the privilege
should remain in force.
Section 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)
• This rule applies only to a civil case or a special proceeding over the estate of the insane or
deceased person.
• The following are elements for the application of this proceeding over the estate of the
deceased or insane person:
a) The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said deceased or person of
unsound mind;
b) The defendant in the case is the executor or administrator or a representative of the
deceased person or the person of unsound mind;
c) The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or a person in whose behalf the
case is prosecuted;
d) The subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the death or
such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
• The rule is definitely one that does not protect the survivor even at the risk of not paying a just
and valid clam because it is the survivor who has the stronger reason to file a false claim. The
rule is for the protection of the guy who died, Hence, the name, DEAD MAN”S STATUTE>
• The plaintiff is the person who has a claim against the estate of the decedent or the person of
unsound mind. He is the survivor.
• The defendant is the representative of the deceased of the person of unsound mind. Therefore,
the person entitled to invoke the protection of the statute are the executor, administrator, and
any other representative of a deceased person, when they are the defendants in a claim against
the estate.
• The rule contemplates a claim against the estate, therefore when a counterclaim is set up by the
administrator of the estate, the case is removed from the application of the dead man’s statute.
• The essential point to consider is the nature of the case. The rule does not apply when the
action brought is not against the estate or not upon a claim or demand against the estate.
• The incompetency imposed upon the witness is to testify “on any matter of fact occurring before
the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind”
• The rule does not altogether intend to keep the witness out of the stand altogether. He is merelt
precluded from testifying on particular topics. Thus, a testimony favorable to the estate of the
deceased or the insane person is not barred since the rule is designed to protect the interest of
the estate.
• A witness who testify on the basis of their knowledge of a transaction, not based on their
dealings with the deceased, are not barred.

• The survivorship disqualification rule is intended to benefit the estate of the deceased or the
insane person; hence, this protection may be waived by (a) failing to object to the testimony or
(b) cross-examining the witness on the prohibited testimony or by (c) offering evidence to rebut
the testimony.
• May the plaintiff testify to transactions he made with a living agent of the deceased?
o Yes, but the testimony must be confined to those transactions. The injustice sought to
be avoided does not exist since the agent could refute the testimony.
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot
testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
• Privileged communications apply even to electronic evidence. The confidential character of a

privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic
document.
• Other privileged communications not found in the ROC
o Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news
o Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted
o Trade secrets
o Information contained in tax census returns
o Bank deposits
o Reports of suspicious transactions to the AMLC
• What privilege do bank deposit enjoy?
o GR: they are absolutely confidential and may not be examined, inquired, or looked into
by any person, government official, bureau or office
o XPN:
1. Upon written permission of the depositor
2. In case of impeachment
3. Upon the order of competent courts in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
public officials
4. In cases, where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation.
• May the court compel the prosecutor to present the informer?
o No, when it is essential to protect the identity and when his testimony would merely be
corroborative and cumulative
o When will the rule on non-disclosure of an informant’s identity not apply?
▪ When such testimony is already well known
▪ When the disclosure is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused or
essential to the disposition of the case
▪ When the identity of the poseur buyer is vital considering that the accused
denies having sold the marijuana to anyone
▪ Where the testimony will help the trial court determine whether or not the
accused knew that the bag contains marijuana as an essential ingredient of the
offense.
(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;
• The husband or wife cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage.
• The application of the rule requires the presence of the following elements:
1. There must be a valid marriage between the husband and wife
2. There is a communication received in confidence by one from the other
3. The confidential communication was received during the marriage
• Note that the information received in confidence during the marriage be “by one from the
other”. The implication is clear : confidential information received from a third person is not
covered by the privilege.
• For the information to be confidential, it must be made during and by reason of the marital
relations and is intended not to be shared with others.
• The rule may be waived.
• Does not include acts merely observed by one spouse from the other unless such acts are
intended as a means of conveying confidential communication by one to the other.
Disqualification by reason of privileged Disqualification by reason of marriage

communication (marital)
Refers to confidential information received by Does not refer to confidential information.
one spouse from the other during the marriage Communications which are not deemed
confidential are covered
Applies only to confidential information received Includes facts, occurrences or information even
during the marriage prior to the marriage
Spouse affected by the disclosure of the The marital disqualification can no longer be
information may object even after the dissolution invoked once the marriage is dissolved.
of the marriage. The privilege does not cease just
because the marriage ended
Regardless whether the spouse are parties or not Requires that the spouse for or against the
testimony is offered is a party to the action
What is prohibited is the examination of a spouse Prohibition is a testimony for or against the other
as to matters received in confidence by one from
the other during the marriage.
(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;
• The following requisites must be present for the privilege to arise:

a) There must be a communication made by the client to the attorney, or an advice given
by the attorney to his client;
b) The communication or advise must be given in confidence

c) The communication or advice must be given either in the course of the professional
employment or with a view to professional employment.
• The rule does not require a perfected attorney-client relationship
• The communication may be oral or written but it is deemed to extend to other forms of
conduct, like physical demonstration, as long as they are intended to be confidential.
• It is commonly acknowledged that the privilege does not extend to communications where the
client’s 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 illicit activity. Accordingly,
although communications made when used to further crimes are not privileged, the discussion
of the communications in confidence with the lawyer after the crime has been committed may
still be privileged even though the earlier ones were not.
• Confidentiality ceases when it lands to the hand of a 3rd person, even if accidental. XPN: when
there is collusion, third person deemed as an agent.
• “a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relationship is terminated.”
(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 capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient;
• Applies only to civil cases whether the patient is a party or not.

• Requisites:
a) Privilege is claimed in a civil case
b) Physician against whom the privilege is claimed is authorized to practice medicine,
surgery, obstetrics
c) He acquired the information while attending to his patient
d) He needed the information to enable him to act in that capacity
e) Information is confidential, if disclosed, would blacken the patient’s reputation.
• When is the physician regarded as acting in such respect to his patient?
- When he attends to the patient for either curative or preventive treatment.
• The privilege cannot be claimed in a criminal case presumably because the interest of the public
in criminal prosecution should be deemed more important than the secrecy of the
communication.
• The information which cannot be disclosed refers to:
a) Any advice given to the client
b) Any treatment given to the client
c) Any information acquired in attending such patient provided that the advice, treatment
or information was made or acquired in a professional capacity and was necessary to
enable him to act in that capacity.
• The relationship could be the result of a quasi-contract relationship as when the patient is
seriously ill and the physician treats him even if he is not in a condition to give his consent.
• The privilege does not apply to shield the commission of a crime or when the purpose is
unlawful one as to obtain narcotics or prohibited drugs in violation of law because there is no
treatment involved.
• The privilege survives the death of the patient.

• The privilege may be waived by the patient.
o The waiver may be by a contract as in a medical or life insurance
o When there is a disclosure by the patient of the information, there is necessarily a
waiver
o When the patient answers questions on matters which are supposedly privileged on
cross-examination, the waiver also exist
o Waiver by operation of law or the rules. This happens when the mental or physical
condition of a party is in dispute. The party examined may request a report of the
examination. By doing so, he waives any privilege he may have in that action regarding
the testimony of every other person who has examined him in respect to the same
examination.
(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;
• What kind of confession does this privilege contemplate?

o Penetential, a confession of sins in view of obtaining pardon and spiritual advice or
assistance, it includes consultation that the priest is expected to keep secret.
• 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 the consent of the person confessing.
• Extends also to any advice given by the minister or priest.
• The confession must be made pursuant to confession of sins. As clearly provided, the advice
given as a result of the confession must be made in the minister’s professional character, or in
his “spiritual” capacity.
(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)
• It is interest of the public that is sought to be protected by the rule

• Public interest – something in which the public, not only a particular locality, has some interest.
It affects the legal right or liabilities of the community at large.
• Requisites:
1. The holder of the privilege is the government, acting through a public officer
2. The communication was given to public officer in confidence
3. The communication was given during the term of office of the public office or
afterwards
4. The public interest would suffer in the disclosure of the communication.
• Who must decide if a public officer cannot be examined on confidential communication made to
him?
- The court must decide if the privilege can be invoked in ground of public interest.
• What are the elements of presidential communication privilege?
1. The protected communications must relate to quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power

2. The communication must be authorized or solicited and received by a close advisor of
the President
3. The presidential communications privilege remains qualified privilege that may be
overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought likely
contains important evidence and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by
an appropriate investigating authority.
• The privilege may be invoked not only during the term of office of the public officer but also
afterwards.
• National security matters and State secrets are, of course, confidential and a court will most
likely uphold the privilege.
• Executive privilege – the power of the government to withhold information from the public, the
courts, and the Congress.
• Matters involving state secrets:
1. Military
2. Diplomatic
3. Other national security matters
2. Testimonial Privilege
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify against his parents,
other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a)
• Under the parental privilege rule, a parent cannot be compelled to testify against the child or
other direct descendants.
• Under the filial privilege rule, a child may not be compelled to testify against his parents or
children voluntarily but if he refuses so, the rule protects him from compulsion.
• Applies to both civil and criminal cases.
• Under the family code, no descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against
his parents and grandparents. This code specifically provides for an exception. The descendant
may be compelled to give his testimony in the following instances:
a) When such testimony is indispensable in a crime committed against said descendant
b) In a crime committed by one parent against the other
3. Admissions and Confessions
Section 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)
Section 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.

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)
• Example : Although the marriage of the accused in a rape case extinguishes the penal action, an
offer of marriage is, generally speaking, an admission of guilt.
• There is no implied admission of guilt if the offer of compromise is in relation to:
a) Quasi-offenses (criminal negligence);
b) Cases allowed by law to be compromised.
• If the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not accepted, the rule does not provide for an adverse
consequence of the unaccepted plea. On the contrary, the rule provides that an unaccepted
plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the
plea or offer.
• Offer to pay or payment of medical – This act of rendering aid is sometimes called the “good
Samaritan rule.” The phrase is used to refer to the rendering of voluntary aid to a suffering
person.
a) The rule is based on the policy of encouraging potential defendants to remedy
hazardous conditions without feat that their actions will be used as evidence against
them.
Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 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)
• The declarations referred to applies to extrajudicial declarations, when he testifies as a witness,

his statement becomes judicial and are admissible not only against him, but also against his co-
accused. This is because his statements are based on his personal perceptions and knowledge
pursuant to Sec. 36 of Rule 130. (the other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-
examine the admitter, such confession or admission then becomes admissible against both)
• If the only evidence of the conspiracy is the extrajudicial declaration of the defendant, the
statements are NOT admissible against the others.
Section 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)

Section 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 has been traditionally received, even in common law, as admissible
evidence.
• The usual practice for its admissibility involves a statement by a person in the presence of a
party to the action, criminal or civil.
• The statement contains assertions against the party, which if untrue, would be sufficient cause
for the party to make a denial. His failure to speak against the statement is admissible as an
admission.
• The idea of the rule on admission by silence is that 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 may be construed as an implied admission of the truth of the accusation and
may be given in evidence against him.
• Not every silence is an implied admission. For instance, the silence of a person under
investigation for the commission of an offense should not be construed as an admission by
silence because of constitutional reasons.
• For silence to be deemed an admission, it is necessary that:
o He heard and understood the statement;
o He was at liberty to make the denial;
o The statement was about a matter affecting his rights in which he was interested and
which naturally calls for a response;
o The facts were within his knowledge; and
o The fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue.
• Res inter alios – (res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet) – literally means that “things done
between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them”
o Reason: on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are
binding upon himself and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations.
Yet, it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man
should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to
be bound by the acts pf strangers, either ought their acts or conduct be used as
evidence against him.
o Does not apply when the co-accused takes the witness stand and repeats his
extrajudicial confession as a witness.
o Branches:
a) The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another. (Sec. 28, Rule 130, ROC)
-Whatever one says or does or omits to do should only affect him but should
not affect or prejudice others. In other words, both common reason and
fairness demand that a man’s actions and declarations should affect him alone
and should not affect others.
-The above rule has reference only to extrajudicial declarations. Hence,
statements made in open court by a witness implicating persons, aside from his
own judicial admissions, are admissible as declarations from one who has
personal knowledge of the facts testified to.

-Exceptions: (basis: person making the statement 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 matters)
1. Admission by a co-partner or agent
-agent performs some service in representation of or on behalf
of his principal
-the agent therefor is in legal contemplation, a mere extension
of the personality of the principal and unless the agent acts in
his own name, the principal must comply with all the obligations
which the agent may have contracted within the scope of his
authority.
-Requisites: (everything must concur)
i. The declaration made or act of the partner or agent
must have been made or done within the scope of his
authority;
ii. The declaration or act of the partner or agent must
have been made or done during the existence of the
partnership or agency (while the person making the
declaration was still a partner or an agent); and
iii. The existence of the partnership or agency or proven by
evidence other than the declaration or act of the
partner or agent.
-Any declaration made before the partnership or agency
existed, or those made after, are not admissible against the
other, but remains admissible to the one making the
declaration.
-also applies to joint owner, joint debtor, or other persons
jointly interested with the party.
2. Admission by a co-conspirator
-A conspiracy exist when 2 or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the
act of all. The statement, therefore, of one may be admitted
against the other conspirators as an exception to the rule on res
inter alios acta.
-Requisites: all must concur
i. The declaration or act be made or done during
the existence of the conspiracy;
ii. The declaration or act must relate to the
conspiracy;
iii. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence
other than such declaration or act.
-Incriminating declarations of con-conspirators made in the
absence of or without the knowledge of the others after the
conspiracy has come to an end is inadmissible.
-The arrest of the declarant is often found to terminate the
declarant’s participation in the conspiracy so that the

declarant’s post arrest statements do not qualify as admissible
co-conspirator statements.
-An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant
and is not admissible against his co-accused. As against the
latter, the confession is hearsay.
3. Admission by privies
-“Privies” -persons who are partakers or have an interest in any
action or thing, or any relation to another.
-Requisites:
i. There must be an act, declaration or omission
by a predecessor-in-interest;
ii. The act, declaration or omission of the
predecessor must have occurred while he was
holding (not after) the title to the property; and
iii. The act, declaration, or omission must be in
relation to the property
b) 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.
(Sec. 34, Rule 130, ROC)
-A similar conduct which does not even sufficiently establish a plan or scheme is
not admissible.
-The rule prohibits the admission of the so-called “propensity evidence”, which
is evidence that tends to show that what a person has done at one time is
probative of the contention that he has done a similar act 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.
-The evidentiary rule guards the practical inconvenience of trying collateral
issues and protracting the trial and prevents surprise or other mischief
prejudicial to litigants.
-Evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence of
the offenses on trial.
-To argue that a person did or did not commit an act because he did or did not
commit a similar thing in the past is certainly non sequitur.
-Evidence of similar acts or previous conduct is admissible for any of the
following purposes:
a) Specific intent;
b) Knowledge;
c) Identity;
d) Plan;
e) System;
f) Scheme;
g) Habit;
h) Custom;
i) Usage; and
j) The like. (Sec. 34, Rule 130 ROC)

-Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially in
actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on the state of
mind or knowledge of a person, his motive or intent, or they may uncover a
scheme, design, or plan.
-The admissibility of similar acts or previous conduct will depend on the
purpose for which such acts or conduct are offered.
-Ex: Similar acts may be offered to show that they share distinctive features
as the offense for which the accused id currently charged with, but the
evidence cannot be offered to show that the accused is likely to be guilty of
the charge for having committed the same or similar acts before his present
indictment. The rule is: The past acts of the accused are inadmissible to
prove that he acted in conformity with such previous acts.
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

An extrajudicial confession may be given in A judicial confession is admissible against the
evidence against the confessant but not against declarant’s co-accused since the latter are
his co-accused as they are deprived of the afforded opportunity to cross-examine the
opportunity to cross examine him former.
Sec. 30 of Rule 130 ( admission by conspirator)
applies only to extrajudicial acts or admissions
(judicial admissions are formal concessions in the
pleadings or stipulations by a party in the course
of the proceeding.)
An extrajudicial confession or admission of one
accused is admissible only against said accused,
but is inadmissible against the other accused. But
if the declarant or admitter repeats in court his
extrajudicial admission, and the other accused is
accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the
admitter, the admission is admissible against
both accused because then, it is transposed into
a judicial admission.
Section 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)
• A confession must be considered in its entirety including exculpatory statement. (Exculpatory –

show or declare that someone is not guilty of wrong doing)
•
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence
Section 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)
Section 35. Unaccepted offer. — An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a
written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the
actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (49a)
• Concept of admission and confessions:
ADMISSION CONFESSION
In a general sense, includes confessions. A specific type of admission which refers only to
an acknowledgment of guilt.
is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt
a relevant fact. It is a voluntary of the offense charged, or of any offense
acknowledgement made by a party of the necessarily included therein.
existence of the truth of certain facts which are
inconsistent with his claims in an action.
(When a person declares in his counter-affidavit
that he performed an act like shooting the victim
but denies that he did so with criminal intent
because the shooting was done in self-defense,
the declaration is merely an admission and not a
confession.)
An admission may be implied like an admission A confession cannot be implied. It should be a
by silence direct and positive acknowledgment of guilt
because it is a declaration unlike an admission
which is also an “act” or “omission”
• Effect of admission: The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him.
• Admission may be express or implied:
Express admission Implied Admission

A positive statement or act One which may be inferred from the declarations
or acts of a person
• NOTE: A confession cannot be implied. It must be a positive acknowledgement of guilt and

cannot be inferred.
JUDICIAL ADMISSION/CONFESSION EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION/CONFESSION

Made in the course of a judicial proceeding Made out of court or even in a proceeding other
than the one under consideration
• An admission may be adoptive, this occurs when a person manifests his assent to the
statements of another person.
o A party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or ratify another’s statement.

o Where it appears that a party clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted the
statements of another, evidence of those statements is admissible against him.
o An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person
when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated
or implied by the other person.
o By adoptive admission, a third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party
embracing or espousing it. Adoptive admission may occur when a party:
▪ Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another;
▪ Hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it;
▪ Utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another;
▪ Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores
further points which he or she has heard the other make; or
▪ Reads and subsequently signs a written statement made by another.
• Effect of extrajudicial confession of guilt: While a judicial confession may sustain a conviction, an
extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction. The rule requires that the confession be
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
o “corpus delicti” – (body of the crime) it means the actual commission of the crime and
someone criminally responsible therefor. It is the substance of the crime; the fact that a
crime has actually been committed.
▪ Elements:
- Proof of the occurrence of a certain event;
- Some person’s criminal responsibility for the act.
▪ Corpus delicti and all the elements thereof, may be proved by circumstantial
evidence but such proof must be convincing and compatible with the nature of
the case.
▪ While an extrajudicial confession will not be sufficient for conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, a judicial confession will support
conviction without proof of corpus delicti independent of the judicial
confession.
▪ The Court ruled that it is not necessary to recover the body or show where it
can be found in a case of murder, or homicide. There are cases like death at sea,
where the finding or recovery of the body is impossible. It is enough that the
death and the criminal agency causing it be proven.
▪ To establish the corpus delicti by circumstantial evidence, facts are admissible to
show the impossibility of rescue, as t sea, the existence and extent of wounds,
and deceased’s condition of health.
o Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained, or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel
or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel
as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as
evidence in any proceeding.
▪ The above rights refer to an extrajudicial confession of a person arrested,
detained or is under custodial investigation because a confession made by the
accused before he is placed under custodial investigation need not comply with
the above.

- Custodial investigation has been described as one which involves any
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
in any significant way.
- It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect
is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of
interrogations that lend itself to eliciting incriminating statements, that
the rule begins to operate.
- Custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing an invitation to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed.
- Any waiver of rights during custodial investigation should be in writing
and undertaken with the assistance of counsel.
- Admissions under custodial investigation without the assistance of
counsel are barred as evidence.
- A suspect’s confession, whether verbal or non-verbal, when taken
without the assistance of counsel or without a valid waiver of such
assistance regardless of the absence of such coercion, or the fact that it
had been voluntarily given, is inadmissible, even if such confession were
gospel truth.
o Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous
statements, not elicited through questioning by authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby the accused orally admitted having committed the crime. Hence, such
confession is admissible in evidence against him, even when he did so without the
assistance of counsel.
5. Testimonial Knowledge
Section 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. (30a)
• Applies to both written and oral statement

• The rule that excludes hearsay evidence applies to both written and oral statement.
• The rule excluding hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that there is no opportunity to
cross-examine the person to whom statements or writings are attributed. Moreover, the court is
without the opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor
of the person who made them.
• An affidavit is merely hearsay where the affiant did not take the witness stand.
• Affidavits that are notarized are public documents but are still considered as hearsay unless the
affiants themselves are placed in the witness stand to testify thereon.
• Purpose – determines whether hearsay or not.
o It is the purpose for which the evidence is offered which would determine whether the
same is hearsay or not.

• The ban on hearsay does not include statements which are relevant independently of whether
they are true, or not, like statements of a person to show, among others, his state of mind,
mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-will and other emotions.
• Elements:
o An out-of-court statement, oral or written
o Statement made out-of-court is repeated and offered by the witness in court to prove
the truth of the matters asserted by the statement.
• To be hearsay, the testimony of a witness, regarding a statement made by another person, is
given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement.
• Out-of-court statements of a person, with regard to matters not of his personal knowledge, lack
the “indicia” of trustworthiness.
• It is the lack of reliability which is the reason for the time-honored rule excluding hearsay
testimony.
• When the out-of-court statement is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it is
said that the statement is offered for a non-hearsay purpose. If it is offered to prove the truth
of the statement, it is hearsay because it is offered to prove a hearsay purpose.
• Where a statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but is offered for an
evidentiary purpose, not dependent on the truth of the matters asserted, the statement is non-
hearsay.
• KINDS:
o Out-of-court statements offered to prove mental state of the declarant
▪ Demonstrates buy inference from the tenor of the statement the state of mind
of the speaker or the declarant.
▪ Its significance rests on the mere fact that it was uttered and, by extension, on
the conclusion which may reasonably be drawn from the statement.
▪ The declarant’s words or conduct constitute circumstantial evidence of his state
of mind.
▪ It is the fact that the statement was made which is relevant.
▪ A testimony by the hearer that such statement was made is not hearsay
because he will be testifying as to his personal knowledge that the statement
was uttered.
▪ The hearer’s veracity and sincerity can well be tested under a cross-examination
because he will not be testifying as to the veracity of the assertion or its falsity
which are totally irrelevant.
o Out-of-court statement offered to prove its effect on the listener/hearer
▪ Offered to prove the state of mind of the hearer/listener.
▪ Effect of the declarant’s statement on the hearer and why the listener acted in a
particular manner.
▪ It is his reaction to the statement that is relevant , not the truth of the
assertions in the statement. Since the hearer is present in court, he can be
cross-examined, on whether or not he heard the statement accurately, believed
the statement to be true, and whether or not he really acted in conformity with
his belief.
o Out-of-court statement offered to prove that the statement was made
▪ Where the statement is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but
merely to show what was said, the statement is NOT hearsay.

▪ It is offered to prove that the statement was made and proves nothing as to its
averments.
▪ If an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the matter
asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the hearsay
rule does not apply.
o Independent relevant statements
▪ It is doctrinal that a declarant’s 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.
▪ It is admissible for some relevant reason independent of their truth or falsity.
▪ They are relevant because the statement itself is either the very fact in issue or
circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue.
▪ Some authorities call independent relevant statement as the “operative acts”
which give rise to legal consequences.
▪ An out-of-court statement introduced in court to impeach a previous witness is
another form of independently relevant statement.
6. Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule
• Exceptions to the hearsay rule:

a) Dying declarations;
b) Declarations against interest;
c) Act or declaration about pedigree;
d) Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree;
e) Common Reputation;
f) Part of the res gestae;
g) Entries in the course of business;
h) Entries in official records;
i) Commercial lists and the like;
j) Learned treaties;
k) Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.
• It is not correct to assert that the exceptions to the hearsay rule are not hearsay. They are
hearsay evidence but they are deemed admissible hearsay for certain reasons.
o Under appropriate circumstances, a hearsay statement may possess circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to justify non-production of the declarant in
person.
o Dictated by the necessity to admit an out-of-court statement.
o There exist a diminished risk of untrustworthiness because the motivation to lie is less
o There are no other or better evidence available to prove an act, such that their
admissibility is predicated on a compelling necessity.
• Exception to the hearsay rule in child abuse cases:
o Under Sec. 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, a hearsay statement of a
child which under the Rules of Court, is not admissible for being hearsay because the
facts testified to are not within his personal knowledge, may be admitted in evidence in
any criminal or non-criminal proceeding.
o The testimony is admissible provided the same be offered in child abuse cases and the
statement made by the child is one describing any actor attempted act of child abuse.
o Requisites:

a) The 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
before the hearsay statement may be admitted.
b) If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party,
require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for
cross-examination by the adverse party; and
c) When the child is unavailable (as when the deceased, suffers from physical
infirmity, mental illness, loss of memory, or because the child will be exposed to
severe psychological injury), the fact of such circumstance must be proved by
the proponent and the hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated
by other admissible evidence.
o In ruling the admissibility of the hearsay statement, the court shall consider the
a) Time,
b) Content, and
c) Circumstances surrounding the making of the statement which would provide
sufficient indicia of reliability.
o Certain factors are also to be considered by the court before deciding to admit the
statement like:
a) Motive to lie;
b) General character of the declarant child;
c) Number of persons who heard the statement;
d) To spontaneity of the making of the statement;
e) Timing of the making of the statement;
f) Relationship between the declarant child and the witness,
g) Remoteness of the possibility of a faulty recollection; and
h) Other circumstances surrounding the statement.
Section 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)
• A dying declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the utmost credence on
the premise that no person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and false
accusation. At the brink of death, all thoughts on concocting lies disappear.
• Reasons for admissibility:
a) Necessity – declarant’s death render it impossible his taking the witness stand, and it
often happens that there is no other equally satisfactory proof of the crime; allowing it,
therefore, prevents a failure of justice.
b) Trustworthiness – declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of
death, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most
powerful considerations to speak the truth.
• The law considers the point of death as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation
equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court.
• A 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.

o As long as the relevance is clear, a dying declaration may now be introduced in a
criminal or a civil action and the requirement of relevance is satisfied where the subject
of inquiry is the death of the declarant himself.
• A counsel who wants a dying declaration excluded must have to deal with the primary question
of whether or not the evidentiary foundations for the introduction of a dying declaration were
met.
o “objection, Your Honor. There is no foundation for the declaration”
o “objection, no basis”
o “objection, predicate not laid”
o “objection. No foundation. Declarant was not under the consciousness of an impending
death.”
• The kind of death which the declarant should be conscious of is a death that is impending.
o The declarant must be conscious that death is near and certain, that death is near at
hand, and what is said must have been spoken in the hush of its impending presence.
o Must have given up in the hope of surviving.
o “consciousness of an impending death” – important element.
• Aside from the statements of the declarant, consciousness of an impending death may be
established by other circumstances such as:
a) Nature of the injury;
b) Conduct of the declarant;
c) Statement by the physician that the victim is going to die.
o It is conceded that the attendant circumstances should be carefully weighed in
determining the consciousness of the impending death and the sincerity of such belief.
• All declarations, in favor or against the declarant, are admissible.
o It would be unfair to restrict the use of dying declarations by the prosecution. It is well-
settled that it will also be received on behalf of the defendant.
o The requirement that a dying declaration must relate to the cause and the
circumstances surrounding the declarant’s death may be a source for counsel’s
objection to the admission of the declaration.
• ELEMENTS:
1. The declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death;
2. It is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of an impending death;
3. The declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and
4. The dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the
declarant’s death.
• TEST: Whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as
certainly.
• Even if the utterances of the victim could not be appreciated as a dying declaration, his
statements may still be appreciated as part of the res gestae.
• Assailing a dying declaration:
o Although jurisprudentially considered as evidence of the highest order, it is submitted
that the admissibility of a dying declaration, like any admissible evidence, does not
create a presumption of credibility of the admitted declaration, it may be attacked in
the same manner as one would do to a testimony in open court.
o Example:

▪ The objector may show that prior to the admitted declaration, the declarant had
previously made a statement inconsistent with his supposedly dying declaration.
▪ Demonstrate that the declarant has no personal knowledge of the identity of
the assailant
▪ Declarant would not have been a competent witness even if he had survived.
Competence is affected where the declarant had no opportunity to see the
assailant. The declaration must identity the assailant; otherwise, it loses its
significance.
▪ Question the competency of the declarant himself who, like any other witness,
may also be impeached.
▪ Credibility or trustworthiness of those who have allegedly heard or taken down
the dying declaration and the form and manner by which the declaration was
taken are vital points to be considered by the objector.
Section 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)
• This is a well-settled exception which finds confirmation in human nature and experience.
People normally speak freely and even with untruth when the statement is in their interest, but
are usually unwilling to speak falsely against their interest.
• This exception refers to a declaration made by a person who, at the time of his declaration is
presented in evidence, is already dead or unable to testify. This declaration must be one which,
when made, was known to the declarant himself to be against his interest, pecuniary or moral,
and which could not have been made unless he believed it to be true. It is necessary that the
declarant knew that the statement was against his interest and which he would not have made
had it not been true.
• This exception will not apply where the declarant is available as a witness.
• If the declaration is favorable to the interest of the declarant, it is a mere self serving statement
and does not fall as an exception to the hearsay rule.
• As a rule, the interest against which the declaration may have been made should be ether a
pecuniary or moral interest but, in our jurisdiction, the declaration could possibly be against
one’s penal interest because if one admits to a crime, he is also civilly liable, a liability that is
pecuniary.
• Note that the declaration against interest made by the deceased, or by one unable to testify, is
admissible even against the declarant’s successors-in-interest or even against third persons.
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST ADMISSION
The declarant must be dead or unable to testify Admissible in evidence even if the person making
such is alive and is in court
Generally made before the controversy arises Made any time, even during trial
Against one’s pecuniary or moral interest Admissible as long as it is inconsistent with his
present claim or defense and need not be against
one’s pecuniary or moral interest.
Admissible even against third persons Admissible only against the party making the
admission

Exception to the hearsay rule Not an exception to the hearsay rule; admissible
not as an exception to any rule.
Section 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)
• To be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, it must be shown that:

a) The declarant is dead, or unable to testify;
b) The declarant is related by birth or marriage to the person whose pedigree is in issue;
c) The declaration was made before the controversy; and
d) The relationship between the 2 persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration.
• The declaration about pedigree may be received in evidence if the relationship is shown by
evidence other than the declaration.
• The word “pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It also
embraces facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.
Section 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)
• This exception involves:

a) A statement by a member of the family either by consanguinity or affinity;
b) The statement is about the reputation or tradition of the family in respect to the
pedigree of any member of the family; and
c) The reputation or tradition is one existing previous to the controversy.
• 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 aside from family tradition or reputation.
Section 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)
• Common Reputation is admissible in evidence where the reputation refers to a matter of public
or general interest, or respecting marriage or moral character and said matter is more than 30
years old.
• The common reputation must likewise be one existing prior to the controversy.
• This common reputation, on the other hand, be established by monuments and inscriptions.

• While common reputation in the community may establish a matter of public or general
interest, marriage or moral character, it CANNOT be establish pedigree. This is established by
reputation in the family and not in the community.
• Negative good reputation – absence of reports of bad reputation as when people do not talk
about the person.
• Various modes of proving moral character: (used when dictated by nature of the action, when
character is directly in issue or circumstantially relates to)
o Evidence of reputation
o Opinion testimony
o Evidence of specific conduct
• Ex. When you claim damages for reputation, evidence of the person’s character or reputation.
(defamation actions).
Section 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)
• The term res gestae is an old word which literally means “things done.
• Defined as “ those circumstances which are the undersigned incidents of a particular litigated
act and which are admissible when illustrative of such act.
• Refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to
illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main facts as to
exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.
• It can be observed that the use of res gestae in the Philippines is limited to two matters: (1)
spontaneous statements and (2) verbal acts.
• While the term remains in the rules, its application is restrictive and no other statement, act or
evidence may qualify as part of the res gestae.
• It has been held that in spontaneous exclamations or statements, the res gestae is the startling
occurrence, whereas in verbal acts, the res gestae are the statements accompanying the
equivocal act.
• Spontaneous statements:
o To be admitted in evidence, must have the following characteristics:
1. There is a startling event or occurrence taking place;
2. A statement was made while the event is taking place, or immediately prior to,
or subsequent thereto;
3. The statement was made before the declarant has time to contrive or devise a
falsehood.
4. The statement relates to the circumstances of the startling event or occurrence.
o Basis of admissibility: the statement was uttered under the circumstance where
opportunity to fabricate is absent.
▪ It is a reflex action rather than deliberate.
▪ It is a spontaneous declaration of an individual who has recently suffered an
overpowering and shocking experience is likely to be truthful.
▪ Spontaneity of the utterance is the guaranty of its trustworthiness.
o Objections to admissibility:
▪ Whether or not the event or occurrence is indeed a startling one.

▪ Whether or not the event is of such nature as to cause an excited reaction in an
average individual. If the event in itself is not sufficient to disturb the emotional
and mental equilibrium of the average, reasonable person, then raise this issue
with the court as soon as it becomes apparent that the event is not as startling
as that required by the rules.
▪ Whether or not the declaration was not made simultaneously with the event
but made sometime after. (This is a break for the opposing counsel who must
zero in on the time interval between the event and the making of the
statement.) (spontaneity is subject to judicial discretion)
▪ The matter of credibility. (This is when the fight is no longer on the ground of
admissibility of the declaration) (Let the Judge weigh the merits of your
opposition but do not surrender an inch of ground without a fight!)
▪ Whether or not the statement describes the event perceived. (The only
spontaneous statement made under the stress of excitement of the startling
event that qualifies for admissibility is one that relates to the circumstances of
the event)
• Verbal Acts
o The last sentence of Sec. 42 of Rule 130 defines a verbal act as “statements
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance.”
o Presupposes a conduct that is equivocal or ambiguous, one which, in itself, does not
signify anything when taken separately.
o It only acquires a meaning, specifically what the rules call a legal significance, only
because of the statements that accompany the act.
o Requisite to be admissible:
a) The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
b) The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
c) The statement must accompany the equivocal act;
d) The statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act.
o Objections to the admissibility of verbal acts depend upon whether or not the
proponent has established the foundations for admissibility. The objector must consider
the following questions:
a) Is there an act that is equivocal or ambiguous?
b) Will the statement accompanying the ambiguous or equivocal act explain the
act or give legal significance to it?
c) Is the equivocal act material to the issue?
▪ Materiality is necessary for relevance.
d) Does the statement accompany the equivocal act?
• This element is one distinction between a spontaneous statement and a
verbal act. A spontaneous statement may be prior to, simultaneous
with, or subsequent to the startling event or occurrence. This is not so
in a verbal act. The statement in the verbal act must ‘accompany’ the
equivocal act which evidently mean that it must be contemporaneous
with the act.
Section 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)
• This exception is commonly encountered in breach of contract suits and suits for collection of
some of money.
• The necessity for the admissibility of such evidence arises from the absence of the person who
has personal knowledge of the facts. He is absent because he is dead, outside of the jurisdiction
of the court or otherwise, unable to testify.
• Requisites:
a) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
b) The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer;
c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty,
whether legal, contractual, moral, or religious; and
e) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
• Rules on Electronic Evidence expressly exempt business records from the application of the
hearsay rule provided the mechanics of record-keeping of such records are shown by the
testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses. The reliability of business records is,
therefore, presumed. The presumption, however, may be overcome by evidence of the
untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the
preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
Section 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)
• Requisites for the admissibility in evidence of entries in official records, as an exception to the
hearsay rule:
a) The entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to
do so;
b) It was made by the public officer, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law;
c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him or her
stated, which must have been acquired by the public officer or other person personally
or through official information.
Section 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)
• Certain commercial lists and reports of matters of interest to persons engaged in a particular
occupation are admissible in evidence as exceptions to the hearsay rule, provided, they are
made by persons engaged in that occupation and are generally used and relied upon by them
and those lists and reports are published.

Section 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)
• History books and published findings of scientists fall within this exception provided that an
expert on the subject testifies to the expertise of the writer or the court takes judicial notice of
such fact.
Section 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)
• The testimony contemplated is one given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or

administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter. The testimony is given by one
who is now deceased or unable to testify,
• Said testimony may be given in evidence against the adverse party, provided the adverse party
had the opportunity to cross examine the witness who gave the previous testimony.
• Requisites:
a) The witness is dead or unable to testify;
b) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interest;
c) The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on
different cause of action;
d) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the
present case;
e) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case.
7. Opinion Rule
• GR: The opinion of a witness is inadmissible. This is because when a witness testifies, a witness
does so only with respect to facts personally observed by him and it is for the court to draw
conclusions from the facts testified to.
• XPN: When the opinion is that of an expert, i.e., the opinion of a witness requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, it may be received in
evidence.
o The court is not, however, bound by the opinion of an expert such as a handwriting
expert. Expert opinion evidence is to be considered or weighed by the court, like any
other testimony, in the light of its own general knowledge and experience upon the
subject of inquiry.
o Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. When faced with conflicting expert
opinions, courts give weight and credence to that which is more complete, thorough
and scientific.
o The opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the
expert’s function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its
own opinion.

Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following
sections. (42)
Section 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)\
• The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory
or opinion, but rather in the aid that he can render to the courts in showing the facts which
serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusions is
founded.
Section 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)
• When the opinion is that of a witness who is not an expert (ordinary witness), his testimony may
be admitted in evidence 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 a person with which the witness has sufficient familiarity;
c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and
d) The impressions of the witness of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person.
8. Character Evidence
• Character – the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an individual
person.
o `The general results of one’s distinguishing attributes.
o It refers to what a man is and depends on the attributes he possesses.
o What the person really is
o As a rule, is not admissible.
o It is generally irrelevant in determining a controversy because the evidence of a person’s
character or trait is not admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with such
character or trait in a particular occasion.
• Reputation – depends on the attributes which others believe one to possess.
o Character signifies reality while reputation signifies what is accepted to be reality at
present.

o What he is supposed to be in accordance with what people say he is, and is dependent
on how people perceived him to be.
• The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in
determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. After all, the
business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have a
righteous cause.
• In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot prove bad moral character of the accused in its
evidence-in-chief. It can only do so in rebuttal. This means that the prosecution may not offer
evidence of the character of the accused unless the accused himself has offered evidence of his
good moral character.
o The prosecution, therefore, must wait until the accused puts his character in issue
during the proceedings.
o Where the accused proves his moral character pertinent to the moral trait involved in
the offense charged, he opens the door to the prosecution to prove that his moral
character is, in fact, bad. Then and only then may this prosecution prove the bad moral
character of the accused.
Section 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.
• The accused may prove his good moral character when pertinent to the moral character
involved in the offense charged.
• While the prosecution is forbidden to present evidence of the bad moral character of the
accused unless in rebuttal. The general rule against “propensity evidence” does not apply to the
accused who is allowed to offer evidence of his good character. Not all aspects, however, of the
character of the accused may be proven.
• Only those moral traits involved in the offense charged are provable. In doing so, an accused
may advance more than one character trait as evidence so long as each trait is germane to some
issue in the case.
• When the accused presents proof of his good moral character, this strengthens the presumption
of innocence and, where god character and reputation are established, an inference arises that
the accused did not commit the crime charged. This view proceeds from the theory that a
person of goof character and high reputation is not likely to have committed the act charged
against him.
(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.
• As mentioned, prosecution is forbidden to initiate evidence of the bad moral character of the
accused.
• It prevents a pronouncement of guilt on account of his being a “bad” man and instead anchors a
conviction on the basis of the sufficiency of evidence of his guilt.

• The rule also prevents the inference that, being a bad person, the accused is more likely to
commit a crime. The rule likewise discourages the presentation of the so called “propensity
evidence” i.e. evidence that one acts in accordance with one’s character.
• The offering of evidence of good moral character is a privilege of the accused.
(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.
• Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this
provision but only whose which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense
charged. This means than the character evidence must be limited to the traits and
characteristics involved in the type of 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)
• 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.
• Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been
impeached.
• The following evidence, however, is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged
child sexual abuse under the “sexual abuse shield” rule:
a) Evidence to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
b) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim
o Under this rule, the accused is not allowed to prove the bad moral character of the
offended party. However, evidence of any of the above is admissible to prove that a
person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical
evidence.
RULE 131
Burden of Proof and Presumptions
• Presumption – 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 or otherwise established in the action.
-an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to
draw from proof of other facts.
-not evidence, it merely affect the burden of offering evidence.
-In a sense, a presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted
-rule of law directing that if a party probes certain facts (the basic facts) at the trial or
hearing, the factfinder must also accept an additional fact (the presumed fact) as proven
unless sufficient evidence is introduced tending to rebut the presumed fact.

-classified into :
1. Conclusive
2. Disputable
Section 1. Burden of proof. — 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. (1a, 2a)
• Burden of proof, or onus probandi, traditionally refers to the obligation of a party to a litigation
to persuade the court that he is entitled to relief.
• One who alleges a fact has the burden of proving the same.
• Mere allegation is not evidence.
• Burden of proof – duty of a party to present evidence not only to establish a claim but also a
defense
-duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence
against him.
• Generally, the burden of proof is on the party who asserts the issue at the beginning of the case.
If you make an affirmative defense, the burden is yours to prove that defense. Burden of proof
does not shift. It remains with you until the case is done.
• Civil cases – Preponderance of evidence – the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole,
superior to that of the other side.
• Administrative cases – complainant bears the onus in proving the averments of his complaint by
substantial evidence.
• Equipoise doctrine – based in the principle that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of the law.
-refers to the situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there is
doubt on which side the evidence preponderates (or weighs more heavily).
-decision should be against the party with the burden of proof.
-in criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that where the evidence is evenly
balances, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the
accused.
-The decision would be against the party with the burden of proof.
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) 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:
(b) 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. (3a)
• Based on the doctrine of estoppel – person making the representation cannot claim benefit
from the wrong he himself committed.
• Estoppel in pais or estoppel by conduct – estoppel is an equitable principle, rooted upon natural
justice, prevents a person from going back on their own acts and representations, to the
prejudice of others who have relied on them.
• Presumptions – it is an inference drawn from a given fact

a) Presumption of law – an accused is innocent of the crime charged until the contrary is
proven
b) Presumption of fact – It is evidentiary
• Presumption is conclusive if it is irrebuttable upon the presentation of the evidence and any
evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible.
• Presumption is disputable – if it may be contradicted or overcome by other evidence
Section 3. 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;
(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 with 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;
(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 such marriage, even
though 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 the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time.
(5a)
• Effect of disputable presumption : to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the
prima facie case created by the presumption. If no contrary proof is offered, the presumption
will prevail.
• Certain presumptions based on substantive law
1. Presumption of legitimacy of a child
2. Presumption that in case of separation of parents, that parent chosen by the child over
7 years of age is deemed vested with parental authority
3. Presumption of fraud on the donation of property by gratuitous title when the donor
cannot pay his debt
4. Presumed liabilities of an employer for the acts of their employees made within the
scope of their work
5. The ruling on the validity of claims for compensation, the document or conveyance is
only an equitable mortgage
6. The presumed fault of common carriers
7. The presumption that a driver was negligent if he have been found guilty or reckless
driving or violating the traffic rules
8. The presumption of liability for death arising from possession of weapons or substances.
• Presumptions based on established doctrines (not procedural)
1. A contract is what it purports to be
2. Res ipsa loquitur
Section 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)
RULE 132
Presentation of Evidence

A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
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)
• GR: Examination of the witness in open court. And the answers be given orally
XPN: Under the rules on summary procedure, in criminal cases, the affidavits of the parties shall
constitute their direct testimony of the witness who executed the same. In civil cases, the
parties are merely required to submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other pieces of
evidence on the factual issues, together with their position papers, setting forth the law and the
facts relied upon.
• The witness must take either an oath or affirmation but the option to do so is given to the
witness and not to the court.
• The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court and
under oath or affirmation. The answers of the witness shall be given orally except if: (a) the
wtiness is incapacitated to speak; (b) the question calls for a different mode of answer
• Oath – 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 to some statement.
• An affirmation is a substitute for an oath, and is a slomen and formal declaration that the
witness will tell the truth
• Consequence of refusal to take an oath or affirmation – testimony may be barred.
Section 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)
• The entire proceedings of the trial or hearing must be recorded.
Section 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)
• A witness admitted into the witness protection program cannot refuse to testify or give
evidence or produce books, documents, records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the
offense or offenses for which he has been admitted on the ground of the right against self-
incrimination.
• A witness has the right not to give an answer that would degrade his reputation. However, even
if the answer tends to degrade his reputation, he must answer the question if the degrading
answer (a) is the very fact in issue (b) refers to a fact which the fact in issue would be presumed
• If the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to take the stand. But a mere witness cannot
altogether refuse to take the stand. Before he refuses to answer, he must wait for the
incriminating question.
• When the child is testifying, the court may exclude the public and persons who do not have a
direct interest in the case, including members of the press.
• An application may be made for the testimony of the child to be taken in a room outside the
courtroom and be televised to the courtroom 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 should be of a kind which would
impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child. The application may be
made by the prosecutor, counsel or guardian ad litem at least 5 days before the trial date.
• Where a youthful offender has been charged before any city, or provincial prosecutor or any
municipal judge and the charges have been 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.
• Right against self incrimination may only be invoked the witness
• If a crime has 4 elements and the question will deal with 1 element, then that question has the
tendency to incriminate
• The privilege (self incrimination) does not apply when the prosecution and the conviction
precluded by prescription, pardon, prior acquittal and grant of immunity
• There are 2 kinds of statutes that protect witnesses from self—incrimination.
o Use immunity – if the witness invokes his right against self-cincrimination but he was
wrongfully compelled to answer the question asked him, his testimony cannot be used
for prosecuting him in a related crime
o Transactional immunity – if it is a grant of immunity to the witness from prosectution for
an offence to which his testimony relates.
Section 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)
Section 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)
• It is a procedure for obtaining information from one’s own witness in an orderly fashion.
• The purpose is to elicit facts about the client’s cause of action or defense.
• This is now subject to the Judicial affidavit rule.
Section 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 many 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)
• Question is designed to test the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness.

• GR: scope of the cross examination is not confined to the matters stated by the witness In the
direct examination
• XPN: Limited cross examination
a) Unwilling or hostile witness
b) Accused
• Cross examination has 2 basic purpose:
a) To bring out facts favorable to the counsel’s client not established by the direct
testimony
b) To enable counsel to impeach or to impair the credibility of the witness
• If a witness dies before his cross-examination is over, his testimony on the direct may be
stricken out only with respect to the testimony not covered by the cross-examination.
• If the witness is not cross-examined because of causes attributable to the cross-examining party
and the witness had always made himself available for cross-examination, the direct testimony
of the witness shall remain in the record and cannot be ordered stricken off because the cross-
examiner is deemded to have waived the right to cross-examine the witness.
• When may the court intervene and control the method and extent of corss-examination?
a) When it is a proceeding beyond that which is proper to test the accuracy and credibility
of the witness
b) When it is being needlessly protracted
c) When it is being conducted in a manner, which is unfair to the witness
d) When it is inconsistent with the decorum of the court room
• May the court itself call and examine a witness?
- Yes either motu proprio or on motion. It may use leading questions but its
examination must be fair.
***important
If the question is asked on direct, the short form of objection is “no basis”
If the question is asked on cross, the short form of objection is “misleading”

Section 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)
• Conducted after the cross-examination of the witness.

• The party who called the witness on direct examination may re-examine the same witness to
explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination.
• The counsel may elicit testimony to correct or repel and wrong impression or inferences that
may have been created in the cross examination.
• It may also rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been damaged.
• In its discretion, the court may even allow questions on matters not touched in the cross-
examination.
Section 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)
• The adverse party may question the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination and
also on such matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
Section 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)
Section 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)
• Leading question to a child witness - The court may allow leading questions in all stages of
examination of a child under the condition that the same will further the interest of justice.
-a leading question may be asked of a child only if there is difficulty of eliciting from said
child a direct and intelligible answer.

Section 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)
• Impeachment – basically a technique employed usually as a part of the cross examination to

discredit a witness by attacking his credibility.
• Guidepost in impeaching a witness:
a) The impeachment of a witness to be done by the party against whom the witness is
called
b) Subject to certain exceptions, the party producing the witness is barred from
impeaching his own witness
c) By way of XPN to the immediately preceding rule, if the witness is unwilling or hostile,
the party calling him may be allowed by the court to impeach the witness. Whether or
not a witness is hostile is addressed to the judicial evaluation and the declaration shall
be made only if the court is satisfied that the witness possesses an interest adverse to
the party calling him or there is adequate showing that the reluctance of the witness is
unjustified, or that he misled the party into calling him a witness.
A party may also be allowed to impeach his own witness when 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,
d) It is also improper for the party calling the witness to present evidence of the good
character of his own witness. The same is allowed only of the character of the witness
has been impeached. Thus, the evidence of the good character of the witness is allowed
only to rebut the evidence offered to impeach the witness’ character. If he has been
impeached, then he can be rehabilitated by evidence of his good character.
• Fairness demands that the impeaching matter be raised in the cross-examination of the witness
sought to be impeached by allowing him to admit or deny a matter to be used as the basis for
impeachment by contradictory evidence.
• Normally, the basis of this mode of impeachment is a declaration made by the witness in his
direct testimony.
• This mode of impeachment may also be used to contradict conclusions made by expert
witnesses during their testimonies. Usually, the adverse party may also call another expert to
testify to a contradictory conclusion.
• No impeachment by evidence of bad character (made up of things an individual actually is and
does) but by bad reputation (what people think an individual is and what they say about him).
• How do you impeach or discredit a witness?
o By contradictory evidence
o By prior inconsistent statement
o General reputation for truth, honesty or integrity
• Other modes of impeachment
o Involving him during cross-examination in contradiction
o Showing the impossibility or improbability of his testimony
o Proving action/conduct of the witness inconsistent with his testimony
o Showing interest, bias or hostile feeling against the adverse party.

• A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts. XPN : If prior conviction
for a wrong doing is shown. There is a prior conviction concerning his moral character.
•
Section 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.
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)
• Can the rule against impeaching witness apply in a criminal case:

o No. it only applies to a civil case
o It can never apply in criminal cases because the accused may be compelled to subpoena
witnesses whom he has not talked or acquainted himself. In such case he may impeach
such witness
o He may be forced to call some people who may say things against him.
o Will deprive the accused of a fair trial by suppressing witnesses.
Section 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)
• Prior inconsistent statements are statements made by a witness on an earlier occasion which
contradict the statements he later made during the trial.
• These inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach the credibility of the witness.
• Effectively impeaching a witness by prior inconsistent statements requires laying the proper
foundation for the impeachment. Laying the foundation, commonly referred to as “laying the
predicate”, is a preliminary requirement before the impeachment process prospers.
• Elements:
o That alleged statements must be related to the witness including the circumstance of
the times and places and the persons present. If the statements are in writing, they
must be shown to him
o He must be asked whether he made such statements and also to explain them of he
admits making those statements.
• The underlying purpose for laying the predicate is to allow the witness to admit or deny the
prior statement and afford him an opportunity to explain the same. He should have opposed to

recollect the facts and if necessary to correct the statement he gave; to give fairness to the
witness. It is essential to protect the character of the witness.
• Non-compliance with the foundation elements for this mode of impeachment will be a ground
for an objection based on “IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT”.
• If a witness admits prior inconsistent statement – rule requires that he be allowed to explain
• If a witness denies prior inconsistent statement – it is imperative for the impeaching party to be
prepared to present another witness who would contradict the witness being impeached.
• Is laying the predicate required when the defendant’s prior extrajudicial inconsistent statement
contains admissions against his interest? (ex. Oo nga, I owe him money. Is tat admission against
interest? Yes, but such statement is made to a neighbor, do you need to lay the predicate?)
o No, admission is independently admissible where defendant made prior extrajudicial
admission evidencing his liability, the adverse party may adduce testimony regarding
such admission without having laying the predicate. It is independently admissible as
admission against interest.
Section 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)
• The rule that bars evidence of the good character of the witness, who has not yet been
impeached, has reference only to a mere witness. It does not refer to an accused in a criminal
case.
• In a criminal case, the accused may prove his good moral character relevant to the offense
charged even before his character is attacked. However, the prosecution cannot initiate proof of
the bad character of the accused. It can only do so by way of rebuttal. This means that the
prosecution can prove the bad character of the accused only if the latter had first presented
evidence of his good character.
• A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts.
• There is, however, a particular wrongful act that is admissible in evidence under the same
section – his prior conviction of an offence. This prior conviction can be shown by a. his
examination (cross-examination), b. by presenting the record of his prior conviction
Section 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)
Section 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)

Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder, 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)
• The whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other party.
• Any other act, declaration, conversion, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also
be given in evidence. So long as you established a logical connection, it will run record, that will
give you a better understanding.
Section 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)
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
• The concept of “authentication” occupies a vital place in the presentation of evidence. Not only
objects but also documents introduced in evidence need to be authenticated.
• Authentication is the presentation of proof that a document or object evidence is what it is
claimed to be. It is the preliminary step in showing admissibility of an evidence.
• Presumption : An evidence presented in court is not presumed authentic. It is therefore
incumbent upon the proponent of the evidence to prove its authenticity .
• Document – a “deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved,
evidence or set forth.”
1. To be considered as documentary evidence, it must be “offered as proof of their
contents”
Section 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)
• Assumed to be included in this class of public documents are those acknowledged before an
officer, other than a notary public, authorized to administer oaths.
• Private document are those that do not fall under any of the enumerations in Sec. 19, Rule 132.

Section 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)
• When a private document is offered in evidence as authentic, there is a need to prove its due
execution and authenticity. If the document or writing is not offered as authentic, it only needs
to be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
• While it is a basic rule of evidence that the original copy prevails over a mere photocopy, there
is no harm if in a case, both the original and a photocopy thereof are authenticated, identified
and offered in evidence by the party proponent.
• The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused in some instances,
specifically:
a) When the document is an ancient one within the context of Sec. 21 Rule 132
b) When the genuineness and the authenticity of an actionable document have not been
specifically denied under oath by the adverse party under Sec. 8 rule 8
c) When the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted under Sec
4 rule 129
d) When the document is not being offered as authentic as implied from sec 20 rule 132,
which requires authentication only when the document is offered as “authentic”
Section 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)
• No necessity of observance of the authentication process.

• It must first be established first that the document is ancient and that it has the characteristics
of a document so provided under this section.
Section 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)
• Does not require expert testimony to prove a hand writing of a person.
Section 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)
• Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein
• A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative
agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a
notary public.
Public Documents Private Documents

Admissible in court without further proof of its Because it lacks the official or sovereign character
due execution and authenticity of a public document, or the solemnities
prescribed by law, requires authentication in the
manner allowed by law or the ROC before its
acceptance as evidence in court
Public document is admissible without further Before admission of a private document in
proof of its due execution and genuiness. evidence that is offered as authentic, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved.
Section 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 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)
• While a public document does not require the authentication imposed upon a private
document, there is a necessity for showing to the court that indeed a record of the official acts
of official bodies, tribunals or of public officers exists.
• The record of a public document may be evidence by:
a) An official publication thereof;
b) A copy of the document attested by the officer having legal cutody of the record or by
the attestation of his deputy;
-If the record is not kept in the Philippines – attestation must be accompanied
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
• To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Secs.
24 & 25 of Rule 132 as mentioned in the preceding topic. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or,

even if pleaded, is not proven, the presumption is that the foreign law is the same as Philippine
law. “Doctrine of Processual Presumption”
• A special power of attorney executed in a foreign state must contain a certificate of
authentication by a secretary of the Philippine 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.
• The court held that a notary public in a foreign country is not one pf those who can issue the
certificate mentioned in Sec. 24 of Rule 132. The court held that non-compliance with said
provision will render the special power of attorney inadmissible in evidence.
Section 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)
• A writing or document may be proven as a public official record of a foreign country by either 1.
An official publication or 2. A copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the
document.If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be a. accompanied by a
certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept b. authenticated by the seal of his
office.
Section 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)
• “irremovability of public records”
Section 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)
• In the case of a public record of a private document required by law to be entered in a public
record, the public document does not refers to the private document itself but to the public
record of that private document.
• May be proved by any of the following:
o By the original record
o By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the cutody.
Section 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)

• Proof of lack of record of a document consists of a written statement signed by the officer
having custody of an official record or by his deputy. The written statement must contain the
following matters:
a) That there has been a diligent search of the record;
b) That despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a specified tenor is found to exist
in the records of his office.
• The written statement must be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody of
official records.
Section 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)
• A judicial record refers to the record of judicial proceedings.

• Authorized the impeachment of any judicial record if there be evidence of the existence of any
of the following grounds provided for by Sec. 29 Rule 132
Section 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)
Section 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 innocent 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)
• The party producing the document as genuine but which bears alterations after its execution
has the duty to account for any alteration found in a document purported to be genuine. For
such purpose, he may show any of the ff:
a) That the alteration was made by another without his concurrence;
b) That the alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it
c) That the alteration was otherwise properly or innocently made
d) That the alteration did not n anyway change the meaning or language of the instrument
Failure to do any of the above will make the document inadmissible in evidence.
Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents
insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)
Section 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)
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

• An evidence must be formally offered. Under the ROC, the court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered.
• The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact
and judgement only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties.
• “The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered”. The document
should have been offered during the trial in the RTC.
A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for
identification; it must be formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunity to
object to it, cross examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it. A formal offer is
necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and judgment only, and strictly,
upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial.
IDENTIFICATION OFFER
Done in the course of the trial and is Done only when the party rests its case
accompanied by the marking of the evidence as
an exhibit
• A formal offer of evidence is not required in certain case, thus:

o In a summary proceeding, because it is a proceeding where there is no full-blown trial;
o Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of;
o Documents, affidavits and depositions used in rendering a summary judgment;
o Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or administrative cases
o 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.
• There were instances, however, when the court allowed the admission of evidence not formally
offered was held to be allowable provided certain requirements are present.
o The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded;
o The same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
• As to when the offer of evidence is made depends upon the nature of the evidence:
o As regards the testimony of the witness, the offer is to be made at the time the witness
is called to testify.
o As regards documentary and object evidence, they are to be offered after the
presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. The offer is orally made unless allowed
by the court to be in writing.
• The presentation of a documentary or object evidence for marking and identification during the
course of the trial is not the offer contemplated in the Rules. Failure to object the evidence at
this time should not be construed as a waiver of the objection.
• Objections to a documentary evidence shall be made after it is offered and the offer of such
evidence shall be made after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.
• Supreme Court rules that a party is not deemed to have waived objection to admissibility of
documents by his failure to object to the same when they were marked, identified an then
introduced during the trial. This is because objection to documentary evidence must be made at
the time it is formally offered and not earlier.
• An objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered and that a
documentary evidence is offered after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have
testified.

• A document or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for
identification – it must be formally offered”
• It is when the accused fails to object to the admissibility of certain items during their formal
offer, that he is deemed to have waived his right against their admissibility.
• How an offer of evidence is made:
o When a party makes a formal offer of his evidence,
▪ He must state the nature
▪ Or substance of the evidence, and
▪ The specific purpose for which the evidence is offered.
o The court shall consider the evidence solely for the purpose for which it is offered, not
for any other purpose.
• Objections; purpose of objections
a) To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm to a client’s cause. The rules
on evidence are not self-operating, and hence, must be invoked by way of an objection.
b) To protect the record, i.e. to present the issue of inadmissible of the offered evidence in
a way that if the trial court rules erroneously, the error can be relied upon as a ground
for a future appeal;
c) To protect a witness from being embarrassed on the stand or from being harassed by
the adverse counsel;
d) To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics like his consistently asking obviously leading
questions;
e) To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors and, at the same time,
warn the court that a ruling adverse to the objector may supply a reason to invoke a
higher court’s appellate jurisdiction;
f) To avoid a waiver of the inadmissibility of an otherwise inadmissible evidence.
• An objection must point out the specific grounds of the objection and, if it does not do so, no
error is committed in overruling it.
• An objector must be explicit as to the legal ground he invokes. He cannot simply manifest that
he is interposing an objection.
• He has to precisely state the exclusionary rule that would justify his opposition to the proffered
evidence.
• Examples of general objections: (in including everything, it specifies nothing)
a) “objection, the evidence is incompetent”
b) “Objection, Inadmissible”
c) Objection: Incompetent, Irelevant, and immaterial”
d) “objection: improper”
• Objections must be specific enough to adequately inform the court the rule on evidence or of
substantive law that authorizes the exclusion of the evidence. Examples:
a) “question calls for a hearsay answer”
b) “witness cannot testify on a privileged communication”
c) “the question calls for a conclusion”
d) “the question is beyond the scope of the direct examination”
e) “impeachment is improper”
• While an objection that the evidence is “incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial” is, by common
wisdom, concededly a general objection, some writers hold that an objection that the evidence
is “irrelevant” may, at times, not be general. This kind of objection states “a distinct and
substantial ground for exclusion”

• Necessarily, when the evidence clearly is one which does not prove a fact in issue, with no
probative value and with no relationship to the fact in issue, with no probative value and with
no relationship to the fact in issue, or inadmissible for any purpose and no other objection is
possible, there is no other ground for the objection except to say that it is “irrelevant”. In such a
situation, this should be deemed as substantially the equivalent of a specific objection.
• The rule on specificity is dictated largely by the need to allow the court to intelligently rule on
the objection and give the other party an opportunity to withdraw the evidence or correct an
error in his presentation. The rule, however, does not impose a general or an absolute ban on
general objections. There is no compelling need to specify the ground, “if the ground for
exclusion should have been obvious to the judge or to counsel.
Formal objections Substantive objections

One directed against the alleged defect in the One made and directed against the very nature of
formulation of the question the evidence. It is inadmissible either because it
is irrelevant or incompetent or both
Ex: ambiguous questions, leading and misleading
questions, repetitious questions, multiple Ex: Parol, not the best evidence, hearsay,
questions, argumentative questions privileged communication, not authenticated,
opinion, res inter alios acta.
• Objections must be timely. When a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he
must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for
the first time on appeal.
• In order to be timely, therefore the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity
(depends upon the manner the evidence is offered).
o If the evidence is offered orally, objection to the evidence must be made immediately
after the offer is made.
o An objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of the
witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent;
o An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer
unless a different period is allowed by the court.
• It is therefore assumed that an objection to the evidence before it is offered is premature and
no adverse inference may be had against a party who does not object to the evidence before it
is offered.
• Where the witness is quick to answer: counsel must, object, state his reasons, and move to
strike out the answer. This is the technique which the lawyer avails of when he does not have
the opportunity to object before the witness responds. Should the witness persist in giving
lightning quick responses, counsel should request the judge to direct the witness to allow
opposing counsel to object prior to his answer.
• A motion to strike may be availed off in the following:
a) When the answer is premature;
b) When the answer of the witness is irrelevant, incompetent or otherwise improper;
c) When the answer is unresponsive;
d) When the witness becomes unavailable for cross-examination through no fault of the
cross-examining party;

e) When the testimony was allowed conditionally and the condition for its admissibility
was not fulfilled.
• Sometimes, an apparently unobjectionable question brings out an objectionable and
inadmissible response. But the infirmity of the response becomes apparent only after it is
completed. If the answer is damaging, then relief may be obtained by a motion to strike.
• An objection to a witness’s disqualification in general must be made as soon as he is called to
stand and before his examination begins.
• Waiver of objections: belated objections
o It is a rule of evidence that any objection against the admission of any piece of evidence
must be made at the proper time, and that, if not made, it will be understood to have
been waived. The proper time to make a protest or an objection is when, from the
question addressed to the witness, or from the answer thereto, or from presentation of
the proof, the inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may be inferred.
o The term “waiver” implies the existence of a right, claim, privilege or something one is
entitled to. It is, by its nature, a unilateral act. It need not, however, be a positive act. A
waiver may result from failure to perform an act.
o Applied to objections, there is a waiver when there is failure to point out some defect,
irregularity or wrong in the admission or exclusion of evidence. May be expressed or
implied.
o A failure to assert an objection promptly and specifically is a waiver. Unless a timely and
sufficient objection is made to an evidence introduced, the reviewing court will not
ordinarily consider the question of the propriety of the admission of the evidence. It will
not be considered on appeal because there is deemed to be a waiver.
o When an objection to evidence if deemed waived, he waives objecting to its
admissibility.
o A waiver should not be construed as an admission that the evidence is credible. It does
not mean that the non-objecting party waives his right to prevent controverting
evidence. It involves waiver of objection to tow matters, namely, the relevance and the
competence of the evidence.
o The court once held “that admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight
of evidence.”
Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 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)
• It shall not be necessary to repeat an objection when it becomes reasonably apparent, while the
witness is being examined, that he is asked questions which are of the same class as those to
which an objection has already been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled.
• Instead of repeating the objection to be recorded as a “continuing objection” to such class of
objectionable questions.
Section 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)
• The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made except when the
court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. However, the
court must give its ruing during the trial and at such time as will give the party an apportunity to
meet the situation.
• If the court fails to rule on the objection, the same should be brought to the attention of the
court.
• “sustained” – the judge considers the question as improper and the witness will not be allowed
to answer. This means exclusion of a testimonial evidence.
• “overruled” – the question is proper and the witness will be allowed to answer.
• The ruling of the court sustaining or overruling the objection need not be stated except of the
objection is based on 2 or more grounds. The ruling sustaining the objection must specify the
ground/grounds relied upon.
Section 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)

Section 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)
• Why make a tender of evidence:

o First, to allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary
evidence and convince the trial judge to permit the evidence or testimony.
o Second, even if he is not convinces to reverse his earlier ruling, the tender is made to
create and preserve a record for appeal.
• How the tender is made:
o When evidence involved is documentary, or object evidence, the tender is made by
having the document or object attached to or made part of the record.
o First, It is for the offering counsel to produce, describe, identify the object or document,
and in case of the latter, state the contents of the document that is sought to be
admitted where the substance of the same is not apparent on its face. Reading the
substance of the document is an accepted way of stating its contents for the record in
states which recognize a tender. A disclosure of the contents of the document is
necessary in order to aid the court in determining its competence.
o The next step is to state the purpose for which the object or document sought to be
attached is offered, ad to ask that it be marked for identification and have it attached to
the record.
o If the evidence excluded is testimonial, the offeror may state for the record the name
and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed
testimony.
▪ Two traditional methods.
1. Where the counsel tells the court what the proposed testimony will be.
This is the method prescribed in the ROC. After stating for the record
the name and other personal circumstances of the witness.
o Has advantage of brevity and efficiency but it does not create a
record as the second method
2. The second is using the question and answer form.
▪ Whichever method is to be used lies in the discretion of the trial court.
▪ Whichever method or tender is used, the advocate must see to it that that offer
must be specific enough to contain the facts and circumstances of the matter
sought to be proved by the excluded evidence.
o The tender is not meant to be a mere manifestation to the court in mere general terms.
It must not be in the form of conclusions of fact. The offer must make reference to the
details of the excluded testimony or excluded document.
• If the document tendered is not described or identified, its substance stated in vague and
general terms or when the purpose for which it is offered is not declared then the evidence has
to be objected to. If the testimony tendered is in the form of a conclusion and, this, fails to
disclose sufficient information to enable the court and other party to determine its admissibility,
the same may, likewise, be the target of an objection. To have a contrary rule and confer
immunity from objection to such type of evidence would be to grant a favored status to
evidence initially excluded by the trial court.

Formal offer of evidence Offer of proof
Refers either to the offer of the testimony of a The process by which a proponent of an excluded
witness prior to the latter’s testimony, or the evidence tenders the same. If what has been
offer of the documentary and object evidence excluded is testimonial evidence, the tender is
after a party has presented his testimonial made by stating for the record the name and
evidence. other personal circumstances of the proposed
witness ad the substance of his proposed
testimony. If the evidence excluded is
documentary or of things, the offer of proof is
made a part of the record.
Loosely, it has been referred to as formal offer of
exhibits where object and documentary
evidences are to be offered.
• The ROC does not prohibit a party from requesting the court to allow it to present additional
evidence even after it has rested its case.
RULE 133
• In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused lies with the prosecution
because of the presumption that the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven.
• Fraud – by reason of public policy, requires a higher burden of persuasion. : Clear and
Convincing evidence (a little higher than substantial evidence)
• Clear and convincing evidence – produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or
conviction as to allegations sought to be established.
• In assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic evidence, certain factors may be considered,
like:
a) The reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or
communicated.
b) The reliability of the manner in which it was originator was identified
c) The integrity of the information and communication system
d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the
communication and information system
e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication
and information system
f) Other factors which the court may consider
-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.
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
• Substantial evidence – that is what a reasonable mind consider adequate to justify a conclusion.
A reasonable mind is the one who can see logic and reason.
• Kinds of evidence based on value

o Proof beyond reasonable doubt – highest
o Clear and convincing evidence
o Preponderance of evidence
o Substantial evidence
• Clear and convincing evidence – it produces in the mind of the trier of fact, a firm belief or
conviction as to allegations sought to be established. The rule does not provide when do you
apply this kind of evidence. Some examples are in cases of extradition. Acts of notarizing public
document, in acts to establish bad faith, to prove fraud and forgery in a civil action, in
reconveyance of property, to prove frame-up in drugs cases, to prove denial or alibi, to warrant
award of moral damages in labor cases and to overcome the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty by police officer.
-There is no pattern in the SC’s demand for clear and convincing evidence. If the charge
appears to be more serious than civil cases, but less serious than criminal case, it
requires clear and convincing evidence. Although there is no rational common thread.
• Factors to be considered in assessing the probative weight of electronic evidence:
1. The manner the evidence was generated
2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified
3. The integrity of the information and communication
4. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the
communication and information system
5. The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and
information system.
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — 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 all the facts and
circumstances of the case, 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, their 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 the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater
number. (1a)
• Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either
side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of evidence” or
“greater weight of the credible evidence”
• What must the court consider in determining where lie the preponderance of superior weight of
evidence on the issues involved?
1. All the facts and circumstances of the case
2. The witness’ manner of attesting, 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. Witness’ interest or ant 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 mean that the preponderance is necessarily
with the greater number.

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — 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. (2a)
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt – a degree of proof which produces conviction in an

unprejudiced mind.
• Only moral certainty is required.
Section 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)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for

conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (5)
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, 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. (n)
• Substantial evidence – such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
- More than just a scintilla or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, showing a reasonable
connection.
• Administrative cases - does not require evidence that is overwhelming or even preponderant.
Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the introduction of further
testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to
the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be
exercised with caution. (6)
Section 7. Evidence on motion. — When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court
may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may
direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (7)
RULE 134

Perpetuation of Testimony
Section 1. Petition. — A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another person
regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines, any file a verified petition in
the court of the province of the residence of any expected adverse party.
Section 2. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall
show: (a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines by is
presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought; (b) the subject matter of the expected action and
his interest therein; (c) the facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his
reasons for desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the names of a description of the persons he expects will be
adverse parties and their addresses so far as known; and (e) the names and addresses of the persons to
be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each, and shall ask for
an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons to be examined named in the
petition for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony.
Section 3. Notice and service. — The petitioner shall thereafter serve a notice upon each person named
in the petition as an expected adverse party, together with a copy of a petition, stating that the
petitioner will apply to the court, at a time and place named therein, for the order described in the
petition. At least twenty (20) days before the date of hearing the notice shall be served in the manner
provided for service of summons.
Section 4. Order of examination. — If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may
prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall make an order designating or describing the persons whose
deposition may be taken and specifying the subject matter of the examination, and whether the
depositions shall be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The depositions may then
be taken in accordance with Rule 24 before the hearing.
Section 5. Reference to court. — For the purpose of applying Rule 24 to depositions for perpetuating
testimony, each reference therein to the court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to
the court in which the petition for such deposition was filed.
Section 6. Use of deposition. — If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this rule, or if,
although not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be used in any action involving the
same subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule
24.
Section 7. Depositions pending appeal. — If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of the Regional
Trial Court or before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not expired, the Regional Trial Court
in which the judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate
their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party who
desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion in the said Regional Trial Court for leave to take
the depositions, upon the same notice and service thereof as if the action was pending therein. The
motion shall show (a) the name and the addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of
the testimony which he expects to elicit from each; and (b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony.
If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice, it
may make an order allowing the depositions to be taken, and thereupon the depositions may be taken

and used in the same manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed in these rules for
depositions taken in actions pending in the Regional Trial Court. (7a)

[A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, 4 September 2012]
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Whereas, case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed
each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place;
Whereas, about 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that complainants simply
give up coming to court after repeated postponements;
Whereas, few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines because its courts are
unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their investments, keeping its people poor;
Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under
litigation, on February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City
the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;
Whereas, it is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time
used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of
cases;
Whereas, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, headed by Senior
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and the Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules on Civil
Procedure, headed by Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, have recommended for adoption a Judicial
Affidavit Rule that will replicate nationwide the success of the Quezon City experience in the use of
judicial affidavits; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court En Banc finds merit in the recommendation;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby issues and promulgates the following:
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.

(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating
officers shall be uniformly referred to here as the “court.”
Sec. 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
• Modifies the existing practice in the court of a trial and reception of evidence by doing away
with the usual oral examination of a witness in a direct examination.
(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.
• Documentary or object evidence to be attached
(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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
• The rule integrated an element of the inquisitorial system which allows the court to have an
active role in the proceedings. The rule mandates the court to take active part in examining the
witness to
a) Determine the
I. Credibility of the witness
II. Truth of his testimony
b) Elicit the answers that it needs in resolving the case
• The question of the court must not, therefore, be confined to mere clarificatory questions.

Sec. 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.
Sec. 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 of 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
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.
Sec. 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 P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
• The waiver would mean that a party who failed to submit the judicial affidavit of a particular
witness would have no direct testimony for that witness and the documentary or object
evidence integrated with such affidavit could not be identified, marked as an exhibit, and
authenticated. In effect, the exhibit could not be offered in evidence
(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 Pl,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
• Requisites:
a) Submission shall be allowed only once
b) The delay is for a valid reason
c) The delay would not unduly prejudice the opposing party
d) The punlic or private counsel responsible for the preparation and submission of the
affidavit pays a fine of not less than 1000 or more than 5000 at the discretion of the
court.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.

STP Notes - Evidence (v.1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

STP Notes - Evidence (v.1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Reference: Justice Abad’s lecture, Dean Riano’s book)

• To be considered as evidence, it must be “sanctioned or allowed by the Rules of Court.

FACTUM PROBANDUM (object of evidence) FACTUM PROBANS (means of ascertaining)

• For evidence to be admissible, two elements must concur, namely:

• A matter is collateral when it is on a “parallel or diverging line”, merely “additional” or

CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS

• Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – “false in one thing, false in everything”

What Need Not Be Proved

• Requisites of discretionary judicial notice

• Justice Abad : motu proprio and upon motion of the parties

◄NK► EVIDENCE |10

A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

• It is the real thing itself. It consist of tangible things.

◄NK► EVIDENCE |11

◄NK► EVIDENCE |12

a) Detailed testimony as to the qualifications of the operator

◄NK► EVIDENCE |13

a) A biological sample exist

◄NK► EVIDENCE |14

Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material

◄NK► EVIDENCE |15

1. Best Evidence Rule

◄NK► EVIDENCE |16

• Secondary evidence other than the original itself.

Section 4. Original of document. —

◄NK► EVIDENCE |17

◄NK► EVIDENCE |18

3. Parol Evidence Rule

◄NK► EVIDENCE |19

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)

◄NK► EVIDENCE |20

Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule

◄NK► EVIDENCE |21

◄NK► EVIDENCE |22

◄NK► EVIDENCE |23

• Prevaricating witness – one who has given contradicting testimonies

◄NK► EVIDENCE |24

◄NK► EVIDENCE |25

◄NK► EVIDENCE |26

◄NK► EVIDENCE |27

• Privileged communications apply even to electronic evidence. The confidential character of a

◄NK► EVIDENCE |28

Disqualification by reason of privileged Disqualification by reason of marriage

• The following requisites must be present for the privilege to arise:

◄NK► EVIDENCE |29

• Applies only to civil cases whether the patient is a party or not.

◄NK► EVIDENCE |30

• What kind of confession does this privilege contemplate?

• It is interest of the public that is sought to be protected by the rule

◄NK► EVIDENCE |31

3. Admissions and Confessions

◄NK► EVIDENCE |32

• The declarations referred to applies to extrajudicial declarations, when he testifies as a witness,

◄NK► EVIDENCE |33

◄NK► EVIDENCE |34

◄NK► EVIDENCE |35

◄NK► EVIDENCE |36

EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

• A confession must be considered in its entirety including exculpatory statement. (Exculpatory –

4. Previous Conduct as Evidence

◄NK► EVIDENCE |37

• Concept of admission and confessions: