The quantum of evidence required in administrative

cases is substantial evidence

Posted on January 25, 2012by Erineus
Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the
removal or dismissal from service of the erring public officer or employee,
together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility,
forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from
reemployment in government service. Hence, a finding that a public officer or
employee is administratively liable for such charges must be supported by
substantial evidence.

The quantum of evidence required in administrative cases is substantial

evidence. The landmark case Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial
Relations[67] laid down the guidelines for quasi-judicial administrative
proceedings, including the following:
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion
(City of Manila vs. Agustin, G. R. No. 45844, promulgated November 29,
1937, XXXVI 0.G. 1335), but the evidence must be “substantial.” (Washington,
Virginia& Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U.
S.142, 147, 57 S. Ct.648, 650, 81 Law. ed. 965.) “Substantial evidence is
more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” (Appalachian Electric Power v. National Labor Relations
Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson
Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National
Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) * * * The statute provides
that ‘the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be
controlling.’ The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free
administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere
admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial
proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. (Interstate
Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law.
ed. 860; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.,
227 U. S. 88, 93, 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; United States v. Abilene &
Southern Ry. Co., 265 U. S. 274, 288, 44 S. Ct. 565, 569, 68 Law. ed. 1016;
Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States, 280 U. S. 420, 442, 50 S. Ct. 220,
225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in
administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders
without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere
uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial
evidence. (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S.
Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.) “
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected.(Interstate Commence Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co.,
227U. S. 88, 33S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed. 431.) Only by confining the
administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter
be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. It should
not, however, detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced,
and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence
and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. Boards
of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining
the facts in any given case, but their report and decision are only advisory.
(Section 9, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the Petition at bar, great, if not absolute, reliance was made by the
Office of the Ombudsman on the Complaint of the PNP-CIDG and the
attached Joint Affidavit of its investigating officers. Although certain pieces of
documentary evidence were also attached to the said Complaint, such as TCTs
and tax declarations of the real properties in the names of petitioner, his wife,
and his children, and the travel information provided by the BID, these mostly
prove facts which were not denied by petitioner, but for which he had credible
explanation or qualification. These pieces of evidence may have been
sufficient to give rise to a prima facie presumption of unlawfully acquired
wealth against petitioner; however, such a presumption is disputable or
rebuttable. When petitioner presented evidence in support of his
defense, the Office of the Ombudsman proceeded to question and
challenge and, ultimately, disregard in totality petitioner’s
evidence, despite the fact that the PNP-CIDG no longer presented
any evidence to controvert the same.
Each party in an administrative case must prove his affirmative
allegation with substantial evidence – the complainant has to prove the
affirmative allegations in his complaint, and the respondent has to prove the
affirmative allegations in his affirmative defenses and counterclaims.[68] In
this case, contrary to the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman and the
Court of Appeals, this Court pronounces that substantial evidence sways in
favor of the petitioner and against complainant PNP-CIDG.
While this Court commends the efforts of the PNP-CIDG and the Office
of the Ombudsman to hold accountable public officers and employees with
unexplained wealth and unlawfully acquired properties, it cannot countenance
unsubstantiated charges against a hapless public official just to send a
message that the government is serious in its campaign against graft and
corruption. No matter how noble the intentions of the PNP-CIDG
and the Office of the Ombudsman are in pursuing this
administrative case against petitioner, it will do them well to
remember that good intentions do not win cases; evidence does.

Some jurisprudence on
administrative cases involving
grave misconduct
By

Toni Umali, Esq.

February 22, 2015

OUR last column discussing a hypothetical

case on dishonesty generated several comments and requests for us to discuss
other offenses that may have been committed by the “respondent” in said
hypothetical case.

So our hypothetical case is about a government official supposedly signing a

document “without authority” and/or “without any legal basis” as the attached
documents are either inexistent or falsified. The facts of the case also indicate
that there is no evidence to establish the government official’s intent to lie,
cheat, defraud or steal (and no evidence to prove that it is the respondent, who
falsified the attached documents or the respondent knows that the said
documents are falsified).

In the previous column, we mentioned that there is no dishonesty. However, for

this column, we wish to add that there may be some other offenses committed
(though not dishonesty) depending on the facts of the case.

For example, the additional facts of the case is that the respondent government
official (let’s call him “Mr. X”) under the aforementioned situation knows that
the authority to sign that document lies with the head of his division and that he
is just claiming that it is okay for him to sign such document because the head is
“absent or is on leave.” Mr. X’s colleagues said, “he should wait for the head of
the office to sign the document,” but he insisted since “the same document shall
be reviewed by some other higher authorities in the region anyway and so it is
now up to such higher authorities to disallow the act he has done.”

What happened now in our hypothetical case is that the “higher authorities in
the region” approved the document signed by Mr. X, and then authorized some
payments to some third persons based on that document, since the “higher
authorities in the region” just approved the document signed by Mr. X without
even reviewing the document that he is approving. (Please take note that Mr. X
is not even designated as the “officer in charge” of his division.)
Without discussing the liability of the “higher authorities in the region,” Mr. X
may be held liable here for Grave Misconduct.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,

more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules which must be
proved by substantial evidence. [Please see Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma,
G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005, citing BIR v. Organo, 424 SCRA 9
and CSC v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486 (1999)]

In this case, Mr. X knew that he has no authority to sign. Mere absence of the
head of the office does not necessarily give Mr. X the authority to sign the
documents that may only be validly signed by the head of such office. Mr. X’s
contention—that “the same document shall be reviewed by some other higher
authorities in the region anyway and so it is now up to such higher authorities to
disallow the act he has done”—is totally misplaced and has no legal leg to stand
on.

Thus, the aforementioned circumstances should demonstrate Mr. X’s willful

intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules making him liable for
grave misconduct.

As previously stated, under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the

Civil Service (RRACCS) promulgated in November 8, 2011, by the CSC,
administrative offenses are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on
their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.

Thus, under Section 46, Rule 10 of RRACCS, grave misconduct is a grave

offense punishable by dismissal from the service. “Simple misconduct” is a less
grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six
months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.

Misconduct may be considered simple if the additional elements of corruption,

willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules are not present.
(Please see also Samson v. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011)

This column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any particular
case as each case is unique and should be construed in light of the attending
circumstances surrounding such particular case.

Administrative cases; quantum of proof - A.M. No. P-07-2369

A.M. No. P-07-2369

"x x x.

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is

substantial evidence or such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support
a conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations in the complaint.[19]

In the present case, there is no sufficient, clear and convincing evidence to hold Divina
administratively liable for Gross Misconduct as charged in the undated anonymous letter. As
found during the investigation, apart from the allegation of the “Concerned Citizen,” not a
scintilla of evidence was proffered to establish that she demanded and solicited the amount of
₱20,000.00 from a party in a pending case before the RTC in exchange for the prompt
preparation of the TSN. It bears to point out that the author of the undated anonymous letter
never came out in the open to testify before the Investigating Judge to support his claim that
Divina had engaged in an illegal activity to make money out of a case pending before the RTC.

Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. This brings to fore the application of the age-old but
familiar rule that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it for mere allegation is not
evidence. Reliance on mere allegation, conjectures and suppositions will leave an
administrative complaint with no leg to stand on.[20] The allegation of “Concerned Citizen” that
Divina attempted to extort ₱20,000.00 has remained as such and, thus, cannot be admitted as
evidence, let alone given evidentiary weight. As it stands, this charge of attempted extortion
has remained unsubstantiated and, hence, should be dismissed.

The charge of belligerent/arrogant behavior against Divina must likewise fail. A circumspect
scrutiny of the records has revealed that the testimony of Atty. Camacho is inadequate to
establish his claim and to hold her liable for misconduct. The Court fully subscribes to the
findings of the Investigating Judge whose observation deserves to be quoted at length, thus:

Apropos the incident between complainant Camacho and the respondent, the Investigating
Judge is at a loss on how to make a categorical disposition. The testimony of complainant
Camacho is as credible as that of respondent’s insofar as the incident in question is concerned.
Although this Investigating Judge was present when the spat took place, his attention was
focused at a case then being heard. It would have been easier for the Investigating Judge to
make a clear-cut finding had complainant Camacho or respondent, on their own, offered the
testimony of Atty. Eliodoro S. Baluyot or of any other person who may have been an eyewitness
in support of their versions. Verily, some leeway must be allowed to the justification proffered
by respondent. It is not hard to imagine the situation the respondent was in at the time of the
incident. She should have all eyes and ears at the hearing then in progress, and yet, a lawyer in
front of her kept on asking her about a copy of a TSN which is not even due to him but to some
other lawyer. This is not to say, however, that the respondent should be absolved entirely of
what had happened between her and complainant Camacho. The fact is that a TSN was due
from her and it took a lot of requests from said complainant before she made it available. xxx [21]

The Court has always stressed that the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the
administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy
burden of responsibility.[22] All court personnel must observe strict propriety and decorum to
preserve and maintain the public’s respect for and trust in the judiciary. Needless to say, every
act and word of all court personnel should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy
and diligence.

In this case, Divina’s demeanor at the time was nothing but an isolated emotional outburst
after beingapparently distracted from taking down stenographic notes of a proceeding because
of the repetitious and annoying requests of Atty. Camacho for a copy of the TSN, not for
himself, but for his lawyer friend. To the mind of the Court, Divina’s conduct was not of such
deplorable and contemptible nature that would serve as valid basis to slap her with an
administrative and disciplinary sanction in view of the facts obtaining in this case. Besides,
there is no showing that her behavior at that time was calculated merely to disrespect,
humiliate or insult Atty. Camacho before those present during the hearing. It is significant to
note that Atty. Camacho has not cited any other similar incident to validate his accusation of
her alleged belligerent attitude towards him.

Meanwhile, the accusation of extortion by Ricardo against Divina is bereft of merit and, hence,
must also be dismissed. The charge of extortion is a factual matter which must be established
and proved with sufficient competent evidence. Complainant, upon whom rests the burden of
proving his cause of action, failed to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he
based his claim. No clear and solid proof was offered by Ricardo to show that Divina demanded
money from him in exchange for immediate preparation of his TSN. As found by the
Investigating Judge, Ricardo even admitted that he voluntarily gave money to Divina each time
the latter would ask for it because he believed that this would expedite the transcription of
their stenographic notes.

The Court is in full accord with the findings and evaluation of the Investigating Judge whose
assessment and appreciation of evidence are quite competent and convincing. An accusation of
extortion is a very serious charge which, if properly substantiated, would entail not only the
respondent’s dismissal from the Judiciary but also a possible criminal prosecution. To be sure, it
will take more than a mere ambiguous testimony of a lone witness to lend an aura of credibility
to such accusation.

x x x."
 DEAN RIANO EVIDENCE FINALS REVIEWER and
LAST MINUTE TIPS by Bimby and Klowee

DEAN RIANO EVIDENCE FINALS REVIEWER and LAST MINUTE TIPS

by Bimby and Klowee

1. Memorize Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

Falsus in uno vs. Falsus in Omnibus means “false in one thing, false in everything”

*interpretation is not strict

*While the witnesses may differ in their recollections of an incident, it does not necessarily follow
from their disagreements that all of them should be disbelieved as liars and their testimonies
completely discarded. It is not a positive rule of law. The witness must have a conscious and
deliberate intention to falsify a material point.

2. Distinguish Factum Probans vs. Factum Probandum

Factum Probandum Factum Probans

Ultimate Facts Material evidencing the proposition

Hypothetical Existent.

a. Factum probandum is the fact or proposition to be established

b. Factum Probans the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established
 *Example: If P claims to have been injured by the negligence of D who denies having been
negligent, the negligence of D and the causal connection between such negligence, and the
injuries of P taken as a whole = Factum Probandum

The evidence offered by P, whether it be object, documentary or testimonial, constitute the

materials to prove the liability of D. The totality of the evidence to prove the liability refers to
the Factum Probans

*If the defendant admits his negligence in his answer to the complaint, there is no more need to
prove negligence. Hence, negligence ceases to be a factum probandum in this case.

*if the factum probandum “signifies the fact or proposition to be established,” then matters of 1)
judicial notice, 2)conclusive presumptions, 3)judicial admissions cannot qualify as parts of the
factum probandum of a particular case, because such matters need not be established or
proven.

*Factum probandum in civil case refers to the elements of a cause of action from the point of
view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from the point of view of the defendant.

*In criminal cases factum probandum includes all matters that the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction.

3. Can Rules of Evidence be used in non-judicial proceedings?

The rules of evidence, being parts of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings (Sec.
1 Rule 128)

*Sec.4. In what cases not applicable. – These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land
registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceeding, and other cases not herein
provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient.

Ex. Not applicable in Administrative bodies, CSC, Petition for naturalization, labor cases

4. Best Evidence Rule (Original document rule) (primary evidence rule)

a. Concept

i. Original of the document must be produced; When the subject matter of the inquiry is the
contents of a document , no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself,

b. Exceptions to the rule

 i. When the original has been lost, or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;

ii. 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;

iii. 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

iv. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office.

*Involves only the contents of a writing. The rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of a
writing is the subject of judicial inquiry, in such case; the best evidence is the original writing
itself.

*Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or the circumstances
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and the testimonial evidence is
admissible.

*Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on
the circumstance relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply
and testimonial evidence is admissible.

*The best evidence rule applies only when the purpose is to establish the terms of a writing.
When the evidence introduced concerns some external facet about a writing like its existence,
execution or delivery without reference to its terms, the rule cannot be invoked. The subject of
inquiry under the best evidence rule it the CONTENTS of a writing, NOT THE TRUTH thereof.
Where the truth is in issue, the hearsay rule will now be involved.

c. Illustrative applications

i. 1994 Bar At the trial of ace for the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers
in evidence a photocopy of the marked bills used in the “buy-bust” operation. Ace objects to the
introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule prohibits the
introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original is the photocopy admissible in
evidence?

1. Yes, the photocopy of the bills being object evidence is admissible in evidence without violation
of the best evidence rule. The rule applies only to documentary evidence and not to object
evidence.

*The reason for the best evidence rule is the prevention and detection of fraud.

*The best evidence rule may be waived if not raised in the trial

*If the original be presented in evidence

 1) Find a legal excuse for failure 2) present secondary evidence

If secondary evidence is to be offered in evidence, like a copy, the proponent has to lay the
basis for the admission of the copy of the document.

Excuses for not presenting the original

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith
on the part of the offeror;

2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence
is offered and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice

3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents cannot be examined in
court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be establish is only the general result of
the whole; and

4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office.

*How to lay the basis for presenting secondary evidence:

a) The offeror must prove the execution and existence of the original document;

b) The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability

Loss, destruction, or unavailability

c) The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith

Correct order of proof is as follows Existence, execution, loss, and contents.

Due execution and authenticity of the document must be proved either: a) by anyone who saw
the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuiness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.

When original is in the custody or control of the adverse party:

Laying the basis requires:

a. The original exists.

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.
 *Waiver: Failure to object to the parole evidence presented by the adverse party operates as a
waiver of the protection of the rule.

* The loan may be proved by the photocopy as long as A lays the basis for the introduction of
secondary evidence, to wit: a) the existence and due execution of the original, and b) the loss of
the original without bad faith on his part. (Sec. 5, Rule 130)

Distinction between Best Evidence and parol Evidence

Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule

1. Establishes a preference for the original Presupposes the original is available

document over secondary evidence thereof.

2. Precludes the admission of secondary Precludes the admission of other evidence to

evidence if the original document is available. prove the terms of a document other than the
contents of the document itself for the purpose
of varying the terms of the writing.

3. 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.

4. Applies to all forms of writing Applies only to written contracts and wills.

5. Define Parol Evidence –

*Applies to agreements and will. Parol evidence means offering extrinsic evidence that would
modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement. BUT it is allowed if any of the
following are shown:

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;

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.

And only if it is put in issue in the pleadings.

 *The rule applies ONLY to contracts which the parties have decided to set forth in writing. When
n the terms of an agreement is merely oral, the parol evidence rule should not be applied.

*Parol evidence does not apply in oral agreements, public writing, private writing, express trust
(although parol evidence applies to wills.

6. Testimonial Evidence Adverse party Read Sec. 6. Loss, Destroyed, Unavailable Originals
(Sec 5)

*Showing that the original document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party
does not ipso facto authorize the introduction of secondary evidence to prove its contents. The
party who seeks to present secondary evidence must lay a basis for its introduction.

Laying the basis:

1) That the original exists;

2) That the document is under the custody or control of the adverse party;

3) That the proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse party reasonable notice to
produce the original document;

4) That the adverse party failed to produce the original document despite the reasonable notice.

How to notify: motion for the production of the original or by subpoena duces tecum, provided
that the party in custody has sufficient time to produce it.

After the foundational requirement for the introduction of secondary evidence have been
complied with, secondarily evidence may now be presented as in the case of loss. This mean
that the contents of the document may now be proven by

a copy of the document  a recital of its contents in some authentic document 

By testimony of a witness in the order stated (Sec. 5 Rule 130)

7. Testimonial evidence topics not found in Rule 130

a. 132 (Sec. 3) Right of witnesses (Sec .6) Cross Exam and Sec. 11 Impeachment of witnesses
 i. Are the rights of the accused violated in case of compulsory HIV testing?  No. There is no
testimonial compulsion involved by extracting blood from the accused for testing purposes.
Thus, there is no violation of the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent.

ii. Should DNA evidence be admitted?  Yes. The right against self incrimination applies only to
testimonial evidence. Extracting blood samples and cutting strands of hair do not involve
testimonial compulsion but purely mechanical acts which neither requires discretion or
reasoning. (Tijing v. Court of Appeals.

iii. The right against self incrimination does not apply to physical and mechanical act. It applies
only to testimonial compulsion which is not the case under the facts.

iv. Degrading questions  although degrading a witness must answer the question if the
degrading answer a) is the very fact in issue; or b) refers to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed. (Rule 132)

8. What are the elements of a dying declaration? #3 exam

*Must comply with the following foundational elements

1. That the declaration is one made by a dying person;

2. That the declaration was made by said dying person under the consciousness

Of impending death

3. That the declaration refers to the cause and circumstances surrounding the death
of the declarant and not of anyone else;

4. That the declaration is offered in a case where the declarant’s death is the subject
of inquiry;

5. The declarant is competent as a witness had he survived;

6. The declarant should have died.

Note: must refer to the death of the declarant, not merely injuries.

*If the declarant survives HIS DECLARATION MAY BE ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF THE RES
GESTAE.

*The former rule embodied in Supreme Court decisions, which declared that a dying declaration
is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide wherein the declarant is the
victim, no longer holds true. As amended
 Parts of the Res Gestae

Literally means “things done”. Res Gestae is the startling event of which the
spontaneous statement is only a part of.

The use of res Gestae in the Philippines is limited to two matters:

1) Spontaneous statements

a. That there is a startling occurrence taking place;

b. That statements were made while the event is taking place or immediately prior to or
subsequent thereto;

c. The statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood

d. That the statement relates to the circumstances of the startling even or occurrence, or that the
statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstance.

2) Verbal acts – Statement accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a
legal significance – a conduct that is equivocal or ambiguous, one which in itself does not signify
anything when taken separately (legal significance) To be admissible, the following requisites
must be present:

a. The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal (clear need not be explained);

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

9. Exceptions to the hearsay rule, are all hearsay, but are admissible Sec. 36 of Rule 130
ex. Which of the following is hearsay?

Hearsay vs. Opinion

Hearsay evidence is one that is not based on An opinion evidence is based on the
one’s personal knowledge of others to prove the personal knowledge or personal
truth of the matter asserted in an out-or-court conclusion of the witness based on
his skill, training, or experience.
 Examples of Non-hearsay evidence

a. A statement having probative worth simply by virtue of the fact that it was uttered, if relevant to
a material fact inissue is not hearsay and is generally admissible. Where a statement is not
offered for the truth of the contents of the conversation, but only to show that it was made, then
the statement is not hearsay. For example, a statement that is offered to show its patent falsity,
so as to suggest the defendant’s consciousness of guilt, is NOT hearsay.

b. A statement relating to the state of mind of the declarant and statement relating to the state of
mind of the listener, these are not hearsay, but merely constitute circumstantial evidence of an
assertion. Ex. To prove by inference the testator’s state of mind, “I am Stalin, Roosevelt,
Saddam Hussein, rolled into one”

c. A threat against a witness may be offered in evidence to show its impact on the witness and
where the reasonableness of a person’s conduct is an issue, and out of court declaration may
be offered to explain the person's reactions to the declaration.

d. Words offered to prove hearer’s reaction are admissible when they are offered to show their
effect on one whose conduct is at issue.

Independent relevant statement: “The newspaper clipping is admissible as non-hearsay if

offered for the purpose of showing that the statement of X was made to a reporter regardless of
the truth or falsityof the statement. If it is relevant, it is admissible as an independent relevant
statement (non hearsay) It would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth that x was the robber.

Exception to the Hearsay Rule:

1. Dying Declarations

2. Declaration against interest

3. Act or declaration about pedigree

4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

5. Common reputation

6. Parts of the res Gestae

7. Entries in the course of business

8. Entries in official records

9. Commercial lists

10. Learned treatises

11. Testimony or deposition at a former trial

 Dying Declarations

*must be impending, near, and certain.

Declaration about pedigree

*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.

Entries in the course of business.

Elements:

a) Entries were made at, or near the time of the transactions

b) Such entries were made in the regular course of business

c) The person making the entries was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries.

d) The person making the entries did so in a position to know the facts stated in the entries

e) The person making the entries did so in his professional capacity, or in the performance of duty
and in the regular course of business

f) The person making the entry is now dead or unable to testify.

Declarations against Interest

Ex. A statement by the debtor before he died that he owes the creditor a sum of money, or an
oral acknowledgment by the principal that he received the money previously entrusted to his
agent, are clear declarations against the interest of the person making it. Note that 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 person.

Common reputation
 While common reputation in the community may establish a matter of public or general interest,
marriage or moral character, it CANNOT establish pedigree. This is established by reputation in
the family and not in the community.

Commercial Lists and the Like

Must be made by persons engaged in that occupation and are generally used and relied upon
by them and those lists and reports are published.

Learned Treaties.

History books, published finding of scientists fall within this exception IF the subject testifies to
the expertise of the writer of if the court takes judicial notice of such fact.

Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding.

The testimony is one given in a former case or proceeding or administrative, involving the same
parties and the same subject matter. The testimony was given by one who is now dead or
unable to testify. Said testimony may be given in evidence against the adverse party provided
the latter had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness who gave the previous testimony.

Waiver

The rules of evidence may be waived. The rules are established for the protection of the parties.
Except if the rule waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy.

Matters need NOT be proved (ISA-JP)

1) Immaterial allegations

2) Facts admitted or not denied provided they have been sufficiently alleged (Rule 8)

3) Agreed and Admitted facts

4) Facts subject to Judicial Notice

5) Facts legally Presumed

Section 4. JUDICIAL ADMISSION is and admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the
course of the proceedings.

Elements

1) The same must be made by a party to the case

2) The admission must be made in the course of the proceedings in the same case, and

3) There is no particular form for an admission, it may either be written or verbal.

Judicial Admissions may be made in

1) Pleadings filed by the parties,

2) In the course of trial either verbal or written manifestations or stipulations

3) In other stages of judicial proceedings as in the pre trial of the case

4) Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or requests for admissions.

 Judicial admissions can be made by either a party or counsel.

 Judicial admission may be contradicted only when it is shown that
 1. It was made through palpable mistake or 2. That no such admission was made.
Remedy of a party who gave a judicial admission:
In case of written judicial admission – motion to withdraw the pleadings, motion, or other written
instrument containing such admission.

Judicial admissions are always conclusive upon the admitter and do not require formal offer as
evidence, unlike in the case of extra-judicial admissions.

Rule on dismissed pleadings

Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial admission.

Admissions in civil cases Admissions in criminal cases

Admissions in a pleading which had been Admissions during arraignment may be

withdrawn or superseded by and amended withdrawn at any time before the judgment of
pleading are considered extra judicial conviction becomes final, but such plea of
admission guilty later withdrawn is not admissible in
evidence againt the accused who made the
 plea.

It is not even considered an extra judicial

admission

Disqualification by reason of Marriage Disqualification by reason of Marital

(sec. 22) privilege (sec. 24 (a)

Can be invoke only if one of the spouses Can be claimed whether or not the other
is a party to the action spouse is a party to the action

Applies only if the marriage is existing at Can be claimed even after the marriage
the time the testimony is offered is dissolved

Constitutes a total prohibition for or Applies only to confidential

against the spouse of the witness communications between the spouses

The objection would be raisedon the The married person is on the stand but
ground of marriage. The married witness the objection of privilege is raised when
would not be allowed to take the stand at confidential marital communication is
all because of the disqualification. Even if inquired into.
the testimony is for or against the
objecting spouse, the spouse-witness
cannot testify.

Disqualification by reason of marriage (spousal immunity)

Take note of the ff.

Judicial admissions vs. Extra-judicial admissions

Competence vs Relevance

Best Evidence Rule

Real Evidence definition (replica offered as evidence)

Parol evidence would not be objected if the ambiguity was put in issue in the pleadings

Laying the basis for the offer of a photocopy of a contract. Originals

Expert testimony of a promissory note

Credibility defined – refers to worthiness of belief.

Chain of custody

When may an ordinary witness testify as to his opinion?

When may parol evidence be allowed?

How do you lay the basis for introduction of secondary evidence when a) original is lost b) ht
original is in the custdy of the adverse party.

How to impeach testimony of a witness, definition