EVIDENCE Presence of More than One suffices

Introduction Circumstantial one is

Evidence - the means, sanctioned by these rules, of Evidence required
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth Priviliged Not Applicable
respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.) Communication- applicable
Scope of applicability – rules of evidence shall be Dr.-Patient
the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, Compulsion as a Cannot No prohibition,
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. witness compel rules provides
(Rule 128, Sec 2.) accused to only limitations
Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when there be a witness
is going to be a trial. Note that there can be a Evidentiary Privilege- entitles the privilege holder
judgment on pleadings, by confession, consent and to withhold competent evidence and, in some
compromise etc. circumstances, to prevent others from revealing
IN CIVIL CASES. Mere denial in the answer such evidence. The privilege is granted when the
in a CIVIL CASE will not present a probandum hence protected interest is considered important enough
no need for the court to try the case. Such general to outweigh the concern with determining the
denial will be considered as an admission. truth. The privilege holder need not be a party to
IN CRIMINAL CASES, We have to wait until the proceeding in question. Unlike a
the accused enters a plea. This time a general denial disqualification, a privilege can be waived. Privileges
is allowed. If the accused enters a plea of guilty are often intended to preserve confidential
there is no probandum. However in CRIMINAL relationships.
CASES, the court could still try the case if the case Executive Privilege- members of the executive
involves a heinous crime. branch of government cannot legally be forced to
The Rules on evidence are not self- disclose their confidential communications when
executing. So the rule is any evidence submitted will such disclosure would adversely affect the
be admitted so long as there is no objection. This operations or procedures of the executive branch.
principle is only for the purpose of admissibility. It FACTUM PROBANDUM vs. FACTUM PROBANS
does not mean that the court will take these Factum Probandum- proposition to be established.
irrelevant evidence in evaluating on the merits of The fact/s in issue.
the case. Factum Probans- materials evidencing the
DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL proposition
CASES AND CIVIL CASES Notes: 1. In both CIVIL and CRIMINAL cases, the
BASIS Criminal Civil Case probandum contained in the pleadings could be
Case changed in the pre-trial order. However, with
Quantum of Proof Preponderance respect to CRIMINAL CASES, the pre-trial order
Proof Beyond of evidence SHOULD NOT substantially change the
Reasonable accusation/indictment contained in the information,
Doubt otherwise the case will be dismissed.
Denial General Must be 2. A court can validly try a fact in issue not
Denial Specific Denial raised in the pleadings or pre-trial order. Rule 10
Allowed provides that a fact in issue may be raised with the
Withdrawal of Withdrawn Judicial express or implied consent of the parties during the
Plea/Admission plea is Admission trial (Amendment to conform to evidence)
inadmissible withdrawn 3. Ascertainment of probandum does not
becomes an apply in special proceedings. (i.e. If there is a
extrajudicial petition for probate of a will, even if there is no
admission opposition the petitioner is still required by law to
Cross Applicable Not applicable prove that the will has been duly executed in
Examination in accordance with the Civil Code)
Summary EVIDENCE vs. PROOF
Procedure Proof- is the effect of evidence. It is the probative
Equiponderance Accused is Party who loses effect of evidence and is the conviction or
Rule acquitted is the one who persuasion of the mind resulting from a
has burden of consideration of the latter.
proof Evidence- is the cause necessary to establish proof.
 I. Admissibility for the commission of an offense shall have the
A. Relevance – right to be informed of his right to remain silent
The evidence has such a relation to the fact in issue and to have competent and independent
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
except when it tends in any reasonable degree to must be provided with one. These rights
establish the probability or improbability of the fact cannot be waived except in writing and in the
in issue. (Rule 128, Secs. 3 and 4.) presence of counsel. No torture, force,
- In conclusion, relevancy is not determined by law violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
nor the rules of court. It is determined purely by means, which vitiate the free will, shall be used
LOGIC. against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
B. Competence – incommunicado, or other similar forms of
The evidence is not excluded by the law or the rules detention are prohibited.
(Rule 128, Sec. 3.) Any confession or admission obtained in
Do not confuse COMPETENT WITNESS from violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
COMPETENT EVIDENCE. The COMPETENCY inadmissible in evidence against him.
TEST of evidence applies to the TESTIMONY 3. Sec. 17, Art III – No person shall be compelled to
of the qualified witness. be a witness against himself.
Since admissibility of evidence is This right is recognized under the Rules on
determined by its relevance and competence, Evidence, which provides that, it is the right of a
admissibility is therefore an affair of logic and law. witness not to give an answer which will tend to
On the other hand, the weight to be given to such subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
evidence depends on judicial evaluation within the otherwise provided by law. [Sec. 3 (4), Rule 132,
guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the ROC)
jurisprudence laid down by the court. (People vs. NOTES AND COMMENTS: The human body
Turco, 2000) could be used as evidence without violating the
Relevant evidence is one that has any right. Mechanical acts without the use of
value in reason as tending to prove any matter intelligence do not fall within the scope of the
probable in an action. Evidence is said to be protection. Some of the acts which are not covered
material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue by the right of self-incrimination are the following:
as determined by the rules of substantive law and a. Fingerprinting, photographing and
pleadings, while competent evidence is one that is paraffin testing, physical examination. (U.S. v. Tang,
not excluded by law in a particular case. (Bautista 23 Phil. 145_)
vs. Aparece, 1995) b. Physical examination of a woman
Exclusionary Rules under the 1987 Constitution accused of adultery to determine if she is pregnant.
1. Secs. 2 & 3, Art. III – The right of the people to be (U.S. v. On Suy Hon, 36 Phil. 735; Villaflor v.
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and Summers, 41 Phil. 62)
effects against unreasonable searches and c. Undergoing ultra-violet rays examination
seizures of whatever nature and for any to determine presence of flourescent powder on
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search the hands. (People v. Tranca, 35 SCRA 455)
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except d. Subpoena directing government officials
upon probable cause to be determined to produce official documents or public records in
personally by the judge after examination their custody.
under oath or affirmation of the complainant e. Fitting the accused foot over a foot print,
and the witnesses he may produce, and putting on a pair of trousers, etc.
particularly describing the place to be searched Statutory Rules of Exclusion
and the persons or things to be seized. 1. Sec. 201, NIRC – An instrument, document or
The privacy of communication and paper which is required by law to be stamped
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon and which has been signed, issued, accepted or
lawful order of the court, or when public safety transferred without being duly stamped, shall
or order requires otherwise as prescribed by not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof
law. or any record of transfer of the same be
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the admitted or used in evidence in any court until
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been
purpose in any proceeding. affixed thereto and cancelled.
2. Sec. 12, Art III – Any person under investigation 2. R.A. 4200 (Wire-tapping Act) –
 Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not
being authorized by all the parties to any Irrelevant vs. Incompetent vs. Inadmissible vs.
private communication or spoken word, to tap Immaterial Evidence
any wire or cable, or by using any other device Irrelevant- no probative value; No tendency in
or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, reason to establish the probability or improbability
or record such communication or spoken work of a fact in issue. It does not directly relate to a fact
by using a device commonly known as a in issue.
Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or N.B. All facts and circumstances which
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however afford reasonable inferences or throw light upon
otherwise described. x x the probability of matter or matters contested are
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or admissible in evidence, UNLESS excluded by some
the existence, contents, substance, purport, established principle of evidence, such as HEARSAY
effect, or meaning of the same or any part EVIDENCE RULE, RULE ON PAROLE EVIDENCE and
thereof, or any information therein contained, BEST EVIDENCE RULE.
obtained or secured by any person in violation Collateral Matters- matters other than the
of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be facts in issue and which are offered as a basis
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi- merely for inference as to the existence or non-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or existence of the facts in issue. These are not allowed
investigation. unless satisfy ALL the requirements of relevancy.
An extension telephone cannot be placed in ILLUSTRATIONS:
the same category as a Dictaphone, dictograph or a. finger marks, foot prints and a bat left by
the other devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of RA 4200 the accused in the place of the crime
as the use thereof cannot be considered as b. The resemblance of a child to his alleged
“tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. father to prove paternity of the latter
(Gaanan vs. IAC, 1986) c. Bloodstains on the clothing of the person
RA 4200 expressly makes tape recordings charged with a crime
of tapped conversations inadmissible in evidence d. The destruction or fabrication of
absent a clear showing that both parties to the evidence
phone conversations allowed the recording. e. Flight of the accused. (N.B. Non-flight is
(Salcedo-OrtaÒez vs. CA, 1994) not conclusive proof of innocence)
EXCLUSIONARY RULES under the RULES OF COURT f. Delay in the identification of victim’s
1. Best Evidence Rule assailant
2. Parole Evidence Incompetent- excluded by the rules or any law
3. Hearsay Rule Inadmissible- not competent and irrelevant
Wigmore’s Axiom of Admissibility Immaterial- the offered evidential fact is directed to
“None but facts having rational probative value are prove some probandum which is not
admissible”- ILLUSTRATION: In a trial for homicide, properly in issue. (N.B.- The rules on
the fact is offered that the accused was requested, substantive law and of pleading determine
with others, to touch the corpse of the murdered immateriality)
man to see if blood flowed, but that he refused to Material evidence- proves a main fact
do so; this is admissible, not because the flowing or which is the subject of the inquiry or any
retention of the blood at the guilty man’s touch circumstance which tends to prove that fact or any
would be rationally evidential of his guilt, but fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or
because his refusal to do could constitute a link to strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of
the chain of evidence necessary to produce a moral inquiry or which legitimately affects the credibility
conviction of guilt. of any witness who testifies.
“Any fact having rational probative value is Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence
admissible, unless some specific rule forbids its Direct- Evidence that directly proves a fact without
admission”- ILLUSTRATION: In an issue involving need to make inference from another fact
forgery, the disposition of the person’s character as Example: The testimony of the prosecution
to acts of honesty or dishonesty is of some rational witness claiming that he saw that it was actually the
probative value towards showing that he did or did deceased who attacked the accused without the
not do the act; it is therefore admissible, but this latter’s provocation is a direct evidence.
can only be done if the accused steps forward first Circumstantial- Indirectly proves a fact in issue
and adduces evidence of his good moral character. through an inference which the fact finder draws
from the evidence established
 satisfy some other rule which would be applicable
Example: The testimony of the victim that to it if offered for another purpose would not
he dreads the mere presence of the accused is exclude it.
direct evidence that the statement was made. ILLUSTRATION: An extrajudicial confession may be
It is likewise circumstantial inadmissible as against a party who did not
evidence to show that this fear prevented the subscribe to it, yet such party may use said
victim from attacking the accused without document as evidence of lack of guilt.
provocation. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
IN CRIMINAL CASES, circumstantial GR: The time for determining the admissibility of a
evidence is sufficient for conviction when: particular fact is ordinarily the time when it is
a.There is more than one circumstance offered to the court.
b.The facts from which the inferences are Exception: When some facts depend on some other
derived are proven facts needed to be established first in order that
c. The combination of all the circumstances said former evidentiary facts would be admissible.
is such as to produce a conviction beyond ILLUSTRATION: Mr. P files an action for recovery of
reasonable doubt (Sec. 4 Rule 133) ownership of a parcel of land against Mr. D. The
Cumulative v. Corroborative complaint alleges that Mr. P is the owner of the
Cumulative- evidence of the same kind that tends property. During the trial, Mr. P testifies and
to prove the same fact adduces evidence that a certain O bought the
Ex. Two or more witnesses testify that they property from D. The testimony of O may be
saw the event which the first witness claimed he allowed if it would be shown the chain of events
saw, the subsequent testimonies are cumulative that led to the ownership of P of the land.
Corroborative- evidence which tends to confirm, CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
validate or strengthen evidence already presented. There is curative admissibility when a party offers
Evidence may be of the same kind or different kind an inadmissible fact which is received because there
and tends to prove the same fact. is no objection by the other party. The other party
Ex. A witness claims that he saw Mr. X sign does not acquire the right to introduce in reply to
the document subject of the action. Mr. X denies the same kind of evidence, EXCEPT whenever it is
the authenticity of his signature. Evidence by a needed for removing an unfair prejudice which
handwriting expert is corroborative. might otherwise have ensued from the original
Positive v. Negative Evidence evidence.
Positive- A witness affirms in the stand that a ILLUSTRATION: In an action for damages arising
certain state of facts do exist or that a certain event from a car accident, the plaintiff introduced
happened evidence to show that on several occasions the
Negative- A witness states that an event did not defendant in the past had injured pedestrians
occur or that the facts alleged to exist did not because of his negligence. (This is inadmissible
actually exist. (Denial) under Sec. 34 Rule 130- Prior acts as evidence).
Derivative Evidence- type of evidence that is Under the concept of Curative admissibility the
inadmissible as proof because of the application of court must give the party against whom the
the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which evidence was admitted the chance to contradict or
treats the original evidence and any evidence explain the alleged past acts he committed to
derived from it as tainted because of the illegal way counteract the prejudice which the improperly
in which it was obtained by agents of the admitted evidence may have caused.
government. II. What Need Not be Proved
Rebuttal Evidence- offered to contradict other a. Facts which a court shall or may take
evidence or to rebut a resumption of fact. judicial notice. (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 129, ROC)
Admissibility v. Weight b. Judicial admissions. (Sec. 4, Rule 129,
- Evidence is ADMISSIBLE when it is relevant ROC)
and is not excluded by any rule. c. Conclusive presumptions
- Probative value or WEIGHT is to be d. Disputable presumptions not disputed
determined by the court when it decides Distinguish mandatory judicial notice from
the case discretionary judicial notice.
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY a. For mandatory judicial notice the court is
Evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. compelled to take judicial notice because of the use
The rule is when a fact satisfies all rules applicable of the word "shall" in Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC WHILE
to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to for discretionary judicial notice the court is not
compelled because of the use of the word "may" in there was an appeal, such court taking the appeal
Sec. 2, Rule 129, ROC. should likewise take judicial notice. (U.S. v. Blanco,
b. Mandatory judicial notice takes place at the 37 Phil. 126)
court's own initiative WHILE discretionary judicial COURT RECORDS:
notice may take place at the court's initiative, or on  Courts may take judicial notice of its own
request of a party. records of cases pending before it. (Ex.
c. Discretionary judicial notice requires a hearing Pleadings; period of perfecting appeals.)
and presentation of evidence WHILE mandatory  Records of preliminary investigation shall not
judicial notice does not require hearing and form part of the record, however the court on
presentation of evidence. its own initiative or that of any party may order
A. Judicial Notice – Rule 129, Secs 1-3; Rule 10, the production of the record or any part thereof
Sec. 8 whenever the same shall be necessary in the
1. When Mandatory – [EPF-SLAP-OL-MG] resolution of the case or any incident therein or
- Existence and territorial extent of states shall be introduced as evidence by the party
- Their political history requesting for its production.
- Forms of government  Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice
- Symbols of nationality of the contents of the record of other cases
- Law of nations pending or heard before them notwithstanding
- Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and they are pending before the same judge.
their seals Exceptions:
- Political constitution and history of the 1. In the absence of objection from the adverse
Philippines party, with the knowledge of the adverse party; or
- Official acts of the legislative, executive, and at the request or with the consent of the parties, the
judicial departments of the Philippines case is clearly referred to or the original or part of
- Laws of nature the records of the case are actually withdrawn from
- Measure of time the archives and admitted as part of the record of
- Geographical divisions the case then pending. (Tabuena vs. CA, 1991)
2. When Discretionary 2. The other case is so closely connected or
- Matters of public knowledge interdependent
- Matters capable of unquestionable 3. When interests of the public in ascertaining the
demonstration truth is of paramount importance
- Matters which ought to be known to judges 4. In cases seeking to determine what is reasonable
because of their judicial functions. exercise of discretion
3. When Hearing is Necessary 5. The finality of judgment in a case
- During the trial: the court, on its own initiative, or FOREIGN LAWS
on request of a party, may announce its intention to In general, courts may not take judicial notice of
take judicial notice of ANY MATTER and allow the foreign laws, EXCEPT in a few instances where, in
parties to be heard thereon. the exercise of sound discretion, they may take
- After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal: judicial notice of such foreign laws of which they are
the proper court, on its own initiative or on request evidently familiar. (Delgado v. Republic, L-2546,
of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter January 28, 1950; Pardo v. Republic, 85 Phil. 323)
and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such When foreign laws may be the subject of judicial
MATTER IS DECISIVE OF A MATERIAL ISSUE in the notice.
case. a. When the local court is evidently familiar with
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES the foreign law.
Courts are not mandated to take judicial b. When the foreign law refers to the law of
notice of municipal ordinances unless the charter of nations. (Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC)
the concerned city provides for such judicial notice. c. When the court takes judicial notice of a
(City of Manila vs. Garcia, 1967). But INFERIOR published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
COURTS sitting in the respective municipalities or subject of law as a learned treartise. (Sec. 46, Rule
cities are 130, Ibid.)
MANDATED to take judicial notice. The d. When the foreign statute is acepted by the
reason is that violations of the ordinances are Philippine governemnt. (Republic v. Guanzon, 61
usually vested to the inferior court EXCLUSIVELY in SCRA 360)
the exercise of their original jurisdiction.\
IF inferior court took judicial notice and
e. When a foreign judgmen containing foreign law is dismiss, where defendant admits allegations but
recognized for enforcement. (Sec. 48, Rule 39, sets up grounds such as lack of jurisdiction etc.)
ROC) Notes: 1. It is not essential that an admission is
f. If the foreign law refers to common law doctrines contrary to the interest of party at the time it is
and rules from which many of our laws were made. It is enough that it be INCONSISTENT with
derived. (Alzua v. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308) the position a party takes in his pleadings or at trial.
Doctrine of Processual Presumption: Foreign law is 2. Averments in pleadings not deemed
the same as the law of the forum. It arises if the admissions even if there is failure to make a specific
foreign law, though properly applicable is either not denial: a) Immaterial allegations; b) Conclusions and
alleged or if alleged is not duly proved before a non-unltimate facts; c) Amount of unliquidated
competent court. damages.
B. Judicial Admissions – Rule 129, Sec. 4 Adoptive Admissions
-Definition: admissions, verbal or written, made by A party’s reaction to a statement or action by
the party in the course of the proceedings in the another person when it is reasonable to treat the
same case party’s reaction as an admission of something
-Proof is not required. stated or implied by the other person.
-How contradicted: ONLY by showing Adopted Confessions
 That it was made through palpable mistake A co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted
or the other’s confession by not questioning its
 That no such admission was made truthfulness, as where it was made in his presence
Having been amended, the original and he did not demonstrate against his being
complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, implicated therein
which would have required no proof and became III. Rules of Admissibility
merely any extrajudicial admission requiring a A. Object (Real) Evidence –Rule 130, Sec. 1.
formal offer in order to be admissible. (Torres vs. - Evidence addressed to the senses of the court.
CA, 1984) - When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it
FORMS OF ADMISSIONS: may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
1. Implied admissions of allegations of usury and court.
in actionable documents if not specifically AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE (VIEW OF AN OBJECT)
denied under oath (Sec. 11 & 8, Rule 8) - Where the object in question cannot be produced
2. Admissions in pre-trial of civil cases and in court because it is immovable or inconvenient to
criminal cases (In criminal cases the admission remove, the natural recourse is for the court to
must be reduced in writing and signed by order an ocular inspection and go to the object in its
accused and counsel- Sec. 4 Rule 118) place and observe it there.
3. Implied admissions in the modes of discovery Is there an exclusionary rule when it comes to
(Depositions; Interrogatories- Rule 23; Failure object evidence?
to specifically deny under oath w/in 15 days a There is none. However, the court is given enough
Request for Admission in a pending case- Rule discretion to determine which object evidence
26; ) should be presented, upon determination whether
4. Admissions in amended pleadings (Sec. 8 Rule or not it will result to scandal or it does not work
10) [N.B. Admissions in superseded pleadings any additional benefit to the plaintiff or that it will
are extra-judicial admissions which must be give undue prejudice to the defendant.
proven. Dismissed pleadings are likewise ILLUSTRATIONS:
extrajudicial admissions] Footprints
5. Plea of guilt in criminal case (N.B. A withdrawn A bloody foot print was found upon a floor near the
plea of guilt is inadmissible, unlike in civil cases dead body of a person. Upon being arrested, the
where a withdrawn judicial admission is accused was taken to the house where the incident
considered an extrajudicial admission) happen. Upon placing his foot over the foot print it
6. Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive was found that his foot corresponded exactly to
upon a client absent any gross negligence which said footprint. HELD: Proof of this circumstance is
deprives counsel of due process of law or there admissible, notwithstanding that no photograph of
is outright deprivation of property or liberty. the footprint was submitted in evidence and that
Note: Admissions in pleadings may not always be the board itself upon which the footprint was made
considered as judicial admissions because there are was not produced in court. (US v. Zara, 43 Phil. 308)
hypothetical admissions in civil cases. (i.e. Resemblance, Race, Age or Parentage
Affirmative defenses in an answer; Motion to  To determine whether a person is alien or not,
 his personal appearance, ethnological and unsigned. The Court went on further to say that its
racial characteristic, language, customs, dress decisions, while adhering to a liberal view in the
and manners may be taken into consideration. conduct of proceedings before administrative
 In determining the age of the accused who had agencies, have nonetheless consistently required
no positive information on the subject, the some proof of authenticity or reliability as condition
court took into account his appearance and for the admission of documents.
judged that he was a youth of 18 or 19 years of Not one of the 18 print-out copies
age. submitted by IBM was ever signed, either by the
 A physical comparison may be made between a sender or the receiver. There is thus no guarantee
minor Chinese applying for admission into the that the message sent was the same message
country with his alleged father. received. Neither were the print-outs certified or
Photographs authenticated by any company official who could
 Where deposition of subscribing witnesses to a properly attest that these came from IBM’s
will are taken, a photographic copy of the will computer system or that the data stored in the
may be presented to the witnesses on their system were not and/or could not haved been
examination and they may be asked the same tampered with before the same were printed out.
question with respect to said copy as if it were Ballots
the original will and testimony as to the identity - Every ballot needs to be presented in a case of
of the photographic copy shown to the election protest. Every ballot constitutes the will of
witnesses is admissible in evidence. every voter.
 Photographs may be admissible upon proof of DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
their exactness and accuracy by the - one which or represents demonstrates the real
photographer himself who can testify of his thing. (ex. Map, diagram, photograph, or a model)
personal knowledge of the correctness of the Photographs: Must faithfully represent what it
representation. (Tan It v. Sun Insurance Office, depicts (Same rules apply to motion pictures and
51 Phil. 212) recordings)
NOTES: X-Rays: Must show location and extent of injury
The photographer is not the only witness Scientific tests, demonstrations by physical act and
who can identify the pictures. The faithful experiments: This is a matter of judicial discretion.
representation of the photograph may be proved B. Documentary Evidence – Rule 130, Sec.
prima facie by the testimony of those who were 2.
present at the time it was taken, or by any other - Writings or any material containing letters, words,
competent witness who can testify as to its numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
exactness and accuracy. Once proved, the court written expression offered as proof of their
may admit it subject to impeachment as to its contents.
accuracy. 1. Best Evidence Rule – Rule 130, Secs. 3-4
The value of a photograph lies in its being a General Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the
correct representation or reproduction of the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
original, and its admissibility is determined by its admissible other than the original document itself.
accuracy in portraying the scene at the time the Exceptions:
picture was taken. (Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58, 1. When the original has been lost or destroyed,
75-76) or cannot be produced in court, without bad
Photocopies or xerox copies of signed faith on the part of the offeror;
documents are not duplicate originals because they 2. When the original is in the custody or under the
are not signed. (Mahilum v. Court of Appeals, 17 control of the party against whom the evidence
SCRA 482) is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
Computer printouts. reasonable notice;
If the data are stored in a computer or 3. When the original consists of numerous
similar device, any printout or other output accounts or other documents which cannot be
readable by sight, shown to reflect the data examined in court without great loss of time
accurately, is an original. (Evidence Code of and the fact sought to be established from
California, Added by Stats. 1977, Sec. 1) them is only the general result of the whole;
In a labor case, IBM Philippines, Inc., et al., and
v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 117221, prom. April 13, 4. When the original is a public record in the
1999, the Supreme Court held that computer custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
printouts which were not signed because they are public office.
Original of a Document 3. Residence Certificate
1 The original of the document is one the - The place of obtaining a residence
contents of which are the subject of inquiry. certificate and the date contained are not
2 When a document is in two or more copies conclusive as to the real residence or
executed at or about the same time, with domicile of a person owning said
identical contents, all such copies are equally certificate. (Zuellig v. Republic, 83 Phil. 768)
regarded as originals. 4. Tax declaration
3 When an entry is repeated in the regular course - It can be used as evidence that a portion of
of business, one being copied from another at land had been sold. (Gacos v. CA, 212 SCRA
or near the time of the transaction, all the 8)
entries are likewise equally regarded as 5. Accounts and Account Books
originals. - Where the custom broker’s authorized
Rules on Electronic Evidence (Rule 4) – representative accepted the cargo “OK and
Sec. 1. Original of an Electronic Document – An complete” as shown in the surveyor’s
electronic document shall be regarded as the report countersigned by him and it was
equivalent of an original document under the Best obviously his assigned task to note defects
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable in the cargo, said acceptance—if not being
by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data outright upon the custom’s broker—is at
accurately. least evidence of the condition of the goods
Sec. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals – when thus received. (Insurance Company
When a document is in two or more copies of North America vs. C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc.
executed at or about the same time with identical 18 SCRA 462)
contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same - An audit made by or the testimony of a
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, private auditor is inadmissible in evidence
or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by as proof of the original records, books of
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent accounts, reports or the like. (Compania
techniques which accurately reproduces the Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers Union, 77
original. Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or SCRA 24)
duplicates shall not be admissible to the same After complying with the BEST EVIDENCE RULE will
extent as the original if: a genuine question is the court necessarily admit the original writing?
raised as to the authenticity of the original; or in the No.
circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to 1) The requirements of authentication of
admit the copy in lieu of the original. documents must be met. There must be proof of
Carbon copies are deemed duplicate authentication. However this applies only when the
originals. They may be introduced as evidence writing is a private document.
without accounting for the non-production of the 2) After authentication, the proponent has to
original. (People vs. Tan, 1959) comply with the rule that if the original writing is
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when not in an official language (English or Filipino), it is
the contents of the document are the subject of his duty to give to the court a translation thereof.
inquiry. It does not apply when the issue is only as 3) If there is an alteration, he must explain such
to whether or not such document was actually alteration. He may show that the alteration was
executed or in the circumstances relevant to its made:
execution. (People vs. Tandoy, 1990)  by another,
SOME EXAMPLES:  without his concurrence, or
1. Baptismal and Marriage Certificate  made with the consent of the parties
- They are only evidence to prove the affected by it, or
administration of the sacraments on the  was otherwise properly or innocent made,
dates therein specified or
- Baptismal certificate is not conclusive proof  The alteration did not change the meaning
of filiation being hearsay or language of the instrument.
2. Medical Certificate PRIVATE DOCUMENTS. How Proven = Rule 132,
- To prove torture inflicted by the police, the Sec. 20
medical certificate alone without the Before any private document offered as
testimony of the examining physician is authentic is received in evidence, its due execution
inadmissible (People v. Villagracia, 226 and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by
SCRA 398) anyone who say the document executed or written;
or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the its unavailability, without bad faith on his
signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other part may prove its contents by:
private document need only be identified as that  A copy
which it is claimed to be.  A recital of its contents in some
Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132, Sec. 21 (Not authentic document
Required to Authenticate)  The testimony of witnesses.
Requisites:  The order stated must be followed.
(1) The private document is more than 30 years old;  When original document is in adverse party’s
(2) It is produced from a custody in which it would custody or control.
naturally be found if genuine;  If after reasonable notice is given to the
(3) It is unblemished by any alterations or adverse party to produce the document
circumstances of suspicion. and after satisfactory proof of the
If all requisites have been met, no other evidence of existence of the document is made, he
its authenticity is required. fails to produce the document, secondary
How Genuineness of Handwriting is Proven = Rule evidence may be presented.
132, Sec. 22  when original document is a public record.
It may be proved by any witness who  Its contents may be proved by a certified
believes it to be the handwriting of such person copy issued by the public officer in
because he has seen the person write, or has seen custody thereof.
writing purporting to be his upon which the witness  A party who calls for the production of a
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired document and inspects it is not obliged to offer
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. it as evidence.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may The voluminous character of the document
also be given by a comparison made by the witness must be established before evidence other than the
or the court, with writings admitted or treated as original may be introduced. (Compania Maritima
genuine by the party against whom the evidence is vs. Allied Free Workers, 1977)
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction In the case where the original is in the
of the judge. custody of the adverse party, it is not necessary that
Not much weight is given to handwriting experts. it be in the actual possession of the adverse party.
Unless, therefore, there is, in a given case, absolute It is enough that the circumstances show that the
absence, or manifest dearth, or direct or writing is in his possession or under his control.
circumstantial competent evidence of the character Secondary evidence is admissible where the adverse
of a questioned handwriting, much weight should party denies having it in his possession. (Villa Rey
not be given to characteristic similarities, or Transit vs. Ferrer, 1968)
dissimilarities, between the questioned handwriting All duplicates or counterparts must be
and an authentic one. (Punzalan v. Commission on accounted for before using copies as evidence. (De
Elections, G.R. No. 132435 prom. April 27, 1998 Vera vs. Aguilar, 1983)
citing Lorenzo v. Diaz, 53 O.G. 4110-4111, cited in 3. Parol Evidence Rule – Rule 130, Sec. 9
Francisco on Evidence, Vol. VII, Part I, 1997 Edition, Nature of parol evidence rule:
p. 674) It is not a rule of evidence but of substantive law.
Questions involving the mere similarity or It is part of the law of contracts, the law of
dissimilarity of handwritings could be determined negotiable instruments, and the law of wills. It is
by the court itself as authorized under Sec. 22, Rule founded upon the substantive rights of the
132 of the Rules of Court by making a comparison parties. It was made part of the rules of evidence
of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted in order
or treated as genuine by the party against whom that it may be considered in all its phases in one
the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to place.
the satisfaction of the judge." (Punzalan v. Reasons for the parol evidence rule:
Commission on Elections, supra)  When the parties have reduced their
2. Secondary Evidence – Rule 130, Secs. 5-8 agreement in writing,
 Instances when secondary evidence may be  it is presumed that they have made the
introduced: writing
 when original document is unavailable (lost,  the only repository and memorial of the
destroyed or cannot be produced in court) – truth, and
 The offeror, upon proof of (1) its  whatever is not found in the writing must
execution or existence and (2) cause of be understood to have been waived or
 abandoned. There is an ambiguity what particular land is sold as
General Rule: When the terms of an AGREEMENT there is no description. The ambiguity is extrinsic. It
(including WILLS) have been reduced to WRITING, it arises from the face of the document itself. Here we
is considered as containing ALL the terms agreed cannot introduce evidence aliunde. The contract is
upon and there can be, between the parties and void, which under the Rules cannot allow be
their successors in interest, NO evidence corrected and converted into a valid contract.
(testimonial or documentary) of such terms other  US cases and some Philippine cases recognized
than the contents of the written agreement. intermediate ambiguity, and evidence aliunde
Exceptions: A party may present evidence to – may be admitted by the court to explain or add
 Modify, to its meaning. This arises by the use of
 Explain or equivocal word/s which is susceptible of more
 Add to than one interpretation.
 the terms of written agreement if he Example: Defendant sold to plaintiff a distilling
puts in issue in his pleading: apparatus of guaranteed capacity of 6,000 liters
 An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or daily. Defendant claimed that the phrase referred to
imperfection in the written “receiving” capacity. Here the word “capacity” was
agreement; susceptible of two interpretations. SC held that
 The failure of the written parol evidence is admissible to show which of the
agreement to express the true two interpretations meant by the parties. (Palanca
intent and agreement of the v. Fred Wilson & Co., 37 Phil. 506)
parties thereto; What is the coverage of the parol evidence rule
 The validity of the written and what are the exceptions to the parol evidence
agreement; or rule ?
 The existence of other terms  Covered. Only prior and contemporaneous
agreed to by the parties or their agreements which are deemed to have been
successors in interest after the merged in the writing conformably to the
execution of the written "integration of the agreement rule."
agreement. (Woodhouse v. Halili, 93 Phil. 526)
ILLUSTRATION: The vendee can validly tell the court  Not covered.
that the deed of sale is not really one of sale but  Subsequent agreements, notwithstanding
one or mortgage as long as he puts in issue in the that such agreements may have the effect
pleadings, any of the matters enumerated above. of adding to, changing, modifying, or even
[N.B. Art. 1602, NCC presumes that a deed of sale is altogether abrogating the contract of the
an equitable mortgage when: 1] price of sale with parties as evidenced by the writing.
right to purchase is unusually inadequate; 2)  Collateral agreements which although oral
Vendor remains in possession as lessee or and contemporaneous with the writing are
otherwise; 3) When another instrument extending separate and distinct agreements. (PNB v.
period of redemption is executed; 4) When Seeto, 91 Phil. 756)
purchaser retains for himself a part of purchase  It also does not apply if the issue revolves
price; 5) Vendor assumes tax; 6) Other around fraud and false representation since
circumstances] they are incidental to the execution and
ILLUSTRATION: There is a sale of a piece of land in not to the integration. (Woodhouse vs.
favor of Juan dela Cruz. If you read the document Halili, 1953)
there is really nothing wrong because there is a  It does not apply either when third parties
vendor, there is a vendee and there is an object and are involved. (Lechugas vs. CA, 1986)
consideration. But it turns out that there are two NOTES:
persons who carry the name Juan de la Cruz. That  Contemporaneous agreement. A
document is intrinsically ambiguous because we do contemporaneous agreement is one entered
not know who the vendee in that sale. The defect into at the same time as the agreement which
can be remedied by the introduction of testimonial has been reduced to writing.
evidence or other documentary evidence to show  Tests to determine whether a
to the court who is the Juan dela Cruz mentioned in contemporaneous oral agreement is separate
the deed of sale as the vendee. and distinct from the written agreement and
But if in that deed of sale where Juan dela Cruz is therefore provable by parol evidence:
the vendee, and there is only one Juan dela Cruz,  The first test is the subject-matter of the
but the property sold is simply a piece of land. two agreements. If the subject-matter of
 the written agreement is different from  Any prior or contemporaneous conversaion
that of the contemporaneous oral in connection with a note or its
agreement, then the latter is a separate indorsement may be proved by parol
and distinct agreement and, therefore, evidence. (PNB v. Seeto, 91 Phil. 756;
provable by parol evidence. Philips v. Preston, 5 How. [U.S.] 278)
 If the two agreements refer to the same  An extrinsic agreement between indorser
subject-matter, the test is to determine and indorsee which cannot be embodied in
whether or not the contemporaneous oral the instrument without impairing its credit
agreement is separable, then the may be proved by parol evidence. (PNB v.
contemporaneous oral agreement is Seeto, 91 Phil. 756; 9 Wigmore 148)
separate and distinct and, therefore,  The fact that parties who appear to have
probable by parol evidence. (Lese v. signed as principals did so as merely
Lamprecht, 196 N.Y. 32) sureties is provable by parol evidence. (Tan
 Example of agreement which CANNOT be Machan v. De la Trinidad, 3 Phil. 684)
proven by parol evidence: Express trusts FALSA DEMONSTRATION NON NOCET
concerning real property cannot be proven by - “False description will not invalidate an
parol evidence because title and possession instrument”
cannot be defeated by oral evidence which can - The erroneous description will be
easily be fabricated and contradicted. (Sinaon, considered as a surplusage.
et al., v. Sorongon, et al., 136 SCRA 410) ILLUSTRATION: In a deed of sale of a parcel of land
 Examples of collateral agreements which CAN covered by: TCT 12345, located in City of
be proved by parol evidence: Muntinlupa. There is really a land covered by TCT
 An agreement of reconveyance is a distinct 12345 with same technical description however it is
agreement, separate from the sale itself, not located in Muntinlupa, but in Laguna. The
although the two agreements are usually erroneous description will not invalidate the
contained in one and the same document. contract.
(Laureano v. Kilayco, 34 Phil. 148; Yacapin Best evidence rule distinguished from parol
v. Neri, 40 Phil. 61) evidence rule:
 Inducements and representations which 1) Under the best evidence rule, the issue is
led to the execution of an agreement may contents of a writing (Sec. 3, Rule 130, ROC) WHILE
be proven by parol evidence because they under the parol evidence rule, there is no issue as
do not vary the terms of the agreement. to contents of a writing (Sec. 9, Rule 130, ROC);
(Woodhouse v. Halili, 93 Phil. 526; Bough v. 2) Under the best evidence rule, secondary
Cantiveros, 40 Phil. 209) evidence is offered to prove the contents of a
 Parol evidence is admissible to prove an writing, which is not allowed unless the case falls
independent and collateral agreement under any of the exceptions (Sec. 3, Rule 130, ROC)
which constitutes an inducement to the WHILE under the parol evidence rule, the purpose
making of the sale or part of the of the offer of parol evidence is to change, vary,
consideration thereof. (Robles v. Lizarraga modify, qualify, or contradict the terms of a
Hnos., 50 Phil. 387) complete written agreement, which is not allowed
 A condition precedent not stipulated in unless the case falls under any of the exceptions.
writing is provable by oral evidence. (Sec. 9, Rule 130, ROC)
REASON: Before the happening of the Only the parties and their successors in interest,
condition, there is no written agreement and not strangers may invoke the protection of the
yet to which the parol evidence may apply. parol evidence rule. (Sec. 9, Rule 130, ROC)
 Verbal assurances given by the indorser of PAROLE EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHED FROM STATUTE
an out-of-town check to the employees of OF FRAUDS
the bank where it was presented for The Statute of Frauds requires that certain
encashment that he would refund the agreements be proved by writing or by some note
amount if the check should be dishonored or memorandum thereof in order to be
by the drawee bank is a collateral enforceable. On the other hand, the Parole
agreement separate and distinct from the Evidence Rule has nothing to do with the manner of
indorsement, by virtue of which the first proving agreements. Its object is to prohibit
bank was induced to cash the same, and alteration, change, modification, variation or
therefore, provable by parol evidence. contradiction of the terms of a written agreement
(PNB v. Seeto, 91 Phil. 756) by “parol evidence”.
 the provision is made.
SEC. 18. Construction in favor of natural right. —
4. Interpretation of Documents – Rule 130, Secs. When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
10-19 interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the
SEC. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its other against it, the former is to be adopted.
legal meaning. —The language of a writing is to be SEC. 19. Interpretation according to usage. —An
interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears instrument may be construed according to usage, in
in the place of its execution, unless the parties order to determine its true character.
intended otherwise. C. Testimonial Evidence
SEC. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to Qualifications of Witnesses – Rule 130, Sec. 20
all provisions. —In the construction of an - Can perceive, and perceiving, can make their
instrument where there are several provisions or known perception to others.
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be GR: A disinterested person could be compelled to
adopted as will give effect to all. give his testimony through subpoena
SEC. 12. Interpretation according to intention; Exceptions: Persons who are immune from the
general and particular provisions. —In the process of subpoena by tradition, convention or
construction of an instrument, the intention of the law:
parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a  Ambassadors of foreign countries by virtue
particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is of treaty obligations
paramount to the former. So a particular intent will  President of the Philippines or other
control a general one that is inconsistent with it. country
SEC. 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. Disqualifications –
—For the proper construction of an instrument, the  Mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21, Rule
circumstances under which it was made, including 130, ROC);
the situation of the subject thereof and of the  Marriage (Sec. 22, Ibid);
parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may  Death or insanity of adverse party (Sec. 23, Ibid.)
be placed in the position of those whose language  Privileged communication (Sec. 24, Ibid.)
he is to interpret. [Applies to Rules on Electronic Evidence]
SEC. 14. Peculiar signification of terms. —The terms  Marital privileged communication rule (Sec.
of a writing are presumed to have been used in 24 [a], Ibid.);
their primary and general acceptation, but evidence  Lawyer-client privileged communication
is admissible to show that they have a local, rule (Sec. 24 [b], Ibid.);
technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and  Doctor-patient privileged communication
were so used and understood, in the particular rule (Sec. 24 [c], Ibid.)- (N/A in criminal
instance, in which case the agreement must be cases)
construed accordingly.  Priest-penitent privileged communication
SEC. 15. Written words control printed. —When an rule (Sec. 24 [d], Ibid.); and
instrument consists partly of written words and  Public officer privileged communication
partly of a printed form, and the two are rule (Sec. 24 [e], Ibid.).
inconsistent, the former controls the latter.  Parental and filial testimonial privilege rule (Sec.
SEC. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in 25, Rule 130, ROC)
explaining certain writings. —When the characters Note: Conviction of a crime does not
in which an instrument is written are difficult to be disqualify a person from testifying but may
deciphered, or the language is not understood by disqualify him from being discharged as a state
the court, the evidence of persons skilled in witness. (Sec. 9 [e], Rule 119, ROC)
deciphering the characters, or who understand the Note: This is not an exclusive enumeration of
language, is admissible to declare the characters or the Rules on privilege communication. Other
the meaning of the language. examples are:
SEC. 17. Of two constructions, which preferred. — Under Rules on Alternative dispute
When the terms of an agreement have been Resolution, information or communication
intended in a different sense by the different parties given by parties who participate in ADR is
to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in confidential
which he supposed the other understood it, and Information derived by editors, reporters
when different constructions of a provision are and publishers
otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which The negotiations under the Witness
is the most favorable to the party in whose favor Protection Program (Accused discharged
 as state witness) 5) Marital disqualification is more concerned
with the consequences. If the rule is not there,
perjury and domestic disunity may result. On the
A. By reason of mental incapacity or immaturity other hand, Privilege protects the hallowed
– Rule 30, Sec. 21 confidences inherent in marriage b/w husband
Those whose mental condition, at the time of and wife and therefore guarantees the
their production for examination, is such that preservation of the marriage and further the
they are incapable of intelligently making known relationship between the spouses as it
their perception to others; encourages the disclosure of confidential
Children whose mental maturity is such as to matters without fear of revelation.
render them incapable of perceiving the facts ‘Marrying the Witness’
respecting which they are examined and of An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of
relating them truthfully. a witness by marrying the witness. As long as a valid
A mental retardate is not for this reason marriage is in existence at the time of the trial, the
alone disqualified from being a witness. (People vs. witness-spouse cannot be compelled to testify—
Salomon, 1993) even where the crime charged is against the
Requisites of competency of a child as witness’ person, and even though the marriage was
witness: capacity of observation; capacity of entered into for the express purpose of suppressing
recollection; and capacity of communication. the testimony. (Marriage for convenience)
(People vs. Mendoza, 1996) CASE: A filed a complaint against husband and wife
B. Marital Disqualification – Rule 130, Sec. 22 for annulment of a contract by reason of fraud.
General Rule: During their marriage, neither the (H&W both defendants). A subpoenaed the wife to
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the be his hostile witness which is allowed in civil cases.
other without the consent of the affected spouse. When the wife received the subpoena, the husband
Exceptions: filed a motion in court for the quashing of the
- In a civil case by one against the other or, subpoeana, on the ground that there is a violation
- In a criminal case for a crime committed by one of the rule on marital disqualification/spousal
against the other or the latter's direct descendants immunity. A told the court that this is not a case
or ascendants. where the wife will be giving testimony as an
The right to invoke this disqualification belongs to adverse witness in favor of the plaintiff. So the rule
the spouse-party (Ortiz v. Arambulo, 8 Phil. 98) on spousal immunity does not apply. Ruling of the
against or for whom the testimony is being Court: Spousal immunity applies. If the wife was
proferred. It may be waived: allowed to testify as an adverse witness for the
1) By a failure to interpose timely objection, or plaintiff, she might give testimony that he will harm
2) By calling the other spouse as witness (Ibid., her interest and that of her husband. So that there
People v. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694) will be a violation of the spousal immunity.
The privilege could be invoked even if the A conceded. A told the court now that if he
spouse is testifying in favor of the spouse-party cannot compel the wife to be an adverse witness,
because damaging testimony may be elicited during then he should be allowed to get the deposition of
the cross-examination. the wife, because under the Rules of Court when
DIFFERENCE B/W PRIVILEGE AND MARITAL the deposition of a person is taken, it does not
DISQUALIFICATION necessarily mean that the deponent will be used as
1) Privilege is applicable regardless of whether a witness in court, since it is only a mode of
the spouses are parties or not while Marital discovery. Ruling of the Court: Even if the purpose
disqualification is applicable only when one or is just to get the deposition of the wife the rule on
both spouses are parties spousal immunity applies.
2) The privilege applies to testimonies on CASE: A son filed a complaint against his own father
confidential communication only while Marital for recovery of property or some assets. The son
disqualification applies to testimony on any fact asked her mother to testify in his favor. SC held that
3) Marital disqualification ceases after there will be a violation of the spousal immunity
dissolution of marriage while Privileged rule.
communication lasts even after the death of Note: As long as there is a case INVOLVING the
either spouse husband OR wife, the disqualification is absolute.
4) Even if the communication is not C. Dead Man’s Statute – Rule 130, Sec. 23
confidential, the marital disqualification may still - Sometime called the “Survivor’s
be invoked disqualification rule”
Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in  By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited
whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against matters. (Arroyo v. Azur, 76 Phil. 493)
- An executor or  When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the
- Administrator or representative of the estate or when counsel
- Other representative of a deceased person, or for the representative cross-examined the
against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or plaintiff as to matters occurring during the
demand against the estate of such deceased person deceased's lifetime. (Goni, et al., v. Court of
or against such person of unsound mind, cannot Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231)
testify as to any matter of fact occurring BEFORE CASE: Mr. D approaches Mr. C to borrow P100,000
the death of such deceased person or before such to be paid next year. Mr. C gives Mr. D the amount.
person became of unsound mind. Mr. C did not require Mr. D to execute a promissory
Exceptions to the survivor’s disqualification rule: note. A day before the agreed date of payment, Mr.
 Ordinary witnesses, who are not the plaintiff, D died. Mr. C went to the executor of the estate of
assignor of plaintiff, or person in whose behalf Mr. D and claims the payment of the debt.
the case is prosecuted may testify. (Francia v. In this case, Mr. C is incompetent to testify as
Hipolito, 93 Phil. 968) to the transaction he had with Mr. D.
 When the plaintiff is a corporation, the officers D. Privileged Communication
or stockholders thereof are not disqualified. 1. Marital Privilege – Rule 130, Sec. 24 (a)
(Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf, et c., 84 Phil. 330) Husband or the wife, during or after the
 When there is an imputation of fraud against marriage, cannot be examined without the consent
the deceased, the plaintiff is not barred from of the other as to any communication received in
testifying to such fraud. (Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, confidence by one from the other during the
96 Phil. 622) marriage
 When the plaintiff is the executor, - EXCEPT:
administrator or legal representative of the  In a civil case by one against the other, or
deceased, or the person of unsound mind, the  In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
defendant or defendants are free to testify against the other or the latter's direct
against the plaintiff. (Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 descendants or ascendants;
Phil. 698) CASE: If the communication is made in front of the
 When the defendant or defendants, though children of the husband and wife. Can the privilege
heirs of the deceased, are sued in their be invoked? YES, if the children are still minors.
personal and individual capacities, the plaintiff Note: The assumption is any communication given
may testify against them. (Go Chi Gun v. Co by one spouse to the other is presumably
Cho, 96 Phil. 622) confidential because there is no standard given in
 When the survivor's testimony refers to a the Rules.
negative fact. (Mendezona v. vda. de Goitia, 54 Applications of the marital privileged
Phil. 557) communciation rule:
 When the survivor's testimony is favorable to 1) Every communication between spouses is
the deceased. (Icard v. Marasigan, 71 Phil. 419) presumed to be confidential. (Sexton v. Sexton, 129
 The adverse party is competent to testify to Ia. 487; Wigmore, Sec. 2336)
transactions or communications with the 2) Communications made in the presence of third
deceased or incompetent person which were parties are not confidential, unless the third person
made with an agent of such person in cases in may be considered as an agent of the spouses.
which the agent is still alive and competent to (Floyd v. Miller, 61 Ind. 224)
testify. But the testimony of the adverse party 3) Communications overheard by third persons
must be confined o those transactions or remain confidential as between the spouses, but
communications which were had with the the third person who overheard may be called upon
agent. (Goni, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., to testify. (People v. Carlos, 47 Phil. 626)
144 SCRA 231) 4) Communications coming into the hands of third
How protection of the dead man’s statute is persons, whether legally or illegally, remain
waived: confidential as between the spouses, but the third
 By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on person may be called upon to testify. (People, and
prohibited matters. (Marella v. Reyes, 12 Phil. Hammons, supra)
1) But if the third person acquired knowledge of the
 By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited communication by collusion and voluntary
matters. (Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698) disclosure on the part of either of the spouses, he
thereby becomes an agent of such spouses so that 3. Physician-Patient Privilege – Rule 30, Sec. 24 (c)
the privilege is claimable against him. (Ibid.) A person authorized to practice medicine,
5) Communications intended for transmission to surgery or obstetrics cannot in a CIVIL CASE,
third persons are not confidential. (U.S. v. Antipolo, without the consent of the patient, be examined as
37 Phil. 726) to
Waiver of the marital privileged communication  Any advice or treatment given by him or
rule:  Any information which he may have acquired in
The privilege is claimable by the spouse not attending such patient in a professional
called as witness, so that it its waivable only by him capacity, which information was necessary to
or her; and it is waivable by any act of such spouse enable him to act in capacity, and which would
which might be considered as an express or implied blacken the reputation of the patient;
consent to the disclosure of the communication.  This privilege belongs to the patient, so that it is
(People v. Hayes, 140 N.Y. 484) only he that can claim or waive it. It is waivable
2. Attorney-Client Privilege – Rule 30, Sec. 24 (b) expressly or impliedly. It is impliedly waived
An attorney cannot, without the consent of like any other privilege rule. (Penn. Mutual Life
his client, be examined as to Ins. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92)
 Any communication made by the client to him,  The waiver may be by a contract as in medical
or or life insurance
 His advice given thereon in the course of, or  When the patient answers questions on cross
with a view to, professional employment, examination, there is waiver
 nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer,  Under Rule 28 ROC, the court may order a party
or clerk be examined, without the consent of to submit to a physical or mental examination,
the client and his employer, concerning any fact so long as the mental or physical condition is in
the knowledge of which has been acquired in dispute. The party examined may request a
such capacity; report of the examination. By doing so, he
 Privilege is owned by the client. It is he who can waives any privilege he may have in that action
invoke the privilege. If the client waives the regarding the testimony of every other person
privilege, no one else including the attorney can who has examined him in respect of the same
invoke it. Hence it the client is asked on cross- examination.
examination of his communications to his This privilege does not apply when the
lawyer and reveals the same there would be a doctor is presented as an expert witness and only
waiver. There is also a waiver if the client does hypothetical problems were presented to him. (Lim
not object to the attorney’s testimony. vs. CA, 1992)
The attorney-client privilege may not be 4. Priest- Penitent Privilege – Rule 30, Sec. 24 (d)
invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the A minister or priest cannot, without the
client, EXCEPT: (1) When a strong probability exists consent of the person making the confession, be
that revealing the name would implicate that examined as to
person in the very same activity for which he sought  Any confession made to or
the lawyer’s advice; (2) When disclosure would  Any advice given by him in his professional
open the client to liability; (3) When the name character in the course of discipline enjoined by
would furnish the only link that would form the the church to which the minister or priest
chain of testimony necessary to convict. (Regala belongs
vs. Sandiganbayan, 1996) 5. Public Officer Privilege – Rule 30, Sec. 24 (e)
LAST LINK DOCTRINE: Non-privileged A public officer cannot be examined during his
information, such as identity of the client is term of office or afterwards, as to communications
protected if the revelation of such information made to him in official confidence, when the court
would necessarily reveal the privileged information. finds that the public interest would suffer by the
- It is enough that the client reasonably disclosure.
believed that the person consulted is a lawyer. 6. Parental and Filial Privilege – Rule 130, Sec. 25
- Communications may refer to anticipated A person cannot be compelled to testify
litigations or may not refer to any litigation at against his parents, other direct ascendants,
all. children or other direct descendants.
- Privilege does not extend to N.B. There is an inconsistency between the ROC and
communications where the client’s purpose is Family Code with respect to this privilege. ROC
the furtherance of a future intended crime or prevails since it took effect in 1989 and is made by
fraud the SC. While the Family Code took effect in 1989,
and though substantive is procedural in character. 3) to exercise his right of cross-examination.
Who are not covered and may be compelled to Rule 129 Sec. 4 vs. Rule 130 Sec. 26
testify: First is a JUDICIAL ADMISSION, which is
1) Relatives by affinity. conclusive upon the admitter whether in writing or
2) Brothers and sisters. oral. This applies to civil, criminal cases and even
3) Aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces. special proceedings.
4) Cousins of whatever degree. Second is an EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION.
5) Other collateral relatives. Under this rule, the admission is admissible only if it
Note: Parental and filial testimony dies not is against the interest of the admitter. (otherwise it
prohibit voluntary testimony or compelled is a self-serving statement)
testimony against relatives by affinity or collateral Example: Flight is considered a disserving
relatives. act, since it is prejudicial to the interest of the
Note: It is believed that adopted and accused. Flight is considered as circumstantial
adopter are covered by the parental and filial evidence of the guilt of the accused. BUT non-flight
testimonial privilege rule but only insofar as the cannot be used as evidence to prove his innocence,
parent and child is concerned. It does not extend to because that will be considered as an act that is
the direct ascendants of the adopter because the favorable to the interest of the accused.
adoptive relation is between the adopter and the Extra-judicial Confession vs. Admission
adopted only. The reason for this opinion is the A confession, as distinguished from
rationale behind the privilege, which is to preserve admission, is a declaration made at any time by a
harmonious relations between parent and child person, voluntarily and without compulsion or
which could be ruptured through testifying in court. inducement, stating or acknowledging that he had
Furthermore, perjury may result because the parent committed or participated in the commission of a
or the child may give false testimony to protect the crime.
other. The term, admission, on the other hand, is
Admissions and Confessions usually applied in criminal cases to statements of
Admissions – Rule 130, Sec. 26 fact by the accused which do not directly involve an
- Any act, declaration or omission of a party as to a acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused or of
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. criminal intent to commit the offense with which he
Such admission may be received in is charged. (U.S. v. Corrales, 28 Phil. 365)
evidence not only against the party who made it or Admission by silence.
his successors-in-interest but also against third a. An act or declaration made
persons. (Viacrucis vs. CA, 1986) 1) in the presence and
The silence of an accused under custody or his 2) within the hearing or
failure to deny statements by another implicating 3) observation
him in a crime cannot be considered as a tacit b. of a party who does or says nothing
confession of his participation in the commission of c. when the act or declaration
the crime. (People vs. Alegre, 1979) 1) is such as naturally to call for action or
Self-serving evidence comment if not true, and
An admission favorable to the party making it. 2) when proper and possible for him to do
(Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 84 Phil. 342) so,
a. Self-serving or favorable admissions made out d. may be given in evidence against him. (Sec. 32,
of court not admissible: REASONS: Rule 130, ROC arrangement and numbering
1) A man may be safely believed if he declares supplied)
against his own interest, but not if he Exceptions to the rule on admission by silence or
advocates his interest. (Lichauco v. Atlantic instances where there is no admission by silence:
Gulf & Pacific Co., 84 Phil. 342) 1) Where no good reason exists for the party to
2) It is excluded on the same ground as any comment on the act or declaration (Veil v. Strong,
hearsay evidence, that, the lack of opportunity 10 Vt. 455), as when the act or declaration was not
for cross-examination by the adverse party. specifically directed to the party who remained
(National Development Co., v. Workmen's silent. (80 A.L.R., Anno., 1272)
Compensation Commission, 19 SCRA 865) 2) When the party had no opportunity to comment
b. When self-serving or favorable admissions are on the act or declaration. (People v. Ranario, 49
admissible: Phil. 220)
1) If made in open court
2) giving full opportunity to the adverse party
3) Where the act or declaration was made in the (7) the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is
course of an official investigation. (People v. Tia corroborated by other evidence on record. (People
Fong, 98 Phil. 609) vs. Raquel, 1996)
4) When silence is upon advice of counsel. (People Rule on admission by co-partner or agent:
v. Kozlowski, 115 A.L.R. 1505) 1) The act or declaration of a partner or
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet or res 2) agent within the scope of his authority and
inter alios acta Rule during the existence of the partnership or agency,
(First Part of Rule) Statements made or matters 3) may be given in evidence against such party
accomplished between two parties cannot 4) after the partnership or agency
prejudice a third party. (Blanza v. Arcangel, 21 a) is shown by evidence [(testimonial or
SCRA 4) documentary, which may be 2ndary evidence)]
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an b) other than such act or declaration.
act, declaration, or omission of another, except as 5) The same rule applies to the act or declaration of
hereinafter provided. (Sec. 28, Rule 130, ROC) a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
Exceptions to res inter alios acta: interested with the party. (Sec. 29, Rule 130, ROC
1) When there is a rational similarity or arrangement and numbering supplied)
resemblance between the conditions giving rise to Rule on admission by conspirator:
he fact offered and the circumstances surrounding 1) The act or declaration of a conspirator
the issue or fact to be proved. (Cruz, et al., v. Court 2) relating to the conspiracy and during its
of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 126713, prom. July 27, existence,
1998) 3) may be given in evidence against the co-
2) In actions based on fraud and deceit, because it conspirator
sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a 4) after the conspiracy
person; it provides insight into such person's motive a) is shown by evidence (Circumstantial
or intent; it uncovers a scheme, design or plan; or it Evidence- cannot be proven by documentary
reveals a mistake. (Cruz, supra) evidence, since conspirators do not normally reduce
3) (Vicarious Admissions)- The rights of a party may their agreement in writing)
be prejudiced by the act, declaration or omission of b) other than such act or declaration. (Sec.
another when between the party making the 30, Rule 130)
admission and against whom it is offered there *This refers to extrajudicial acts and declarations of
exists a relation of: a conspirator and not to his testimony as a witness
a) partnership; in the trial. (People v. Atencio, L-222518, Jan. 17,
b) agency; 1968)
c) joint interest; Rule on Admission by Privies – Rule 130, Sec. 31
d) conspiracy; or - Where one derives title to property from another,
e) privity. the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while
Exceptions to the rule that extrajudicial holding the title, in relation to the property, is
statements of an accused implicating a co-accused evidence against the former
may not be utilized against the latter: Example: X, father of Z, while the former
(1) the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or was alive, openly told his acquaintances, that the
adopted the confession by not questioning its land where his house stood had already been sold
truthfulness; to Y. Here, the declaration by X is not admissible
(2) the accused persons voluntarily and against Z, the sole heir of Y, because the statement
independently executed identical confessions was made after X held title to the land.
without collusion and without contradiction by the Second Part of Inter alios acta Rule (Similar Acts as
others present; Evidence)
(3) the accused admitted the facts after being Rule 130, Secs. 34
apprised of the confession; - Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing
(4) if they are charged as co-conspirators of the at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or
crime which was confessed by 1 of the accused and did not do the same or similar thing at another
the confession is used only as a corroborating time; but it may be received to prove a specific
evidence; intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system,
(5) the confession is used as circumstantial evidence scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
to show the probability of participation by the co- Confessions – Rule 130, Sec. 133; Rule 115 (e); Art.
conspirator; III, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution
(6) the confessant testified for his co-defendant; - Declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt
of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily Rule 130, ROC; People v. Ramirez, L-5875, May 15,
included therein; may be given in evidence against 1953)
him. 6) When the recitals in the extrajudicial confession
- Confession is evidence of high order: of an accused is corroborated in its important
1) There is no evidence of a higher quality than a details by other proofs in the record, it may be
confession; It represents the outward manifestation admitted against the other accused. (People v.
of a man. Unless, therefore, the confession is Villanueva, L-12687, July 31, 1962)
nullified by evidence of duress, the same is Extrajudicial confessions identical in material
admissible as an evidence of guilt of a high quality. respects (also known as interlocking confessions)
(People v. Garcia, 54 Phil. 329, 358) admissible against all declarants:
2) If a confession be true and voluntary, the 1) As circumstantial evidence. Extrajudicial
deliberate act of the accused with a full confessions independently made without collusion
comprehension of its significance, there is no and are identical with each other in their material
impediment to its admission as evidence and it then respects and confirmatory of the other are
becomes evidence of a high order, since it is admissible as circumstantial evidence against co-
supported by the presumption, a very strong one, accused implicated therein to show the probability
that no person of normal mind will deliberately and of the latter's actual participation in the commission
knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of of the crime. (People v. Encipido, et al., 146 SCRA
a crime, especially if it be a serious crime, unless 492)
prompted by truth and conscience. (People v. Zea, 2) As corroborative evidence. They are admissible
et al., 130 SCRA 87, 88) as corroborative evidence against the other
Probative value of recantations: They are looked accused, if it is clear from other facts and
upon with disfavor as recantations are usually circumstances presented that persons other than
secured through intimidation or for a monetary the declarants themselves participated in the
consideration. (Molina v. People, 259 SCRA 138) commission of the crime charged and proved. (Ibid.)
General rule on admissibility of confession: A They are what is commonly known as
confession is admissible only against the accused interlocking confession and constitute an exception
who made it and not against his co-accused, for as to the general rule that extrajudicial
against the latter, the confession would be hearsay confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence
and res inter alios acta. (People v. Talledo, 85 Phil. only against the declarants thereof. (Ibid.)
533) The invocation of amnesty is in the nature
Exceptions: when a confession is admissible of a plea of confession and avoidance, which means
against co-accused: that the pleader admits the allegations against him,
1) When the confession of an accused implicating but disclaims liability therefor on account of
his co-accused is made judicially at a joint trial (U.S. intervening facts which, if proved, would bring the
v. Macamay, 36 Phil. 893) or when the extrajudicial crime charged within the scope of the amnesty
statements implicating a co-accused are repeated in proclamation. (People v. Salig, et al., 133 SCRA 69
open court (People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, July 3, citing Vera v. People, 7 SCRA 153)
1987), because the co-accused as a chance to cross-
examine. What is meant by corpus delicti ?
2) When the offer in evidence of an extrajudicial a. It refers to a particular crime and
confession against a co-accused is not objected to. signifies that the specific offense had been actually
(People v. Atienza, 86 Phil. 576) committed by someone, being composed of two
3) When the co-accused against whom an elements:
extrajudicial confession is offered had, by his acts, 1) certain results were produced, and
conducts and declarations adopted he confession as 2) someone is criminally responsible.
his own. (People v. Atienza, supra; People v. (People v. Marquez, 77 Phil. 83)
Orencia, 47 Phil. 970)
4) Where several accused, without collusion, made b. It also means actual commission of the
extrajduicial confessions which are identical in crime charged. (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1; People
essential details and corroborated by other v. Sanchez, 89 Phil. 423), or the specific fact of loss
evidence, such confession is admissible against the or injury. (People v. Garcia, 99 Phil. 381)
others. (People v. Pelonia, L-14624, July 24, 1960)
5) The confession of a conspirator is admissible Examples of corpus delicti:
against his co-conspirator provided it was made a. In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the
during the existence of the conspiracy. (Sec. 30, fact of death (People v. Garcia, 99 Phil. 381), which
may be proved even circumstantially. (People v. substance of what he heard if he heard and
Sasota, 91 Phil. 111; People v. Moro Ansang, 93 Phil. understood it. (People vs. Maqueda, 1995)
44).
b. In robbery or theft, the fact of loss. (People v. Compromises – Rule 130, Sec. 27
Niem, 75 Phil. 668) 1.Civil Cases – An offer of compromise is not an
c. In arson, the fact of burning, (People v. admission of any liability, and is not admissible
Marquez, 77 Phil. 83; People v. Mones, 58 Phil. 46) against the offeror.
d. In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were heard 2. Criminal Cases – An offer of compromise by the
and a bystander was killed by one of the shots accused may be received in evidence as an implied
constitute evidence of corpus delicti, which is the admission of guilt EXCEPT in cases involving quasi-
violent death of a person, whether feloniously offenses
caused or not. (People v. Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018) (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised.
Conviction for murder proper even if victim’s body - A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted
is not produced: In all crimes against persons in offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not
which the death of the victim is an essential admissible in evidence against the accused who
element of the offense, there must be satisfactory made the plea or offer.
evidence of the fact of death and the identity of the The Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the
victim that a crime has been committed which is payment of medical, hospital or other expenses
what corpus delicti really means. occasioned by an injury is not admissible in
evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the
The failure of the prosecution to produce the body injury.
of the victim does not imply the absence of corpus It has long been held that in cases of public
delicti for the term does not refer to the body of the crimes, the accused is permitted to show that the
murdered person. (People v. Centeno, et al., 130 offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt
SCRA 209) but merely to avoid the inconvenience of
- Sec. 17, Art III – No person shall be compelled to imprisonment of for some other reason which
be a witness against himself. would justify a claim by the accused that the offer
The operative act in determining whether was not in truth an admission of his guilt or an
the right against self-incrimination has been attempt to avoid the legal consequences which
violated is when the police investigation is no longer would ordinarily ensue therefrom. (People vs.
a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has Godoy, 1995)
begun to focus on a particular suspect who has A plea of forgiveness may be considered as
been taken into custody by the police to carry out a analogous to an attempt to compromise. (People
process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting vs. De Guzman, 1996)
incriminatory statements and not the signing by the An offer to compromise does not require that
suspect of his supposed extrajudicial confession. a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer
(People vs. Compil, 1995) can be received as evidence against the offeror.
By affixing their signatures on the boxes, (People vs. Yparriguirre, 1997)
accused in effect made a tacit admission of the
crime charged. These signatures are tantamount to THE Hearsay Rule
an extrajudicial confession made without the 1. Testimonial Knowledge – Rule 130, Sec. 36
assistance of counsel, which is not sanctioned by 1 What can a witness testify to?
the Bill of Rights. (People vs. Wong Chuen Ming, - A witness can testify only to those facts which he
1996) knows of his personal knowledge = those which are
Any confession, including a re-enactment derived from his own perception, except as
without admonition of the right to silence and to otherwise provided in these rules.
counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused The hearsay evidence rule applies also to
is inadmissible in evidence. (People vs. Yip Wai affidavits when the supposed affiant never
Ming, 1996) identified the affidavit and there was no
The declaration of an accused expressly opportunity for the prosecution to cross-examine
acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given him/her. (People vs. Brioso, 1971).
in evidence against him and any person, otherwise The testimony of a witness regarding a
competent to testify as a witness who heard the statement made by another person, if intended to
confession is competent to testify as to the establish the truth of the facts asserted in the
statement is clearly hearsay evidence. It is
otherwise if the purpose is merely to establish the municipality as to the character of an accused in a
fact that the statement was made, or the tenor of criminal case. (U.S. v. Tanjuatco, 1 Phil. 374)
such statement. (People vs. Cusi, 1965) 6) Newspaper Articles- (Double deck hearsay or
The testimony of a witness on the Double hearsay)
confession made to him by the accused is not Theory of the hearsay rule: When a human
hearsay. He is testifying to a fact which he knows of utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the
his personal knowledge (was testifying to the fact fact asserted in it, the credit of the assertor
that the accused told him that he stabbed the becomes the basis of inference, and therefore the
victim) and not to the truth of the statement of the assertion can be received as evidence only when
accused. (People vs. Gaddi, 1989) made on the witness stand, subject to the test of
cross-examination.
Examples of hearsay evidence: TWO CONCEPTS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE:
1) The testimony of a witness as to what he has 1. Second hand information (not derived from
heard another person say about the facts in dispute. personal knowledge of witness)
(People v. Reyes, 76 Phil. 354; Aldecoa & Co., v. 2. Testimony by a witness derived from his
WArner Barnes & Co., 30 Phil. 153) NOTE: See personal knowledge BUT the adverse party
concept of independent relevant statement. is not given opportunity to cross-examine
2) Affidavits. (Marisfosque v. Luna, L-9095, May 25, Example (No. 2): Plaintiff presents witness
1957; People v. Pagkaliwagan, 76 Phil. A. A testifies in court on matters personally
457) known to him. After direct examination,
General rule: Affidavits without court tells that defendant can cross
presenting affiant in court is mere hearsay: The examine on next scheduled hearing. On the
constitutional right to confrontation precludes next scheduled hearing witness A no longer
reliance on affidavits. Such a constitutional appears and could no longer be located.
safeguard cannot be satisfied unless the [The remedy here now is to ask that the
opportunity is given to the accused to test the testimony of witness A be stricken out since
credibility of any person, who, by affidavit or it now becomes hearsay]
deposition would impute the commission of an Rationale behind the non-admissibility of hearsay
offense to him. It would be to disregard one of the evidence:
most valuable guarantees of a person accused if 1) A witness can testify only to those facts which he
solely on the affidavits presented, his guilt could be knows of his own knowledge; and
predicated. (People v. Santos, et al., 139 SCRA 586- 2) To preserve the right of parties to cross-examine
587 citing People v. Lavarez, 23 SCRA 1301) the original witness or person claiming to have
Exceptions: when affidavits are given knowledge of the transaction or occurrence.
weight: (People v. Pagkaliwagan, 76 Phil. 457)
1) Where said affidavits are overwhelming, The right to cross-examine he adverse party's
uncontroverted by competent evidence and witnesses is essential in the administration of justice
not inherently improbable. (Top-Weld for it is the only means of testing the credibility of
Manufacturing, Inc. v. ECED, S.A., et al., witnesses and their testimony, and this right is not
138 SCRA 132) available in respect of hearsay evidence since he
2) Under the Rule on Summary Procedure declarant is not in court. (Donnelly v. U.S., 228 U.S.
for civil cases; 243)
3) When a motion is based on facts not Principle of Independently Relevant Statements
appearing of record the court may hear the - Under this principle regardless of the truth or
matter on affidavits or depositions falsity of a statement, the fact that such statements
presented by the respective parties, but the have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does
court may direct hat the matter be heard not apply, and the statements are admissible as
wholly or partly on oral testimony or evidence. Evidence as to the making of such
depositions. (Sec. 7, Rule 133, ROC) statement is not secondary but primary, for the
3) A letter offered in evidence to establish the facts statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
in issue. (Pastor v. Gaspar, 2 Phil. 592; People v. circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such
Carlos, 47 Phil. 626) a fact.
4) A medical certificate to the extent of the injuries - Independent relevant statements are hearsay in
found by the doctor on the offended party's body. character but not legal hearsay, hence they are not
(De Guia v. Meralco, 40 Phil. 706) considered as exceptions to the hearsay rule.
5) A resolution of the municipal council of a certain
Illustration: A was drinking with his buddies. A told credibility of a witness
them that: “My neighbor is a thief”. Later on A’s The Angara diary contains statements of the
neighbor was charged with theft. Prosecution calls petitioner which reflect his state of mind and are
as his witness one of the drinking buddies. The circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign .
drinking buddy testifies in court saying: “The 2. Exceptions
accused is a thief because I heard A says so.” [THIS 2.1 Dying Declaration – Rule 130, Sec. 37
IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE] - Declaration was made under the consciousness of
Now, supposing the neighbor filed a libel an impending death
case against A. The drinking buddy serves as a - Declaration refers to cause and surrounding
witness for the plaintiff, and says: “I heard A said circumstances of the death of the declarant
that the plaintiff is a thief.”. [Now this time this is - Declaration may be received in any case wherein
not hearsay, because the FACT IN ISSUE is whether declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry (In one
or not the utterances were made by a particular case. The husband was shot and wife was stabbed.
person, regardless of the truth or falsity of the The wife died instantly. The husband was brought
statement] to the hospital and made a statement that it was X
CASE: ESTRADA v. DESIERTO, APRIL 3, 2001 who stab her wife. The husband then died. The
Issue: Whether or not the use of the Angara diary to statement is not a dying declaration because it
determine the state of mind of President Estrada pertains to the wife)
violates the rule against the admission of hearsay - The declarant must be competent as a witness
evidence (What if declarant is proved to be a congenital liar?
Held: 1) Angara diary is not an OUT-OF-COURT Still this exception may apply, because he is not
STATEMENT, since it is part of the pleadings in the disqualified from testifying in court if he were alive)
case. - The declarant actually died, otherwise, the
2) Angara diary is not covered by the hearsay rule. declaration may be admitted as part of the res
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force gestae and not as a dying declaration
depends in whole or in part, on the competency and APPLICABILITY: Both Civil and Criminal. [Criminal:
credibility of some persons other than the witness Only those which involve death, homicide, murder,
by whom it is sought to produce it. parricide, robbery with homicide, rape with
3) Admission are not excluded by hearsay evidence. homicide]
The Angara diary contains direct statements of Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of
petitioner which can be categorized as admissions recovery. It is sufficient that circumstances are
of a party. And though the diary is not Estrada’s such as to inevitably lead to the conclusion that at
hence non-binding on him, SC held that the doctrine the time the declaration was made, the declarant
of adoptive admission applies. would not expect to survive the injury from which
4) res inter alios acta rule- exception: admissions by he actually died.
a co-partner or agent. Executive Secretary Angara The degree and seriousness of the wounds
was the little president, an alter ego of the and the fact that death supervened thereafter
president. Indeed, he was authorized by the constitute substantial evidence of the victim's
petitioner to act for him in the critical hours and consciousness of his impending death. (People v.
days before he abandoned Malacanan. Tanaman, et al., G.R. No. 71768, July 28, 1987)
5) Independently Relevant Statement- there are Dying declaration has weight even if declarant did
two classes: (1) Statements which are the very facts not die immediately after his declaration: The fact
in issue; (2) Statements which are circumstantial that the declarant died four (4) hours after his
evidence. The second class includes: statement does not diminish the probative value of
a. Statement of a person knowing his state the dying declaration since it is not indispensable
of mind, that is his mental condition, knowledge, that the a declarant expires immediately thereafter.
belief, intention, ill will and other emotions It is the belief of impending death and not
b. Statements of a person which show his the rapid succession of death that renders the dying
physical condition as illnesses and the like declaration admissible. (People v. Bautista, G.R. No.
c. Statements of a person which an 111149, prom. September 5, 1997)
inference may be made as to the state of mind of Mere gesture of dying victim inconclusive: The
another, that is the knowledge, belief, motive, good gesture of a dying woman in pointing to a direction,
or bad faith of the latter when asked for the identity of her assailant, is too
d. Statements which may identify the date, vague to be given such probative value in
place and persons in questions determining the culpability of the accused.
e. Statements showing the lack of REASON: Unlike an oral or a written
declaration, a simple gesture of the hand he refuses to pay. The witness testifies that one
unaccompanied by words, is open to various year ago he saw the plaintiff give money to the
interpretations by the witness who testifies to its defendant. And that he heart the plaintiff said that:
existence. Thus, the evidence comes to the court “Here’s the money you are borrowing from me.”
couched in the witness' second hand perception Further, he said that he heard the defendant say:
and possibly, imbued with his personal meanings “Thank you, I will pay one year after.” [Here the
and biases. This is what makes hearsay evidence equivocal act of handing the money was given
objectionable. The second hand evidence is placed significance by the statement of the plaintiff]
before the court without the benefit of cross-
examination by the party against whom it is
brought, nor of any other means of assessing the DYING DECLARATION vs. RES GESTAE
competence and credibility of the source. (People
v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, July 3, 1987) Time when statements made: DYING DECLARATION-
CASE: The crime charged is rape with homicide. The statements must be made after the injury has been
victim before death tells to the police inflicted upon the applicant.
investigator/doctor: “I was raped.” [This is not a RES GESTAE- in so far as startling occurrence is
dying declaration, because the statement has concerned, the statements could be made prior or
nothing to do with the cause and circumstances simultaneous with or after the startling occurrence.
surrounding the death. But this may be admitted as
part of res gestae] Death of declarant: DYING DECLARATION- declarant
2.2 Res Gestae – Rule 130, Sec. 42 must die
- What are admissible as part of the res gestae: RES GESTAE- no need for declarant
- Statements made by a person while a starting to die
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or Declarant: DYING DECLARATION- must be the victim
subsequent thereto with respect to the RES GESTAE- anybody
circumstances thereof PEOPLE vs. CLOUD (265 SCRA 472) Concept of
- Statements accompanying an equivocal act independently relevant statements and res gestae
material to the issue and giving it legal significance applied simultaneously. [N.B. dying declaration
TWO CONCEPTS: may likewise be applied simultaneously with
A. Spontaneous Statements independently relevant statement]
B. Statements accompanying Equivocal Acts- Josephine Aguilar was at the emergency room of a
Equivocal means ambiguous; capable of different hospital to have some stitches removed from her
interpretations. daughter’s head when she saw a boy being carried
EXAMPLE: a) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT: by a man, followed by an old woman who was
X barged into the house of Y, tied her to a chair and shouting hysterically. The boy’s face was swollen
robbed her. X brought Y’s maid to a bedroom and and bruised and his body covered with dry blood.
raped her. Y could hear the maid crying: “Huwag! The old woman, apparently the boy’s grandmother,
Maawa ka sa akin!”. When X fled, Y with the maid cried and repeatedly screamed. “Pinatay siya ng
rushed to the police station and told the police sariling ama!”. The old woman told the people
what happened. The maid told the police that inside the emergency room that the boy’s father
despite her pleas X still raped her. The police had beaten him up, tied his hands, and stabbed
noticed that the maid was hysterical and on the him.
verge of collapse. X was charged with robbery with
rape. During the trial the maid could no longer be Ruling of SC: Insofar as the statements of Rufina
located. The prosecution presents the policeman to Alconyes(old woman) are concerned, they are
testify on what the maid told him. [The testimony admissible as part of the res gestae, they having
would be hearsay but as an exception to the been caused by and did result from the startling, if
hearsay rule. The statements made by the maid fall not gruesome, occurrence that she witnessed; and
within the res gestae rule] these were shortly thereafter uttered by her with
b) EQUIVOCAL/VERBAL ACTS: A witness spontaneity, without prior opportunity to contrive
testifies on the stand for the plaintiff in a collection the same.
case where the defendant denies having borrowed The report made thereof by Josephine
P10,000 from the plaintiff. The debt is not Aguilar is not hearsay since she was actually there
evidenced by a promissory note because plaintiff and personally heard the statements of Alconyes
claims that defendant had orally borrowed money which she recounted in court. Her account of said
from him in the past and had always paid. This time statements of Alconyes are admissible under the
doctrine of independently relevant statements, with CASE: People v. Holgado
respect to the tenor and not the truth thereof, since Jose was killed. Pedro admitted that he was the one
independent of the truth or falsity of the same they who killed Jose. Unfortunately, Pedro also died. The
are relevant to the issue on the cause of the death prosecutor filed an information charging Juan with
of the victim. homicide of Jose. The defense presented a witness
2.3 Declaration Against Interest – Rule 130, Sec. 38 who heard Pedro say that he was the one who
By whom made: a person deceased, or unable to killed Jose. SC held that Pedro’s declaration is a
testify, against the interest of the declarant declaration against interest. It is therefore
Subject of declaration/act: the fact asserted in the admissible to show that the accused did not commit
declaration was at the time it was made so far the crime charged.
contrary to declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have 2.4 Pedigree – Rule 130, Sec. 39
made the declaration unless he believed it to be By whom made: person deceased, or unable to
true testify
Against whom received: such may be received in Subject of declaration/act: pedigree of another
evidence against himself or his successors in person related to him by birth or marriage
interest and against third persons. When admissible: occurred before the controversy,
REQUISITES: and the relationship between the two persons is
a. The declaration is made by shown by evidence other than such act or
1) a person deceased, or declaration.
2) unable to testify [i.e. in foreign country Pedigree - includes relationship, family genealogy,
or physical/mental impairments] birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the
b. against the interest of the declarant, [declarant places where these fast occurred, and the names of
MUST KNOW that it is against his interest] the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
c. if the fact asserted in the declaration intimately connected with pedigree.
1) was at the time it was made
2) so far contrary to declarant's own 2.5 Family Tradition – Rule 130, Sec. 40
interest, Subject of exception: reputation or tradition
3) that a reasonable man in his position existing in a family previous to the controversy, in
a) would not have made the respect to the pedigree of any one of its members,
declaration may be received in evidence if the witness testifying
b) unless he believed it to be true. thereon be also a member of the family, either by
(Sec. 38, Rule 130, ROC) 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.
Declaration against interest distinguished from
admission: 2.6 Common Reputation – Rule 130, Sec. 41
1) An admission is not necessarily against the - What are admissible?
interest of the admitter WHILE the declaration - Common reputation existing previous to the
must be against the declarant's own interest(penal, controversy, respecting facts of public or general
proprietary, financial) interest > 30 years old, or respecting marriage or
2) An admission may be received even if the moral character, may be given in evidence.
admitter is alive WHILE the declarant must be dead - Monuments and inscriptions in public places may
or is unable to testify; be received as evidence of common reputation
3) An admission may be received in evidence only Note: When it comes to presentation of
against the admitter and those identified with him evidence concerning the good or bad moral
in legal interest WHILE the declaration may be character, the only evidence admissible is evidence
received even against third persons. (Smith v. of COMMON REPUTATION. So if character evidence
Moore, 142 N.C. 277) is allowed a litigant cannot present proof that he is
of good moral character.
Inability to testify = either dead, mentally Example: A parish priest of the community
incapacitated or physically incompetent. Mere where the accused belongs is presented as witness.
absence from the jurisdiction does not make him And the parish priest testifies that the accused goes
ipso facto unavailable. Fuentes vs. CA (1996) to mass everyday and receives holy communion.
[The testimony is not admissible to show the
accused’s good moral character; Moral character own personal observation of the facts reported,
for purposes of evidence can be demonstrated may properly be constituted as an exception.
ONLY by evidence of REPUTATION]. So the parish (Caltex vs. Africa, 1966)
priest should tell the court what is the reputation of Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive
the accused in the community. proof of the truth of such entries. (People vs.
Cabuang, 1993)
Principle of NEGATIVE REPUTE
If in a community nothing good or bad is heard 2.9 Commercial Lists – Rule 130, Sec. 45
about a particular person, the presumption is that Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
he is really a good person, because that flows from persons engaged in an occupation contained in a
the established principle in substantive law that list, register, periodical, or other published
everyone is acting in good faith. compilation is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
2.7 Entries in the Course of Business – Rule 130, compilation is published for use by persons engaged
Sec. 42; Rule 8, REE in that occupation and is generally used and relied
When made: Entries made at, or near the time of upon by them therein.
transactions to which they refer
By whom made: by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, who was in a position to know the facts 2.10 Learned Treatises – Rule 130, Sec. 46
therein stated, A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence, subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible
if such person made the entries in his professional as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
capacity or in the performance of duty and in the therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a
ordinary or regular course of business or duty. witness expert in the subject testifies, that the
writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or
Rule 8, Section 1. Hearsay rule exception: A pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling
memorandum, report, record or data compilation as expert in the subject.
of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses,
made by electronic, optical or other similar means 2.11 Prior Testimony – Rule 130, Sec. 47
at or near the time of or from transmission or By whom made: a witness deceased or unable to
supply of information by a person with knowledge testify,
thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct When given: in a former case or proceeding, judicial
of a business activity, and such was the regular or administrative, involving the same parties and
practice to make the memorandum, report, record, subject matter,
or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar When admissible: may be given in evidence against
means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the adverse party who had the opportunity to
the custodian or other qualified witnesses. cross-examine him.
“Unable to testify” refers to an inability
Rule 8, Section 2. This presumption may be proceeding from a grave cause almost amounting to
overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of death as when the witness is old and has lost the
the source of information or the method or power of speech. (Tan vs. CA, 1967)
circumstances of the preparation, transmission or
storage thereof. Conduct and Character as Evidence
Conduct – Rule 130, Secs. 34-35
2.8 Official Records – Rule 130, Sec. 44 - Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing
When made: Entries made at, or near the time of at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or
transactions to which they refer. did not do the same or similar thing at another
By whom made: by a person deceased, or unable to time; but it may be received to prove a specific
testify, who was in a position to know the facts intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system,
therein stated, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence, - An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of
if such person made the entries in his professional money or to deliver a written instrument or specific
capacity or in the performance of duty and in the personal property is, if rejected without valid cause,
ordinary or regular course of business or duty. equivalent to the actual production and tender of
The report submitted by a police officer in the money, instrument, or property.
the performance of his duties on the basis of his
Character – Rule 130, Sec. 51; Rule 132, Sec. 14 always essential to the competency of a witness as
General Rule: Character evidence is not admissible, an expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less
[because it is purely circumstantial] exceptions- valuable than that acquired by study. (Dilag Co. vs.
1. In criminal cases – Merced, 1949)
- Accused = may prove his good moral character Polygraph test has not as yet attained
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate
offense charged. means of ascertaining truth or deception. (People
- Prosecution = may not prove his bad moral vs. Adoviso, 1999)
character unless in rebuttal. Expert opinions are not ordinarily
- Offended Party = his/her good or bad moral conclusive in the sense that they must be accepted
character may be proved if it tends to establish in as true on the subject of their testimony, but are
any reasonable degree the probability or generally regarded as purely advisory; the courts
improbability of the offense charged. may place whatever weight they choose upon such
testimony and may reject it, if they find that it is
2. In civil cases – inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise
- Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil unreasonable.(Punzalan v. Commission on Elections,
case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue et al., G.R. No. 126669)
of character involved in the case. Testimony of handwriting expert not
- Witness = Evidence of his/her good character is indispensable to COMELEC. Handwriting experts,
not admissible until such character has been while probably useful, are not indispensable in
impeached. examining or comparing handwriting; this can be
While evidence of another crime is, as a done by the COMELEC itself. It was ruled by the
rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery; it Supreme Court that evidence aliunde is not allowed
is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as when to prove that a ballot is marked, an inspection of
it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator and the ballot itself being sufficient. ((Punzalan v.
tends to show is presence at the scene of the crime Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 126669)
or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or
when it is evidence of a circumstance connected
with the crime. (People vs. Irang, 1937) VI. Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Good or bad moral character of the victim 1. Burden of Proof – Rule 131, Sec. 1
is not necessary in a crime of murder where the Burden of proof (Risk of non-persuasion): duty of a
killing is committed through treachery or party to present evidence on the facts in issue
premeditation. (People vs. Soliman, 1957) necessary to establish his claim or defense by the
amount required by law.
V. Opinion Rule – Rule 130, Secs. 48-50 Criminal Cases: The burden of proof is on the
General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not prosecution, because under Rule 133 the accused is
admissible (R130, ß48) entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is demonstrated
Except: by proof beyond reasonable doubt
1. Expert witness: opinion of a witness on a matter Civil Cases: The usual principle is that whoever
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or makes an affirmative allegation has the burden of
training which he shown to possess (R130, ß49) proof
2. Ordinary witness: The opinion of a witness for Infringement cases: The burden of proof to
which proper basis is given, may be received in substantiate a charge of infringement is with the
evidence regarding — plaintiff. But where he plaintiff introduces the
(a) The identity of a person about whom he has patent in evidence, and the same is in due form,
adequate knowledge; there is created a prima facie presumption of its
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient correctness and validity. The decision of the
familiarity; and Commissioner of Patent (now the Director of the
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is Intellectual Property Office), in granting the patent
sufficiently acquainted. is presumed to be correct.
(d) The witness may also testify on his impressions The burden of going forward with the evidence
of the emotion, behavior, condition or (burden of evidence) then shifts to the defendant to
appearance of a person. (R130, ß50) overcome by competent evidence this legal
There is no precise requirement as to the presumption. (Maguan v. Court of Appeals, et al.,
mode in which skill or experience shall have been 146 SCRA 116, 117)
acquired. Scientific study and training are not
 Two separate burdens in Burden of Proof: [ At the start, the plaintiff has the burden of proof
1. Burden of going forward- that of producing and also burden of evidence, he should go to trial
evidence and present evidence to show that he has a cause
2. Burden of persuasion- burden of of action. If he has introduced enough proof that he
persuading the trier of fact that the has a cause of action, the burden of evidence will
burdened party is entitled to prevail now be shifted to the defendant. If defendant
presents enough evidence to prove his negative
Illustration of going forward with the evidence: For defense then the burden of evidence is shifted
example after the existence of a debt has been again to the plaintiff on rebuttal evidence.]
proven by the creditor the burden of proving
payment devolves upon the debtor. Where the Can the accused in a criminal/civil case before
debtor introduces evidence of payment, the burden presenting his own evidence ascertain
of going forward with the evidence - as distinct conditionally or provisionally whether the
from the general burden of proof- shifts to the evidence presented by the prosecution is enough
creditor who is then under the duty of producing to convict him?
evidence to show non-payment. (Jimenez, et al, v. Yes. In a criminal/civil case, the
NLRC, et al., G.R. No,. 116960, prom. April 2, 1996) accused(defendant/plaintiff) can easily determine
In short, the burden of going forward is the the sentiment of the court concerning the quantum
burden of producing evidence. of evidence presented by the
prosecution(defendant/plaintiff) by simply filing a
EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE or no demurrer to evidence with leave of court.
evidence is presented
PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVING AVERMENT
CRIMINAL CASE: Accused is acquitted A negative averment do not have to be proven
CIVIL CASE: UNLESS the negative averment is an essential part
a. When defendant does not file an answer- of the cause of action or defense.
Plaintiff wins
b. When defendant files an answer and sets Example: In an information for illegal possession of
up purely negative defenses and no firearms, the information will contain an averment
evidence is presented by both sides- that the accused does not have a license to possess
Defendant wins because plaintiff has not the firearm[negative averment].
carried his burden * In this case, the negative averment is an
c. When defendant files an answer and sets essential part of the commission of the crime, hence
up affirmative defenses and no evidence is this must be proven.
presented by both sides- Plaintiff wins
Example: The defendant filed an Doctrine of equipoise or Equiponderance Rule
answer: “I admit that I borrowed money from the Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in
plaintiff, but the plaintiff has no reason to run after equipoise or there is doubt on which side the
me because I have paid that account long time evidence preponderates, the party having the
ago.” [If no evidence is presented by both sides then burden of proof fails upon that issue. (Rivera v.
plaintiff wins because the defendant admitted the Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115625, prom.
existence of loan. And it is the defendant’s burden January 23, 1998)
to prove his affirmative defense.] Therefore, as neither party was able to make
out a case, neither side could establish its cause of
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE- the duty resting upon a action and prevail with the evidence it had. They
party, by means of evidence, to create or meet a are thus no better off than before they proceeded to
prima facie case. litigate, and, as a consequence thereof, the courts
can only leave them as they are. (Rivera, supra
BURDEN OF PROOF vs. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE citing Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v. Court of
Burden of Proof NEVER SHIFTS, while Burden of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530)
Evidence is TRANSFERRED from one litigant to
another depending on the progress of trial. 2. Presumptions – Rule 131, Secs. 2-4

Illustration: Plaintiff files a complaint for recovery of Presumption- an inference as to the existence or
a defaulted loan. Defendant files an answer with a non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted
negative defense, denying the existence of the loan. to draw from the proof of other facts.
 - Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
CLASSIFICATIONS - Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
1. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW- a deduction produced
which the law expressly directs to be made from ELEMENTS:
particular facts a. The suppression is wilful. (Sec. 3-e, Rule
-Must be made whenever the facts appear 131, ROC) continue
which furnish the basis for the inference b. The suppression is not in the exercise of
-Reduced to fixed rules and form part of the a privilege.
system of jurisprudence c. The evidence suppressed is not merely
2. PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACT- a corroborative.
deduction which reason draws from facts proved d. The evidence is at the disposal only of
without an express direction from the law to that the suppressing party.
effect
-Discretionary on the court NOTES: Instances where adverse
-Derived from circumstances of a particular presumption from suppression of evidence does not
case through common experience of mankind apply:
a. If the evidence is at the disposal of both
CLASSIFICATIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW parties. (People v. Ducay, 225 SCRA 1)
1. Conclusive- not permitted to be overcome by any b. The suppression was not willful.
proof to the contrary c. The suppressed evidence is merely
2. Disputable- law permits to be overcome or corroborative or cumulative.
contradicted d. The suppression is an exercise of a
privilege. (People v. Navaja, 220 SCRA 624)
2.1 Conclusive
2.1.1. Whenever a party by his own declaration, act, - Money paid by one to another was due to the
omission, has led another – latter;
1 to believe a particular thing to be - Thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
true AND latter;
2 to act upon such belief, - Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
he cannot in any litigation arising out of such paid;
declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify - Prior rents or installments had been paid when a
it. (Estoppel) receipt for the later ones is produced;
2.1.2. The TENANT is not permitted to deny the - A person found in possession of a thing taken in
title of his landlord at the time of the the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
COMMENCEMENT of the relation of landlord and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which
tenant between them. a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership
over, are owned by him;
Note: There is also a conclusive presumption under - Person in possession of an order on himself for the
the Rule 39, which is a payment of the money or the delivery of anything
public policy principle of has paid the money or delivered the thing
res judicata (a judgment is conclusive upon the title accordingly; person acting in public office was
to the thing or upon the political or legal condition regularly appointed or elected to it;
of a person, {judgment in rem or in personam}) - Official duty has been regularly performed;
- A court or judge acting as such, whether in the
2.2 Disputable Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful
exercise of jurisdiction;
CLASSIFICATIONS: - All the matters within an issue raised in a case
1. Presumption of innocence (Presumption of good were laid before the court and passed upon by it; all
faith) matters within an issue raised in a dispute
2. Presumption of regularity of official and judicial submitted for arbitration were laid before
acts arbitrators and passed upon by them;
3. Presumption of regularity of private transactions - Private transactions have been fair and regular;
- Person is innocent of a crime or wrong; - ordinary course of business has been followed;
- Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent; - there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
- Person intends the ordinary consequences of his - negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
voluntary act; sufficient consideration;
- An indorsement of negotiable instrument was including joint deposits of money and evidences of
made before the instrument was overdue and at credit are equal.
the place where the instrument is dated; - If the marriage is terminated and the mother
- A writing is truly dated; contracted another marriage within three hundred
- Letter duly directed and mailed was received in days after such termination of the former marriage,
the regular course of the mail; these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to
- Absentee of 7 years, it being not known whether the contrary:
or not he is alive, is considered dead for all - A child born before 180 days after the
purposes except for succession. solemnization of the subsequent marriage is
= For the purpose of opening his succession: an considered to have been conceived during such
absence of 10 years, if disappeared after age of 75, marriage, even though it is born within the 300 days
absence of 5 years. after the termination of the former marriage.
= The following shall be considered dead for all - A child born after 180 days following the
purposes including the division of the estate among celebration of the subsequent marriage is
the heirs: considered to have been conceived during such
= Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, marriage, even though it be born within the 300
or an aircraft with is missing, who has not been days after the termination of the former marriage.
heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or - A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is
aircraft; usual with things of the nature
= Member of the armed forces who has taken part - The law has been obeyed;
in armed hostilities, and has been missing for 4 - A printed or published book, purporting to be
years; printed or published by public authority, was so
= Person who has been in danger of death under printed or published;
other circumstances and whose existence has not - A printed or published book, purporting contain
been known for four years; reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country
= Spouse, of a married person absent for 4 where the book is published, contains correct
consecutive years, may contract a subsequent reports of such cases;
marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that - A trustee or other person whose duty it was to
the absent spouse is already death; 2 years in case convey real property to a particular person has
of disappearance, where there is a danger of death actually conveyed it to him when such presumption
the circumstances hereinabove provided. Before is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his
marrying again, the spouse present must institute a successor in interest;
summary proceedings as provided in the Family - Except for purposes of succession, when 2 persons
Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive perish in the same calamity, and it is not shown
death of the absentee, without prejudice to the who died first, and there are no particular
effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
- Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing survivorship is determined from the probabilities
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact; resulting from the strength and the age of the
- Things have happened according to the ordinary sexes, according to the following rules:
course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life; = Both < 15: older survived;
- Persons acting as copartners have entered into a = Both > 60: younger survived;
contract of co-partnership; = One <15; other >60: <15 survived;
- A man and woman deporting themselves as = Both >15, <60 and the sex be different, the male is
husband and wife have entered into a lawful deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same,
contract of marriage; the older;
- Property acquired by a man and a woman who are = One < 15 or >, and the other between those ages,
capacitated to marry each other and who live the latter is deemed to have survived.
exclusively with each other as husband and wife - That if there is a doubt, as between two or more
without the benefit of marriage or under void persons who are called to succeed each other, as to
marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, which of them died first, whoever alleges the death
work or industry. of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in
- In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman the absence of proof, they shall be considered to
who are not capacitated to marry each other and have died at the same time. (5a)
who have acquire properly through their actual The presumption that evidence not
joint contribution of money, property or industry, produced or willfully suppressed is adverse to the
such contributions and their corresponding shares party, will not apply if the evidence is at the disposal
of both the defense and the prosecution and if the him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
evidence is merely conclusive. (People vs. provided by law; or
Padiernos, 1976) 2.5 Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact
VII. Presentation of Evidence at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed. But a witness must answer to
Note: The Rules apply to Summary Procedure but in the fact of his previous final conviction for an
a modified form, since in Summary Procedure the offense.
testimonies of the witnesses, (in civil cases) will be
reduced into writing in the form of affidavit. Hence, Case: Supposing a witness refused to answer
there is no direct, cross, re-cross or re-direct because he feels the question is incriminatory.
examination. However, the court directs the witness to give an
Affiant is not allowed in Summary Procedure answer and the witness obeys the order of the
to embody hearsay testimony. court. Later on the answer turns out to be
incriminatory and later on the witness was indicted
In criminal cases under Summary Procedure, for the commission of this offense, can his
the affidavits of the witnesses take the place of the testimony in court be given in evidence against him
direct examination. There is cross examination in the form of an admission?
NO, because the witnsess has initially objected
VOIR DIRE- preliminary examination of witnesses and he gave the answer only in compliance with an
for the purpose of establishing whether or not a order of the court. According to some decisions that
witness really is qualified as such. (Likewise done in could be treated as a compelled testimony given
examination of a child witness, but it is only the under duress and therefore could not be used
judge who can ask questions, plaintiff and against the witness.
defendant can write their questions and give it to
the judge) EXCEPTIONS TO RULE AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION
Note: Ordinary witnesses are not allowed to be 1. Use Immunity- the witness will still be indicted
examined in a narrative form, except a child for the commission of an offense, but the
witness. statements given by the witness cannot be used
against him. He is not immunized from prosecution.
A. Examination of Witnesses 2. Transactional Immunity- There is absolute
1. How done – Rule 132, Sec. 1 immunity, both to prosecution and use of the
open court statements given by the witness.
under oath or affirmation
- Mode of answering 3. Order in the Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 4
General Rule: oral 3.1 Direct Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 5
Exception: - Examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
o Witness is incapacitated to speak or presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
o Question calls for a different mode of
answer 3.2 Cross-Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 6
- When conducted: upon termination of direct
2. Rights and Obligations – Rule 132, Sec. 3 examination
Obligation of a witness: answer questions, although - Matters covered: witness may be cross-examined
his answer may tend to establish a claim against by the adverse party as to –
him. = Any matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and
Rights of a witness: freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and
2.1 To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting = To elicit all important facts bearing upon the
demeanor; issue.
2.2 Not to be detained longer than the interests of Implied waiver of cross-examination – The party
justice require; was given the opportunity Dela Paz vs. IAC (1987)
2.3 Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue; TWO RULES ON LIMITS OF CROSS EXAMINATION
2.4 Not to give an answer which will tend to subject 1. English Rule- where a witness is called to testify
to a particular fact, he becomes a witness for all of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all 4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
matters material to the issue, the examination not o A witness may be considered as
being confined to the matters inquired about in the unwilling or hostile only if so declared
direct examination. by the court upon adequate showing of
2. American Rule- restricts cross-examination to his -
facts and circumstances which are connected with  adverse interest,
the matters that have been stated in the direct  unjustified reluctance to testify, or
examination of the witness. (applies when witness  his having misled the party into
is the accused in a criminal case; and when witness calling him to the witness stand.
is hostile or adverse party witness) 6. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an
officer, director, or managing agent of a
3.3 Re-direct Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 7 public or private corporation or of a
- When conducted: after the cross-examination of partnership or association which is an
the witness has been concluded adverse party.
- Why conducted: to explain or supplement his
answers given during the cross-examination. On re-  When the answer is derived from a leading
direct-examination, the court in its discretion may question the evidence has no probative
allow questions on matters not dealt with during value at all even if there is no objection to a
the cross-examination. leading question.

3.4 Re-cross Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 8 Misleading questions

- Adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness 1 Those that assume as true a fact not yet
on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and testified to by the witness, or contrary to that
also on such other matters as may be allowed by which he has previously stated.
the court in its discretion, upon the conclusion of 2 Not allowed.
the re-direct examination.
DOCTRINE OF INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY: When
4. Recalling Witnesses – Rule 132, Sec. 9 cross examination cannot be done or completed
- After the examination of a witness has been due to causes attributable to the party who offered
concluded by both sides has been concluded, the the witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered
witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. incompetent and should be stricken from the
The court will grant or withhold leave in its record. Except: where the prosecution witness was
discretion as the interests of justice may require. extensively cross-examined on the material points
There must be a satisfactory showing of and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be
some concrete, substantial ground (i.e. particularly produced despite a warrant for his arrest. (People v.
identified material points were not covered in the GOrospe, GR 51513, May 15, 1984)
cross-examination; particularly described vital
documents were not presented to the witness; the Scope of judge’s participation at trial : A judge
cross-examination was conducted in so inept a who presides at a trial is not a mere referee. He
manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof. must actively participate therein by directing
(People vs. Rivera, 1991) counsel to the facts in dispute, by asking clarifying
questions, and by showing an interest in a fast a fair
5. Leading and Misleading Questions – Rule 132, trial. (Clarin v. Yatco, 56 O.G. 7042, Nov. 14, 1960)
Sec. 10 He can interrogate witnesses to elicit the
Leading questions truth, to obtain clarification, or to test their
 Questions that suggest to the witness the credibility. (People v Moreno, 83 Phil. 286)
answer, which the examining party desires, are However, this power must be exercised by
leading questions. the court sparingly and judiciously. (People v.
 General Rule: Not allowed Ferrer, 44 O.G. 112). Of course, the judge cannot
 Exceptions: curtail counsel's right to interrogate witnesses.
1. On cross examination; (People v. Bedia, 83 Phil. 909)
2. On preliminary matters; There is no prohibition against the judge
3. When there is a difficulty is getting direct conducting the examination of the witness. The
and intelligible answers from a witness who counsel may object to the questions propounded by
is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is the judge.
 = A witness may be considered as unwilling
Power of court to stop further evidence: or hostile only if so declared by the court upon
1) The court may stop adequate showing of his -
2) the introduction of further testimony  adverse interest,
3) upon any particular point  unjustified reluctance to testify, or
4) when the evidence upon it is already so full -
5) that more witnesses to the same point  his having misled the party into
6) cannot be reasonably expected calling him to the witness stand.
7) to be additionally persuasive. - The impeachment may be made by the party
presenting the hostile or unwilling witness in all
But this power should be exercised with caution. respects as if he had been called by the adverse
When the evidence already presented on one point party, except by evidence of bad character. He may
is sufficient and the party merely seeks to present also be impeached and cross-examined by the
cumulative evidence which cannot produce adverse party, but such cross-examination must
additional persuasive effect or that he is not sure of only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-
what the other witnesses would testify, the court chief.
may in its sound discretion stop the introduction of
such further evidence. (People v. Reyes, et al., 133 6.3. Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements
SCRA 51) – Rule 132, Sec. 13
- Before a witness can be impeached by evidence
Role of attorney during presentation of evidence: that he has made at other times statements
An attorney has a dual role to perform relative to inconsistent with his present testimony: the
proving the truth respecting a matter of fact. statements must be related to him, with the
He must ensure that all evidence supporting the circumstances of the times and places and the
material allegations, whether raised in the persons present, and he must be asked whether he
pleadings or not are admitted by the court. His made such statements, and if so, be allowed to
other role is to block the admission of evidence explain them; if the statements be in writing they
supporting his opponents' material allegations must be shown to the witness before any question
whether raised in the pleadings or not. is put to him concerning them (laying the
In order to perform this dual role the attorney predicate).
should ensure that the evidence he offers are
admissible in accordance with the Rules of Court Laying the foundation or laying the basis- refers to
and those of his opponent are properly objected to a situation where an evidence which is otherwise
for being inadmissible incompetent will be introduced in evidence because
it falls under the exceptions to that rule on
6. Impeachment of Witnesses exclusion.
6.1. Impeachment of Adverse Party’s Witness – Rule Example: If a party desires to introduce
132, Sec. 11 secondary or substitutionary evidence he must first
- How done: lay the foundation or lay the basis. He must first
by contradictory evidence; proved that there was a writing duly executed and
by evidence that his general reputation for truth, that the original has been lost or destroyed.
honesty or integrity is bad; or
by evidence that he has made at other times 7. Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses – Rule
statements inconsistent with his present testimony. 132, Sec. 14
- The judge may exclude from the court any witness
- Evidence of particular wrongful acts is not allowed not at the time under examination, so that he may
except that it may be shown by the examination of not hear the testimony of other witnesses. The
the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he judge may also have the witnesses separated and
has been convicted of an offense. prevented from conversing with each other until all
have been examined.
6.2. Impeachment of Own Witness – Rule 132, Sec.
12 8. Refreshing Recollection of Witnesses – Rule 132,
- General Rule: The party producing a witness is not Sec. 16
allowed to impeach the latter’s credibility. 8.1 Revival of Present Memory
- Exception: The witness is an unwilling or hostile - A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
witness. respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded
by himself or under his direction at the time when the presumption of competence enjoyed by a
the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at child, the burden of proof lies on the party
any other time when the fact was fresh in his challenging his competence. (ßß6, 6(b))
memory and knew that the same was correctly Competency exam
written or recorded, A. When conducted-
- BUT in such case the writing or record must be - Motu proprio or on motion of a
produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, when it finds that
party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the substantial doubt exists regarding
witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate,
Note: The memorandum is not evidence, it is still distinguish truth from falsehood,
the testimony or appreciate the duty to tell the
truth in court. (ß6)
- A party seeking a competency
8.2 Past Recollection Recorded examination must present proof of
- A witness may testify from such writing or record, necessity of competency
(as in the case in revival of present memory) though examination. The age of the child
he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he by itself is not a sufficient basis for
is able to swear that the writing or record correctly a competency examination. (ß6(a))
stated the transaction when made; but such B. Who are allowed to attend-
evidence must be received with caution. - The judge and necessary court
personnel;
Note: It is the memorandum that will serve as - The counsel for the parties;
evidence (documentary evidence) - The guardian ad litem;
- Support person/s for the child; and
What is the consequence of giving in evidence a - The defendant, unless the court
part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or determines that competence can
record? (Rule 132, Section 17) [RULE OF be fully evaluated in his absence.
COMPLETENESS] (ß6(c))
- The whole of the same subject may be inquired C. How conducted-
into by the other, and when a detached act, - By whom conducted: by the judge,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is given counsel for the parties, however,
in evidence, any other act, declaration, can submit questions to the judge
conversation, writing or record necessary to its that he may, in his discretion, ask
understanding may also be given in evidence. the child. (ß6(d))
- Questions asked: appropriate to
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness the age and developmental level of
Applicability of the Rule. — Unless otherwise the child; shall not be related to
provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of the issues at trial; and shall focus
child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of on the ability of the child to
a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all remember, communicate,
criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings distinguish between truth and
involving child witnesses. (ß1) falsehood, and appreciate the duty
to testify truthfully. (ß6(e))
Child witness - The court has the duty of
I. Definition (ß4(a)) continuously assessing the
Any person who at the time of giving testimony competence of the child
is < 18 years. throughout his testimony. (ß6(f))
In child abuse cases: a child includes one over
eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as III. Testifying
unable to fully take care of himself or protect A. Oath: Before testifying, a child shall take an
himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, oath or affirmation to tell the truth. (ß7)
exploitation, or discrimination because of a B. Examination
physical or mental disability or condition. 1. How conducted –
II. Competency of a Child Witness: Every child is General Rule: open court, unless the
presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
question calls for a different mode of 1 prosecutor,
answer, the answers of the witness shall be 2 counsel or the
given orally. (ß8) 3 guardian ad litem
Exception/s: Period for application: The person
a) Exclusion of the public – seeking such an order shall apply
- Why made: at least five (5) days before the
 To protect the right to privacy trial date, unless the court finds on
of the child or the record that the need for such
 If the court determines on the an order was not reasonably
record that requiring the child foreseeable.
to testify in open court would
cause psychological harm to Hearing on the application:
him, hinder the ascertainment The court may motu proprio hear
of truth, or result in his and determine, with notice to the
inability to effectively parties, the need for taking the
communicate due to testimony of the child through live-
embarrassment, fear, or link television.
timidity.
- In making its order, the court shall The judge may question the child
consider the developmental level in chambers, or in some
of the child, the nature of the comfortable place other than the
crime, the nature of his testimony courtroom, in the presence of the
regarding the crime, his support person, guardian ad litem,
relationship to the accused and to prosecutor, and counsel for the
persons attending the trial, his parties. The questions of the judge
desires, and the interests of his shall not be related to the issues at
parents or legal guardian. trial but to the feelings of the child
- The court may, motu proprio, about testifying in the courtroom.
exclude the public from the
courtroom if the evidence to be The judge may exclude any person,
produced during trial is of such including the accused, whose
character as to be offensive to presence or conduct causes fear to
decency or public morals. the child.
- The court may also, on motion of
the accused, exclude the public Order denying/granting use of live-
from trial, except court personnel link TV:
and the counsel of the parties. The court shall issue an order
(ß23) granting or denying the use of live-
b) The court may order that persons link television and stating the
attending the trial shall not enter or reasons therefor.
leave the courtroom during the
testimony of the child. (ß24)
c) Motion by party who presents a child Factors considered by the court in
witness or the guardian ad litem of granting/denying application:
such child witness may, however, move (1)†The age and level of
the court to allow him to testify in the development of the child;
manner provided in this Rule (ß8): (2)†His physical and
mental health, including any
i. Live-link television testimony in mental or physical disability;
criminal cases where the child is a (3)†Any physical,
victim or a witness. (ß25) emotional, or psychological
Who may apply for an order that injury experienced by him;
testimony of the child be taken in a (4)†The nature of the
room outside the courtroom and alleged abuse;
be televised to the courtroom by (5)†Any threats against
live-link television:
 the child; presence are determined
(6)†His relationship with by the court to be
the accused or adverse party; necessary to the welfare
(7)†His reaction to any and well-being of the
prior encounters with the child;
accused in court or elsewhere; - The judge, prosecutor,
(8)†His reaction prior to accused, and counsel for the
trial when the topic of parties shall be in the
testifying was discussed with courtroom. The testimony of
him by parents or the child shall be transmitted
professionals; by live-link television into the
(9)†Specific symptoms of courtroom for viewing and
stress exhibited by the child in hearing by the judge,
the days prior to testifying; prosecutor, counsel for the
(10)†Testimony of expert parties, accused, victim, and
or lay witnesses; the public unless excluded.
(11)†The custodial - If it is necessary for the child to
situation of the child and the identify the accused at trial,
attitude of the members of his the court may allow the child
family regarding the events to enter the courtroom for the
about which he will testify; limited purpose of identifying
and the accused, or the court may
(12)†Other relevant allow the child to identify the
factors, such as court accused by observing the
atmosphere and formalities of image of the latter on a
court procedure. television monitor.
- The court may set other
The court may order that the
conditions and limitations on
testimony of the child be taken by
the taking of the testimony
live-link television if there is a
that it finds just and
substantial likelihood that the child
appropriate, taking into
would suffer trauma from
consideration the best
testifying in the presence of the
interests of the child.
accused, his counsel or the
- The testimony of the child
prosecutor as the case may be.
shall be preserved on
The trauma must be of a kind
videotape, digital disc, or other
which would impair the
similar devices which shall be
completeness or truthfulness of
made part of the court record
the testimony of the child.
and shall be subject to a
protective order as provided in
How done: section 31(b).
where testimony is taken: in a
room separate from the courtroom ii. Screens, one-way mirrors, and
who are present: other devices to shield child from
o guardian ad litem; accused. (ß26)
o one or both of his support Who may apply for an order that
persons; the chair of the child or that a
o the facilitator screen or other device be placed in
o and interpreter, if any; the courtroom in such a manner
o a court officer appointed that the child cannot see the
by the court; accused while testifying:
o persons necessary to 1 prosecutor or
operate the closed-circuit 2 guardian ad litem
television equipment; and (consultation with prosecutor
o other persons whose or counsel as in application for
use of live-link TV. also
 required) exclusion of the accused, the
court shall order that the
Order granting application: testimony of the child be
The court shall issue an order taken by live-link television
stating the reasons and describing in accordance with section
the approved courtroom 25 of this Rule. If the
arrangement accused is excluded from the
deposition, it is not
If the court grants an application to necessary that the child be
shield the child from the accused able to view an image of the
while testifying in the courtroom, accused.
the courtroom shall be arranged to
o Other persons whose
enable the accused to view the
presence is determined by
child.
the court to be necessary to
the welfare and well-being
iii. Videotaped deposition.
of the child;
(ß27)
Who may apply for an order that a o Support person/s, the
deposition be taken of the testimony facilitator and interpreter, if
of the child and that it be recorded any;
and preserved on videotape? o Court stenographer; and
1 prosecutor,
2 counsel, or o †Persons necessary to
3 guardian ad litem (consultation operate the videotape
with prosecutor or counsel as in equipment.
application for use of live-link TV. Objections to testimony or
also required) evidence; rights of the accused

When allowed:†If the court finds that o Objections to deposition

the child will not be able to testify in testimony or evidence, or
open court at trial, it shall issue an parts thereof, and the
order that the deposition of the child grounds for the objection
be taken and preserved by shall be stated and shall be
videotape. ruled upon at the time of the
taking of the deposition.
Deposition-taking: o The rights of the accused
Who are present during trial, especially the
o Judge – who shall preside at right to counsel and to
the videotaped deposition of confront and cross-examine
a child; the child, shall not be
violated during the
o Prosecutor; deposition.
o defense counsel; The videotaped deposition shall be
o Guardian ad litem; preserved and stenographically
recorded. The videotape and the
o Accused, provided that, if stenographic notes shall be
the order of the court is transmitted to the clerk of the court
based on evidence that the where the case is pending for
child is unable to testify in safekeeping and shall be made a part
the physical presence of the of the record.
accused, the court may
direct the latter to be The court may set other conditions
excluded from the room in on the taking of the deposition that it
which the deposition is finds just and appropriate, taking
conducted. In case of into consideration the best interests
of the child, the constitutional rights
 of the accused, and other relevant witness, shall testify ahead of
factors. the child.
The videotaped deposition and  An interpreter shall take an
stenographic notes shall be subject oath or affirmation to make a
to a protective order as provided in true and accurate
section 31(b). interpretation.
If, at the time of trial, the court finds b. Facilitator to pose questions to
that the child is unable to testify for a child (ß10)
reason stated in section 25(f) of this How appointed: The court
Rule, or is unavailable for any reason motu proprio or upon motion,
described in section 4(c), Rule 23 of When appointed: child is
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the unable to understand or
court may admit into evidence the respond to questions asked.
videotaped deposition of the child in Who may be a facilitator: The
lieu of his testimony at the trial. The facilitator may be a child
court shall issue an order stating the psychologist, psychiatrist,
reasons therefor. social worker, guidance
counselor, teacher, religious
After the original videotaping but
leader, parent, or relative. The
before or during trial, any party may
facilitator shall take an oath or
file any motion for additional
affirmation to pose questions
videotaping on the ground of newly
to the child according to the
discovered evidence. The court may
meaning intended by counsel.
order an additional videotaped
Function of facilitator:†
deposition to receive the newly
Respective counsels for the
discovered evidence.
parties shall pose questions to
When conducted: The court may order that the child only through the
the testimony of the child should be taken facilitator. The questions shall
during a time of day when the child is well- either be in the words used by
rested. (ß14) counsel or, if the child is not
likely to understand the same,
Provisions for ease of child in in words that are
testifying/accommodations for a child comprehensible to the child
a. Interpreter for child (ß9) and which convey the meaning
How appointed: the court intended by counsel.
motu proprio or upon motion c. Support persons (ß11)
When appointed:†When a A child testifying at a judicial
child does not understand the proceeding or making a
English or Filipino language or deposition shall have the right
is unable to communicate in to be accompanied by one or
said languages due to his two persons of his own
developmental level, fear, choosing to provide him
shyness, disability, or other emotional support.
similar reason (1)†Both support
Who may be interpreter? persons shall remain
within the view of the
†If a witness or member of child during his testimony.
the family of the child is the (2)†One of the
only person who can serve as support persons may
an interpreter for the child, he accompany the child to
shall not be disqualified and the witness stand,
may serve as the interpreter of provided the support
the child. The interpreter, person does not
however, who is also a completely obscure the
 child from the view of the be turned to facilitate his
opposing party, judge, or testimony but the opposing party
hearing officer. and his counsel must have a frontal
(3)†The court may or profile view of the child during
allow the support person the testimony of the child. The
to hold the hand of the witness chair or other place from
child or take other which the child testifies may also
appropriate steps to be rearranged to allow the child to
provide emotional support see the opposing party and his
to the child in the course counsel, if he chooses to look at
of the proceedings. them, without turning his body or
(4)†The court shall leaving the witness stand.
instruct the support
persons not to prompt, The judge need not wear his
sway, or influence the judicial robe.
child during his testimony. Nothing in this section or any other
provision of law, except official in-
court identification provisions,
Support person, also a witness
shall be construed to require a
1 Disapproved if  it is
child to look at the accused.
sufficiently established
that the attendance of
Accommodations for the child
the support person
under this section need not be
during the testimony of
supported by a finding of trauma
the child would pose a
to the child.
substantial risk of
influencing or affecting
f. Recess during testimony (ß15)
the content of the
 The child may be allowed
testimony of the child.†
reasonable periods of relief
2 If allowed  his testimony
while undergoing direct, cross,
shall be presented ahead
re-direct, and re-cross
of the testimony of the
examinations as often as
child.
necessary depending on his
d. Waiting area for child
developmental level.
witnesses (ß12) that is
g. Testimonial aids (ß16): use of
separate from waiting areas
dolls, anatomically-correct
used by other persons.
dolls, puppets, drawings,
e. Courtroom environment (ß13)
mannequins, or any other
appropriate demonstrative
Aim: create a more comfortable
device to assist him in his
environment for the child
testimony.
court may, in its discretion, direct
h. Emotional security item (ß17):
and supervise the location,
While testifying, a child shall
movement and deportment of all
be allowed to have an item of
persons in the courtroom including
his own choosing such as a
the parties, their counsel, child,
blanket, toy, or doll
witnesses, support persons,
i. Conduct in questioning the
guardian ad litem, facilitator, and
witness:
court personnel.
i. Conduct of counsel: a
counsel may be
The child may be allowed to testify
prohibited from
from a place other than the
approaching a child if
witness chair.
it appears that the
child is fearful of or
The witness chair or other place
intimidated by the
from which the child testifies may
counsel. (ß18)
 ii. Mode of questioning: intention to offer such statement and
- The court shall its particulars to provide him a fair
exercise control over the opportunity to object.
questioning of children so a. Child is available
as to  The court shall, upon
(1) facilitate the motion of the adverse
ascertainment of the party, require the child to
truth, be present at the
(2) ensure that presentation of the
questions are stated in a hearsay statement for
form appropriate to the cross-examination by the
developmental level of the adverse party.
child, b. Child is unavailable
(3) protect  the fact of such
children from harassment circumstance must be
or undue embarrassment, proved by the proponent.
and  When unavailable:
(4) avoid waste of (1)†Is deceased,
time. suffers from physical
- The court may infirmity, lack of memory,
allow the child witness to mental illness, or will be
testify in a narrative form. exposed to severe
iii. Questions and psychological injury; or
objections thereto (2)†Is absent from
leading questions in all the hearing and the
stages of examination of a proponent of his
child may be allowed if the statement has been
same will further the unable to procure his
interests of justice (ß20) attendance by process or
other reasonable means.
Objections to questions
†When the child witness
should be couched in a
is unavailable, his hearsay
manner so as not to
testimony shall be
mislead, confuse, frighten,
admitted only if
or intimidate the child.
corroborated by other
(ß21)
admissible evidence.
j. Weight given to testimony of
2) In ruling on the admissibility of such
child witness: strong;
hearsay statement, the court shall
corroboration not required -
consider the time, content and
His testimony, if credible by
circumstances thereof which provide
itself, shall be sufficient to
sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall
support a finding of fact,
consider the following factors:
conclusion, or judgment
c. Whether there is a motive to
subject to the standard of
lie;
proof required in criminal and
d. The general character of the
non-criminal cases. (ß22)
declarant child;
e. Whether more than one
IV. Questions of Admissibility
person heard the statement;
C. Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse
f. Whether the statement was
Cases (ß28)
spontaneous;
Where admitted: child abuse cases,
g. The timing of the statement
criminal or non-criminal
and the relationship between
How admitted:
the declarant child and
1) Before such hearsay statement may be
witness;
admitted, its proponent shall make
h. Cross-examination could not
known to the adverse party the
 show the lack of knowledge of (3)†The videotape and audiotape machine
the declarant child; or device was capable of recording
i. The possibility of faulty testimony;
recollection of the declarant (4)†The person operating the device was
child is remote; and competent to operate it;
j. The circumstances (5)†The videotape or audiotape is authentic
surrounding the statement are and correct; and
such that there is no reason to (6)†It has been duly preserved.
suppose the declarant child
Value of an investigative interview that was
misrepresented the
not done as required in this Rule: The fact
involvement of the accused.
that an investigative interview is not
videotaped or audiotaped as required by
D. Videotaped and audiotaped in-depth
this section shall not by itself constitute a
investigative or disclosure interviews in
basis to exclude from evidence out-of-court
child abuse cases (ß29)
statements or testimony of the child. It
When admissible:
may, however, be considered in
1 The child witness - determining the reliability of the
statements of the child describing abuse.
(1)†Is deceased, suffers from
physical infirmity, lack of memory,
E. Sexual abuse shield rule
mental illness, or will be exposed
Inadmissible evidence in any criminal
to severe psychological injury; or
proceeding involving alleged child
(2)†Is absent from the hearing and sexual abuse:
the proponent of his statement has
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the
been unable to procure his
alleged victim engaged in other sexual
attendance by process or other
behavior; and
reasonable means.
(2) Evidence offered to prove the
2 Before the videotape or audiotape sexual predisposition of the alleged
is offered in evidence, all parties victim.
shall be afforded an opportunity to
When admissible: Evidence of
view or listen to it and shall be
specific instances of sexual
furnished a copy of a written
behavior by the alleged victim to
transcript of the proceedings.
prove that a person other than the
By whom conducted: accused was the source of semen,
 duly trained members of a injury, or other physical evidence
multidisciplinary team or representatives of shall be admissible.
law enforcement or child protective How admitted:
services in situations where child abuse is
1. A party intending to offer
suspected so as to determine whether child
such evidence must:
abuse occurred.
 individual conducting the interview (1) File a written motion at
of the child shall be available at trial for least 15 days before trial,
examination by any party. specifically describing the
Proof of the following must be given by evidence and stating the
party offering the videotape or audiotape: purpose for which it is
offered, unless the court, for
(1)†The videotape or audiotape discloses
good cause, requires a
the identity of all individuals present and at
different time for filing or
all times includes their images and voices;
permits filing during trial; and
(2)†The statement was not made in
(2) Serve the motion on all
response to questioning calculated to lead
parties and the guardian ad
the child to make a particular statement or
litem at least 3 days before
is clearly shown to be the statement of the
the hearing of the motion.
child and not the product of improper
suggestion; 2. Before admitting such evidence,
 the court must conduct a hearing thereof are subject to a
in chambers and afford the child, protective order issued by
his guardian ad litem, the parties, the court in (case title),
and their counsel a right to attend (case number). They shall
and be heard. The motion and the not be examined, inspected,
record of the hearing must be read, viewed, or copied by
sealed and remain under seal and any person, or disclosed to
protected by a protective order set any person, except as
forth in section 31(b). The child provided in the protective
shall not be required to testify at order. No additional copies
the hearing in chambers except of the tape or any of its
with his consent. portion shall be made, given,
sold, or shown to any person
V. Other protective measures for the child (ß31) without prior court order.
F. Confidentiality of records. Any person violating such
protective order is subject to
When records may be released: upon written
the contempt power of the
request and order of the court
court and other penalties
To whom may be released: prescribed by law.”
(1) Members of the court staff for (5) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold,
administrative use; or shown to any person except as ordered by
(2) The prosecuting attorney; the court.
(3) Defense counsel; (6) Within 30 days from receipt, all
(4) The guardian ad litem; copies of the tape and any transcripts thereof
(5) Agents of investigating law shall be returned to the clerk of court for
enforcement agencies; and safekeeping unless the period is extended by
(6) Other persons as determined by the the court on motion of a party.
court. (7) This protective order shall remain in
G. Protective order full force and effect until further order of the
court.
What are covered: Any videotape or audiotape H. Additional protective orders. — The court may,
of a child that is part of the court record motu proprio or on motion of any party, the
Provisos of the protective order: child, his parents, legal guardian, or the
guardian ad litem, issue additional orders to
(1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties, protect the privacy of the child.
their counsel, their expert witness, and the
guardian ad litem. I. Publication of identity contemptuous.
(2) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall What is prohibited: Publication or causing
be divulged by any person mentioned in sub- publication in any format the name, address,
section (a) to any other person, except as telephone number, school, or other identifying
necessary for the trial. information of a child who is or is alleged to be
(3) No person shall be granted access to a victim or accused of a crime or a witness
the tape, its transcription or any part thereof thereof, or an immediate family of the child
unless he signs a written affirmation that he
has received and read a copy of the protective Liability of violator: contempt of court
order; that he submits to the jurisdiction of J. Physical safety of child; exclusion of evidence.
the court with respect to the protective order;
A child has a right at any court proceeding not
and that in case of violation thereof, he will be
to testify regarding personal identifying
subject to the contempt power of the court.
information, including his name, address,
(4) Each of the tape cassettes and
telephone number, school, and other
transcripts thereof made available to the
information that could endanger his physical
parties, their counsel, and respective agents
safety or his family.
shall bear the following cautionary notice:
The court may, however, require the child to
“This object or
testify regarding personal identifying
document and the contents
 information in the interest of justice. 1.1 Public Documents – Rule 132, Sec. 19
1.1.1-A Written official acts of the sovereign
K. Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
produced under the provisions of this Rule or
officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign
otherwise made part of the court record shall
country;
be destroyed after 5 years have elapsed from
- How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 23
the date of entry of judgment.
- Documents consisting of entries in public records
L. Records of youthful offender: privileged made in the performance of a duty by a public
1. Youthful offender has been charged before officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
any city or provincial prosecutor or before stated. All other public documents are evidence,
any municipal judge and the charges have even against a third person of the fact which gave
been ordered dropped rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.

 All the records of the case shall 1.1.1-B Records of the official acts of the sovereign
be considered as privileged and authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
may not be disclosed directly or officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign
indirectly to anyone for any country.
purpose whatsoever. - How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 24
2. Youthful offender has been charged and - The record may be evidenced by: (1) an official
the court acquits him, or dismisses the case publication thereof; (2) a copy attested by the
or commits him to an institution and officer having the legal custody of the record, or by
subsequently releases him pursuant to his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not
Chapter 3 of P. D. No. 603, kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such
officer has the custody.
 All the records of his case shall If the record is in a foreign country, the certificate
also be considered as privileged may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
and may not be disclosed directly legation, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, or
or indirectly to anyone EXCEPT to consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
determine if a defendant may have service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
his sentence suspended under country in which the record is kept, and
Article 192 of P. D. No. 603 or if he authenticated by the seal of his office.
may be granted probation under
the provisions of P. D. No. 968 or *Contents of Attestation = Rule 132, Sec 25
to enforce his civil liability, if said - The attestation must state that the copy is a
liability has been imposed in the correct copy of the original or a specific part
criminal action. thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must
 The youthful offender concerned be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if
shall not be held under any there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having
provision of law to be guilty of a seal, under the seal of such court.
perjury or of concealment or
misrepresentation by reason of his - Irremovability of Record = Rule 132, Sec. 26
failure to acknowledge the case or - Any public record, an official copy of which is
recite any fact related thereto in admissible in evidence, must not be removed from
response to any inquiry made to the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a
him for any purpose. court where the inspection of the record is essential
to the just determination of a pending case.
VI. Suppletory application of Rules of Court: The
provisions of the Rules of Court on deposition, 1.1.2 Notarial Documents except last wills and
conditional examination of witnesses, and testaments;
evidence shall be applied in a suppletory - How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 30
character. (ß32) - Notarial documents may be presented in evidence
without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
Authentication and Proof of Documents execution of the instrument or document involved.

1. Classes of Documents 1.1.3 Public Records (kept in the Philippines) of

Private Documents required by law to be entered 3. Alterations – Rule 132, Sec. 31
therein - The party producing a document as genuine,
- How Proven = Sec. 27 which has been altered and appears to have been
- Such may be proved by the original record, or a altered after its execution, in a part material to the
copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the question in dispute, must account for the alteration.
record, with an appropriate certificate that such Failure to do so would result in the inadmissibility of
officer has the custody. evidence.
- Proof of Lack of Record = Sec. 28 - He may show that the alteration was made
A written statement signed by an officer having the  by another,
custody of an official record or by his deputy that  without his concurrence, or
after diligent search, no record or entry of a  made with the consent of the parties
specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his affected by it, or
office, accompanied by a certificate that such officer  was otherwise properly or innocent made,
has the custody, is admissible to prove that the or
records of his office contain no such record or entry.  The alteration did not change the meaning
or language of the instrument.
1.2 Private Documents
- How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 20 Seal – Rule 132, Sec. 32
Before any private document offered as authentic is - There shall be no difference between sealed and
received in evidence, its due execution and unsealed private documents insofar as their
authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone admissibility as evidence is concerned.
who say the document executed or written; or (2)
by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or Documents Written in an Unofficial Language –
handwriting of the maker. Any other private Rule 132, Sec.33
document need only be identified as that which it is - Not admissible unless accompanied with a
claimed to be. translation into English or Filipino; parties or their
- Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132, Sec. 21 attorneys are directed to have such translation
Requisites: (1) The private document is more than prepared before trial.
30 years old; (2) It is produced from a custody in
which it would naturally be found if genuine; (3) It is IS THERE ANY WAY TO AVOID THE TEDIOUS
unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of PROCESS OF AUTHENTICATION?
suspicion. 1. Rule on actionable documents (Rule 8). It
provides that if an actionable document is the basis
If all requisites have been met, no other evidence of of a complaint of an answer, the law requires that it
its authenticity is required. should be annexed to the pleading or that the
contents thereof be copied in verbatim. If there is
1. How Genuineness of Handwriting is Proven = failure to specifically deny under oath the
Rule 132, Sec. 22 genuineness and due execution of an actionable
It may be proved by any witness who believes it to document that judicial admission will take the place
be the handwriting of such person because he has of authentication
seen the person write, or has seen writing 2. Mode of discovery- Request for admission of the
purporting to be his upon which the witness has genuineness and due execution of a private writing.
acted or been charged, and has thus acquired Failure to object within 15 days, deemed admitted.
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. 3. Pre-trial of civil and criminal case wherein parties
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be may enter into stipulations, where they will admit
given by a comparison made by the witness or the the genuineness and due execution of the private
court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine writing.
by the party against whom the evidence is offered,
or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the Offer and Objection
judge. 1. Offer of Evidence – Rule 132, Sec, 34
2. Impeachment of Judicial Record – Rule 132, Sec. 1 Why made?
29 - For evidence to be considered by the court - court
How done – By evidence of (a) want of jurisdiction shall consider no evidence, which has not been
in the court or judicial officer; (b) collusion between formally offered.
the parties; or (c) fraud in the party offering the 1.1 When to make offer – Rule 132, Sec. 35
record, in respect to the proceedings. - Testimonial Evidence = at the time the witness is
called to testify. - Ruling – Rule 132, Sec. 38
- Documentary Evidence = after the presentation of = Given immediately after the objection is made,
a party’s testimonial evidence; offer shall be done unless the court desires to take a reasonable time
orally unless allowed by the court to be done in to inform itself on the question presented; but the
writing. ruling shall always be made during the trial and at
such time as will give the party against whom it is
When evidence admitted even if not formally made an opportunity to meet the situation
offered: presented by the ruling.
1. The same must have been duly identified by = The reason for sustaining or overruling an
testimony duly recorded objection need not be stated. However, if the
2. The same must have been incorporated to the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
records of the case (Mata Vda. De Onate vs. CA) sustaining the objection on one or some of them
must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.
STAGES in the presentation of documentary
evidence 3. Motion to Strike – Rule 132, Sec. 39
1. Identification- proof that the document being - The court may sustain an objection and order the
offered is the same one referred to by the witness answer given to be stricken off the record should a
in his testimony witness answer the question before the adverse
2. Marking party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection
3. Authentication- proof of document’s due and such objection is found to be meritorious.
execution and genuineness - The court may also, upon proper motion, order
4. Inspection the striking out of answers, which are incompetent,
5. Formal Offer irrelevant or otherwise improper.
6. Objections
4. Tender of Excluded Evidence – Rule 132, Sec. 40
2. Objection - Rule 132, Sec. 36 - Documentary evidence – the offeror may have the
- Testimonial Evidence = must be objected to same attached or made part of the record.
immediately after the offer is made. - Testimonial evidence – the offeror may state for
= Objection to a question propounded in the the record the name and other personal
course of the oral examination of a witness shall be circumstances of the witness and the substance of
made as soon as the grounds therefore shall the proposed testimony.
become reasonably apparent. There is a distinction between identification
of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an
- Documentary Evidence = shall be objected to exhibit. The former is done in the course of the trial
within 3 days after notice of the offer unless a and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence
different period is allowed by the court. while the latter is done only when the party rests
his/her case. That a document has been identified
does not mean that it will be offered. (Interpacific
Kinds of Objection Transit vs. Aviles, 1990)
1. General or broadside- does not go beyond While there was no offer of the testimony,
declaring the evidence as immaterial, incompetent, petitioner waived this defect by failing to object
irrelevant, or inadmissible. Does not specify the when the ground became reasonably apparent the
grounds moment private respondent was called to testify
2. Specific- States the ground without any prior offer having been made. (Catuira
vs. CA, 1994)
- When repetition is unnecessary – Rule 132, Sec. The rule requiring that there must be a
37 (Rule on Continuing Objection) formal offer of evidence before the evidence can be
It shall not be necessary to repeat the objection considered may be relaxed provided the evidence
when it becomes reasonably apparent in the course must have duly identified by testimony duly
of the examination of a witness that the questions recorded and they must have been incorporated in
being propounded are of the same class as those to the records of the case. (Vda. De OÒate vs. CA,
which objection has been made, whether such 1995)
objection was sustained or overruled. It shall be
sufficient for the adverse party to record his OFFER OF PROOF/TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
continuing objection to such class of questions. vs. OFFER OF EVIDENCE
First, is only resorted to if admission is refused by
the court for purposes of review on appeal. Second, 1.Witness’ opportunity to view the criminal act at
refers to testimonial, documentary or object the time of the crime
evidence that are presented or offered in court by a 2.Witness’ degree of attention at that time
party so that the court can consider his evidence 3.The accuracy of any prior description given by
when it comes to the preparation of the decision. the witness
4.The level of certainty demonstrated by the
VIII. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence witness at the identification
A. Required Quantum of Evidence 5.The length of time between the crime and the
1. Preponderance of Evidence (Civil Cases) – Rule identification
133, Sec. 1 6.The suggestiveness of the identification
- How determined? The court may consider: procedure
= All the facts and circumstances of the case;
= The witnesses’ manner of testifying; res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself)- A
= Their intelligence; procedural device which presumes that the person
= Their means and opportunity of knowing the facts is negligent, when he is in control of an
to which they testify; instrumentality causing an injury in the absence of
= The probability or improbability of their some explanation by him.
testimony;
= Their interest or want of interest; Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing,
= Personal credibility so far as the same may false in everything)- If the testimony of the witness
legitimately appear upon the trial; on a material issue is willfully false and given with
= Number of witnesses (note preponderance that is an intention to deceive, court may disregard all the
not necessarily equated with the no. of witnesses) witness’ testimony. (Not a mandatory rule of
evidence)
2. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal - It deals only with the weight of evidence
Cases) – Rule 133, Sec. 2 and not a positive rule of law
- What is proof beyond reasonable doubt? - The witnesses’ false or exaggerated
= That degree of proof which produces conviction in statements on other matters shall not
an unprejudiced mind. preclude the acceptance of such evidence
= Absolute certainty is not required, only moral as is relieved from any sign of falsehood
certainty. - The court may accept and reject portions of
the witness’ testimony depending on the
3. Substantial Evidence (Administrative/Quasi- inherent credibility thereof.
Judicial Cases) – Rule133, Sec.
5
- What is substantial evidence? The amount of *May the court stop the introduction of further
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might testimony? YES upon any particular point when the
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
B. Extrajudicial Confessions – Rule 133, Sec. 3 expected to be additionally persuasive; this power
- An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, is should be exercised with caution. (Rule 133, Section
not a sufficient ground for conviction UNLESS 6)
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
*How will the court dispose of a motion which is
C. Circumstantial Evidence – Rule 133, Sec. 4 based on facts not appearing of record? Court may
- Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be hear the matter on
sufficient for conviction: - Affidavits or
a. There is more than 1 circumstance; - Depositions
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived presented by the respective parties but the court
are proven; and may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such on oral testimony or depositions. (Rule 133, Section
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable 7)
doubt.
Examples of motion which need hearing hence the
OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION, THE TOTALITY OF presentation of evidence:
CIRCUMSTANCE TEST CRIMINAL CASES:
 Motion for bail (Under Criminal Procedure, and,
the evidence taken up during the hearing of the (ii) Whether the initial electronic
motion will form part automatically of the records document had been altered after the
of the case, so there is no need to repeat in the trial transformation was made. (R2, ß1e)
what have been covered in the hearing of the o “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic
motion) document or electronic data message
bearing a digital signature verified by the
CIVIL CASES: public key listed in a certificate. (R2, ß1f)
Application for preliminary
attachment/injunction Admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent
Motion to dismiss founded on certain facts of the signature of a person on a written document.
which are not solely predicated on absence of (R6, ß1)
jurisdiction or failure to state a COA, i.e. it is
predicated on the ground of payment How authenticated? (R6, ß2)
(Same with Criminal Case, evidence taken up 1. By evidence that a method or process was
during hearing made part automatically of records utilized to establish a digital signature and
of the case) verify the same;
2. By any other means provided by law; or
Rules on Electronic Evidence 3. By any other means satisfactory to the
Scope judge as establishing the genuineness of
Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules shall the electronic signature.
apply whenever an electronic document or
electronic data message (R1, ß1) Disputable presumptions relating to e-signatures:
(R6, ß3)
Cases covered. 1. The electronic signature is that of the
All civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi- person to whom it correlates;
judicial and administrative cases. (R1, ß2) 2. The electronic signature was affixed by that
person with the intention of authenticating
Electronic data message or approving the electronic document to
Information generated, sent, received or stored by which it is related or to indicate such
electronic, optical or similar means. (R2, ß1g) person’s consent to the transaction
embodied therein; and
Electronic Signatures (R2, ß1j) 3. The methods or processes utilized to affix
Refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or or verify the electronic signature operated
sound in electronic form, representing the identity without error or fault.
of a person and attached to or logically associated
with the electronic data message or electronic Disputable presumptions relating to digital
document or any methodology or procedure signatures: (R6, ß4)
employed or adopted by a person and executed or 1. The information contained in a certificate is
adopted by such person with the intention of correct;
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic 2. The digital signature was created during
data message or electronic document. the operational period of a certificate;
3. No cause exists to render a certificate
invalid or revocable;
Includes digital signatures 4. The message associated with a digital
o Refers to an electronic signature consisting signature has not been altered from the
of a transformation of an electronic time it was signed; and,
document or an electronic data message 5. A certificate had been issued by the
using an asymmetric or public certification authority indicated therein.
cryptosystem such that a person having the
initial untransformed electronic document Electronic document (R2, ß1h)
and the signer’s public key can accurately Information or the representation of information,
determine: data, figures, symbols or other modes of written
(i) Whether the transformation was expression, described or however represented,
created using the private key that by which a right is established or an obligation
corresponds to the signer’s public key; extinguished, or
 by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, seeking to introduce an electronic
which is received, recorded, transmitted, document in any legal proceeding has the
stored, processed, retrieved or produced burden of proving its authenticity.
electronically. 2 Manner of authentication – Before any
private electronic document offered as
Includes digitally signed documents and any authentic is received in evidence, its
printout or output, readable by sight or other authenticity must be proved by any of the
means, which accurately reflects the electronic data following means:
message or electronic document. For purposes of (a) by evidence that it had been digitally
these Rules, the term “electronic document” may signed by the person purported to
be used interchangeably with “electronic data have signed the same;
message”. (b) by evidence that other appropriate
security procedures or devices as may
Functional equivalent of paper-based documents. be authorized by the Supreme Court or
(R3, ß1) by law for authentication of electronic
Admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules documents were applied to the
on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court document; or
and related laws and is authenticated in the manner (c) by other evidence showing its integrity
prescribed by these Rules. (R3, ß2) and reliability to the satisfaction of the
judge.
Confidential character of a privileged 3 A document electronically notarized in
communication is not lost solely on the ground that accordance with the rules promulgated by
it is in the form of an electronic document. (R3, ß3) the Supreme Court shall be considered as a
public document and proved as a notarial
BEST EVIDENCE RULE: (R4) document under the Rules of Court.
o An electronic document shall be regarded
as the equivalent of an original document  Evidentiary Weight Of Electronic Documents
under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a (R7)
printout or output readable by sight or > Factors for assessing evidentiary weight.
other means, shown to reflect the data (a) The reliability of the manner or method in
accurately. which it was generated, stored or
o Originals And Copies: communicated, including but not limited to
 When copies or duplicates regarded as input and output procedures, controls, tests
originals: and checks for accuracy and reliability of
1. When a document is in two or the electronic data message or document,
more copies executed at or about in the light of all the circumstances as well
the same time with identical as any relevant agreement;
contents, or (b) The reliability of the manner in which its
2. Is a counterpart produced by the originator was identified;
same impression as the original, or (c) The integrity of the information and
from the same matrix, or by communication system in which it is
mechanical or electronic re- recorded or stored, including but not
recording, or by chemical limited to the hardware and computer
reproduction, or by other programs or software used as well as
equivalent techniques that programming errors;
accurately reproduces the original. (d) The familiarity of the witness or the person
 When copies or duplicates shall not be who made the entry with the
admissible to the same extent as the communication and information system;
original: (e) The nature and quality of the information
3. If a genuine question is raised as to which went into the communication and
the authenticity of the original; or information system upon which the
4. If in the circumstances it would be electronic data message or electronic
unjust or inequitable to admit the document was based; or
copy in lieu of the original. (f) Other factors which the court may consider
 Authentication of Electronic Documents (R5) as affecting the accuracy or integrity of the
1 Burden of proving authenticity: person electronic document or electronic data
 message. matter of right by the adverse party.
> Integrity of an information and communication
system. – In any dispute involving the integrity of Examination Of Witnesses (R10)
the information and communication system in Electronic testimony
which an electronic document or electronic data 1 After summarily hearing the parties
message is recorded or stored, the court may pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules, the
consider, among others, the following factors: court may authorize the presentation
(a) Whether the information and of testimonial evidence by electronic
communication system or other similar means. Before so authorizing, the
device was operated in a manner that did court shall determine the necessity for
not affect the integrity of the electronic such presentation and prescribe terms
document, and there are no other and conditions as may be necessary
reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity under the circumstances, including the
of the information and communication protection of the rights of the parties
system; and witnesses concerned.
(b) Whether the electronic document was 2 When examination of a witness is done
recorded or stored by a party to the electronically, the entire proceedings,
proceedings with interest adverse to that of including the questions and answers,
the party using it; or shall be transcribed by a stenographer,
(c)†Whether the electronic document was steno typist or other recorder
recorded or stored in the usual and authorized for the purpose, who shall
ordinary course of business by a person certify as correct the transcript done by
who is not a party to the proceedings and him. The transcript should reflect the
who did not act under the control of the fact that the proceedings, either in
party using it. whole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.
Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum, report, 3 The electronic evidence and recording
record or data compilation of acts, events, thereof as well as the stenographic
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by notes shall form part of the record of
electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the case. Such transcript and recording
the time of or from transmission or supply of shall be deemed prima facie evidence
information by a person with knowledge thereof, of such proceedings.
and kept in the regular course or conduct of a
business activity, and such was the regular practice Ephemeral electronic communication
to make the memorandum, report, record, or data 1 Refers to telephone conversations, text
compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio,
all of which are shown by the testimony of the streaming video, and other electronic forms of
custodian or other qualified witnesses. (R8, ß1) communication the evidence of which is not
This presumption may be overcome by recorded or retained. (R2, ß1k)
evidence of the untrustworthiness of the 2 Shall be proven by the testimony of a person
source of information or the method or who was a party to the same or has personal
circumstances of the preparation, transmission knowledge thereof. In the absence or
or storage thereof. (R8, ß2) unavailability of such witnesses, other
competent evidence may be admitted. (R11,
How are matters relating to the admissibility and ß2)
evidentiary weight of an electronic document
established? (R9) Audio, photographic and video evidence (R11,
o by an affidavit stating facts of direct ßß1-2)
personal knowledge of the affiant or based Audio, photographic and video evidence of events,
on authentic records. acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it
 The affidavit must affirmatively show shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court
the competence of the affiant to testify and shall be identified, explained or authenticated
on the matters contained therein. by the person who made the recording or by some
 The affiant shall be made to affirm the other person competent to testify on the accuracy
contents of the affidavit in open court thereof.
and may be cross-examined as a o Same rule covers a recording of the
 telephone conversation or ephemeral (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the
electronic communication shall be covered case;
by the immediately preceding section. (b) The biological sample:
(i) was not previously subjected to the type
If ephemeral, audio, photographic and video of DNA testing now requested; or
evidence are recorded or embodied in an electronic (ii) was previously subjected to DNA
document, then the provisions authentication testing, but the results may require confirmation for
electronic documents apply. (R11, ß2) good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to
(a) "Biological sample" means any organic material produce new information that is relevant to the
originating from a person's body, even if found in proper resolution of the case; and chan robles
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA virtual law library
testing. This includes blood, saliva and other body (e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the
fluids, tissues, hairs and bones; court may consider as potentially affecting the
accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
(b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is
the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without
of the body. The totality of an individual's DNA is need of a prior court order, at the behest of any
unique for the individual, except identical twins; party, including law enforcement agencies, before a
suit or proceeding is commenced.
(c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the
DNA profiles, results and other genetic information An order granting the DNA testing shall be
directly generated from DNA testing of biological immediately executory and shall not be
samples; appealable.

(d) "DNA profile" means genetic information Petition for certiorari shall not stay the
derived from DNA testing of a biological sample implementation of order unless a higher court
obtained from a person, which biological sample is issues an injunctive order.
clearly identifiable as originating from that person;
Grant of a DNA testing application NOT an
(e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible automatic admission of DNA evidence.
scientific methods which include the extraction of
DNA from biological samples, the generation of Post-conviction DNA testing may be available,
DNA profiles and the comparison of the information without need of prior court order, to the
obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples prosecution or any person convicted by final and
for the purpose of determining, with reasonable executory judgment provided that
certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from (a) a biological sample exists,
two or more distinct biological samples originates (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and
from the same person (direct identification) or if the (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal
biological samples originate from related persons or modification of the judgment of conviction.
(kinship analysis); and
Factors in Assessment of probative value of DNA
(f) "Probability of Parentage" means the numerical evidence.
estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a (a) The chain of custody, including how the
putative parent compared with the probability of a biological samples were collected, how they were
random match of two unrelated individuals in a handled, and the possibility of contamination of the
given population. samples;
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the
Application for DNA Testing Order. The appropriate procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on advantages and disadvantages of the procedure,
application of any person who has a legal interest in and compliance with the scientifically valid
the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such standards in conducting the tests;
order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the (c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including
parties upon a showing of the following: accreditation by any reputable standards-setting
institution and the qualification of the analyst who thereon or remand the petition to the court of
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not origin and issue the appropriate orders.
accredited, the relevant experience of the
laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall RELEASE OF DNA results.
be properly established; and Through order of the court.
(d) The reliability of the testing result Shall only be released to any of the following, under
such terms and conditions as may be set forth by
FACTORS in evaluating the Reliability of DNA the court:
Testing Methodology.
(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods (a) Person from whom the sample was taken;
used, that is, whether the theory or technique can (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or
be and has been tested; action where the DNA evidence is offered and
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication presented or sought to be offered and presented;
of the principles or methods; (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or action;
methods by the relevant scientific community; (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
(d) The existence and maintenance of standards (e) Other persons as determined by the court.
and controls to ensure the correctness of data
generated; Indirect Contempt- to those who publishes or
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference disclose the DNA results without proper court order
population database; and
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial court shall
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including
profiles and the significance and limitation of all biological samples, DNA profiles and results or
statistical calculations used in comparing DNA other genetic information obtained from DNA
profiles. testing. For this purpose, the court may order the
appropriate government agency to preserve the
FACTORS in Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. DNA evidence as follows:
(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA
evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA (a) In criminal cases:
evidence; i. for not less than the period of time that any
(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the person is under trial for an offense; or
totality of the other evidence presented in the case; ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until
and such time as the accused has served his sentence;
(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent and
from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-
paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity (b) In all other cases, until such time as the
is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing decision in the case where the DNA evidence was
shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the introduced has become final and executory. chan
value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or robles virtual law library
higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of
paternity. Physical destruction of a biological sample before
the expiration of the periods set forth above,
Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the provided that:
Convict. (a) There is a court order or
The convict or the prosecution may file a petition (b) The person from whom the DNA sample was
for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin. obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of
In case the court, after due hearing, finds the the DNA evidence.
petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify
the judgment of conviction and order the release of
the convict, unless continued detention is justified
for a lawful cause.

A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of

Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member
of said courts, which may conduct a hearing