VII.

EVIDENCE

A. GENERAL CONCEPTS

Evidence: Means sanctioned by the rules of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact.

General Rule: Technical rules of procedure not applicable to administrative case

Exception: It is not a license to disregard fundamental rules

1. PROOF VS. EVIDENCE

a. Proof : The result of the evidence.
b. Evidence: Means by which proof is established.

Kinds of Evidence
A. Direct: That which proves the fact in issue without the aid of any inference
B. Circumstance: That which proves the fact in issue by way of inference
a. This is sufficient for conviction if :
i. More than one circumstance
ii. Facts from which inference derived are proved
iii. Combination of all circumstance would produce evidence beyond reasonable
doubt
c. Corroborative evidence: Additional evidence to the same point.
d. Cummulative: Same kind ( One wtiness saw accused shoot the victim one accused same kind)
e. Prima Facie: Evidence that which by itself is sufficient to prove a fact which may be rebutted by contrary
evidence which is conclusive evidence one which may not be rebutted or contradicted.
f. Positive: Witness affirms that the fact did or did not occur ( A did not shoot b)
g. Negative : When the witness states that he did not see or know of the occurrence of the afact. ( I did not
see Achong Shoot okoy)

2. BURDEN OF PROOF VS. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

1. Burden of Proof: It is on the part of the party to present evidence on the facts necessary to establish his or
her claim. ( The burden of proof never shifts).
a. Civil Case: The plaintiff has burden of proof to show his allegation if the defendant raised a
negative defense
i. Ex: The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery, it is incumbent upon the
petitioner to prove the fact of forgery and inability of petitioner to sign his name ( Gatan
v. Venerano).
b. Criminal Case: the prosecution must first overcome the burden of presumption through proof
and guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal case arises or falls on the strength
of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. Therefore, the prosecution has to show
1. Reasonable doubt as to commission of the crime 2. Establish with the quantum of proof that the
accused committed the crime.

2. Burden of Evidence: It is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue
and to establish a prima facie case. Hence, it is the duty of the party to go forward with evidence to overthrow
any prima facie presumption of guilt.
Shifting of the Burden of Evidence
1. Civil Case: If there is allegation on the part of the plaintiff, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert
the claim of the plaintiff.
2. Criminal Case: When the court denies a motion to dismiss. Or when there is mitigating , exempting circumstance.
Ex: Hence, if it is settled that the accused admits to harming the victim, but invokes self defense, the accused
assumes the burden to establish his plea through clear and convincing evidence ( PP v. Pableo)
Negative Averments

General Rule: Negative averments need not be proven whether in a civil or criminal action.
Exception: When the negative allegation are essential parts of the cause of action or defense in a civil case or are essential
ingredients of the offense in a criminal case.
In a criminal case, if the subject of a negative averment inheres to the offense as an essential requisite thereto, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the same.

3. EQUIPOISE RULE
Equipoise Rule
When the evidence of the party is evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates or
weighs more heavily. The decision must be against the party with the burden of proof. Therefore, in criminal
cases it tilts in favor of the accused.

B. ADMISSIBILITY
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and
is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)

1. REQUISITES (RULE 128)

1. Admissibility of Evidence: Wheem it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the rules of court
Admissibility= Relevant + Competent

a. Relevant
i. Material
ii. Probative
b. Competent.
Relevancy
Evidence is relevant if it has such relation to a fact in issue which can induce a belief as to its existence or non-
existence.
A. Material: Directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and the
pleadings.
B. Probative: The evidence has tendency to establish the proposition it offers to prove
Collateral matters: Mattes outside the fact and issue
Q: Are collateral matters relevant evidence?

A:. General Rule: Collateral matters are not allowed except when it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Example: PP vs Monje: The collateral matters “ puzzle pieces when put together” reveal a convincing picture
pointing to the conclusion that the accused was the author of the crime.

Competency
Definition: Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or rules on evidence as
to a particular case.

Cases:
1.The penchant of many court to admit inadmissible evidence for whatever these are worth is
condemned. Inadmissible evidence cannot have any probative value at all. ( Buencammino vs People)

2. EXCLUSIONARY RULES
1. Rules of Court
2. Other SC issuance
3. Constitution
4. Law
1987 Constitution: The exclusion of evidence illegally seized being not admissible is only practical means
of enforcing the constitutional right of searches and seizure.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Once the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained any
secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible.

CASES:
1 Since Article 7 PD 603, provides for the confidentiality of birth certificate, there is nothing in the law
which states that it is excluded from evidence. All that it is said under PD 603, is that violation of the
confidentiality will merit sanction but nothing provides for exclusionary rule as evidence. Rules of
Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificate , said public document are
admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in the resolution of administrative case against
the respondent. ( De Jesus vs Malit)

2.Void contract : While the terms and provision of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is deemed
existence, the contract is admissible as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the course of the
contract.- Here even if the deed of sale is void, the court ruled that a void contract is still admissible
evidence to prove matters occurs in the course of executing the contract.

Requisite for evidence to be considered by Court ( CORA)

1.Relevant 2. Competent 3. Authenticated ( documentary evidence)4. Offered in evidence.

Competent evidence are those not excluded by rules of court, credible evidence are those which are unbelievable.
Admissible : Biased but the evidence may not be credible

Doctrine of Conditional Admissibility: The testimonial evidence initially appearing to be irrelevant or incompetent
the court allow the testimony upon the promise of the proponent to later on show the relevancy or competency of
the testimony.
Doctrine of multiple admissibility: Where the evidence is admissible and offered for two or more purpose such
evidence must be admitted for two or more purpose.
Ex: Dying Declaration 1. Part of Res Gestae 2. Dying declaration.
 3. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS (RULE 129)
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
(1a)
 Here, there is no need for proof as the Judge must mandatorily take judicial notice of the ff:

The Following Need not be proven: MANDATORY

1. When the allegation is immaterial
2. When the facts admitted or not denied provided that they have been sufficiently alleged.
3. Agreed and admitted facts
4. Facts subject to judicial notice
5. Facts that are conclusively proven

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions. (1a)
Requisites:
1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge
2. Must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain
3. Must be known to be within the limits of the court.

Test of notoriety: Whether the fact involved is notoriously known as to make It proper to assume its existence
without proof. Hence , in order to be judicial notice, there must be unconditional acceptance by the public or that
segment of the public where the facts is of relevant importance.

Judicial Notice : Previously Tried Case

General Rule: Courts do not take judicial notice of the contents and record of other case even when such case have
been tried in the same court before the same judge.
Exception:
1. When the judge initiates without the objection of the parties that record of previous action are read and
adopted to the present action
2. When the original record of the case or any part thereof are withdrawn from the archives at the discretion
upon request or with consent of parties in a pending case
3. When the present action is closely related to another pending case between same parties
4. When the interest of public in ascertaining the truth assumes paramount importance
5. To determine what is reasonable exercise of discretion or whether the previous ruling is acceptable
6. 6. When there is finality of judgment in another case that was previously pending determination and
therefore res judicata.
Judicial Notice of Foreign Law
There must be proof of the ff : .1. Foreign Divorce decree 2. National Law must be establish based on Rule 132
Sections 24 and 25

How to prove national law?

1. Official publication
2. A copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the document
a. If the record is not kept in the Philippines
i. Accompanied by certificate issued by Proper diplomatic and consular officer in the
Philippine foreign service stationed in foreign country where record is kept
ii. Authenticated by seal of his office
Judicial Knowledge v. Judicial Notice:
1. Judicial Knowledge: The personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court
2. Judicial Notice: Only those matters that are commonly known are matters coming to the knowledge of men
which are generally accepted to be true and correct.
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the pre-trial and trial, the court, motu
proprio or upon motion shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any
matter.Before judgment or on appeal the court motu proprio or upon motion may take judicial notice of
any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case

When Hearing is necessary

1. During Pre-Trial: The court shall motu prorpio or upon motion hear the parties on propriety of taking
judicial notice of any matter.
2. After pretrial but before judgment or appeal: Court only takes judicial notice of any matter that is decisive
of the material issue of the case

Purpose: to afford parties opportunity to present information that is relevant to the taking of judicial notice or tenor
to be noticed.

Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, oral, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that imputed admission was not in fact made. (2a)

1. Admission
a. Judicial : Those admission made in the course of proceeding which DOES NOT require the
presentation of evidence. Therefore, it need not be offered as evidence
b. Extrajudicial: Those admission made out of the court in Judicial Proceeding, there is a
requirement that formal offer be had before evidence is considered.

Criminal cases:
1. During Trial: Admission made by the counsel are received as evidence even if the defendant did not
consent
2. Pre-trial: For admission to be received as evidence it must be in writing signed by both the defendant and
his counsel before it is received as evidence. These are considered as judicial admission because a pre-trial
is a part of the proceedings of the case.
Remedy of a party:

1. Written: Motion to withdraw the pleading, motion or other written instrument.

2. Oral: Counsel in open court may move for its exclusion.
Pleadings:

1. Amended Pleading: The admission are merely extrajudicial admission the original pleading must be proved
by the party who relies thereon by formally offering it in evidence. The original pleading are presented
2. Dismissed Pleading: These pleadings are merely extrajudicial admission

Admission in Criminal and Civil

1. Civil
a. If the pleading has been withdrawn or superseded the amended pleading is considered as
extrajudicial admission.
2. Criminal: The admission during arraignment can be withdrawn before the judgment or conviction
becomes final but plea of guilt later withdrawn is not admissible as evidence against the accused who made
the plea.
Effects Of Judicial Admission:
 1. General Rule: A party who judicially admits a fact cannot challenge the fact as judicial admission: It is a
waiver of proof as production of evidence is dispense with.

Example : Pleading cannot be controverted by party making such admission and are conclusive to parties therewith.

Exception:
1. When it is made through palpable mistake
2. The admission was not in fact made.

C. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE (RULE 130, A)

Definition: Object evidence are those which are addressed to the senses of the court. Unlike documentary and
testimonial evidence the evidence is perceived by the court without any intervening medium like a document or
witness

Requisites of Admissibility:

1. The object must be relevant to the fact in issue

2. It must be authenticated before it is admitted
3. The object must not be hearsay
4. The object must not be privileged
5. It must meet any requirement as provided by law.

Authentication: There must be proof that the object sought to be offered must be shown to have been the very same
thing n issue and is what is claimed to be.

Chain of Custody: This refers to the method of authenticating object evidence, by showing its movement and
location form the time it was obtained until the same is offered as evidence

Rules of Chain of custody:

1. Upon having initial custody , the apprehending team shall immediately physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were seized and or confiscated or his
representatives or counsel, a representative form the media AND DOJ AND elected public official who shall be
required to sign copies of inventory

General Rule: The non compliance with the chain and custody rule makes the evidence inadmissible
Exemption:
a. When the integrity of the seized items are properly preserved by thee apprehending officer.
- Give explanation.
DNA evidence
The appropriate court my at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal
interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing after hearing and notice ].
Q: IS DNA evidence conclusive proof of non-paternity
It depends : 1. Less than 99,9% : The result is merely corroborative in nature, 2. If the result is 99.9% it is disputable

Evaluation of DNA
1. DNA test results that exclude the putative parents from paternity is conclusive.
2. If the value of probability of paternity is less than 99,9% the DNA testing is considered as corroborative evidence.
3. If the value of probability is 99.9% or higher there is disputable presumption of paternity.

Drug Cases
The substance of the drugs is the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove that what was seized by the police
officer is the same item presented in court. The identification must be established with moral certainty and its
function of the rule of chain of custody. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts
regarding the identity of evidence are removed though monitoring and tracking of the movement of the drugs from
the accused to the police to the forensic chemist and finally to the court.

D. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (RULE 130, B)

1. DEFINITION

Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing, recording , photograph

or any material containing letters, words, numbers, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)

*any material: Even if not in writing Ung laman ng letter not the letter itself

*Photograph: Include drawing, motion picture, drawings stored image, xray films and motion picture

*Recording: Letters words numbers or their equivalent recorded in any manner. This include sounds
( Verbal or non verbal this include soud). Hence a recording of a conversation or other oral
communication is considered as documentary evidence

Procedure to Present:

1. It must be authenticated and proved in a manner provided by the court

2. It must be identified and marked
3. It must be formally offered to the court and shown to the opposing party so that the later can object thereto

Requisite:

1. It must be relevant
2. It must be authenticated
3. The document is authenticated by a competent witness
4. The document is formally offered in evidence.

Q: Can a private document be offered as documentary and object evidence

A: Yes. It depends on the purpose to which the document was offered. If offered to prove the existence or contents
of the document t other than the contents of the document he same is considered as a object evidence. But when the
document is offered as proof of the content the same is documentary.

2. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE

General Rule: When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document or any material containing
letter ,words, sound, numbers and figures, symbols or their equivalent, drawing , stored image, x ray and motion
picture, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself.
THIS ONLY APPLIES TO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Exception:
1. When the original is lost or destroyed or cannot be produced without bad faith on the part of the offeror.
a. There must be reasonable diligence and good faith on the part of the offeror in search to produce
the original
2. When the original is in the custody of the party against whom the evidence is offered and the latter fails to
produce the same after reasonable notice or when the original notice cannot be obtained by local process
and procedures
3. When the original constitutes as numerous account or other document which cannot be is only a general
result of the whole.
Ie: This does away with the item by item court identification and authentication of voluminous
exhibits which is burdensome and tedious for the parties.
The court allows that the same may be produced through a chart, summary or calculation But the
parties may allow inspection or copying of both by the adverse party at a reasonable time and
place
4. When the original is public record, and in custody of public officer or is recorded in public office
Ie: Evidence may be proven through certified true copy issued by the public officer thereof.
5. When the original is non-related to the controlling issue.
Notes:
1. The court can dispense with the original document rule when there is no direct relation to the content,
and will not serve the purpose of the same.
2. When the parties fail to object.
3. The original document rule only applies when the evidence is documentary

What is an Original Document?

The document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or
issuing it. An original of the photograph include negative or print therefrom ( I printed memorandum and signed it I
had that document photocopied 100x and distributed it to my people the photocopies are also considered as original
when the employee photocopied it becomes as duplicate).
This includes the negative or any print therefrom if it is stored in a computer or similar devices, any print
out or other output readable in sight or other means shown to reflect the data accurately is an original.

What is a Duplicate
This pertains to counterpart produced by the same impression o the original or from the same matrix,
or by means of photography including enlargement and miniatures or electronic re-recording or by chemical
reproduction or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
Is a handwritten writing a duplicate? No it does not actually reproduce the original.

 With the amendment, a duplicate ( such as photocopies) is now admissible as that of the original based
on the best evidence rule
o Except:
 When there is a genuine issue as to its authenticity of the original
 When the circumstance makes it inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
Case:
1.The prosecutor witness testified that he saw a CCTV footage of the accused robbing the bank. The defense
counsel objected on the ground of original document rule. The court rueld that Photograph which includes motion
pictures or videos are expressly included in the definition of documentary evidence under Section 2 Rule 130 and
the original document rule under Rule 130 Section 3
2. The drawings were writing within the meaning of FRE they consist not of letter, words or numbers but of their
equivalent. The Original document rule is not applicable to word figures
3. Printout of a photograph from your mobile phone showing a fly in the soup you ordered admissible evidence in
an action for damage? Yes under the Rules on Evidence if a document or data is stored in a computer or similar
device any printout therefrom is an original and thus admissible as evidence
4. Proponent present an evidence photocopy of the letter written by the adverse party without accounting for the
non production of original letter should the objection be sustained? No. The objection must be overruled. Under
Section 4c Rule 130 a duplicate is admissible to the same extent of the original unless 1. There is a genuine issue
raised as to authenticity of the Original 2. Circumstances it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of
original. The proponent need not explain for the non production of the original.
5. The original document rule only to documentary evidence not to testimonial oral or object evidence.
6. Mr A boarded an Air France Flight, the plane made a stop over in Bangkok , Mr Carrascoso was forcibly
transferred in order to make way to a white man. Mr. Carascoso protested, a commotion occurred, an Employee
of Airfrance wrote down what occurred in notebook. Is this notebook object or testimonial evidence? The SC ruled
that original document rule applies only to documentary evidence and not the content of the notebook. What Mr.
A was testifying was the oral evidence and not documentary evidence.

4. SECONDARY EVIDENCE’
When Secondary Evidence is unavailable:
1. When the original document has been lost ,destroyed or cannot be produced in court the offeror upon
proof of the execution or existence and cause of its unavailability without a bad faith prove the content
based on the ff
a. A copy
b. Recital of the content in some authentic document
c. Testimony of witness
* Note the hierarchy.

Order of Proof: The order may be changed based on the discretion of the court.
1. Existence
2. Execution
a. One who executed the document
b. To whom parties to the instrument previously confessed the execution thereof
c. Before whom its execution was acknowledge
d. Who was present and saw it executed and delivered
e. Who after the execution and delivery saw it recognized the signature.
3. Loss
a. Any person who knew of the fact of loss
b. Anyone who has made sufficient examination in the place where the document and papers of
similar character are usually kept by person in whose custody the document lost was and has been
unable to fit
c. Anyone who has made investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that instrument was
lost.
4. Contents
a. Anyone who signed it
b. Read it
c. Heard it being read knowing or it being proved from other sources that the document so read was
the one in question
 d. Present when the contents of the document were talked over between the parties thereto to such
extent as to give him reasonably full information as to its content
e. To whom the parties to the instrument have confessed or stated its contents.
Original Document is in adverse party possession
Requisite:
1. Opponent possession of original
2. Reasonable notice to the opponent to produce the original
a. Notice: Motion for production of document made in open court in the presence of adverse party
b. Subpoena duces tecum
3. Satisfactory proof of its existence
4. Failure or refusal of the opponent to produce the same in court.

*If the opponent refuse to produce the document in court it must be proven through satisfactory evidence. The
offeror must do everything in his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the
document. When such party has the original of writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or refuse to
produce it , it is only that time that secondary evidence is admitted
*If there is failure to produce the original despite reasonable notice, the adverse party is afterward forbidden to
produce the document in order to contradict the other party’s copy or evidence of its content or it may also be
regarded as judicial admission in advance of the correctness of first party evidence.

Summaries:
When the document , record , photograph or numerous account are voluminous and cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole the contents
may be presented in the form of 1. Chart 2. Summary 3. Calculation.

Note: While the summary may be produced, the original of the voluminous account must still be available for
examination or copying or both by the adverse party by reasonable place and time.

Original Document is public Record:

It may be proven by secondary evidence based on:
1. Certified true copy issued by public officer in custody thereof
a. There is no requirement that the certification must be in proper form.
b. Note: Republic vs Marocs Manotic: While affidavit are considered as public document if they are
acknowledged before a notary public these are still classified as hearsay evidence since the
adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross examine the affiant.
2. Official Publication

Note: ( Note mo padin ung amendments that Photocopy are NO longer considered as secondary evidence)

1. The Photocopy being a mere secondary contract is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is not
available.
2. When more than one original copy exist, it must appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed or cannot
be produced before the secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy cannot be used without
accounting for the original
3. Whenever the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no useful purpose will
be served in its production.
 4. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and
their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading:

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

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.

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

Parol Evidence : Once the terms of agreement was reduced to writing parol or extraneous evidence of prior or
contemporaneous terms and condition may not be presented by a party or his successor in interest ( It does not bar
somebody who is not a successor or interest) to modify , explain or adds to the term of the written agreement
*This is more narrower in scope with the original document rule which applies to all kinds of document.
Applicability of the Parol Evidence Rule: ( Contracts)
In order for parol evidence to be admitted to support the respondent’s claim it must be put in issue in the
complaint and the ambiguity or validity of the deed of sale failure to reflect the true intent of the parties
1. Note that the parol evidence rule only applies to written contract. Therefore, a receipt which merely proves the
payment is not covered by the said rule. A will is considered as a written agreement for the purpose of parol
evidence rule.
2. The parol evidence rule applies only to the parties to the contract and their successors in interest. Therefore,
the same cannot be invoked by a stranger.
3. The parol evidence rule applies to both public and private document

Exceptions: The party can present parol evidence to modify, an explain and add to terms of the written agreement
when he puts to issue a VERIFIED AGREEMENT
Note : This exemption is available only when the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure as it fail to
show the intent of the parties from the mere reading of the instrument.

1.Validity of written agreement put into issue

2. Intent of parties not expressed in written agreement
3. Subsequent agreement
- Parties can modify or change their agreement
4. Ambiguity ( Intrinsic), imperfection and mistake
Nb: This pertains to an ambiguity when the words and phrase is susceptible to two or more meanings. Parol
evidence is admissible to determine the parties’ intention of the court. ( appears in the face of the
instrument) If there is a meaning it can be corrected by parol evidence but If it does not have a meaning it
cannot be interpreted by parol evidence.
Mistake: 1. Mutual mistake of the parties, inequitable,
Example:
1.I bequeath my parcel of land in Bacoor Cavite to my cousin Jose Reyes: There is a meaning but the testator has
two parcel of land, and he has two cousin named Jose Reyes. In this case there is a case of two or more meaning. In
this case, I can use parol evidence since this is a case merely of Latent ambiguity.
2. I bequeath a parcel of land to my cousin Jose Reyes? This is a patent or extrinsic ambiguity since the provision
has no meaning at all it cannot be corrected by parol evidence since the court itself will decide for parties.
3. Parol evidence rule applies to written contract whether private or public document. The contract need not be
signed by two parties nor need it to be bilateral.
4.To overcome the presumption that the written agreement contains all the terms of agreement the parol evidence
must be clear and convincing and of such sufficient credibility as to overturn the written agreement.
5. Parole Evidence of conditions precedent may be admitted only when the document mentions such condition or
refers to such agreement that contains the condition.

1. Original Document Rule / Best evidence 2. Parol Evidence Rule

Purpose: To prove the contents of the document Purpose: To prove the intent of parties ( Modify alter
and explain the term of contract)
Applies to all kind of writing With the exception of wills applies only to written
agreement
 Note : Parol evidence applicable to wills
despite it not being a written contrct based
on Article 789
Availability of original document: Contemplates a Presupposes that the original is available in court
situation where the original is not available in court
and there is a dispute as to whether said writing is the
original
Can be invoked by any party to an action regardless of Can be invoked only when the controversy is between
whether such party participated or not in writing the parties to written agreement their privies or any
involved party directly affected.
Condition Precedent covered by Parol Evidence Rule: Parol evidence of condition precedent may not be admitted
Parol evidence rule cannot be used to prove a suspensive condition because it alters the term of written contract.
Exception: When the document refers to an agreement containing such condition.

Cases:
1.On April 1 2021, seller and buyer executed a deed of absolute land in which the price of the lot is stated at P1,000.
In suit against seller against the buyer to enforce the contract may the buyer introduce in evidence an email from the
seller dated March 1 2021, in which the seller agreed that the price would be payable in five installment of P200,000
each beginning from the execution of deed of sale?
A:No. Parol evidence rule bars evidence of prior or contemporaneous term and condition whether oral or written
which will alter the terms of the written contract. The email dated March 1 is a prior written term would alter the
manner of paying the price as stipulated in the contract. When the deed of sale is reduced in writing it was deemed
containing all the term agreed upon
2.Parol evidence rule applies only to parties to the contract and their successor in interest and not to defendant who
are not parties to the deed of sale.
Leoncia executed a deed of sale in favor of Victoria, the deed of sale indicated that the deed of sale is lot B, Leoncia
thought that the lot she was selling was lot A. The possessor possessed the land, Victoria files an answer possessor.
Loencia testify that what she really wanted to sell to Leoncia was lot A and not Lot B. Victoria objected on the
ground parol evidence rule. The court ruled that the possessor is not bound to the deed of sale between Leoncia and
Victoria therefore the possessor is not bound
3.A beneficiary under a stipulation pour autrui is considered a party to a written contract is bound by the parol
evidence code.
General Rule: Contract only binds the parties
Exception: If the parties to a contract clearly intended that the third person intended to have benefit under
the contract , it is deemed to be privy or affected under the contract
Parces vs Ygona: A,B,C, D, E, F are co-owner, ABCD executed a deed of sale in favor of the Buyer, E and F sued
the buyer. E and F argued that there is an agreement between E and F and that the buyer will procure the issuance of
title against E and F.The buyer argued that they are not bound with the parol evidence rule
Sc: E and F are beneficiaries of stipulation pour Atrie it is as if they are parties to the contract pursuant to contract
then they are bound by the parol evidence rule.
4.The award of interest where the government acquires private property through voluntary sale is not a matter of law
but of contract. Where deed of sale between the government and landowner did not provide for interest the curt
cannot award interest. Parties cannot award interest to the landowner it is a violation of parol evidence rule
5. . In this case James uncorroborated allegation that the loan document were merely pre-signed for future loan is far
from being the clear and convicing evidence necessary to defeat the terms of written agreement.
6. Rudlin contends although the price stated in the contract is P6,9 million there was an understanding that the true
price was P6 Million. They invoke the exception of the PER wherein the written agreement failed to express the true
intent of the parties. May rudlin invoke the exception of the parol evidence rule exception? No. It is only available
only where the written contract is so obscure or ambiguous that the parties contractual intention cannot be
understood from a mere reading of instrument. Here the contract stated that the price is P6.9 Million pesos because
the term in the contract is very clear.

5. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS

E. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (RULE 130, C)

1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
Any person who can 1. Perceive 2. Make known his or her perception to others

A witness does not need to be qualified beforehand because there is a presumption that a witness is qualified to
be such only expert witness need to be qualified.
Exception:
1. Marital disqualification rule
2. Disqualified by privileged communication.
With the amendments:
1. Conviction of the crime, is not a ground to disqualify the witness, it can merely be used to impeach the
witness.
2. Minority and immaturity is not a ground to impeach the witness as long as they can understand and
appreciate the sanctity of their oath and can testify or communicate their ideas to an interpreter.
Cases:
1. There is no law requiring a witness to present authorization to testify form the party presenting him . All that the
rule require is that the witness possess the qualification and none of disqualification provided therein. ( AFP-
RSBS).
2. pLaintiff filed a case between A,B,C , B and C were declared in default since A only filed an answer. A present
evidence B and C that he filed an answer. B and C although declared in default and no longer appear in trial can still
be presented as witness by A who is not declared in default.

Special Rule:
1.Child Witness: Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court may conduct a competency
examination if substantial doubt as to exist as to child’s competency examination.
2. A party having a claim or demand against the 1. Estate of the deceased person or 2. Estate of executor
administrator cannot testify as to fact which happened before the decedent death.- This is already barred. Since
repeal , this gave rise to hearsay exception which provides that claimant can now testify as to ante-litem fact. ( If you
have a claim as to insane person the relevant fact are to those prior to when the person become insane kaya tinagal to
dead man rule)

2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
a. Marital Disqualification Rule: ( Altogether cannot take the stand)
General Rule: During the marriage, a spouse cannot testify against the other spouse without the consent of the later.
 The husband cannot object if his wife will testify for him.
Exception: ( Same with the marital disqualification privilege)
1. Civil case against the other
2. Criminal case for a crime that is committed by one spouse against the other or the latter’s direct descendant
or ascendant
3. When the circumstance indicate that the state has no more interest to preserve harmony and peace of
marital relation ( In certain instances)
When to Object: The time to raise the MDR as the objection is when the spouse is called to the witness stand and his
or her testimony is offered otherwise the objection is waived
Notes:
1. The marriage must be existing at the time of the offer of the testimony. At the testimony of one spouse is
offered they are already married it does not matter if the marriage happened thereafter.
2. The purpose of the rule is to preserve harmony, peace and tranquility of marital relation, therefore the act of
the husband in setting fire to the house shows that there is no more harmony and peace nor peace and
tranquility
3. Separation de facto ( separation by bed and board) will not disqualify the spouse from testifying against the
other.
4. This only applies during the marriage.
5. In prosecution for arson, the wife and husband had been separated de facto for six months. When the
husband learned that the wife was staying with his sister the husband went to the house and set fire to the
house. The sister dies the wife survive can the wife testify against the sister? Yes crime committed by the
husband against the wife. There is no more harmony, peace and tranquility to be preserved thus reason for
the MDR ceases
a. For bar: If separated for six months or more: Even if married no more harmony , peace or love to
be preserved

Privileges: ( Communication)
1. Marital Communication Privilege
2. Atty-Client Privilege
3. Physician, Psychotherapist Privilege
4. Priest Minister, Privilege
5. Public interest

a. Martial Communication Privilege

A husband and wife cannot be examined without the consent of the other in any confidential communication
received from the marriage except
1. Civil Case by one against the other
2. Criminal case: One against the other or the latter’s direct ascendant or descendant.
* this pertains only to the communication which was received in confidence

MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION Marital Communication privilege

1. A blanket disqualification of a spouse from 2. The privilege applies only to confidential
testifying against the other communication
2. Effective only during the existence of marriage 2. Effective during and after the marriage
3. Can be invoked only if the spouses is a party of the 3. Can be invoked whether or not a spouse is a party to
action the action.

b. Attorney- Client Privilege : An attorney or person reasonably believed by such client to be

licensed to engaged in the practice of law cannot without the consent of the client be examined to
any communication made by the client to him or his advice thereon in course of or with view to
professional employment. This also extends to stenographer, clerk or other person assisting the
attorney without the consent of the client and the employer concerning the fact and knowledge
which is acquired in such capacity.

Scope: This privilege applies in the course of view of employment. The attorney client privilege applies only to
communication between the attorney and the client and the lawyer’s advice in view of professional employment.
Hence, even though the employment did not push through as long as it was obtained in view of professional
employment

Exceptions to Atty. Client privilege :

1. In furtherance of the crime or fraud: If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or
aid anyone to commit a crime or plan to commit the same.
2. Claimants through same deceased client. As to a communication of the parties who claim through the same
deceased client regardless of whether the same is testate or intestate ( ie: Ask the attorney as to who the deceased
really wanted to give the property)
3. Breach of duty by the lawyer or client
4. Document attested by the lawyer.
5. Joint Client: when the communication was made by the client or any of them in an action between any of the
client unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.
6. A lawyer may reveal secret when necessary to defend himself , his associate or employees.
Identity of Client
General Rule: The identity of the client is not privileged:
Exception: When there is a strong probability that exist in revealing the client’s name would implicate him in the
very activity which sought for the lawyer’s advice.
Clients Document : If the document while in the possession of the client is privileged, then the document if turned
over to the lawyer remains to be privileged. Hence, when the transfer is made in the purpose of obtaining legal
advice, the same is privilege in character.

c. Physician – Psychotheraphist -Patient Doctrine

 1. Physician: A person reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine cannot in a
civil case without the consent of the patient be examined as to any confidential information made for the
purpose of diagnosing the patient’s physical mental and emotional condition including drug addiction.

Scope of Privilege:
1. Patient- Psychotherapist
2. Any person including members of the patient’s family who have participated in the diagnosis, treatment of patient
under the discretion of the physician or psychotherapist.
3. Civil Cases
4. The information must be obtained pursuant to professional capacity.
Note: A physician is not absolutely prohibited from testifying as he or she may testify based strictly on hypothetical facts,
stated disregarding any personal knowledge that was acquired pursuant to physician-patient relationship( expert witness)

Psychologist
A psychologist or psychometrician cannot without the consent of the client be examined on any communication or
information disclosed and or acquired in the course of giving psychological service to such client. ( This applies to all cases).
This applies to all civil ,criminal or administrative.

d. Priest and Minister Privilege

A priest, minister or a person reasonably believed to be so cannot without the consent of the affected person be examined as
to any communication or confession made to or any advice given by him, his professional character in the course of
discipline.Under the Revised Rules, the communication was expanded to include not only those confession but to other
communication made to the priest or minister, as long as the minister was acting within his capacity.

e. Public Interest Privilege

A public officer cannot be examine during or after his tenure as to communication made to him in confidence, when the court
finds that public interest would suffer from its disclosure.
- Note: Disclosure would be prevented when the public interest is to suffer by the same

f. Media Practioners Privilege

Any publisher, author etc cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news item, report or information appearing
or being reported or disseminated through the said media, which was relayed in confidence through the said media.
Exception: 1. When the court or the house of representatives or the senate or any of the committee in the congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of the state.

g. Parental or Filial Privilege

General Rule: No person can be compelled to testify against his 1. Parents ,2. Other direct ascendant, children or other direct
descendant except when the testimony is indispensable in the crime against one parent against the other. ( Crime ng isang parent
sa isang parent)

Note: here, it is the child who has the choice whether to testify or not. Hence, if the child invokes parental privilege, he cannot be
compelled to testify. Therefore, the right to testify does not belong to the parent but the child.

h. Trade Secrets
A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or continue or
otherwise work injustice. A trade secret is a secret formula or process not patented but known oly to certain individuals using it
in compounding some articles of trade having a commercial value. These are privileged matters whose disclosure is penalized.
Exception is in fraud cases:
 3. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
1. Extrajudicial Admission: any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the
conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.

Judicial Admission Extrajudicial admission

1. Made in connection with Judicial proceeding 1. Any other admission
in which it is offered
2. Does not require proof 2. Must still be formally offered in evidence
3. May be conclusive unless contradicted 3. Rebuttable
4. May be oral express or implied 4. May be oral express or implied

Admission of party vs Confession

ADMISSION Confession
1. A statement of fact 1. Acknowledgement of guilt or liability

2. Maybe express or tacit 2. Must be express

3. May be made by third parties and in certain 3. Can be made only by the party himself and
cases admissible against a party admissible against his co-accused in some
instance
4. Act declaration or omission 4. Declaraiton
5. May be in any proceeding refers to a party 5. Criminal case
without distinction as to the nature
Self-Serving Declaration: One which has been made extrajudicially by party to favor his interest is not admissible
because they are inherently untrustworthy.
Forms of Admission:
A.Admission based on form or act
1. Voluntary participation
2. Flight from the scene of crime
3. Changing one’s appearance or claim
1.An admission may be in the form or an act a declaration or statement or an omission
a. Voluntary participation in police reenactment
b. Flight from the scene of th crime
c. Changing one’s appearance or claim
Offer of Compromise
1. Civil Case: Is not an admission of liability and is not admissible evidence against the offeror. Though not
admissible to prove liability it is admissible to show a fair estimate as to the value of property.
2. Criminal Case: It is an implied admission of guilt . Excepted from this rule are offer of compromise which the
law allows it to be compromised.
Example:
1. The act of the accused in pleading for forgiveness is an implied act of admission.
2. It does not matter who initiated the compromise talks as long as the accused was the one who made the offer.
After committing the crime the accused or his representative makes an offer of compromise and such offer is
proved.
3. The offer of compromise must be made in the context of a criminal proceeding. The offer need not be accepted
Good Samaritan Rule:
An offer to pay the medical , hospital and other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as
proof of civil and criminal liability for injury
Admission by Silence:
If the act or declaration is such naturally calls for the action or comment and that the party does or says nothing it is
considered as an admission by silence.
Exception: When the accused has the right to remain silent.
Requisites:
1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of another person
2. He must have understood the statement
3. He was at liberty to make a denial
4. The statement is about a matter affecting the rights or which he was interested and which naturally calls for
a response
5. The facts are within his knowledge
6. The fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue
Doctrine of Adoptive Admission:
A party by his words or conduct voluntarily adopts or ratifies another statement. Evidence of the statement
would be admissible against the party.

Admission by a third party:

a. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
General Rule: The rights of third parties cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of the other.
Exception:
1. Co partner
a. The statement made after the partnership has dissolved do not fall within this exception
i. Exception: Where the admission made in connection of winding up the affairs of the
partnership
2. Agent
a. The at or declaration of a partner or agent of the party must be within the scope of his authority
b. Admission was made during the existence of partnership or agency
c. The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by independent evidence other than such act
or declaration.
 The declaration of partner or agent authorized by the party making the statement is admissible
3. Joint owner
a. There exist a joint interest between the joint owner , Joint debtor or other person jointly interested
with the party
b. Such party which joint interest must first be made to appear by evidence other than the act or
declaration itself
c. The act or declaration was made when the interest is subsisting
d. The act relates to subject matter of joint interest
4. Co-Conspirator: The act of declaration of a conspirator must be in furtherance of conspiracy during its
existence may be given as evidence against the co-conspirator. The statement must be made during the time
conspiracy still exist for it to be considered as implied admission.
5. Privies
a. The individual and separate admission of each respondent bind all of them . The declaration of a
party is inadmissible against a party whenever privity of estate exist between the declarant and the
party
Section 32: Where one derives title to property from another the latter’s act, declaration or omission in relation to
the property is evidence against the former if done while the latter is holding title.
i. There must be an act , declaration or mission by predecessor in interest
ii. The act declaration or omission of the predecessor must have occurred while he was
holding the title
iii. The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to property.

Previous Conduct rule: Evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible to prove
that one did or did not do the same act at another.
b. Extrajudicial declaration of the accused: General Rule: Extrajudicial declaration of the accused is
not admissible and does not have probative value against his co-accused and is merely hearsay.

5. Admission by counsel
The admission of counsel are admissible against the client as the former acts in representation and
as an agent of the later subject to the limitation that it must not amount to compromise
Joint Interest
1. Joint interest must first made to appear by evidence other than the admission itself
2. The admission must relate to the subject matter of joint interest.
The mere continuity of interest between several person is not sufficient to make the admission as one admissible
against all. The interest must be subsisting one unless for admission to be admissible.

Accused against Co-accused

1. Extrajudicial: May be given in evidence against the confessant but not against the co-accused since the
latter is not given the opportunity to cross examine
2. Judicial: Admissible against the co-accused since the later is given the opportunity to cross examine.

CONFESSIONS
Definition: Declaration of accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the offense charge or of any offense necessarily
included therein may be given in evidence against him or her.
Kinds of Confession:
1. Extrajudicial confession: The declaration of an accused acknowledging the guilt of the offense necessarily
included therein Such may be given in evidence against him.
2. Judicial confession: One made by the accused before a court in which the case is pending and in course of
legal proceeding therein. When one enters into a plea of guilt in criminal cases. However the plea of guilt
does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to present evidence notwithstanding the said plea.
Form: Confession is not required to be in particular form. It may be oral or written or informal in character. It may be recorded
on video tape etc.

Confession of the Accused:

1. The confession is a declaration of an accused acknowledging the guilt of an offense charged or any offense
included therein. ( This only binds the accused who confessed)
Exception:
1. When the confession is to be used as corroborative or circumstantial evidence as in cases of interlocking
confession.
2. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant
3. If the co defendant impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession
4. When the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessor after being arrpised of such confession
Interlocking confession: These are confession made independently and without collusion which are identical with
one another in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record and are admissible as
circumstantial evidence against the person implicated.

3. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE

General Rule: Evidence that one did not or did do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did
not or did not do the same or similar thing in another time
Exception:
 The offering parties must allege and prove specific repetitive conduct that might constitute as evidenceof
habit. The example must be numerous enough to base inference of systematic conduct. Mere similarity of
contract does not present the kind of sufficiently similar to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion.

a. Specific intent
b. Knowledge
c. Identity
d. Plant
e. System
f. Scheme
g. Habit
h. Custom
i. Usage

Unaccepted Offer: An offer in writing to pay a particular sum or money or to deliver a written instrument or specific
personal property is if rejected without valid cause equivalent to the actual production or tender of money,
instrument and property.

Special laws:
1. Child abuse: Sexual abuse shield law the ff are not admissible:
a. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior
b. Evidence to prove the sexual predisposition of victim
HOWEVER: Evidence to prove the sexual behavior of the victim to prove that person other than the accused was
the source of the semen is admissible.
2. Rape shield law: The past sexual conduct or opinion thereof or his reputation is not to be admitted unless
and only to the extent that the court finds the same to be relevant
Ex: The evidence of past sexual act with men other than the accused is irrelevant even a immoral woman has
freedom of selection

6. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE

. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness can testify only to
those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception,
except as otherwise provided in these rules. (30a)
 7. HEARSAY AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Hearsay: A statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the
fact and the truth thereof.

Statement: 1. Oral or written assertion 2. Non-verbal conduct of a person if it is intended by him or her as
an assertion.
Example: 1. A medical certificate is hearsay if not presented in court 2. Newspaper clipping are hearsay since the
reporter who wrote the news account was not presented in court.
General Rule: 1. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless provided or in the Rules.’
Why is hearsay excluded?
1. The party against whom hearsay testimony is presented is deprived of the right of opportunity to cross
examine the person to whom the statement are attirubted
2. The court is without any opportunity to test the credibility of the statement by observing the demeanor of
the person who made the same.
Independent Relevant Statement
 Admissible as evidence and outside the purview of the hearsay rule. The truth or falsity of the statement is
not material as what is material is only facts that such statement was made.
Ex: Bago namatay si X sinabi nya sakin si A sumasksak sa kanya ( independent statement to prove that it may sinabi
si X)

Requisite : Independent relevant statement

1. Those statement which are the very facts in issue
2. Those statement which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue
a. These includes the statement of a person showing his state of mind ( his mental condition, ill will and
other emotions) and knowledge and other statement of a person from which an inference is made ( note
that proof of state of mind of another only applies to the Erap case)

Q: What happens if hearsay admissible if not objected to?

4. Yes. Hearsay if not objected to may be admitted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts stated
therein. Hearsay alone may be insufficient to establish a fact but when no objection is made thereto it is lie
any other evidence to be considered and given importance it deserves

Exceptions to the hearsay rule

1. Dying declaration
2. Former testimony or disposition
3. Act of declaration regarding pedigree
4. Declaration against interest
5.Statement of decent person of unsound mind
6. Declaration by a child about act or attempted act of child abuse
7. Res gestae
8. Family reputation
9. Common reputation
10. Commercial list
11. official records
12. learned treaties
13. Record of regularly conducted business activity.

Residual Exemption: A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exception having equivalent
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness is admissible
1. The statement is offered as evidence of material fact
 2. The statement is more probative on the point on which it is offered than any other evidence which the
proponent can procure through reasonable effort
3. The general purpose of these rules interest and just will prevail
a. Dying Declaration
1. The declarant is dead
2. His death is the subject or inquiry
3. The declaration was made under the consciousness of his impeding death
4. The declaration is about the cause and surrounding circumstance of his death.
Notes:
1. There is no requirement that a dying declaration be put up in writing
2. The requirement of admissibility of ante mortem statement or a dying declaration is that the declaration is about the cause
surrounding the circumstance of the declarants death. In this case, the statement Is not about the cause of the death of the
respondent but whether his companions are part of the robbery
3. It does not matter if the witness dies seven days after, as long as the statement was made with the knowledge of his
impeding death
4. A dying declaration is made under the consciousness of impeding death may be received in any case where his death is
subject to inquiry
b. Former Testimony or deposition
1. Witness or deponent is dead or out of the Philippines or cannot be located with due diligence
2. The proceeding involves the same parties and same subject matter
3. The adverse party must have the opportunity to cross examine the witness in the former case

c.Acts of Declaration about Pedigree

a. Declarant is dead or unable to testify
b. The act or declaration is about the pedigree of another person related to the declarant by 1. Birth 2. Adoption
3. Marriage or in the absence thereof whose family he or she was intimately associated.
c. The relationship between the relative and the declarant is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration
d. The act or declaration before the controversy.
d. Declaration against interest
The requirements are
a. The declarant is dead or unable to testify
b. The declaration must be against the interest of the declarant
c. The fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to interest that a reasonable man in his
position would not have ade the declaration unless he believed to be
d. A statement tending to expose the declarant criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused
Declaration against Interest Party admission

1. Made by a non party the declarant 1. Made by a party

2. Must be against the interest of the declarant 2. Need not be against the admitters interest

3. Hearsay but the exception hearsay rule Not hearsay

The declarant must be dead and unable to testify No Requirement

Admissible against their person Admissible only as to the admitter.

E. Statement of decedent person of unsound mind

If a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter that occurs prior to the
death of the deceased or prior to the insanity any statement of the deceased or unsound mind may be
 received as evidence if the statement is made with personal knowledge of the deceased or person of
unsound mind at the time when the matter had been recently perceived by him was clear.
Dead Man’s Rule: There can be a testimony as to the ante mortem fact ( One of the Revision under the Rule)
F. Business Record Exemption
A custodian or other qualified witness must testify that condition for admission of business record exception.
Business Activity: The activity called every kind whether or not conducted for profit or legitimate purpose.

Note that profession, occupation calls for every kind whether or not conducted for profit or legitimate
purpose.
Requisite:
1. There is a memorandum, record or data compilation of acts, events condition, opinion, diagnoses , made in writing typing
electronic and optical or other similar means ( removal of the distinction between writing and electronic means)
2. The memorandum is made at or near the time of the act of event
3. The memorandum is made by or from the transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge of the act,
event etc
4. Memorandum is kept in the regular course or conduct of business activity
5.. It was the regular practice of the business activity to make the memorandum, report , record or data compilation by means
of typing electronic or similar means
6. All the foregoing condition are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness
Note: Made in the course of business, routine to record events or occurrences to reflect the transaction with others or to prove
internal control
Q: Is medical record hearsay?
A: Yes. Medical certificate that is issued upo request of a patient which certify that a patient is suffering from an ailmnet or
injury is mere hearsay if the phyisican did not testify in court.
Exemption: if the medical statement was made describing the medical history, treatment or past or present symptoms It is not
hearsay.
G. Res Gestae
1. Excited utterance 2. Verbal acts
Excited utterance: Statement made by a person while startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior to or subsequent
thereto under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence regarding the circumstances thereof. Under the Rules of evidence,
statement made while a startling occurrence is taking place immediately prior or subsequent thereto , under the stress and
excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the circumstance thereof.
H. VERBAL ACT EXEMPTION
Statement accompanying an accompanying an equivocal act that is material to the issue and giving it a legal significance may be
received as evidence as a part of res gestae
I.FAMILY REPUTATION
General Rule : Reputation evidence is hearsay evidence
Exception: Family reputation and common reputation. This pertains to reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the
controversy regarding the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be
also a member of family, either y consanguinity or adoption.
NB:The witness must be a member of the family whose reputation or tradition he is testifying about and that the reputation must
be about the pedigree of one of its members.

J.COMMON REPUTATION
This pertains to common reputation existing in the community with respect to the reputation to boundaries and customs affecting
lands and with respect to events of general history.
Requisite :
1. Existed previous to the controversy and is ante litem motem
2. Is about boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community and reputation as to events of general history important to
the community or respecting marriage or moral character.
 k. COMMERCIAL PUBLICATION
Requirements
1. There is a list, register ,periodical or other published compilation
2. Such published compilation contains statement of matters of interest to person engaged in occupation
3. The compilation is published for the use by person engaged in that occupation.
4. The compilation is generally used and relied upon by the person engaged in that occupation.

Are classified adds considered hearsay?

Yes. These are clearly hearsay and cannot be considered as commercial list since they are essentially separate and distinct offers
to buy or sell and not a published compilation that contains such information.
L. OFFICAL RECORD
Official records are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Entries in official records made in the performance of his
duty by a public officer of the Philippines or by a person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are excepted from
the hearsay rule.
Requisites:
1. The entries must have been made in official records
2. The entry must have bene made by public officer of the Philippines in the performance of his duty or by a person in
performance of a duty enjoined by law
3. The entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by
person under the legal duty to submit the same
M.LEARNED TREATIES
Requisite
1. There is a published treatise , periodical or pamphlet
2. It is on the subject of law, art science or history
3.. The writer of the statement in the treatise periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profression or calling as expert in the
subject.
RESIDUAL EXECPTION
A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exception having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness is admissible if the court determines that
a. The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact
b. The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure
through reasonable effort
c. The general purpose of these rules and thei nerest of the justice will be best sered by admission of the statement to evidence.
Lack of Personal Knowledge distinguished form hearsay:
1. Lack of personal knowledge is when a witness is testifying on facts which he does not know of his personal knowledge .
2. Hearsay : Out of court statement

7. OPINION RULE
General Rule: The opinion of the witness is not admissible except in the ff :

1. Opinion of expert witness : Opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience
or training which he shown to possess may be received in evidence.
 Must be shown that the witness possess special knowledge, skill and experience
2. Opinion of ordinary Witness :
a. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge
b. A handwriting which he has sufficient familiarity
c. Mental sanity of a person with whom he is acquainted.
d. The witness may testify as to emotion ,behavior and condition and appearance.
e. The witness gives opinion or estimate regarding physical dimension ,speed or lighting condition
Note:If both expert and ordinary witness: Must state In which capacity is the witness testifying
In case of Nullity of Marriage
In case when the psychologist is not able to examine the respondent and psychological report is only based on the
narration of the petitioner , bias in her favor arises.
Exception: If the testimony of the psychologist and report were held not to be hearsay if they are based not solely on
the interview of the petitioner but of other person such as 1. Own son, 2. Sibling 3. Sister

7. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
General Rule: Character evidence is not admissible

Exception :
1. Criminal Case : If the same is pertinent to the offense charged ( ex estafa)
a. The accused proves that his good moral character is pertinent to the trait involved
b. Unless in rebuttal the prosecution may not prove bad moral character pertinent to the moral trait of
the offense
c. The good or bad moral character of the offended party tends to establish in any reasonable degree
the probability and improbability of offense charged. ( Violent tendency murder)

How is character proved?

1. Reputation evidence
This pertain to common reputation, a witness general reputation for honesty, integrity or truth may
be impeached by reputation evidence.

2. The witness opinion

In all cases in which evidence of character or trait of character of a person is admissible proof may
be made by testimony in the form of opinion.
2. Specific instance of conduct

Adverse Party Party’s witness

1. The adverse party may introduce evidence that a The party can only present evidence to rehabilitate the
witness general reputation for honesty, integrity or truth good character of the witness when the same is
is bad for the purpose of impeaching the witness impeached
* A witness may not be impeached except that it may
be shown that he is convicted

3. Civil Case
a. Only when pertinent to the issue involved in the case
i. Ex: 1. Libel and slander when the character of the person is at issue
ii. When the woman must be of good reputation
iii. Negligent hiring
iv. Child custody
b. Rule 132 Section 14

H. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS (RULE 131)

I. Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on
the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law. (1a, 2a)
J. Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
K. (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
falsify it:
L. (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement
of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
M. Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
N. (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
O. (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
P. (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
Q. (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
R. (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
S. (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
T. (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
U. (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
V. (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is
produced;
W. (j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is
the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
X. (k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the
delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
Y. (l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
Z. (m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
AA. (n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
BB. (o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and
passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
CC. (p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
DD. (q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
EE. (r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
FF. (s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
GG. (t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument
was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
HH. (u) That a writing is truly dated;
II. (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
JJ. (w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still
lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
KK. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till
after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an
absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
LL. The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
MM. (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is
missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
NN. (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has
been missing for four years;
OO. (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for four years;
PP. (4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse
is already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for
the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying
again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family
Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without
prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
QQ. (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact;
RR. (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and
ordinary nature habits of life;
SS. (z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
TT. (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage;
UU. (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry
each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit
of marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
VV. (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money,
property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint
deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.
WW. (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage
within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall
govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
XX. (1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be
born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
YY. (2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be
born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
ZZ. (ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature;
AAA. (ff) That the law has been obeyed;
BBB. (gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public
authority, was so printed or published;
CCC. (hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged
in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such
cases;
DDD. (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a
particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to
perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest;
EEE. (jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same
calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there
are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined
from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the
following rules:
FFF. 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
GGG. 2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
 HHH. 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have
survived;
III. 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to
have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
JJJ. 5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is
deemed to have survived.
KKK. (kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to
succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to
the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have
died at the same time. (5a)
LLL. Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. — There is no presumption
of legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the
marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of
such child must prove his allegation. (6)

G. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (RULE 132)

Section 1. The examination must e done in open court, and under oath or affirmation unless the witness is incapacitated to speak.

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF

Process of establishing that evidence is what it purports to be in other words that is genuine. In the case of private document
authentication means the proving of due execution of the authenticity of a document.

1. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Order in the examination of an individual witness Rule 132, Sec. 4

Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — The order in which the individual witness may be
examined is as follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4)

Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him
on the facts relevant to the issue. (5a)

Definition: The examination in chief of a witness by the party presenting him or her on the facts relevant to the issue. It is the
procedure for obtaining information from one’s own witness in an orderly fashion. The purpose is to elicit facts about the client’s
cause of action or defense.

In direct examination, the testimony of the witness must be in response to the questions framed by the counsel and not
uninterrupted narrative form is to enable the opponent to know beforehand the nature of the testimony and to enable him to object
and prevent interjection of irrelevant and inadmissible matter. Exceptions: 1. Witness is his own counsel and 2. When allowed by
the court

Cross examination Rule 132, Sec. 6

Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may
be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and
to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
At the conclusion of the direct examination, the witness may be cross examined by the adverse party, the purpose of such
examination being the explanation of matters to which the witness has testified in chief and discovery of facts which are
favorable to the examiner.

Unlike direct examination, which preceded by offer of testimonial evidence the cross examiner need not indicate the purpose of a
particular interrogation he is entitled to reasonable latitude even though he is unable to state the facts which may be developed by
reasonable examination. Cross examination may be on all relevant matters meaning that it is allowed even if not necessarily
stated in the direct examination, provided that it is relevant. However even prior to the amendment it was recognized that even if
the matter was not exactly stated in the direct examination, but it is connected with cross examination may be allowed.

PURPOSE: 1. To discredit witness 2. To discredit a testimony of the witness 3. To clarify certain matters 4. To elicit admissions
from a witness

As a rule, the right of the party to confront and cross examine the opposing witness in a judicial litigation be it criminal or civil in
nature or in proceedings before the administrative tribunal with quasi-judicial power is a fundamental right which is part of due
process. However, the right is personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to
renunciation of a right of cross examination. Therefore, if a party had all the opportunity to examine the witness but
necessarily forfeits his or her right to cross examine and the testimony given on direct examination remains (Ibanez vs People)

Questions from Adverse Party’s Counsel

This is the function of the counsel and not of the court. The trial court should stay out of it as much as possible by neither
intervening nor intervening, but the court may intervene on its own motion under certain circumstances like waste of time.

Cross Examination question from the judge.

A trial judge has the right to propound such question to witness as may be necessary to elicit pertinent facts in order that the truth
may be established although some reviewing courts have declared that the practice of doing except when necessary must be
discouraged.

Duration of the right to cross-examine.

If a party is once entitled to cross examine a witness, the right continues throughout the case so that if he afterwards recalls the
same witness, he may interrogate him by leading question and treat him as the witness of the party who first called him. The
party who should be precluded from cross examining a witness whom he has called in his own behalf except in cases where the
witness betrays bias or prejudice.

Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony

When cross examination cannot be completed because of causes that are attributable to the party who offered the witness, the
incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stricken off the record except where the witness of the prosecution
was extensively cross-examined on the material points and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be prosecuted despite a warrant.

Therefore, if it is the party presenting the witness who is at fault, the direct testimony can be expunged. However, if the inability
to cross-examine was attributable to the adverse party, then there can be no forfeiture of direct testimony.

Effect of Death or absence of a witness

The testimony of the witness who died before he could be cross examined must be expunged if there is no showing of delay by
the party waiting to cross examine (Dela Cruz vs Papa).

General Rule: A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in case is bound by the testimony of the witness

Exception: When the party is not bound

1. Required by the law to be presented 2. Unwilling witness 3. Hostile Witness 4. Adverse party

Unwilling or Hostile Witness

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon showing:

1. His adverse interest

2. Unjustified reluctance of the party to testify.
3. His having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.

Cross- Examination as to Bias and Prejudice

Questions that pertain to the impartiality of the witness while not relevant to the issue on trial are relevant to the sense that
persuasive quality of proof is affected by the discrediting testimony. It must be shown that the witness is hostile ad later can be
questioned as to his or her motives.

Re-direct examination Rule 132, Sec. 7

Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. — After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded,
he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-
examination. On re-direct-examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be
allowed by the court in its discretion. (12)

In general, on re-direct examination it is proper, in the discretion of the court to draw from the witness an explanation or
clarification of testimony given on cross examination, or of former statement as to which he has been cross-examined or of
matters brought out o cross-examination and on such re-direct examination the witness may give explanation of an answer an
what he meant by certain statements or expressions. Such explanations are proper, even though the evidence given thereby is
corroborative of the witness testimony in chief or might not have been admissible on direct examination. Also it has been been
held not abuse of discretion to a party on re-direct examination, to correct or explain previous testimony on direct examination.

Purpose: To prevent injustice to the witness and the party who has called him by affording an opportunity to the witness to
explain or amplify the testimony which he has given on cross examination or to explain any apparent contradiction or
inconsistency in his statement an opportunity which is not ordinarily afforded him during his cross examination.

Scope: This is a matter of right, but the time at which it may be had is discretionary on the court. The witness may be allowed to
reaffirm or explain his statement their meaning or import and to minimize or destroy discrediting tendencies. If in the exercise of
discretion, the court admits matters not dealt with during the cross-examination or if explanation of the answer given is necessary
the court may permit a re-cross examination.

Re-cross examination Rule 132, Sec. 8

Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-
examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be allowed by
the court in its discretion. (13)

Purpose: To overcome the other party’s attempt to rehabilitate a witness or to rehabilitate a witness or to rebut damaging
evidence brought on the cross examination. It is not a matter of right, to re-cross examination for counsel to touch on matters not
brought to the re-direct examination of the witness.

Re-cross examination of the witness is limited to new matters brought out on the re-direct examination of the witness and also
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.

Recalling the witness Rule 132, Sec. 9

Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be
recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may
require. (14)

General Rule: After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded the witness cannot be recalled without leave
of court. A witness cannot be detained longer than the interest of justice requires.

Exception: Recall has been expressly reserved with the approval of the court.
The discretion to recall a witness is not properly involved or exercisable by an applicant’s mere general statement that there is a
need to recall a witness “in the interest of justice” or “in order to afford a party full opportunity to present his case” or that as here
“there seems to be many points and questions that should have been asked” in the earlier interrogation. To regard expressed
generalities such as these sufficient ground for recall of witness would make the recall of witness no longer discretionary but
ministerial.

a. Leading and misleading questions Rule 132, Sec. 10

Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender
years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of
a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he
has previously stated. It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)

Leading Questions

Questions that suggest to the witness the answer which the examining party desires. A leading question is one that is framed in
such a way that a question indicates to the witness the answer desired by the party asking the question. Thie question suggest to
the witness the answer the examining party desires.

The test to determine whether a question is leading or not is the suggestiveness of its substances

Exceptions

1. On-Cross examination
2. On preliminary matters
3. When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from an ignorant witness or a child of a tender year or feeble
mind
4. The unwilling or hostile witness or
5. The witness is an adverse party or an officer , director or managing agent of public or private corporation of the partnership or
association that is an adverse party.

Leading question to a child witness

Rule 132 Section 10 are deemed modified by Section 20 of Rules of Examination of a child witness. Under this rule, the court
may allow leading question in all stages of the examination of the child under the condition that the same will further the interest
of justice. Under the rules of court, a leading question may be asked of a child only if there is difficulty of eliciting from the child
direct and intelligible answer.

Misleading question

One which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not
allowed in any tie of examination

4. Examination of a witness

a. Rule on Examination of Child Witness

The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open court. General rule: The
answers of the witness shall be given orally.

Exceptions: Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer. The party who
presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem may move the court to allow him to testify in a different mode.
CHILD WITNESS
Child Witness Ordinary Witness
1. Any person who at the time of giving testimony is
a. Below the age of 18 years old
b. In child abuse cases a child includes one over Only the judge is allowed to Opposing counsels are
eighteen years of age, but is foun by the court ask questions to a child allowed to ask questions
as unable to fully take care of himself or witness during preliminary during preliminary
protect himself from abuse, neglect or cruelty. examination. examination.

Rule 132, Sec. 1 (in open court)

Leading questions are Leading questions are
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The allowed. generally not allowed.
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall
be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless Testimony in a narrative form Testimony in a narrative form
the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls for is allowed. is not allowed.
a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be
given orally. (1a)
The child witness is assisted Ordinary witness is not
● Note: due to the Judicial affidavit rule, the testimonies by a facilitator. assisted by a facilitator.
of the witness cannot be presented in affidavit no longer
applies

Requisite:

1. The examination must be done in open court.

2. The examination shall be done under oath or affirmation.
3. The examination is for the purpose of eliciting answers that shall be given orally.

Exceptions:

1. Incapacity to speak.
2. When the questions call for different mode of answer
3. When the testimonies of the witness may be given in affidavits under the rules of summary procedure
4. deposition

Submission of Judicial Affidavits as testimonies in Lieu of direct testimonies

1. The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service not later
than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or scheduled haring with respect to the motions the ff:
a. The judicial affidavit of their witness which takes the place of the witness direct testimonies
b. The parties documentary or object evidence if any which shall be attached to the judicial affidavit and
marked as Exhibit A, B and C and so on in case of the complaint or plaintiff in Exhibit 1,2 3 and so on in the
case of the respondent or the defendant

One day Examination of Witness Rule

A witness has to be fully examined in one day only and shall be strictly adhered to subject to the court’s discretion during trial
whether or not to extend the direct or cross examination for justifiable reasons. On the last hearing day, he is required to make a
formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose his
objection thereto. Thereafter, the judge makes a ruling i the offer of evidence in open court. However, the decision to allow the
offer of evidence in writing is still within the jurisdiction of the judge.

Most important Witness Rule

The trial judge determines the most important witness to be heard and limits the number thereof. The facts to be proven by each
witness and the appropriate number of hours per witness must be fixed.

Conditional examination of witness in criminal cases

 1. With respect to a prosecution witness, the conditional examination takes place where the case is pending.
2. In case of defense witness, it can be before another members of the IBP when designated by superior court

Rule 132, Sec. 2 (to be recorded)

Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. — The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions propounded
to a witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with
reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable
by the court.

The stenographic notes that are recorded by the stenographer are presumed to be prima-facie. If the transcript of the stenographic
notes appears erroneous the remedy of the interested party is to file a motion to correct the transcript of stenographic notes.

b. Rights and obligations of a witness Rule 132, Sec. 3

Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from
which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense. (3a, 19a)

OBLIGATION OF A WITNESS

A witness must answer question although his or her answer may tend to establish a claim against him or her failure to comply is
punishable by contempt.

Rights of the Witness

1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting question and from harsh or insulting demeanor

To know whether the question is proper or improper will depend on the purpose for which it is asked and the
circumstances. Counsel must always come to an aid of his witness being subjected to intimidation, harassment and
embarrassment. Such acts are objectionable and a timely objection must be raised

2. Not to be detained longer that the interest of justice requires

3. Not to be examined except only to matters that are pertinent to the issue
4. Not to give an answer which tend to submit him or her to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by
law

General Rule: A witness is not obligated to give an answer that will degrade his reputation

Exceptions:

1. It is very fact of the issue

2. It is a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed or
3. It is fact of his or her previous final conviction of an offense

Difference between when the Accused is the witness vs Ordinary Witness

Accused Ordinary witness

He cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in He may be compelled to testify by subpoena having only the
criminal cases in which he is the accused. He cannot be right to refuse to answer a particular incriminating questions at
 compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the time it is put on him
the court. He cannot be required either for the prosecution for co-
accused or even for himself

He may totally refuse to take the stand A witness who has been summoned to testify cannot decline to
appear, nor can he decline to be sworn as a witness until a
questioning calling for incriminating answer is asked. At that
time only can claim of privilege be imposed.

RA 6981: Witness Protection Program

Who may be admitted

Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime and has information on the
commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial body or before any
investigating authority may be admitted to the program provided that:

a. The offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal code
b. His testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points
c. He or any member of his family within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats to his
life, bodily injury r there is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced or intimidated harassed to prevent him from
testifying
d. He is not a law enforcement officer, if he will be testifying against the other law enforcement officer. In such case, only
immediate members of his family may avail himself of the protection provided

State Witness

Any person who has participated in the commission of the crime and desires to be the witness of any state can apply for
and if qualified and determined in this act and by the department may be a state witness provided the ff are present.

A. The offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal code or its
equivalent under special law.
B. There is absolute necessity for his testimony.
C. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed. .
D. His testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points
E. He does not appear to be the most guilty
F. He has not at any time been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude

The admission to this program entitles the state witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for the offense or offenses in
which his testimony will be used the rights and benefits provided under section 8 of RA 6891.

Right against self-incrimination

1987 Const, Art. Ill, Sec. 17 in relation to Rule 115, Sec. 1 (e)

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself. (Constitution) A witness will not be compelled to answer
questions that incriminates him or the reply which would supply evidence which he could be convicted of a criminal offense.

Ratio: The right of self-incrimination is intended to prevent the state with all its coercive power from extracting from the suspect
testimony that may convict him and avoid a person subjected to such compulsion and to perjure himself for his own protection.

SCOPE OF THE PRIVILEGE

The privilege of self-incrimination extends only to testimonial compulsion. It has however been extended to cover the production
by the accused of inculpatory documents. The right of self-incrimination extends to 1. Force re-enactment 2. Compelling the
accused to give specimens of his handwriting. The right of self-incrimination is not absolute, as there may be cases under the law
which exempts the same.

Acts that are not covered by the Prohibition against Self incrimination

1. Woman accused of adultery was ordered to submit her body for exam of competent doctors to determine whether she is
pregnant or not without the use of torture of force.
2. Where the person accused of acts of lasciviousness against a girl was consequently infected with gonorrhea, stripped of
his clothing and his body was taken a portion of substance which reveals he is suffering from the same.
3. Accused was forced to discharge morphine from his mouth.

Waiver

The right of self-incrimination is not self-executing or automatically operational. It must be claimed, otherwise the protection
does not come to play. Moreover, the right must be claimed at the appropriate time or else it may be deemed waived.

EX: If the accused by offering himself as a witness to disprove the charge waives his privileges as to the relevant facts
connected with the offense, except those facts that merely affected his credibility. He may decline to answer any question which
might implicate him for a different offense. If the witness discloses a part of transaction in whchi he is responsible he cannot hold
back the rest.

Rosete vs Lim, GR. NO 136051, June 8, 2006, 490 scra 125

Doctrine

Only the accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the witness stand. The right to refuse to take a stand does not apply to the
parties in administrative proceeding. The parties can only refuse to answer if incriminating questions are propounded. Also, the
court applied an exemption, a party who is not an accused in a criminal proceeding is not allowed to take the witness stand in
administrative proceeding, if the proceeding partook the nature analogous to criminal proceeding. THEREFORE, the exemption
applies

People of the Philippines vs Judge Ayson

Doctrine

The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence whether voluntary or under the compulsion
of subpoena in any civil, criminal and administrative proceeding. The right is not to be compelled against a person to be a witness
against himself. It simply secures that a witness whether he be a party or not the right to refuse to answer any particular
incriminatory question (one to answer to which he has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime) . However, the right can be
claimed only when a specific question incriminatory in character is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other
time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed or to
refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving the subpoena must obey it and appear as required to take the stand and be
sworn to answer the question. It is only when a particular question is addressed to him the answer may incriminate him for
some offense, he may refuse to answer based on constitutional guarantee.

Methods of impeachment of adverse party's witness

Rule 132, Sec. 11

Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness. – A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he or she
was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his or her general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is
bad, or by evidence that he or she has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony, but
not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or record of
the judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an offense.

Impeachment of a Witness
It is basically a technique employed usually as part of the cross-examination to discredit a witness by attacking his credibility.
Destroying credibility is vital because it is linked with a witness ability and willingness to tell the truth

What is contradictory evidence?

It refers to other testimony of the same witness, or other evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of
another witness.

What is prior inconsistent statement?

It refers to statements, oral or documentary, made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasion other than the trial in which
he is testifying.

How can the adverse party’s witness be impeached?

A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by:

1) Contradictory evidence
2) By evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made as other
times, statements inconsistent with his present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it
may be shown by the examination of the witness
3) The record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.

What is the effect of the testimony of the adverse party to the one calling him on the witness stand?

If the witness is the adverse party, it does not necessarily mean that the calling party will not be bound by the former’s testimony,
but he is not bound by his testimony only in the sense that he may contradict him by introducing other evidence to prove a state
of facts contrary to what the witness testifies on.

The fact remains that it was at his instance that his adversary was put on the witness stand. Unlike an ordinary witness, the calling
party may impeach an adverse witness in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad
character. Under a rule permitting the impeachment of an adverse witness, although the calling party does not vouch for the
witness’ veracity, he is nonetheless bound by his testimony if it is not contradicted or remains unrebutted.

A party who calls his adversary as a witness is, therefore, not bound by the latter’s testimony only in the sense that he may
contradict him by introducing other evidence to prove a state of facts contrary to what the witness testifies on. A rule that
provides that the party calling an adverse witness shall not be bound does not mean that such testimony may not be given its
proper weight, but merely that the calling party shall not be precluded from rebutting his testimony or from impeaching him.

Can a deposition be used to impeach the testimony of a deponent as a witness?

Yes.. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as
admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the
deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any of the succeeding provisions.

● Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as a
witness.

Rule 132, Sec. 12 (by evidence of conviction of crime)

Section 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. – For the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she
has been convicted by fi nal judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one
[(1)] year; or (b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.

However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or annulment of the
conviction.
Why is this an exemption? Because when a person is granted amnesty, it completely erases the crime as though he did not
commit any crime at all.

c. Party may not impeach his or her own witness Rule 132 Sec. 13

Section 13. Party may not impeach his or her own witness. – Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and
(e) of Section 10 of this Rule, the party presenting the witness is not allowed to impeach his or her credibility.

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his or her adverse
interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his or her having misled the party into calling him or her to the witness stand.

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting
him or her in all respects as if he or she had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his or her bad character. He
or she may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject
matter of his or her examination-in-chief.

As a general rule, a party is not allowed to impeach his own witness.

EXCEPTION:

1) An unwilling or hostile witness

2) A witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an adverse party.

A witness will be considered as unwilling or hostile witness only if so declared by the court upon:

1) Adequate showing of his or her adverse interest

2) Unjustified reluctance to testify
3) His having misled the party into calling him or her to the witness stand

May an unwilling or hostile witness be impeached by the party presenting him?

Yes. The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party
presenting him or her in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party. The only exception is by evidence of his bad
character.

Reason: It would be most unfair to a party, if the witness has been called in his behalf, to permit to lose his case merely because
a witness on whom he has depended for the establishment of his case has betrayed him.

*People v. Aranda GR No. 100985 (1993)

Doctrine

There was no showing that Villanueva was declared by the trial court as a hostile witness as required in Section 12 (now Section
13) of Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence.

Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence, provides as follows:

Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand. (Emphasis supplied)

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or, the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by
the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of
 his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-
examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief.

d. How the witness is impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements (laying the predicate) Rule 132,
Sec. 14

Section 14. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. – Before a witness can be impeached by evidence
that he or she has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony, the statements must be related to
him or her, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he or she must be asked whether he or she
made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing[,] they must be shown to the witness
before any question is put to him or her concerning them. (13a)

[Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. – (Incorporated in Section 54, Rule 130)]

Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her
present testimony, it must be shown that:

1) The statements must be related to him or her, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present
2) He must be asked whether he or she made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them
3) If the statements be in writing, they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them.

Effect of Witness’ Denial of Making Statement

If the witness denies making the prior statement or says that he does not remember making it, the adverse party should call in
rebuttal a witness to prove that such statement has in facts been made.

e. Additional rules on examination of witness

Exclusion and separation of witnesses Rule 132, Sec. 15

Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. – The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall order witnesses excluded so
that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural
person, (b) a duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is a party to the case, (c) a person whose presence is
essential to the presentation of the party’s cause, or (d) a person authorized by a statute to be present.

The purpose is to ensure that the witnesses testify to the truth by preventing them from being influenced by the
testimonies of the others. This measure is meant to prevent connivance of collusion among witnesses. It discourages fabrication,
inaccuracy, and collusion. However, without any motion from the opposing party or order from the court, there is nothing in the
rules that prohibits a witness from hearing the testimonies of other witnesses.

The following shall not be excluded:

1) A party who is a natural person;

2) A duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is a party to the case;
3) A person whose presence is essential to the presentation of the party’s cause; or
4) A person authorized by a statute to be present

Will the power of exclusion apply to parties?

No, it only applies to witnesses and not to parties in the civil case. Parties have the right to be present at the trial of the case either
by themselves or by their attorney as well as reasonable notice therefore.

Memorandum Rule 132, Sec. 16

Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. – A witness may be allowed to refresh his or her memory respecting a fact
by anything written or recorded by himself or herself, or under his or her direction[,] at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his or her memory and he or she knew that the same was
correctly written or recorded; but in such case[,] the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse
party, who may, if he or she chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. A witness may also testify
from such a writing or record, though he or she retains no recollection of the particular facts, if he or she is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution.

Permitting a witness to aid himself during his testimony with written memoranda s a concession to the frailty of human memory.

When can a witness refresh his memory by memorandum?

A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by:

1) Anything written on record by himself or herself or under his or her direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his or her memory and knew that the same was
correctly written or recorded;
2) In such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he or she
chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence.

Rule on Present Recollection Revived or Revival of Present Memory

A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his
direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or later, so long as the fact was fresh in his memory and
he knew that it was correctly recorded.

The evidence is testimonial in character. The memorandum will not be considered as documentary evidence.

Present Recollection Revived Past Recollection Revived

Memory is obscure but there is still memory. There is no recollection whatsoever.

The main evidence is the testimony of the witness. The main evidence is the memorandum.

The witness simply testifies that he knows that the Witness must swear that the writing correctly states the
memorandum is correctly written by him or under his direction; transaction.
no need to swear.

Remainder admissible Rule 132, Sec. 17

Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder admissible . – When part of an act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into
by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.

Rule of Completeness or Rule of Indivisibility

1. When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same
subject, at be inquired into by the other; and

2. When a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.
The rule also applies to confessions. Confessions must be considered in their entirety including
inculpatory and exculpatory statements; however, portions may be rejected if improbable, false or unworthy of credit.
*Eagleridge Dev. Corp. v. Cameron Granville & Asset Management Inc. GR 204700 (2014)

Generally, the scope of discovery is to be liberally construed so as to provide the litigants with information essential to the fair
and amicable settlement or expeditious trial of the case. All the parties are required to lay their cards on the table so that justice
can be rendered on the merits of the case. Although the grant of a motion for production of document is admittedly discretionary
on the part of the trial court judge, nevertheless, it cannot be arbitrarily or unreasonably denied because to do so would bar access
to relevant evidence that may be used by a party-litigant and hence, impair his fundamental right to due process.

The test applied by the trial judge in determining the relevancy of documents and the sufficiency of their description is one of
reasonableness and practicability.

Right to inspect writing Rule 132, Sec. 18

Section 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. – Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the
adverse party.

When a part of a writing is introduced in evidence by one litigant, his adversary is entitled to use other parts
relevant to the issues in the case and has the right to
inspect the writing and to require its production in court.

2. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

Public Documents : ( Prima facie of the facts stated therein)
1. Written official acts or records of the sovereign authority , official bodies and tribunals and public official whether f the
Philippines or of a foreign country
2. Document acknowledged in the notary public except last wills and testament
3. Document that considered public document under treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the
country of source
4. Public records kept in the Philippines of private documents required by the law to be entered therein
NB: document consisting of entries in public record made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public document are evidence eve against a third person of the fact which gave
rise to their execution of the date of the latter.

Proof of Official Record:

1. The written official acts or records of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals and public officers whether
in the Philippines or notary public
Evidenced:
a. Official publication thereof or a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record OR
b. By his or her deputy and accompanied if the record is not kept in the Philippines with a certificate that such officer has the
custody.
If the record is in a foreign country ( Apostile)
The certificate or its equivalent is in he form prescribed by the treaty or convention csubject to reciprocity granted to public
document.
If the document originating form a foreign country which is not a contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to ( not a
member of Apostile) a certificate may be made by a secretary, of the embassy , consular agent or by a officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country where the records are kept. The document that is accompanied y a
certificate or its equivalent may be presented without further proof. Aas it is considered prima facie

Private Document: before Public Document is offered as authentic its authenticity must be proven by:
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or written
2. By evidence of the genuine of the signature of handwriting of the marker
3. By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.

Geuniness of Handwritting
1. Must be proven by any witness who believes to be the handwriting of such person because he or she saw that person write.
2. Comparison made by a witness of the court with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered or proven to be genuine.

Attestation:
1. Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state in substance
that the copy is the correct copy of the original or specific part thereof as the case may be.
The attestation must be an official seal of the attesting officer if there be any or if he or she be the clerk of a court
having a seal under the seal of such court.
Public Record of Private document
Must be proven by original record or by a copy thereof attested by the legal custodian of the record with appropriate certificate
that the officer has custody

Proof of lack of record

A written statement signed by the officer having custody of an official record or by his or her deputy that after diligent search,
no record or entryi n a specified tenor is found to exist in the record of his or her office accompanied by a certificate that such
office contains no record or entry( Written statement + certificate)

How are Judicial Records Impeached

a. Want of jurisdiction b. Collusion between parties c. Fraud in the party offering the record in respect to proceeding.
Notary: Every instrument that is acknowledged and certified by law are considered to be prima facie evidence of its validity

4. OFFER AND OBJECTION

An offer of evidence is important because the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.

Rules:
1. Documentary Evidence: Made after the presentation of party’s testimonial evidence
2. Testimonial Evidence: At the time the witness called to testify.

B. Objection: Objection to testify of a witness for lack of formal offer must be made at the time the witness begins to
testify. Or Objection must be made as soon as the grounds become apparent.
c. Repetition of objection: It becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question is
of the same class as those to which the objection has been made, whether the said objection is sustained or overruled. ( Same
grounds)
d. As soon as there is an objection, the ruling of the court must be made immediately after the objection is made unless the
court desires to take reasonable time , but the ruling must always be made during the trial.

When may a witness answer be stricken off the record

1. When the witness answer the question before the adverse party had opportunity to voice fully its objection ad such
objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken of the
record.
2. When the question is not objectionable but the answer is not responsive
3. When the witness testifies without a question being posed or testifies beyond the limit set by the court.
 4. When the witness does a narration instead of answering the question
5.Where the answer is incompetent irrevant or improper.
Role of the Judge
GENERAL Rule: The Judge need not state the bases as to the reason of his objection
Exemption: If the ruling is based on two or more grounds

Tender of Excluded evidence

If the documentary evidence is excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made a
party of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name of the offeror
personal circumstances of the witness and substance of the testimony.

G. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. NO. 12-8-8-SC)

H. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (RULE 133)

The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence
should be considered
HEIRARCHY OF EVIDENCE
1. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: It is required for the conviction of the accused in a criminal case
2. Clear and Convincing Evidence: This is adduced to overcome a prima facie or disputable presumption
3. Preponderance of Evidence: A degree of proof required in civil case.
4. Substantial Evidence: Required to reach a conclusion in administrative proceeding, or to establish a fact before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Definition: The evidence presented by one side is superior to that of the other.
The following must be considered:
1. All the facts and circumstances of thecase
2. The witness manner in testifying
3. Their intelligence
4. Means and opportunity of knowing the fact to which they testify
5. Probability or improbability of their testimony
6. Their interest or want of interest
7. Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear.
8. Number of witness but take note that preponderance of evidence is not equated with the number

Republic v. LUZ
Preponderance of evidence is required in actions brought to recover ill gotten wealth. Do note that the law is
concerned as to quality and not quantity.

Rule on Partial Credibility

If the testimony of the witness on material issue is false and given with the intent to deceive, the court can disregard
such testimony. Bu t in instances when the court may accept or reject portion of the witness testimony depending on
the inherent credibility of the same

PROOF BEYOND REASOANBLE DOUBT

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty moral certainty only is required , or that degree of proof which produces conviction of
unprejudiced mind

DEFINITION: it must e established the truth of the fact to reasonable and moral certainty a certainty that convinces
and satisfies the conscience of those who are to act upon it.
Basis: The presumption of innocence, the right of the accused to be presumed as innocent until the contrary is
proved.

Equipoise Rule: When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced, the appreciation of
such evidence calls for the tilting of the scales in favor of the accused.

Matters to be proven in a criminal prosecution( Corpus Delicti)

1. The Commission of the crime
2. The identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime ( What is needed is that there must be an
identification with moral certainty as to the person of the offender)

Credibility of the witness/ admissibility

1. Evidence must not only proceed from the mouth of the credible witness but must be credible in itself such that
common experience and observation of mankind can show it as probable.

a. Rape Cases: The lone testimony of the offended party if free from serious and material contradiction is
sufficient to establish a verdict of conviction.
b. Sweetheart theory: The accused has the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial
evidence
c.. Paraffin test: This is not conclusive proof that one has fired a gun
d. polygraph: Not yet enough to show conviction
Section 6 : Substantial Evidence
Such relevant evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify the conclusion

Is more than mere scintilla of evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is a
reasonable ground to believe based on the evidence submitted that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct
complained of.

Quantum of Proof: In allegation of Petition for writ of amparo are proven by substantial evidence the court shall
grant the privilege of the writ and such relief as may be proper and appropriate otherwise the privilege shall be
denied.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

 This is to rebut the presumption.
• Exemption: Presumption of innocence
Moral Damage must prove the existence f bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes
to be of good faith.
In illegal dismissal case, the employer is burdened to prove just cause to terminate the employment of its employee
with clear and convincing evidence.’
A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative
and self-serving deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value.
Power of the Court to Stop further evidence
The court may stop the introduction of further testimony any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so
full that more witness to the same cannot be reasonably expected to be persuasive.
Evidence on Motion:When the motion is based on facts not appearing of the record, the court may hear the matter
on affidavit or deposition, presented by the respective parties but the court may direct that the matter be heard
wholly or on oral testimony or deposition
Criminal Case Extradition / Judge Civil Case administrative case
Disbarment* It being a sui
generis entity

Reasonable doubt Clear and convincing Preponderane Substantial

Moral certainty which can Evidence which is of greater Evidence that the thing is The amount of evidence
produce conviction as to an weight or is more convincing highly probable to which a reasonable mind
unprediced mind ( proven that the other happen or is certain can believe to justify a
by direct or circumstantial) conclusion

NB: Circumstantial

Disciplinary cases: In disciplinary cases against lawyers, substantial evidence is more in keeping with
the primordial purpose thereto. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis as they are
neither purely civil nor criminal, they do noy involve a trial of action or a suit, as it pertains to an
investigation by the court into the conduct of one of its officers. ( Tan v Alvarico
I. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

Categories of Electronic Document

1. Computer stored generated docs

2. Website
3. Email
4. Social media communication posting
5. Text message
6. Recording
7. Photograph
Test Message are electronic document which are covered by best evidence rule. Hence the testimony or transcript
of their contents may be introduced provided that the predicate is laid.

Parity Rule: Electronic document shall have the same legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document
or legal writing.

Where the law requires a document in writing: Where a law requires a document to be in writing that
requirement is met by electronic document . Except as otherwise agreed by the parties, an offer, acceptance can
be held by electronic document

Q: ( Ex personal property more than P5,000 and the acceptance must be in writing the question is whether the
donation be made in electronic document? Yes. Because when the law requires the document to be in writing that
can be met by electronic document.

Special Kind of Evidence

1. Ephemeral Electronic Communication: Electronic form of communication the evidence of which is not recorded
or retained . Example Phone calls, text, message, chatroom , session streaming audio and streaming video if
recorded it becomes an electronic document.
Q: Is a text message ephemeral:?
No . Text message are ephemeral electronic communication, once recorded or retained however they become
electronic document subject to best evidence rule. Before you can prove text message are to be proved by the
testimony of the person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them.