IV. Evidence (A.M. No.

19-08-15-SC)
Section 1. Evidence defined. - Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

A. General Concepts
“Truth” is not necessarily the actual truth, but one referred to as the judicial or
legal truth

Section 2. Scope. - The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all
trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules

Principle of Uniformity – rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in
all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or the Rules of
Court.

The rules of evidence, being part of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial
proceedings.
1. Civil action – ordinary and special civil actions
2. Criminal action
3. Special proceedings

Rules of court shall not apply to the follow:

1. Naturalization proceedings
2. Insolvency proceedings
3. Cadastral proceedings
4. Other cases not provided in the Rules of Court
5. Land registration proceedings
6. Election cases

-Rules may apply to the abovementioned proceedings and cases by analogy or in

a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.

-Any evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time the action
accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force at the time of trial, is
receivable.

-There are rules in evidence established merely for the protection of the parties,
if, according to the well-established doctrine, the parties may waive such rules
during the trial of a case, there is no reason why they cannot make the waiver in
a contract (e.g. a contract of insurance requiring the testimony of eyewitness as
the only evidence admissible concerning the death of the insured person.)
However, if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been established on
 grounds of public policy, the waiver is void (e.g. waiver of the privilege against
the disclosure of state secrets)

-The Rules of Court, including the Revised Rules on Evidence, shall be

LIBERALLY CONSTRUED in order to promote their objective of securing a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding

-Rules on electronic evidence shall likewise be liberally construed.

EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES

The party having the burden of proof must Guilt of the accused must be proved
prove his claim by a preponderance of beyond reasonable doubt.
evidence.
GR: An offer of compromise is not an GR: An offer of compromise by the accused
implied admission of any liability, and is may be received as evidence as an implied
not admissible in evidence against the admission of guilt.
offeror.
Neither is evidence of conduct nor XPNs:
statements made in compromise 1. Criminal negligence
negotiations admissible 2. Criminal cases allowed to be
compromised. (sec 28, rule 130) - Section
XPN: Evidence otherwise discoverable or 28. Admission by third party. — The rights
offered for another purpose, such as of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
proving bias, or prejudice of a witness, declaration, or omission of another, except
negativing a contention of undue effort to as hereinafter provided
obstruct a criminal investigation or
prosecution.
Presumption of innocence does not apply Accused enjoys presumption of innocence
and generally there is no presumption for
or against a party except in cases provided
for by law.
Confession does not apply Confession is a declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt.

1. Proof vs. Evidence

PROOF EVIDENCE
Merely the probative effect of evidence Mode or manner of proving competent
and is the conviction or persuasion of the facts in judicial proceedings.
mind resulting from consideration of the Without evidence there is no, proof.
evidence.
Effect or result of evidence. Medium of proof.
 FACTUM PROBANDUM FACTUM PROBANS
The fact or proposition to be established. The facts or material evidencing the fact
or proposition to be established.
The fact to be proved, the fact to which is The probative or evidentiary fact tending
in issue and to which the evidence is to prove the fact in issue.
directed.
Ultimate facts. Intermediate or evidentiary facts.
Hypothetical. Existent.

Illustration: If P claims to have been injured by the negligence of D, while D denies

having been negligent, the negligence is the fact to be established. It is the factum
probandum. The evidence offered by P constitutes the material to prove the
liability of D. The totality of the evidence to prove the liability of is the factum
probans.

-In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish its cause of
action by a preponderance of evidence, or that "evidence which is of greater
weight or is more convincing than that which is in opposition to it."

-Preponderance of evidence "does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that
the testimony of one side is more believable than that of the other side, and that
the probability of truth is on one side than on the other." The guidelines in the
determination of preponderance of evidence are provided under Section 1, Rule
133 of the Rules of Court. xxx Thus, the determination of preponderance of
evidence depends greatly on the credibility of the witnesses. Hence, in the
evaluation of their testimonies. We must be guided by the well-settled doctrine
that "[w]hen it comes to [the witnesses'] credibility, the trial court's assessment
deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence." Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. v. Uy, Jr., G.R. No. 219317, June 28, 2021

2. Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence (Rule 131)

Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence. - Burden of proof is
the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law. Burden of proof never shifts

Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient

to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to the other in the course
of the proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the case.
 BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Duty of a party to present evidence on the Duty of a party to present evidence
facts necessary to establish his or her sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in
claim or defense by the amount of issue to establish a prima facie case.
evidence required by law.
Onus probandi refers to the obligation of a That logical necessity which rests upon a
party to the litigation to persuade the party at any particular time during the trial
court that he is entitled to relief. to create a prima facie case in his favor or
to overthrow one created against him.
NEVER SHIFTS. It remains throughout the May shift from party to the other in the
entire case exactly where the pleadings course of the proceedings, depending on
originally placed it or with the party upon the exigencies of the case.
whom it is imposed.
Generally determined by the pleadings Generally determined by the developments
filed by the party. of the trial, or by the provisions of
substantive law or procedural rules which
may relieve the party from presenting
evidence of the facts alleged.

Test for determining where the burden of proof lies – ask which party to an
action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence to show the facts averred as the
basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.

Q: In a collection case, who has burden of proof?

A: The party who alleges the fact has the burden of proving it. In the course of
trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor,
the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs’
prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.
Hence, the plaintiff must establish the failure to pay on the part of the
defendant, the latter, on the other hand, has to prove their defense that the
obligation was extinguished.

Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defenses by the amount of evidence required
by law. xxx Further, it is a basic principle that whoever alleges a fact has the
burden of proving it. Meanwhile, burden of evidence is "that logical necessity
which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima
facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him." Similarly,
it is elementary that the burden of evidence shifts from party to party depending
upon the exigencies of the case. In the present case, and guided by the
foregoing, it is clear that the burden of proof is not shifted to Ante. Contrary to
his assertions, only the burden of evidence is shifted, which requires him to
present evidence that weighs in his favor to counteract the findings of SDT. This,
nevertheless, does not require him to prove his innocence; i.e., that he did not do
the infractions charged. The distinction between the two lies in the subtle but
important detail that Ante may successfully overthrow SDT's prima facie case
against him, without necessarily proving his innocence. In other words, Ante
may adduce defenses or exculpatory evidence on his behalf; and if sufficient,
would defeat the case against him. Ante v. University of the Philippines Student
Disciplinary Tribunal, G.R. No. 227911, March 14, 2022

The burden of evidence, not the burden of proof, is shifted when there is a prima
facie case.
Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court defines burden of proof as the duty of a
party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim
or defenses by the amount of evidence required by law. Further, it is a basic
principle that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Meanwhile,
burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at any
particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to
overthrow one when created against him. Similarly, it is elementary that the
burden of evidence shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of
the case. In the present case, and guided by the foregoing, it is clear that the
burden of proof is not shifted to Ante. Contrary to his assertions, only the burden
of evidence is shifted, which requires him to present evidence that weighs in his
favor to counteract the findings of SDT. This, nevertheless, does not require him
to prove his innocence, i.e., that he did not do the infractions charged. The
distinction between the two lies in the subtle but important detail that Ante may
successfully overthrow SDT's prima facie case against him, without necessarily
proving his innocence. In other words, Ante may adduce defenses or exculpatory
evidence on his behalf; and if sufficient, would defeat the case against him.
However, does this automatically mean that he did not commit the acts and
omissions charged against him? Certainly not. Needless to say, Ante need not
prove his innocence, for he has in his favor such presumption. Ante vs.
University of the Philippines Student Disciplinary Tribunal, G.R. No. 227911,
March 14, 2022, J. Hernando

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE –

- The rules of evidence must be liberally construed.

-The rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to
frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules
must always be avoided if it would subvert their primary objective of
enhancing substantial justice.
-However, to justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and a
subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have always been required.

3. Equipoise Rule
-The doctrine refers to the situation where the evidence of the parties are
evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates.
In this case, the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof.

-In criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that where the evidence is
evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales
in favor of the accused

Equipoise rule does not apply when the scales of evidence tilted heavily
against the defense.
Arriola maintains that he possessed a valid authority to sell the subject lot,
which Candelaria denied. While hearsay, Arriola asserts his position that
Candelaria only withheld such authority because they had a subsequent
disagreement. There being a conflict between the versions of the prosecution
and the defense, Arriola insists that the courts should have favored that of the
latter, citing the equipoise rule. The Court differs. The equipoise rule is
inapplicable here. Under this rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in
equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the
party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if
the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused
and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.
Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the
crime charged is found lacking. Conviction rests not on the frailty of the
defense but on the strength and sufficiency of the evidence of the
prosecution. In this case, however, the scales of the evidence had already
tilted heavily against the defense. The Court perceives no conflicting
versions, as Arriola technically failed to set forth his own version in the first
place. His guilt was finely established with the required quantum of proof,
which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975,
February 24, 2020, J. Hernando

B. Admissibility of Evidence (Rule 128)

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. - Evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these
Rules.

Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.

-The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence,
while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its
tendency to convince and persuade. Thus, a particular item of evidence may
be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within
the guidelines provided by the Rules of Court

-Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the

circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the
probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves
an issue

-To emphasize, “a preliminary investigation is merely preparatory to a trial; it

is not a trial on the merits.” Since “it cannot be expected that upon the filing
of the information in court the prosecutor would have already presented all
the evidence necessary to secure a conviction of the accused,” the
admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a
preliminary investigation

-When our rules speak of relevancy as requisite of admissibility, it necessarily

includes materiality. Materiality is subsumed in the broader concept of
relevancy

The Importance of Offer in Relation to Admissibility

Parties are required to inform the courts of the purpose of introducing their
respective exhibits to assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility in case
an objection thereto is made

-The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified

-All evidence must be offered orally

-Offer of testimonial evidence — made at the time the witness is called
to testify
-Offer of documentary and object evidence — made after the
presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence

-Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the

offer is made.
 -Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of formal offer must be
made as soon as the witness begins to testify.
-Objection as to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefor
become reasonably apparent.
-The grounds for objections must be specified

Admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value.

Disini assails both the admissibility and probative value of Exhibit E-9. He
claims that the Sandiganbayan violated the rule on authentication of
documents under Section 20 of Rule 132 126 when it admitted and relied on
Exhibit E-9. Admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its
probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces
of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the
question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, particular
evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence. Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
the rules on evidence. Before any private document offered as authentic, such
as Exhibit E-9, is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Disini vs. Republic, G.R. No. 205172, June 15, 2021, J. Hernando

Circumstantial evidence may be presented to convict the accused.

Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive evidence,
refers to proof of collateral facts and circumstances whence the existence of
the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if (a) there is more
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on
circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved
form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.
People vs. Manansala y Alfaro, G.R. No. 233104, September 2, 2020, J.
Hernando

1. Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence

1. The evidence is RELEVANT to the issue; and
-If it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence.
 -Example: evidence as to the age of a person who has been
raped is relevant in a situation where the age would qualify the
offense to statutory rape
-Determinable by the rules of logic and human experience

2. The evidence is COMPETENT.

-It is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these
rules.
-Determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence

-Exclusionary rules – rules of exception to the general admissibility

of all that is rational and probative.

A. Constitutional exclusionary rules

1. Unreasonable searches and seizures
2. Privacy of communication and correspondence
3. Right to counsel, prohibition on torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation or other means which will vitiate the free will;
prohibition on secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado
4. Right against self-incrimination

B. Statutory exclusionary rules

1. Lack of documentary stamp tax in documents, instruments or
papers required by law to be stamped makes such documents
inadmissible as evidence in court until the requisite stamp shall have
been affixed thereto and cancelled.
2. Any communication obtained by a person, not being authorized
by all the parties to any private communication, by tapping any
wire/arrangement to secretly overhear/intercept/record such
information by using any device, shall not be admissible in evidence
in any judicial/quasi-judicial/legislative/administrative hearing or
investigation.
3. Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of
torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings, except
if the same is used as evidence against a person accused
committing torture.

C. Under the Rules of Court, Rule 130 is the applicable rule in

determining the admissibility of evidence.

D. Court issuances, such as:

1. Rules on Electronic Evidence, e.g., compliance with
authentication requirements for electronic evidence;
 2. Rule on Examination of Child Witness, e.g. sexual abuse shield
rule; and
3. Judicial affidavit Rule.

ADMISSIBILITY WEIGHT (PROBATIVE VALUE)

Refers to the question whether or not the Refers to the question of whether or not
evidence is to be considered at all. the evidence proves an issue.
Depends on relevance and competence. Pertains to tendency to convince or
persuade.

2. Relevance of Evidence and Collateral Matters

Rule 128 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

Relevancy of Evidence
-Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence.

-The court will admit only evidence which is relevant to the issue.

Collateral Matters
-Refer to matters other than the fact in issue.

GR: Evidence on collateral matters is NOT ALLOWED.

-E.G. Motive of a person or his reputation is a matter that may be
considered collateral to the subject of controversy.

XPN: It is allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to

establish the probability or improbability of fact in issue.
-What the Rules prohibit is evidence of irrelevant collateral facts

3. Multiple Admissibility
-The court shall consider no evidence unless it is offered; and its
purpose must be specified. This is so because evidence may be
admissible for one purpose, but inadmissible for another

-Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more

purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the
 purposes for which it is offered, provided it satisfies all the
requisites of law for its admissibility therefor

-When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible insofar as

it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its
failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it if
offered for another purpose does not exclude it

-Illustration: Depending upon circumstances, the declaration of a

dying person may be admissible for two or more purposes. It may be
offered as dying declaration and as part of res gestae. The statement
by a bus driver immediately after the collision that he dozed off in
the wheel while driving may be admissible as an admission and/or as
part of res gestae.

-Uniwide Sales v. Titan-Ikeda

This involves a construction contract wherein Titan-Ikeda undertook
to construct 3 buildings for Uniwide. The contract stipulated a fixed
date of completion. For failing to pay part of the contract price, the
contractor sued the project owner. The latter filed a counter-claim
for liquidated damages due to alleged delay. During the trial, the
project engineer was presented and testified that the project was
eventually completed at a certain date, which was later that the
stipulated date. So the project owner invoked the testimony of the
engineer to the effect that the completion of the project was
delayed. This was not sustained because the testimony of the
engineer was offered for the purpose of establishing completion of
the project and not to prove delay.

4. Conditional Admissibility
-Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial
or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be
subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition
that the other facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, the
evidence already given shall be stricken out.
-There may be an instance wherein the independent evidence of
conspiracy is unavailable for the time being. The principle of
conditional admissibility may then be invoked asking permission that
the extrajudicial confession be admitted with the undertaking that in
due time, evidence to establish conspiracy will be presented. Failure
to fulfill such undertaking will result in the conditionally admitted
evidence being stricken out from the records.
 -Example: a copy of a writing may not be considered competent
evidence until the original is proven to be lost or destroyed.
Conditional admissibility requires no bad faith on the part of the
proponent

5. Curative Admissibility
-There are instances when the court erroneously admits otherwise
inadmissible evidence to the prejudice of the party against whom it
is offered.

-The right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf

where the court has admitted incompetent evidence adduced by the
adverse party.

-This principle offers a procedural mechanism to the aggrieved by

allowing him to introduce equally inadmissible evidence in order to
cure the defect or damage of the erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence.

-Illustration: In action for damages arising from car accident, the

plaintiff, despite objection by the defendant, was allowed to
introduce evidence to show that, on several occasions, the
defendant, in the past, had injured pedestrians because of
negligence. Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant or
incompetent evidence into the trial cannot complain of the
subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party
relating to the subject matter.

In gist, if relevant and competent evidence may be CONDITIONAL, which

connotes tentative or temporaryevidence, MULTIPLE, where it is legally
permissible for different aspects; or CURATIVE, when it is intended to receive
inadmissible evidence from a party to neutralize previously accepted
inadmissible evidence from the other party.

6. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

DIRECT EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Proves the fact in dispute Proof of facts from which, taken
without any aid of any inference collectively, the existence of a
or presumption. particular fact in dispute may be
necessarily inferred as a
necessary or probable
consequence.
 That which proves a fact in issue
indirectly through an inference
which the fact finder draws from
the evidence established.

It may happen that no

prosecution witness has actually
seen the commission of the
crime. However, jurisprudence
tells us that direct evidence is
not the only matrix from which a
trial court may draw its
conclusion and finding of guilt.
The rules of evidence allow a
trial court to rely on
circumstantial evidence to
support its conclusion of guilt.
The difference involves a relationship of the fact inferred to the
facts that constitute the offense. Their difference does not relate
to the probative value of the evidence. Direct evidence proves a
challenged fact without drawing any inference. Circumstantial
evidence, on the other hand, indirectly proves a fact in issue, such
that the fact-finder must draw an inference or reason from
circumstantial evidence.

-Illustration: The prosecution presented corroborating evidence

which constitute an unbroken chain leading to the inevitable
conclusion that accused is guilty of killing the victim. For instance,
the presence of gunpowder nitrates on accused after a paraffin test;
the firearm used in the killing details with the testimony of a witness
that he saw accused carrying a short firearm which was later found
to have been recently fired, and the absence of gunpowder nitrates
on the hands of the victim after a paraffin test which belies
accused’s claim that he was shot by the victim or that the latter
exchanged fire with a police officer.

Requisites to Warrant a Conviction based on circumstantial evidence

1. There is more than one circumstance;
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
 -Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.
-The totality of the evidence must constitute an unbroken chain
showing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
-Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker form of evidence vis-à-vis
direct evidence.

Q: X and Y were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The prosecution

established that on the day of the incident, J and L were having a conversation
in their house when 2 persons asked them where the house of the victim was
located. They pointed to the house who was their neighbor. Later, J and L heard
someone was shouting and moaning outside the house of the victim. J went out
of the house and saw somebody waving a flashlight inside the victim’s house, as
if looking for something. This prompted him to call L and V. A few minutes later,
a man wearing a black t-shirt and carrying a backpack, followed by another man
wearing a green shirt and carrying a pair of shoes, came out of the house of the
victim. J and L immediately ran after them unto the basketball court, and saw
the two were already on board a black Yamaha motorcycle. Luckily, V arrived
with the barangay tanod and immediately accosted the two men. J, L and V
recognized the two as the same persons who asked them earlier about the
location of the victim’s house. The man wearing a black shirt was identified as
the accused-appellant, while the one wearing green shirt was identified as Y.
Recovered from their possession were personal properties belonging to the
victim. When X was further frisked, a screw driver was found in his possession.
V then asked the victim’s laundrywoman to check on the victim. When she
returned, she told them that the victim was killed. The laundrywoman also
identified that the green shirt worn by Y belongs to the victim. Is the RTC
correct in convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence?

A: Yes. The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that
the guilt of the accused cannot be proved by evidence other than direct
evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, because circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant
the absence of direct evidence. The crime charged may also be proved by
circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive
evidence. Here in this case, the RTC as affirmed by the CA, the circumstantial
evidence proven by the prosecution sufficiently established that appellant
committed the offense charged.

-Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind and character

as that already given and that tends to prove the same proposition.
 -Corroborative evidence is one that is supplementary to that already
given tending to strengthen or confirm it. It is additional evidence of a different
character to the same point
.
-An extrajudicial Confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient
ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

-Corroborative testimony is not always required. Witnesses are to be

weighed, not numbered.

-Circumstantial evidence may be presented to convict the accused.

Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive evidence, refers
to proof of collateral facts and circumstances whence the existence of the main
fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if (a) there is more
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on
circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form
an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. People vs.
Manansala y Alfaro, G.R. No. 233104, September 2, 2020, J. Hernando

7. Positive and Negative Evidence

POSITIVE EVIDENCE NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
Witness affirms that a certain Witness states he/she did not
state of facts did exist or that a see or does not know of the
certain event happened. occurrence of a fact. Common
example is alibi or denial.
Greater probative value is given Lesser probative value
When witness declares of his Denial is considered by the Court
personal knowledge that a fact a very weak form of defense and
did not take place that is can never overcome an
actually positive testimony affirmative or positive testimony
since it is an affirmation of the particularly when the latter
truth of a negative fact. comes from the mouth of a
credible witness.

The defense is viewed with

disfavor for being inherently
weak. To be worthy of
consideration at all, denials
should be substantiated by clear
 and convincing evidence.

8. Competent and Credible Evidence

COMPETENT EVIDENCE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
Not excluded by the Refers to probative value or
Constitution, law, or Rules. convincing weight.

Competence in relation to Weight involves the effect of

evidence in general, refers to evidence admitted, its tendency
eligibility of an evidence to be to convince and persuade. It is
received as such. The test of not determined mathematically
competence is the Constitution, by the numerical superiority of
laws or the rules. the witnesses testifying to a
given fact, but depends upon its
Determined by the prevailing practical effect in inducing belief
exclusionary rules of evidence. on the part of the judge trying
the case.
Exclusionary rules may affect
due process. To the extent that The worthiness of belief, that
they might prejudice quality which renders a witness
substantive rights, therefore, worthy of belief.
they cannot be made to apply
retroactively. Evidence that is not necessarily
true but that is worthy of belief.
Admissible evidence is not
necessarily credible evidence.
Admissibility does not guarantee
credibility.
Findings and conclusions of the
trial court on the credibility of
the witnesses are entitled great
respect because they have the
advantage of observing the
demeanor of witnesses as they
testify.

When affirmed by the appellate

court, it is accorded full weight
and credit as well as great
respect, if not conclusive effect,
except when facts and
circumstances of weight and
 influence were overlooked or the
significance of which was
misappreciated or
misinterpreted.

C. 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)

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)

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the
court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its
intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be
heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its
own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any
matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive
of a material issue in the case. (n)

Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by

the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it
was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
(2a)

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED –

1. Those of which the courts may take judicial notice
2. Those that are judicially admitted
3. Those that are conclusively presumed
4. Those that are disputably presumed but uncontradicted
5. Immaterial allegations
6. Facts admitted or not denied provided they have been sufficiently
alleged
7. Res ipsa loquitor
8. Admission by adverse party

MATTERS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE –

It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and
act upon without proof because they are supposed to be known to them. It
is based on considerations of expediency and convenience. It displaces
evidence, being equivalent to proof.

Function – Dispenses the presentation of evidence and fulfills the purpose

for which the evidence is designed to fulfill. Its function is to abbreviate
litigation by admission of matters that needs no evidence because judicial
notice is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence.

-Kinds:
1. Mandatory – insofar as those matters enumerated under Sec. 1, Rule
129;
2. Discretionary – on matters which are public knowledge, or are capable
of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known judges because of
their functions.

MANDATORY DISCRETIONARY
Court is compelled to take judicial Court is not compelled to take
notice judicial notice
Takes place at court’s initiative May be at court’s own initiative or
on request of a party
Not motion or hearing Needs hearing
When the matter is subject to a When judicial notice of fact may be
mandatory judicial notice, no taken with necessity of hearing
motion or hearing is necessary for
the court may take judicial notice During the pre-trial and trial, the
of a fact. court may, motu proprio or upon
motion, shall hear the parties on the
property of taking judicial notice of
any matter.

Before judgement or appeal, the

court, may 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.
1. Existence and territorial extent 1. Matters which are of public
of states knowledge;
2. Political history, forms of -those matters coming to the
government and symbols of knowledge of men generally in the
nationality course of ordinary experiences of
3. Law of nations life, or they may be matters which
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of are generally accepted by mankind
the world and their seals as true and are capable of ready
5. Political constitution and history and unquestioned demonstration.
of the Philippines
6. Official acts of legislative, 2. Capable of unquestionable
executive and judicial departments demonstration
of the national government of the -matters which are capable of
PH unquestionable demonstration are
7. Laws of nature facts, theories and conclusions
8. Measure of time which have come to be established
9. Geographical divisions and accepted by the specialists in
the areas of natural science,
*LIST IS EXCLUSIVE* natural phenomena, chronology,
technology, geography, statistical
facts and other fields of
professional and scientific
knowledge.

3. Ought to be known to judges

because of their judicial functions
-judicial notice is not judicial
knowledge. The mere personal
knowledge of the judge is not the
judicial knowledge of the court, and
he is not authorized to make his
individual knowledge of a fact, not
generally or professionally known,
they basis of his action. Judicial
cognizance is taken only of those
matters which are commonly
known.

Requisites
1. The matter must be one of
common and general knowledge;
2. It must be well and
 authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain;
3. It must be known to be within the
limits of the jurisdiction of the court
a. Generally known within the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court; or
b. Capable and accurate and
ready determination by resorting to
sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questionable.

The principal guide in determining

what facts may be assumed to be
judicially known is that of notoriety.

-Test of notoriety, whether the fact involved is so notoriously known as to

make it proper to assume its existence without proof.
-Hearing is necessary in the foregoing instances to afford the parties
reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the propriety of
taking such judicial notice or the tenor of the matter to be judicially
noticed.

-Instances when the court takes judicial notice:

1. Existence and location within the territory which they exercise
jurisdiction of great rivers and lakes, and their relation to provincial
boundaries, of navigability of streams, constituting highway commerce and
notorious facts concerning the same.
2. The financial problem is a factor that beset the sugar industry; that
there is crisis in the sugar industry
3. The great increase in rentals of real estate especially of business
establishments
4. The reality that, especially in local elections, political rivals or
operators benefited from the usually belated decisions by COMELEC on
petitions to cancel or deny due course to CoCs of potential nuisance
candidates.
5. How rapist are not deterred by the presence of people nearby, such
as the members of their own family inside the same room, with the
likelihood of being discovered, since lust respects no time, locale or
circumstance.
6. The government is and has for many years been financially strapped,
to the point that even the most essential services have suffered serious
curtailment.
 7. The oakwood standoff was widely known and was extensively
covered by the media made it a proper subject of judicial notice.
8. Senate report on Maysilo estate being an official act of the legislative
department.
9. Moral damages and death indemnity require neither pleading nor
evidence simply because death through crime always occasions moral
sufferings on the part of the victim’s heirs.

MATTERS NOT PROPER SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE –

1. GR: Courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of the practice of
banks in conducting backgrounds checks on borrowers and sureties.
XPN: They nevertheless may do so under the rule on discretionary
judicial notice.

2. That a registered letter when posted is immediately stamped with the

date of its receipt, indicating therein the number of the registry, both on
the covering envelope itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who
delivered the letter to the office.
GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of contents of the
records of other cases or are pending in the same court or before the same
judge.
XPN: They may, however, take judicial notice of a decision or the facts
prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if: (1) the parties
present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the other party; or
(2) the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so.

3. Proprietary acts of GOCCs, e.g. management contract entered into by

GOCC
4. The assessed value of realty
5. Administrative regulation or of a statute that is not yet effective.
6. No judicial notice is taken of whiplash injury since it is not capable of
unquestionable demonstration and the courts lack the proper medical
knowledge to assume this fact.
-Judicial knowledge is different from judicial notice. Judicial knowledge
is knowledge of the judge. Judicial notice must be knowledge of everyone
or almost everyone such that there is no doubt, it is certain, and that it is
well-settled.

7. Criminal activities such as robbery and kidnappings are becoming daily

fares in the society.
8. Actual damages.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE –
GR: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. They must be
alleged and proved.
XPN: When said laws are within the actual knowledge of the court and
such laws are:
1. Well and generally known;
2. Actually ruled upon in other cases before it; and none of the parties
claim otherwise.

-Doctrine of Processual Presumption – In international law, the party who

wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or a case has the burden
of proving the foreign law. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or even if
pleaded, it is not proved, the presumption is that the foreign law is same
as ours.

-When the foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet

and the writer is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the
subject, the court, may take juidicial notice of the treatise containing the
foreign law.

-The Philippines adapts the generally accepted principles of international

law as part of the law of the land.

-Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore, technically in the
nature of local laws and hence, are subject to mandatory judicial notice.

RULES REGARDING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL OR CITY

ORDINANCES
1. MTCs are required to take judicial notice of the ordinances of the
municipality or city wherein they sit;

2. RTCs must take judicial notice of ordinances in force in the

municipalities within their jurisdiction only:
a. When expressly authorized to so by statute; and
b. In case on appeal before them and wherein the inferior court took
judicial notice of an ordinance involved in the same case.

3. Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of ordinances not only
because the lower courts took judicial notice thereof but because these
are facts capable of unquestionable demonstration.
 RULES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE OF RECORDS OF ANOTHER CASE
PREVIOUSLY TRIED
GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are
pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases
may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge.

XPNs:
1. When in the absence of any objection, with the knowledge of the
opposing party, the contents of said other cases are clearly referred to by
title and number in a pending action and adopted or read into the record of
the latter;
2. When the original record of the other case or any part of it is actually
withdrawn from the archives at the court’s discretion upon the request, or
with the consent, of the parties, and admitted as part of the record of the
pending case.
3. When the action is closely interrelated to another case pending
between the same parties;
4. Where the interest of the public in ascertaining the truth are
paramount importance;
5. In cases seeking to determine what is reasonable exercise of
discretion or whether the previous ruling is applicable in case under
consideration; or
6. Where there is finality of judgment in another case that was
previously pending determination and therefore, res judicata.

Q: A and B were accused of killing C. However, only A was arrested since B went into
hiding. After trial, A was acquitted of the charge in a decision rendered by Judge S.
Subsequently, B was arrested and brought to trial. After trial, B was found guilty of
homicide in a decision rendered by Judge Y, the judge who replaced Judge S after
the latter retired. On appeal, B argues that Judge Y should have taken judicial notice
of the acquittal of A rendered by Judge S. Is B correct?

A: No. The appreciation of one judge of the testimony of a certain witness is not
binding on another judge who heard the testimony of the same witness on the same
matter. Each magistrate who hears the testimony of a witness is called upon to make
his own interpretation of the evidence.

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS –
-These are admissions, oral or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, which do not require proof.

-Requisites:
 1. It must be made by a party to the case or his counsel;
2. It must be made in the course of the proceedings in the same case;
and
3. It can be oral or written

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Those made in the course of the Made out of court or in a judicial
proceeding in the same case proceeding other than the one under
consideration
Do not require proof and may be Regarded as evidence and must be
contradicted only by showing that it offered as such, otherwise the court
was made through palpable mistake will not consider it in deciding the
or that it was not, in fact, made. case.

Need not be offered in evidence Requires formal offer for it to be

since it is not evidence. It is superior considered.
to evidence and shall be considered
by the court as established
Conclusive upon the admitter Rebuttable
Admissible even if self-serving Not admissible if self-serving
Subject to cross-examination Not subject to cross-examination

DIFFERENT FORMS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSION:

1. Oral – Verbal waiver of proof made in open court, a withdrawal of
contention, or disclosure made before the court, or admission made by
witness in his testimony or deposition;
2. Writing – Pleading, bill of particulars, stipulation of facts, request for
admission, or a judicial admission contained in an affidavit used in the case.

Judicial admissions may be made in:

1. The pleadings filed by the parties;
a. Actual admission – when a party categorically admits a material
allegation made by the adverse party
b. Implied admission – when the admission is inferred from the failure to
specifically deny the material allegations in the other party’s pleadings.
2. The course of the trial either verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations, including depositions, written interrogatories and requests for
admissions; or
3. Other stages of the judicial proceedings

EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

1. They do not require proof; and
2. They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party
making it

ADMISSIONS MADE IN PLEADINGS WHICH WERE NOT FILED WITH THE

COURT
-Admissions made therein are not judicial admissions:
1. If signed by the party litigant himself or herself – Considered as
extrajudicial admission
2. If signed by the counsel – Not admissible because a counsel only
binds his or her client with respect to admissions in open court and in
pleadings actually filed with the court.

AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS WHICH ARE NOT DEEMED ADMISSIONS

1. Immaterial allegations
2. Conclusions, non-ultimate facts in the pleadings
3. Amount of unliquidated damages

-When an action or defense is founded upon an actionable document, the

genuineness and due execution of the same instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless it is specifically denied under oath

-Failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of said document

amounts to a judicial admission.

-But the failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document does not preclude a party from arguing against the document by
evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations,
estoppel and want of consideration. However, he is precluded from arguing
that the document is a forgery because the genuineness of document is
impliedly admitted.

-Admissions in a pleading which had been withdrawn or superseded by an

amended pleading, although filed in the same case, are considered as
extrajudicial admissions.

-Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their
status as pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions and to be utilized as
extrajudicial admission, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally
offered in evidence.
-Self-serving rule is not applicable to judicial admissions. If the declaration is
made in open court, it is admissible because the witness may be cross-
examined on that matter.

-A plea of guilty entered by the accused may be later withdrawn at any time
before the judgment of conviction becomes final. Such plea is not admissible
in evidence against the accused and is not even considered as an
extrajudicial admission.

Ground for contradicting judicial admissions:

1. Upon showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake; or
2. When it is shown that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.
-This argument may be invoked when the statement of a party is taken
out of context or that his statement was made not in the sense it is made to
appear by the other party.

Remedy of party who made a judicial admission:

1. In case of written admission – file a motion to withdraw such pleading, or
any other written instrument containing such admission; and

2. In case of oral admission – the counsel may move for the exclusion of such
admission.

ADMISSIONS IN THE PRE-TRIAL OF ADMISSIONS IN THE PRE-TRIAL OF

CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES
A pre-trial is mandatory. One of the Admissions made by the accused of
purpose of pre-trial in civil cases is a criminal case is not necessarily
for the court to consider the admissible against him. To be
possibility of obtaining stipulations admissible, the conditions set forth
or admissions of facts. Admissions by Sec. 2 of Rule 118 must be
therefore, in the pre-trial, as well as complied with.
those made during depositions,
interrogatories or requests for All the agreements or admissions
admissions, are all deemed judicial made or entered during the pre-trial
admissions because they are made conference shall be:
in the course of the proceedings of 1. Reduced in writing; and
the case. 2. Signed by the accused and
counsel

Otherwise, they cannot be used

against the accused.
-The theory of adoptive admission has been adopted by the court in this
jurisdiction. An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or
action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction
as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. The
basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the
ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the other
person had made.

-In the Angara Diary, Estrada’s options started to dwindle when the armed
forces withdrew its support. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask
Senate President Pimentel to advise the petitioner to consider the option of
dignified exit or resignation. Estrada did not object to the suggested option
but simply said he could never leave the country

-Examples of statements made that are not judicial admissions

a. Statements made during preliminary investigation
b. Statements during Court-Annexed Mediation

Note: Execution of judgment is part of a judicial proceeding. The Court

retains control over the case until the full satisfaction of the final judgment

-As a rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of other cases in
the same court.
It is well-settled that, as a general rule, courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the
contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been
tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that
both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same
judge. It is true that the said rule admits of exceptions, namely: (a) In the
absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court
may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its
archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the
knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by
name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently
designated; or (b) when the original record of the former case or any part of
it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court’s direction, at the
request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the
record of the case then pending. Bernas vs. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat, G.R.
No. 195908, August 15, 2018

-Guidelines in Appreciating Age as an Element of the Crime or as a Qualifying

Circumstance
The Court hereby sets the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as
an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: (1) The best
evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true
copy of the certificate of live birth of such party; (2) In the absence of a
certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim
would suffice to prove age; (3) If the certificate of live birth or authentic
document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable,
the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of
the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on
matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the
offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence
shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a) If the victim is
alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that
she is less than 7 years old; b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of
age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c) If
the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 18 years old; (4) In the absence of a certificate
of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or
relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will
suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; (5)
It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended
party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence
regarding age shall not be taken against him and; (6) The trial court should
always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. People vs.
XXX, G.R. No. 244048, February 14, 2022, J. Hernando

-Admission of Age in the stipulation of facts is a judicial admission and

considered a waiver.
Granting that the prosecution failed to offer the original or certified true copy
of AAA's birth certificate, the latter's testimony as to her age, i.e., 14 years
old at the time of the incident, and XXX's express and clear admission of her
age during the pre-trial in the stipulation of facts, sufficiently established
AAA's minority. These stipulations are binding on the court because they are
considered judicial admissions within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule
129 of the Rules of Court. XXX and her counsel, as well as the prosecutor,
signed the stipulation of facts which is therefore recognized as a declaration
constituting judicial admission, a waiver of her right to present evidence to
the contrary and binding upon the parties. Although the right to present
evidence is guaranteed by the Constitution, such right may be waived
expressly or impliedly. People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 244048, February 14, 2022,
J. Hernando
D. Object (Real) Evidence (Rule 130, A)
Section 1. Object as evidence. - Objects as evidence are those addressed
to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue,
it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.

-Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it

ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. Where the physical
evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, we consistently rule that the physical evidence
should prevail

-A person’s appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence,

the same being addressed to the senses of the court

-The inspection or view outside the courtroom should be made in the

presence of the parties or at least with previous notice to them in order
that they may show the object to be viewed. Such inspection or view is a
part of the trial, inasmuch as evidence is thereby being received, which is
expressly authorized by law

-In criminal cases such as murder/homicide or rape, in which the accused

stand to lose their liberty if found guilty, the SC has, on may occasions,
relied principally upon physical evidence on record runs counter to the
testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be
upheld.

-Documents are object (real) evidence if the purpose is to prove their

existence or condition, or the nature of the handwriting thereon, or to
determine the age of the paper used, or the blemishes or alterations
thereon, as where falsification is alleged.

-Examples of object evidence:

1. Any article or object which may be known or perceived using the
senses;
2. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken
therefrom;
3. Conduct of tests, demonstrations or experiments;
4. Examination of representative portrayals of the object in question (maps
or diagrams)
5. Documents, if the purpose is to prove their existence or condition, or the
nature of the handwriting thereon or to determine the age of the paper
used, or the blemishes or alterations
6. A person’s appearance, where relevant
 -Paraffin test – a test which can establish the presence or absence of
nitrates or nitrites on the hand but the test alone cannot determine
whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was discharged of a firearm.

-Merely corroborative evidence, neither proving nor disproving that a

person did indeed fire a gun. The positive or negative results of the test
can be influenced by certain factors such as the wearing of gloves by the
subject, perspiration of the hands, wind direction, etc. A person who tests
positive with the same positive reaction for nitrates such as explosives,
fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous plants.

-Polygraph test (Lie Detector Tests) – an electromechanical instrument

that simultaneously measures and records certain physiological changes
in the human body that are believed to be involuntarily caused by an
examinee’s conscious attempt to deceive the questioner.

-Operates on the principle that stress causes physiological changes in the

body which can be measured to indicate whether the subject examination
is telling the truth.

Q: R was charged with murder for shooting C. After trial, R was found guilty as
charged. On appeal, R argued that the trial court should have acquitted him as
his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the paraffin
test conducted on him 2 days after he was arrested yielded a negative result.
Hence, he could not have shot Carlo. Is R correct?

A: No. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not ipso facto
prove that R is innocent. A negative paraffin result is not conclusive proof that a
person has not fired a gun. It is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for
nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his hands
afterwards. Here, since R submitted himself for paraffin testing only 2 days after
the shooting, it was likely he had already washed his hands thoroughly, thus
removing all traces of nitrates therefrom.

1. Requisites
1. It must be relevant and competent;
2. It must be authenticated;
-To authenticate the object, it must be shown that the object is
the very thing that is either the subject matter of the lawsuit or the
very one involved to prove an issue in the case.
 3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness who
should identify the object to be the actual thing involved;

4. The object must be formally offered in evidence.

-Purposes of authentication of object evidence

1. Prevent the introduction of an object different from the one
testified about; and
2. Ensure that there have been no significant changes in the object’s
condition.

-Circumstances when the court may refuse the introduction of object

or real evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone
1. Its exhibition is contrary to public morals or decency;
-But if the exhibition of such object is necessary in the interest of
justice, it may still be exhibited, and the court may exclude the
public from such view. Such exhibition may not be refused if the
indecent or immoral objects constitute the very basis of the criminal
or civil action.

2. To require its being viewed in court or in ocular inspection would

result in delays, inconvenience, or unnecessary expenses which are
out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object;

3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading, as when

the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object and there
is no preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change
in said condition; or

4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented

clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof
unnecessary.

Q: In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution offered as evidence,

photographs showing the accused mauling the victim with several of the latter’s
companions. The person who took the photograph was not presented as a
witness. Be that as it may, the prosecution presented the companions of the
victim who testified that they were the ones in the photographs. The defense
objected to the admissibility of the photographs because the person who took
the photographs was not presented as witness. Is the contention of the defense
tenable?
A: No. Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the
photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under
which they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a
correct representative or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is
determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime.

The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures
he has taken. The correctness of the photographs as a faithful representation of
the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the
person who made it or by other competent witnesses who can testify to its
exactness and accuracy, after which the court can admit is subject to
impeachment as to its accuracy. Here, the photographs are admissible as
evidence in as much as the correctness thereof was testified to by the
companions of the victim.

Q: T was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide by the trial court. On his appeal, he asseverates that the
admission as evidence of victim’s wallet together with its contents, violates his
right against self-incrimination. Likewise, T sought for their exclusion because
during the custodial investigation, wherein he pointed to the investigating
policemen the place where he hid the victim’s wallet, he was not informed of his
constitutional rights (Miranda Rights). Decide the case.

A: The right against self-incrimination does not apply to the instant case where
the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but object
evidence. Infractions on the so-called “Miranda Rights” render inadmissible only
to the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation.
The admissibility of other evidence is not affected even if obtained or taken in
the course of custodial investigation. Concededly, T was not informed of his
rights during the custodial investigation. Neither did he execute a written waiver
of these rights in accordance with the constitutional prescriptions.
Nevertheless, these constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of
the victim’s wallet and its contents.

RELEVANT
General Rule: When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited
to, examined or viewed by the court [Sec. 1, Rule 130].
Exceptions: Court may refuse exhibition of object evidence and rely on
testimonial evidence alone if—
a. Exhibition is contrary to public policy, morals or decency;
b. It would result in delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of
proportion to the evidentiary value of such object; [People v. Tavera, G.R. No. L-
23172 (1925)].
 c. Evidence would be confusing or misleading;
d. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly
portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary.

-Evidence Must Be Authenticated To authenticate the object is to show that the

object is the very thing that is either the subject matter of the lawsuit or the
very one involved to prove an issue in the case

-Authentication Must Be Made by a Competent Witness The witness must have

the capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved in the litigation. A
witness can testify only to those facts which he/she knows of his/her personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his/her own perception

-Note: Requisites for the Admissibility of Tape Recording

1. A showing that the recording was capable of taking testimony
2. A showing that the operator of the recording device is competent
3. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of recording
4. A showing that no changes, deletions, or additions have been made on the
recordings
5. A showing of the manner of preservation of the recording
6. Identification of speakers
7. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind
of inducement
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE –
1. Actual physical or ³autopic” evidence –those which have a direct relation or
part in the fact or incident sought to be proven and those brought to the court
for personal examination by the presiding magistrate;

UNIQUE OBJECTS Objects that have readily E.g. Gun with a serial
identifiable marks; or number

Exhibit identifiable visual Car with a dent on its

or physical peculiarities left bumper
OBJECTS MADE UNIQUE Objects with no unique E.g. Sachet of shabu
characteristic but are with initials of the police
made readily identifiable officers who retrieved it
by law enforcers upon
retrieval or confiscation
NON-UNIQUE OBJECTS Objects with no E.g. Narcotic
identifying marks and substances, bodily fluids
cannot be marked
2. Demonstrative Evidence - Those which represent the actual or physical object
(or event in case of pictures or videos) being offered to support or draw an
inference or to aid in comprehending the verbal testimony of a witness

Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be

admissible provided it shall be:
a. Shown, presented or displayed to the court, and
b. Identified, explained or authenticated
o by the person who made the recording, or
o by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof
[Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence].

Note: Reenactments are object evidence because they are exhibited, examined
and viewed by the court. E.g. a person who hears a man cat-call a woman, and
mimics the cat-call in court is reenacting the event. He is not testifying because
he was not declaring anything nor making a statement

Chain Of Custody in Relation to Sec. 21 Of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act Of 2002
- “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction

-As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that
the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same

As a general rule, four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item must
be established:
1. First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer;
2. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer;
 3. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
4. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court [People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590 (2017)].

Note: If the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively

resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness
with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims; otherwise, the
chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent
to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy. And at all times, the source
of amorphous as well as firmly structured objects being offered as evidence
must be tethered to and supported by a testimony

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE CUSTODY AND HANDLING OF SEIZED

DANGEROUS DRUGS
Apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, make a
physical inventory and photograph of the same in the presence of:

1. Accused or the person/s from which such items were confiscated and/or
seized;
2. His/her representative or counsel; WITH
3. A representative of the NPS and/or MEDIA
4. Any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy
The objects seized must be submitted to PDEA for qualitative and quantitative
examination within 24 hours from the confiscation/seizure.
The forensic laboratory examiner is required to issue within 24 hours after
receipt of the drugs a certification of the forensic laboratory examination
results which shall be done under oath
After filing of the criminal case, the court shall, within 72 hours, conduct and
ocular inspection and the PDEA shall within 24 hours proceed with the
destruction of the same
Dangerous Drugs Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of
destruction or burning to be submitted to the court. Also to be submitted are
the representative samples (only minimum quantity) of the substances in the
custody of PDEA.

Q: B was arrested at Mercury Drug Store in Q.C for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. The drugs sachets containting shabu were marked by PO2 I with AB-20-
09-10. To avoid the on-going commotion in the area, the team preceeded to
Camp Kariganl which is 17 km car ride away from the place of arrest.
There, physical inventory and photgraphin required under Sec 21 of RA 9165 was
conducted in the presence of B, the buy-bust team, and a media representative.
After the inventory, PO3 C prepared the inventory receipt for a “sachet
containing marijuana fruiting tops”. This was submitted to the QCPD crime Lab.
B was later on charged with violation of Sec 5 of RA 9165. B argues that he
cannot be convicted due to lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs seized.
Can B be held criminally liable under Sec 5 or RA 9165?

A: B cannot be convicted under Sec 5 of RA 9165 due to the lapses in the chain
of custody procedure under Sec 21 of the same law. Sec 21 requires goes into
the covertness of buy-bust operation and the very nature of narcotic substance.

From the language of Sec 21, the mandate to conduct inventory take
photographs “immediately after seizure and confiscation” necessarily means
that these shall be accomplished at the place of arrest. When this is
impracticable, the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9165 allows for 2
other options; at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures. To sanction non-compliance, the prosecution must prove that the
inventory was conducted in either practicable place.

The physical inventory and photography of the drugs seized was not done in the
place of arrest, but was done in Camp Karingal, which was impractical since it
was 17 km car ride away from the place of arrest. The clerical errors and
discrepancies in the inventory receipt and the chemistry report cannot be
dismissed since they cast doubt as to the origin of the drug seized.

INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED ITEMS –

-The prosecution is not required to elicit testimony from every custodian or from
every person who had an opportunity to come in contact with the evidence
sought to be admitted. As long as one of the chains testifies and his testimony
negates the possibility of tampering and that the integrity of the evidence is
preserved, his testimony alone is adequate to prove the chain of custody.

-Failure to strictly comply with rules of procedure, however, does not ipso facto
invalidate or render void the seizure and custody over the items. Minor
deviations from the chain of custody rule are justified when the prosecution is
able to show that:
1. There is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and
2. The integrity of evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved.
Q: A buy-bust operation was conducted wherein PO2 M was designated as the
poseur-buyer. The buy-bust team proceeded to Reynier Clemens residence. PO2
M introduced herself as a buyer of shabu and handed Reynier the marked money.
After a brief conversation, Reynier went inside the house. He returned moments
later “with 2 transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance.” PO2 M examined the plastic sachets and gave the pre-arranged
signal by removing her sunglasses. This indicated the consummation of the
transaction to the other members of the buy-bust team. PO2 M brought the
seized items to the crime lab for scientific examination. The contents of the 2
sachets weighed 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 grams. They tested positive for
shabu. Is Reynier liable even if only a miniscule amount is alleged to have been
seized from him?

A: No. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction
actually took place by establishing the following elements: (1) identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment. Aside from this, the corpus delicti must be presented as
evidence in court. In cases involving dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti is the
dangerous drugs itself. Although strict compliance with the chain of custody rule
may be excused provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are preserved, a more exacting standard is required of law enforcers when
only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs are alleged to have been seized.

In this case, only 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 grams or a total of 0.0983 grams of
shabu were allegedly taken from the accused-appellant. Such a miniscule
amount of drugs is highly susceptible to tampering and contamination. A careful
review of the factual findings of the lower court shows that the prosecution
failed to discharge its burden of preserving the identity and integrity of the
dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant. The prosecution failed
to established who held the seized items from the moment they were taken from
accused-appellant until they were brought to the police station. The designated
poseur-buyer, PO2 M, did not mention who took custody of the seized items for
safekeeping.

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital
that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimen will use the markings as reference.

-Presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied. Given

the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu
and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. The
presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers
deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the
official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.

DNA EVIDENCE –
-When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or
from the victim’s body for the suspect’s DNA. This is the evidence sample. The
evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the
suspect and the victim. The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an
association exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample. The
samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish
their profile. The test may yield three possible results:
a. Exclusion – The samples are different and therefore must have originated
from different sources. This conclusion is absolute and requires no further
analysis or discussion;
b. Inconclusive – It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test,
whether the samples have similar DNA types. This might occur for a variety of
reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of some aspect of the
protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or
a different sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or
c. Inclusion – The samples are similar, and could have originated from the
same source. In such a case, the samples are found to be similar, the analyst
proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the similarity

-Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the

respondent in a paternity case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this
action, will not violate the right against self-incrimination

- “DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other
genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.

-“DNA testing” means verified and credible scientific methods which include the
extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and
the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of biological
samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or
not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates
from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate
from related persons (kinship analysis)

-Rule on DNA evidence. It shall apply whenever the DNA evidence is offered,
used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil
actions as well as special proceedings.

Application for DNA testing order

-The appropriate court may, 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.

-Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a
showing of the following:
a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
b. The biological sample:
(i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now
requested; or
(ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
d. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information
that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
e. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy of integrity of the DNA testing.

-Exception: DNA testing may be done without a prior court order, at the behest
of any party (including law enforcement agencies), before a suit or proceeding is
commenced

-Note: The death of the petitioner (putative father) does not ipso facto negate
the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological
samples of his DNA. The term “biological sample” means any organic material
originating from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is
susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids,
tissues, hairs and bones

Post-conviction DNA Testing; Remedy

-Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order,
to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment
provided that:
1. A biological sample exists;
2. Such sample is relevant to the case; and
3. The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the
judgment of conviction [Sec. 6, Rule on DNA Evidence]

Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict

-The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable
to the convict.
-In case the court, after due hearing finds the petition to be meritorious, if shall
reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the
convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.

-A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme
Court, or with any member of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon
or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders
[Sec. 10, Rule on DNA Evidence].

Assessment of Probative Value of DNA Evidence and Admissibility

-In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall
consider the following:
1. The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected,
how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;
2. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
3. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable
standardssetting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted
the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the
laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and
4. The reliability of the testing result, as provided in Sec. 8 [Sec. 7, Rule on
DNA Evidence].

-Note: The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of

evidence shall apply suppletorily

DNA is admissible evidence of paternity

-DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be
conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the minimum value of the probability of
paternity is less than 99.99% the results of the DNA analysis should be
considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of minimum value is 99.9% or
higher, then there is refutable presumption of paternity.

-It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA profile matches that of the
putative father. A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the
DNA profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity. For
this reason, following the highest standard adopted in an American jurisdiction,
trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the Probability
of Paternity (“W”) prior to a paternity inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the
likelihood of paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a
random match of two unrelated individuals. Due to the probabilistic nature of
paternity inclusions, W will never equal to 100%
 2. Exclusionary Rules
Under the 1987 Constitution
1. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizure and the Right to
Privacy
GR: Any search and seizure is invalid
EXC: unless made pursuant to a search warrant or falls among the
recognized exceptions.

Seizure of Evidence in Plain View

The rationale behind this is the impracticability of authorities
procuring search warrant in the face of an incriminating object
observed directly by the seizing officer. For this to prosper, 3
requisites must be met:

a) Prior Valid Intrusion. The seizing officer must have the right where
he is when he stumbled upon the incriminating object

People v. Salanguit
-When the purpose of the search warrant is already accomplished, any further
search is no longer justified.

-The case involves a search warrant commanding the police to search and
determine a quantity of shabu and paraphernalia. While implementing the
warrant, police further found dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper.

-The seized marijuana leaves were disregarded for having been a fruit of a
further search. Given that the police officers already knew where to find the
shabu subject of the warrant, it’s logical to assume that the police first found
the shabu and paraphernalia. And after finding the items subject of warrant,
police conducted further search. And in the process, seized other items not
indicated in the warrant

-Thus, the further search cannot be deemed a valid intrusion since the purpose
of the search has already been accomplished.

b) Inadvertent Discovery. The seizing officer should not specifically

look for the incriminating object.

People v. Musa
-A buy-bust operation was conducted outside the house of Musa. The poseur-
buyer handed Musa the marked money. Musa went back to his house to get the
illegal drugs. Indeed, he returned, and then Musa delivered the shabu to the
poseur-buyer

-When they conducted a body search on Musa, they could not find the marked
money. The officers thus barged in the house to look for the marked money. Lo
and behold, they found a plastic container hanging over the kitchen which
eventually yielded dried marijuana leaves.

-SC ruled that the police went inside for the purpose of looking for incriminating
evidence. For the plain view doctrine to operate, the discovery must be
inadvertent such that it should not be specifically sought for. The dried
marijuana leaves were therefore inadmissible.

c) Apparent Illegality of Object. The incriminating nature of the

object must be apparent to the observation of the seizing officer. Its
illegality must be obvious.

-Incriminating nature can be determined by any of the senses. Take

the case of Pp v. Claudio where a plastic woven bag appearing to
contain camote tops on the top had a big bundle of plastic of
marijuana at the bottom since the officer recognized its smell.

2. Search incident to a lawful arrest

-This contemplates a situation where a search takes place after a
VALID arrest. It cannot be the reverse

-An arrest is valid if done pursuant to a warrant of arrest or under the

recognized exceptions. Under Rule 113 Sec 5, there are 3 instances
of valid warrantless arrests

a. In flagrante delicto. Requires compliance with 2 requisites:

i) Overt acts on the part of the person to be arrested indicating
that a crime has just been, is being or about to be committed;

People v. Amminudin
Arrest was illegal and cannot be justified under in flagrante delicto because
there is nothing illegal about a person disembarking from the vessel walking on
the gangplank.
People v. Mengote
Police obtained a report of 3 persons acting suspiciously in an alley. Mengote
was arrested after being observed to be looking side-to-side, with his hand
holding his abdomen. There is nothing criminal about this.

People v. Sy-Chua
An arrested drug-peddler divulged that his source of illegal drugs was Mr Chua.
Police then conducted surveillance on Chua and found the latter on his way to a
hotel. Police saw Chua disembarking from his car, carrying with him a Zest-o
juice box. Police arrested him then searched the box and his car, yielding
contraband. There is nothing illegal about this.

Pp v. Quebral
Police received a tip-off that 2 men and a woman would meet at a certain place
for a drug deal. Police dispatched a team to surveil and true enough found a
jeepney passing by in the vicinity identified by the informant.

-Moments later, another vehicle arrived. The woman then handed to the man a
white envelope, prompting police to swoop down on the suspects, seize the
envelope which yielded marijuana.

-SC saw it differently. What happened here is the opposite of Amminudin. Here,
search first, arrest later. The search was predicated from a valid tip-off,
sufficient ground for probable cause to conduct search. The tip-off was validated
by the police on the ground when the transaction actually took place.

-Thus, for purposes of warrantless search, probable cause, which may be derived
from a telephone call, is sufficient, if of course validated by the observation of
the arresting officers on the ground.

ii) Personal knowledge of the arresting officer

b. Hot pursuit.
c. Arrest of an escaped prisoner.

Terry Search
A person is stopped and frisked. If the search of his body yields
positive, that person may now be arrested, under in flagrante delicto

Posadas v. CA
There was extensive bodily search on the person who suddenly ran away upon
being approached by the police. This yielded contraband

People v. Manalili
There was a search conducted in a cemetery. When police saw the suspect
walking wobbly, with his eyes red shut, characteristic of a person high on drugs,
they approached him and the suspect then acted suspiciously. Police then
extensively searched the suspect

Consented Search
This is based on the principle of waiver. A search is an intrusion into
the privacy of the individual. This is a personal right available to the
person concerned, and may be waived only by the person concerned.
He who invokes it, waives it

People v. Damaso
The apartment rented by the accused was raided by the authorities. Accused
was not there when the raid took place. Police were allowed entry by the
househelp. This consent is not valid. The search was thus invalid.

Checkpoint Search
-Valid as long as to meet the exigencies of public order and for as
long as the search is not extensive or intrusive. It should not involve
the search of the occupants of the vehicle, nor it should allow the
search of the vehicle itself.

-The only allowed search is a visual one, done outside the vehicle. It
does not authorize the officers to demand the lowering of the
windows, nor to demand that occupants alight from the vehicle.

-Exceptions would be when there is probable cause that the

occupants are committing a crime or that the vehicle contains
incriminating objects

People v. Vinecario
-There was a COMELEC Gun Ban. In a checkpoint, a motorcycle with 3 men on
board sped past it prompting an officer to whistle them to return.

-One of them misrepresented himself to be a military officer but failed to present

an ID. Police noticed a military backpack and when asked by the police to hand
it over, they took turns in passing it to each other. They were restless and
fidgety. Acting on their suspicious actuations, police conducted the search that
yielded some contraband.
-SC upheld the search ruling that if there is probable cause, a more extensive
search is allowed although done in a checkpoint.

3. Right of Persons under Custodial Investigation or the Miranda

Rights
-When are these rights available? Only in custodial investigations.

-What is a custodial investigation? It is a stage wherein the

investigation ceases to be a general inquiry in an unsolved crime and
now focuses on a particular suspect placed or taken under custody,
and otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way
by the officer who carries out the process of investigation aimed at
eliciting admission from the suspect. Thus, there are 4 requisites:
1) Investigation should no longer be a general inquiry, and is
already accusatory;
-Police line-up is not a custodial investigation
2) Suspect must be taken into custody of law.

People v. Guting
-The son stabbed his father to death. He approached two policemen standing
across the police station and voluntarily confessed to them.

-SC says Miranda rights are not available here.

-Under RA 7438, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an

"invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the “inviting”
officer for any violation of law.

People v. Lauga
-Father raped his daughter. The mother sought the assistance of a bantay-bayan.
The bantay-bayan invited the father to the house of the barangay captain. The
father confessed to the crime.

-The extrajudicial confession was then impugned for violating the Miranda
doctrine. SC sustained. He was under custodial investigation

People v. Del Rosario

-A case for murder. A witness positively identified the driver of the getaway
motorcycle. The driver was invited by police where he confessed.
-SC sustained the inadmissibility of the confession since the practice of the
police in inviting him amounted to custodial investigation where his Miranda
rights should have been observed and enforced.

3) The confession made must be in response to police interrogation.

Spontaneous statements proffered not through interrogation are not
covered by the Miranda doctrine

People v. Andan
-Murder and rape of a minor girl. Andan was arrested and detained. When he
learned that the mayor was in the police station, he sought an audience with the
mayor. Without being interrogated by the mayor, Andan broke down and
confessed to the mayor.

-This is not covered as his confession was a spontaneous statement done in an

ordinary manner. The Miranda rights were never intended to prevent the suspect
from being truthful. Instead, it was intended to avoid the slightest coercion that
may compel the suspect to admit to something that he never did.

4) The one questioning must be a law enforcement agent.

-Who may be regarded as law enforcement agents?
Police, Mayor, Barangay Captains. Also includes public prosecutors
conducting the preliminary investigation, as well as judges

People v. Guillermo
-When Guillermo was arrested, he was visited by reporters. He was interviewed,
wherein he confessed to the killing. Not covered because the one asking the
question were not law enforcement officers.

People v. Edna Malngan

-Malngan was a househelp who burnt down the house of her employer. She was
identified by the neighbors and was picked up by the barangay captain.

-In the course of the interrogation by the barangay captain, Edna confessed. SC
rejected the confession as it was not done via the assistance of a counsel.
Barangay captain is considered as a law enforcement agent.
People v. Bokingco
-Involves murder of a contractor. During PI, they were interrogated by the
prosecutor without assistance of counsel.

-SC sustained the inadmissibility of the evidence as their confession was done
under custodial investigation. The suspects were subjected to the same
coercive, relentless and intimidating atmosphere as to compel them to admit
something that they may not have done.

-People v. Baloloy
-Rape-slay of a minor girl where the suspect took the liberty of reporting the
crime but not him as the culpable one. During the wake, the barangay captain
went in front and raised a black rope and asked who its owner was. To Baloloy’s
credit, he admitted having owned the rope. So he eventually confessed.

-Witnesses and Baloloy were brought to the judge for them to subscribe to their
affidavit. During that proceeding, the judge asked Baloloy certain questions
prompting Baloloy to confess. Such confession was deemed inadmissible.

-Questioning conducted by employers to their employees NOT

COVERED
De Castro v. People
-De Castro was accused of estafa thru falsification. She was made to undergo
disciplinary proceedings. She executed an extrajudicial confession admitting
culpability.

-De Castro cannot invoke Miranda rights. The proceedings were not initiated by
the State but by private individuals. ADMISSIBLE

-People v. Bongcarawan
-Security employed by a private employer is not a law enforcement agent. A
passenger of a vessel whose bag was searched by the security guard employed
by the shipping. Passenger argued that the search was illegal because it was
not done with a search warrant.

-SC disagreed on the ground that the constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure does not apply

Confession made before news reporters without undue influence is admissible.

A confession made before news reporters, absent any showing of undue influence from the police
authorities, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the crime confessed to by the accused. The fact that the
extrajudicial confession was made by Antonio while inside a detention cell does not by itself render such
confession inadmissible, contrary to what Antonio would like this Court to believe. In People v. Domantay,
where the accused was also interviewed while inside a jail cell, this Court held that such circumstance alone
does not taint the extrajudicial confession of the accused, especially since the same was given freely and
spontaneously. People vs. Dacanay, G.R. No. 216064, November 7, 2016

What types of evidence are covered under the Miranda warnings?

 -GR: Testimonial evidence, only

People v. Baylon
-Killing of a teacher witnessed by the pupil. The pupil described the assailant as
wearing a hat, maong pants, white shirt, green handkerchief wrapped around his
neck. Acting on the description given, police arrested the suspect. Suspect was
stripped of his clothing and presented to court to corroborate the testimony of
the pupil. Accused sought the exclusion of these evidence for having been
obtained without the assistance of counsel

-SC rejected this contention ruling that the Miranda rights only cover testimonial
evidence and not object evidence.

People v. Malimit
-Malimit was a suspect for robbery and while under custody, he confessed and
pointed to the location where they hid the stolen goods.

-Malimit sought the exclusion of the goods as evidence contending that these
were procured in violation of his rights under Sec 12 Art III. SC rejected such an
argument, applying the rule that object evidence is not covered under the
Miranda warnings.

Right Against Self-incrimination

-Sec 17 Art III. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.

-Section 27. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission

of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him
or her.

-Section 29. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot

be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except
as hereinafter provided.

-Section 31. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a

conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence,
may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.

-The kernel of the privilege is testimonial compulsion. Thus, it covers

generally testimonial evidence. Object evidence or those that are
purely mechanical are not covered
 The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against
testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is simply
against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused
an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to
be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence.
Over the years, the Court has expressly excluded several kinds of
object evidence taken from the person of the accused from the realm
of selfincrimination. These include photographs, hair, and other
bodily substances. The Court has also declared as constitutional
several procedures performed on the accused such as pregnancy
tests for women accused of adultery, expulsion of morphine from
one’s mouth and the tracing of one’s foot to determine its identity
with bloody footprints. The Court even authorized the examination of
a woman’s genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband,
to verify his claim that she was impotent, her orifice being too small
for his penis. Some of these procedures were, to be sure, rather
invasive and involuntary, but all of them were constitutionally sound.
DNA testing and its results are now similarly acceptable. Agustin vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005

US v. Ong Siu Hong

This involves compelling a suspect to discharge morphine from his mouth. He
invoked his right against self-incrimination. SC rebuffed him, ruling that the right
applies only to testimonial compulsion.

US v. Tan Teng
-This involves a suspect compelled to submit to physical tests where substances
emitted by his body were subjected to laboratory tests to determine if he is
afflicted with gonorrhea. The victim of the acts of lasciviousness was also
afflicted with gonorrhea.

-Tan Teng’s objection was rejected since this is not covered by the privilege of
self-incrimination.

Villaflor v. Summers
-Consistent with this doctrine, an accused of adultery may be compelled to
submit to a pregnancy test to prove that the baby she is carrying is sired by a
man other than her husband

People v. Vallejo
-Rape and slay of a minor child. DNA test was conducted on the vaginal swab
taken from the victim. This was compared to the DNA profile of Vallejo which
yielded a positive match. This again is not covered by the right against self-
incrimination.

-The same principle applies as when accused is subjected to:

a) Fingerprinting;
b) Paraffin test;
c) Photographing;
d) Forcing accused to strip naked to show conditions of his body;
e) Forcing accused to measure parts of his body for comparison.

-These are purely mechanical, and not protected by the right against
self-incrimination.
-The principle no longer applies if the process of examination would
require the intervention of the mind or the mental faculty of the
subject. This piece of evidence is now protected

Beltran v. Samson
-When a person charged with falsification of documents was forced to produce a
sample of his handwriting to compare it with the alleged falsified document.

-The SC sustained Samson’s objection holding that this is not purely mechanical
since producing one’s handwriting involves the intervention of the mind.

Jaime dela Cruz v. People

-Even if evidence was taken by a purely mechanical act but it has absolutely no
relation to the principal cause of the arrest of the suspect, it is still subject to
the protection of the right against self-incrimination.

-Here, the suspect was arrested for alleged extortion but was subjected to a
urine test that yielded positive results of drug use.

-In the prior cases discussed, the evidence was related to the principal cause of
arrest, unlike in this case. Urine has nothing to do with extortion. Unless you use
urine to extort.

When is the right invocable? What kind of proceeding is this

invocable?
-ANY, as long as the proceeding is initiated by the State.

People v. Marti.
-When is a question incriminating? When the question calls for an answer that
may establish criminal liability or expose the witness to criminal prosecution. If
it only tends to establish civil or administrative liability, the question is NOT
incriminating

-Although the right may be invoked in any proceeding, the nature of the question
propounded is an entirely different matter. The right may only be invoked against
those questions that are incriminating.

-If the question seeks an admission for a crime that has prescribed or that the
person has already been granted immunity, this is no longer covered. This is no
longer incriminating since the person would no longer be exposed to possible
criminal liability or prosecution.

How do you invoke the right against self-incrimination?

PROCEEDING REFUSE TO TAKE REFUSE TO ANSWER
WITNESS STAND QUESTIONS
CRIMINAL Y Y
CIVIL N ONLY
INCRIMINATING
ADMINISTRATIVE N ONLY
INCRIMINATING

-The moment an incriminating question is propounded, the right may

then be invoked and defendant may refuse to answer the question.

-An exception in Civil and Admin cases is when the proceeding is

PENAL IN NATURE. The manner of invoking the right is similar to
that of criminal proceedings.

Pascual v. Board of Examiners

-Pascual was administratively charged for gross misconduct that could strip him
Off of his license. The proceeding is penal in nature since it could possibly forfeit
his license which is a property right. Pascual may then refuse to take the
witness stand.

Cabal v. Kapunan
-Cabal is a military officer accused of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
practices Act as well as Anti Ill-gotten wealth. He was investigated by the
Department of National Defense in an administrative proceeding. There, he
refused to take the witness stand

-SC sustained Cabal’s refusal ruling that the nature of the proceeding is penal
since it could possibly result in the forfeiture of his property by the State.
Rosete v. Lim
-This is an action for nullity of documents and recovery of property. Parallel to
the civil proceedings is a criminal action for violation of BP 22.
-In the civil case, the plaintiff sought the deposition of the respondents who
were the accused in the criminal case. Respondents refused to participate in the
deposition contending that any testimony that may be taken from him may
surely be used in the criminal case.

-SC reiterated the rule that the manner of invoking the right is different from on
the one hand, and civil and admin on the other. Respondents cannot refuse to
participate in the deposition taking in the civil case but have the right to not
answer incriminating questions.

-If the one invoking is a witness, he cannot altogether refuse to take

the witness stand even in criminal proceedings. Also, the witness
does not stand on equal footing with the accused. He is called not
for the purpose of him being incriminated

-Just like any other rights, the right against self-incrimination can be
waived, either expressly or impliedly. The implied waiver takes place
a) when the accused voluntarily takes the stand; or
b) when a witness voluntarily answers an incriminating question;
or
c) when the counsel fails to timely object.

-Take note that this waiver is limited. This only covers questions
related to the crime as regards to which the accused testifies. The
waiver does not extend to other possible criminal liability not subject
to the criminal proceeding. Here, counsel should timely object on the
ground that the question is irrelevant to the fact in issue.

What is protected by the privilege? Testimonial, object, and ALSO

documentary
Regala v. Sandiganbayan
-This case involves the Coco Levy Fund. It was alleged that proceeds of the fund
were funneled to corporations of the cronies of Marcos.

-During the proceedings, the government moved that the lawyers be compelled
to disclose the identity of their principals. The lawyers were forced to produce
corporate records to establish the identity of their principals. The lawyers
invoked right against self-incrimination, for possible criminal prosecution for
violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
-SC sustained the lawyers saying the right against self-incrimination covers not
only testimonial but also documentary evidence.

-Also covered here is with regard to privileged communication between lawyer

and client. Generally, disclosure of the identity of the client is not confidential.
However, if it would lead to possible criminal liability on the part of the client,
then it becomes confidential.

Exclusionary Rules Under Special Laws

Documentary Stamp Tax -
-What’s the procedural effect of non-payment of DST?
-Any taxable document that does not comply with DST is
INADMISSIBLE in evidence in court.
-The court however is liberal in applying this. When a party fails to
comply with the DST, the court shall require its compliance first
rather than outrightly excluding the document. Failure to comply
with such an order will then justify the exclusion of such documents
in evidence

-What are these taxable documents?

a) Certificates of stocks;
b) Any deed reconveying real property;
c) Insurance policies;
d) SPAs, etc.

Secrecy of Bank Deposits -

-SEC. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued
by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and
its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely
confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into
by any person, government official, bureau or office.

-RA 6426, Foreign Currency Deposits Act of the Philippines

-SEC. 8. Secrecy of deposits. —The secrecy of deposits under this

Act shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of RA 1405.

-We have RA 1405, a law of general application, which prohibits the

access or inquiring into the bank deposit without the consent of the
depositor, subject to exceptions.
 1. upon written permission of the depositor, or
2. in cases impeachment, or
3. upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public officials, or
4. in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject
matter of the litigation.
-Another law is RA 6426, Foreign Currency Deposits Act, a law of
specific application, that a foreign currency deposit from being
levied or attached on execution; as well as being examined or
inquired to. There is only one exception: CONSENT of depositor

Anti-Wire Tapping Act

-This law punishes anyone who, without the permission of all parties
to a private communication or spoken words, tap any wire or cable,
or use any device to intercept, overhear, record such communication
by using devices such as dictaphone, dictagraph, walkie talkie, tape
recorder, or any device however described
Gaanan v. CA
-This involves a telephone conversation between two lawyers. Atty. Pintor called
up Atty Laconico to discuss a possible settlement in a criminal case. Unknown
to Pintor, Laconico allowed his client to listen to the conversation using an
extension telephone line

-The client was prosecuted for violation of RA 4200.

-SC ruled that the use of an extension telephone line is not prohibited under RA
4200. Applying ejusdem generis, the prohibited devices are used for illegal
purposes, but an extension telephone line is not intended for an illegitimate
purpose. It was a common practice to allow extension wires
-Needless to state, RA 4200 does not cover video recordings. Not all
communications are covered, only PRIVATE.

Navarro v. People
-Two reporters proceeded to the police station to report the public exhibition of
women in a bar. Navarro acted hostile to the reporters.

-Their conversation turned violent that resulted in the death of a reporter

-Unknownst to Navarro, the confrontation was secretly recorded by the other

reporter. Navarro objected to the presentation of the recording as it allegedly
violated RA 4200
-SC rebuffed him holding that the recorded confrontation was PUBLIC, taking
into account that: a) The confrontation happened in a public place;
b) It took place in the presence of many other people.

-All these negate privacy.

Gaanan v. CA
-SC took note that the conversations between the lawyers were private. If it was
only meant to be heard to a specific person, then it is private.

-Had Pintor known that someone else was listening to the conversation, he
would not have proceeded with it. The intent of the speaker was taken into
consideration.

-Inadmissibility of any recording in violation of the Act only refers against the
person who did not consent to the recording, or whose right has been violated.
So that if the recording is presented against the violator, it is admissible.

Ramirez v. CA
-Involves 2 friends, or maybe not so. One day, they had a meeting, Garcia
lambasted Ramirez, calling her names, and unleashed her vilifying words against
Ramirez. Ramirez got offended and sued Garcia for damages arising from
defamation.

-Ramirez presented a recording of the altercation hoping to nail Garcia, but

ended up being nailed by it.

-Ramirez contended that she could not be liable since she was a party to the
conversation. SC disagreed saying that the literal language of the law says that
ANY person not being authorized is liable.

Rape Shield Protection Rule

SEC. 6. Rape Shield. — In prosecutions for rape, evidence of
complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/ her
reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that
the court

Sexual Abuse Shield Rule

Section 30. Sexual abuse shield rule. —
 a) Inadmissible evidence. — The following evidence is NOT
admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual
abuse:
1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged
in other sexual behavior; and
2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the
alleged victim.

b) Exception. — Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior

by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused
was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible.

Anti VAWC
SECTION 44. Confidentiality. — All records pertaining to cases of
violence against women and their children including those in the
barangay shall be confidential and all public or private clinics to
hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim.

Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act

-Prohibits taking of photo or video coverage of a person or group of
persons performing sexual act, or of a similar activity; capturing the
image of the individual’s private area under such circumstances
without the consent of the person and under such circumstances
wherein there is reasonable expectation of privacy.

-Covered:
a) the naked or undergarment clad genitals,
b) pubic area, with or without hair
c) buttocks or
d) female breast.

-The protection presupposes lack of consent on the part of the

persons concerned; or wherein there is reasonable expectation of
privacy.

-Other prohibited acts include the act of copying or reproducing, sale

or distribution, or possession of such recordings. Consent must be
given to each of the prohibited acts.

-Exclusionary rule only applies against the person whose rights have
been violated under the law. It is admissible against the violator of
the law subject to the following conditions:
 1) There should be a court order allowing the use of the recording;
2) Court is convinced it is necessary for the purposes of
prosecution and conviction of the law-offender or if necessary, in the
prevention of the commission of further similar acts.

-This is unlike in any other exclusionary rules that does not require a
prior court order in order to use the evidence against the violator

-Does the Act protect crime? Is there privacy in crime? There’s

nothing in the law that remotely distinguishes so long as the video
was taken without the consent of the persons concerned,
inadmissible. In the same manner that an illegally intercepted
conversation is still protected

-Reason for the restrictions: This is a sensitive material that is not

supposed to be exposed to the public

Human Security Act

-Provides the exception by allowing certain communications to be
legally intercepted, overheard or recorded. This applies in a situation
wherein the communication is made between persons or
organizations which are judicially declared an outlawed terrorist, or
any person suspected or charged with terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism

-This can only be done if authorized by an order issued by an

appropriate division of the CA. It has a lifespan of 30 days, renewable
for another 30 days. Take note of the subject of the surveillance:
a) Judicially declared outlawed terrorist organizations
b) Those suspected of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism;

-Terrorism is committed when a person or group of persons commit

an act causing widespread panic and extraordinary fear upon the
populace to compel the government to give in to unlawful demands.

-This law also provides for exceptions to the so-called authorized

surveillance. There are certain types of communications which
cannot be the subject of a CA-authorized wire-tapping:
a) Lawyer-Client;
b) Physician-Patient;
c) Journalist-Sources;
d) Business correspondence.
-These are still privileged communication that must be protected. It
would appear from the literal language of the law that any
communication is protected regardless of tenor. But juxtaposed with
the privileged communication rule, while their communication is
indeed by professional confidentiality, it is far from being absolute.

-This does not protect illegitimate or illegal communication. It only

covers conversations which are relevant for the purpose of the
professional engagement.

-Take note that the exclusionary rule imposes a positive command,

makes any recorded conversation inadmissible absolutely against
ANY person

Data Privacy Act

-This generally regulates the gathering, processing, use and
disclosure of personal data of individuals. This covers any person or
entities that process personal information.

-Examples
a) Academic institutions;
b) Banks;
c) Companies hiring employees, among others

-GR: The processing of personal information shall NOT be allowed,

subject to exceptions.

-Personal Data is any information from which

a) The identity of an individual is apparent; or
b) The identity can be ascertained; or
c) If put together with other information will directly and
certainly identify an individual.

-Sensitive personal information includes the individual’s:

a) Race, ethnic origin, marital status, age, color, and
religious, philosophical or political affiliations;
b) health, education, genetic or sexual life of a person;
c) social security numbers, previous or cm-rent health
records, licenses or its denials, suspension or revocation, and tax
return.
 -Privileged information refers to any and all forms of data which
under the Rules of Court and other pertinent laws constitute
privileged communication
1. Lawyer-Client;
2. Physician-Patient;
3. Journalist-Sources;
4. Priest-Penitent;
5. Business correspondence

-NOT COVERED are:

1. Information about any individual who is or was an officer or
employee of a government institution that relates to the position or
functions of the individual.
2. Information about an individual who is or was performing
service under contract for a government institution;
3. Information relating to any discretionary benefit of a financial
nature such as granting a license or permit given by the government
4. Personal information processed for journalistic, artistic, literary
or research purposes;
5. Information necessary in order to carry out the functions of
public authority;
6. Information necessary for banks and other financial institution;
7. Personal information originally collected from residents of
foreign jurisdiction.

-GR: The processing of sensitive personal information and privileged

information shall NOT be allowed.
-XPN:
1) With the consent of data subject — evidenced by a written or
orally recorded consent
2) The processing is necessary to protect the health and life of
the data subject or any person and the data subject is incapable of
giving his consent
3) When necessary for medical purposes;
4) When required by existing laws;
5) When necessary to protect one’s rights and interests in court
proceedings.

-The Act affords some rights to the data subject, such as the right to
be forgotten.
 -Take note of the extended privileged communication. Privileged
communication can only be invoked by the holder, in this case, the
data subject. However, under Sec 15 of the Act, Personal information
controllers may invoke the principle of privileged communication
over privileged information that they lawfully control or process.

-Subject to existing laws and regulations, any evidence gathered on

privileged information is inadmissible.

-Although it provides penalties for violations against processing of

personal and sensitive personal information, it does not speak of the
admissibility or inadmissibility of these information when illegally
procured.

-The law is conspicuous by its silence

EVIDENCE VIOLATOR VICTIM

ADMISSIBLE
AGAINST
Wiretapping Act Y X
Anti-photo and Video Y X
Voyeurism Act
Human security Act X X
Data Privacy Act Privileged Info X

E. Documentary Evidence (Rule 130, B)

Section 2. Documentary evidence. - Documents as evidence consist of
writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include
still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.

1. Definition
-Consist of writings, recordings, photographs, or any material
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their
equivalent, or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of
their contents [Sec. 2, Rule 130]. If offered for some other purpose,
they constitute object evidence.

-Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray

films, motion pictures or videos [Sec. 2, Rule 130].
 Tape-recording as documentary evidence
If a tape recording is played to show that particular words were
uttered, it will constitute documentary evidence. However, if it is
played to simply show the words were uttered in a particular accent,
the it is object evidence.

Q: May a private document be offered and admitted in evidence both as

documentary evidence and object evidence?

A: Yes. Depending on the purpose for which the document is offered. If offered to
prove its existence, conditions or for any purpose other than the contents of a
document, the same is considered as an object evidence. When the private
document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is considered as
documentary evidence. The document may be offered for both purposes under the
principle of multiple admissibility.

-REQUISITES
1. The document must be relevant;
2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The document must be authenticated by a competent witness;
4. The document must be formally offered in evidence

Q: When L died, her common-law husband, Lito and their alleged daughter, N,
executed an extrajudicial partition of L’s estate. Thereafter, the siblings of L filed
an action for partition of L’s estate and annulment of titles and damages with the
RTC. The RTC dismissed the complaint and ruled that N was the illegitimate
daughter of the decedent and L based solely on her birth certificate, which on
closer examination, reveals that N was listed as “adopted” by both L and Lito. Is
the trial court correct?

A: No. A record of birth is merely a prima facie evidence of the facts contained
therein. It is not conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the statements therein
by the interested parties. N should have adduced evidence of her adoption, in view
of the contents of her birth certificate. The mere registration of a child in his or her
birth certificate as the child of the supposed parents is not a valid adoption, does
not confer upon the child the status of an adopted child and the legal rights of such
child, and even amounts to simulation of the child’s birth or falsification on his or
her birth certificate, which is a public document.

-Theory of indivisibility (Rule on Completeness)

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.

2. Original Document Rule

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following
cases:

-GR: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document,

writing, recording, photograph, or other record, no evidence is
admissible other than the original document itself

-XPN:
1. When the original is lost, or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the

party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained
by local judicial processes or procedures;

3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other

documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of
time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole.

4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public

officer or is recorded in a public office; and

5. When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue.

-Where the issue is only as to whether such a document was actually

executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution or delivery (external facts), the original
document rule does not apply, and testimonial evidence is
admissible.

-The original document rule, applied to documentary evidence,

operates as a rule of exclusion, that is, secondary evidence cannot
 be inceptively introduced as the original writing itself must be
produced in court, except in the instances mentioned in Sec. 3.

-Reason underlying adoption of original document rule.

There is a need to present to the court the exact words of a writing
where a slight variation of words may mean a great difference in
rights. It is also for the prevention of fraud or mistake in proof of the
contents of a writing.

Q: D was arrested in a buy-bust operation and confiscated from him 10 sachets

of shabu and several marked genuine peso bills worth P5K used as the buy-bust
money during the buy-bust operation. At the trial of D, the prosecution offered in
evidence, among others, photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso
bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that D had engaged at the time of
his arrest in the illegal selling of shabu. Invoking the Original Document Rule
Atty. M, the defense counsel, objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of
the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. Should the trial judge sustain the
objection of the defense counsel?

A: No. The original document rule applies only to documentary evidence, not to
object evidence or testimonial evidence. The presentation at the trial of the
“buy-bust money” is not indispensable to the conviction of the accused
especially if the sale of dangerous drugs had been adequately proved by the
testimony of the police officers. So long as the drug actually sold by the accused
had been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to produce the marked money itself
would not constitute a fatal omission.

Section 4. Original of document. —

(a) An "original" of a document is the document itself or any
counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing
or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or
any print therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar device,
any printout or other output readable by sight or other means, shown
to reflect the data accurately, is an "original."

-Original — The document itself or any counterpart intended to

have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it.

-An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print

therefrom
 -If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or
other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the
data accurately, is an “original”

(b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same

impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of
photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the
original.

Duplicate—counterpart produced by:

• The same impression as the original, or from the same matrix;
• Means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures;
• Mechanical or electronic recording;
• Chemical reproduction; or
• Other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the
original [Sec. 4(b), Rule 130].

(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original

unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to
admit the duplicate in lieu of the original

General Rule: A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an

original
Exceptions:
1. A general question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original; or
2. In the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit
the duplicate in lieu of the original

-Carbon copies are deemed duplicate

-Writings with identical contents made by printing, mimeographing,

lithography and other similar methods executed at the same time are
considered as original document. Thus, each newspaper sold in the
stand is an original.

-Production of the original may be dispensed with if, in the trial

court’s discretion, the opponent
(1) does not dispute the contents of such document and
 (2) no other useful purpose will be served by the production.

-Secondary evidence of the contents of the writing would be received

in evidence if no objection was made to its reception.

WHEN APPLICABLE –
1. The original document of the writing is the writing itself;
2. The contents of which is the subject of the inquiry; and
3. The original document must be produced if the purpose is to prove
its contents.

-When the truth of the document is in issue and not the contents
thereof, the original document rule is not applicable. In such cases,
it is the hearsay rule that will apply. Where the issue is the execution
or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its
execution, the original document rule does not apply and testimonial
evidence is admissible.

When Not Applicable –

1. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually
executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule (now original
document rule) does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise
admissible without need for accounting for the original

2. Affidavits and depositions are considered as not being the best

evidence, hence not admissible if the affiants or deponents are
available as witnesses

3. The best evidence rule (now original document rule) does not
apply to all types of evidence. It does not comprehend object and
testimonial evidence

COLLATERAL FACTS RULE –

-A document or writing which is merely “collateral” to the issue
involved in the case on trial need not be proved. Where the purpose
of presenting a document is not to prove its contents, but merely to
give coherence to, or to make intelligible the testimony of a witness
regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, the original of the
document need not be presented.

3. Secondary Evidence
-Evidence other than the original instrument or document itself. It is
the class of evidence that is relevant to the fact in issue, it being
first shown that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable. It
performs the same functions as that of primary evidence.

-A party must first present to the court proof of loss or other

satisfactory explanation for the non-production of the original
instrument. When more than one original copy exists, it must appear
that all of them have been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in
court before the secondary evidence can be given.

-The non-production of the original document, unless it falls under

any of the exception, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of
evidence.

Requisites BEFORE THE CONTENTS OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

MAY BE PROVED BY SECONDARY EVIDENCE (LAYING THE BASIS) –
-Offeror must prove the following:
1. The execution or existence of the original document;
- Due execution of the document should be proved through
the testimony of either:
1. The person or persons who executed it;
2. The person before whom its execution was
acknowledged; or
3. Any person who was present and saw it executed and
delivered, or who, after its execution and delivery, saw it and
recognized the signatures, or by a person to whom the parties to the
instruments had previously confessed the execution thereof

2. The cause of its unavailability; and

- When more than one original copy exists, it must appear
that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A
photocopy may not be used without accounting for the other
originals

3. The unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on his

part.
- The general rule concerning proof of a lost instrument is,
that reasonable search shall be made for it in the place where it was
last known to have been, and, if such search does not discover it,
then inquiry should be made of persons most likely to have its
custody, or who have some reasons to know of its whereabouts
-Accordingly, the correct order of proof is as follows: existence,
execution, loss and contents. This order may be changed, if
necessary, at the sound of discretion of the court.

-Intentional destruction of the original by a party who acted in good

faith does not preclude the introduction of secondary evidence of the
contents thereof

-Proof of loss or destruction, may be proved by:

1. Any person who knew of such fact;
2. Anyone who, in the judgment of the court, had made sufficient
examination in the places where the document or papers of similar
character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the
document was and has been unable to find it; or
3. Any person who has made any other investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed lost.

-A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient, and this may be

shown by a bona fide and diligent search, fruitlessly made, in places
where it is likely to be found.

-All duplicates or counterparts of a lost or destroyed document must

be accounted for before using copies thereof since all duplicates are
parts of the writing to be proved.

-When a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a

martial union. It is not regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence
of marriage. Jurisprudence teaches the fact that marriage may be
proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate.
Hence, even a person’s birth certificate may be recognized as
competent evidence of marriage between parents.

ORDER OF PRESENTATION OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE –

Section 5. When original document is unavailable. - When the original
document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may
prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated
-Upon proof if its execution and loss of the original document, its
contents may be proved by the following, in the order stated:
1. Copy of the original
2. Recital of the contents of the document in some authentic
document; or
3. Testimony of witnesses

-In order that secondary evidence may be admissible, there must be

proof by satisfactory evidence of:
1. Due execution of the original;
2. Loss, destruction, or unavailability of all such originals; and
3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or
attempt to produce the original

Definite Evidentiary Rule –

-Where the law specifically provides for the class and quantum of
secondary evidence to establish the contents of a document, or bars
secondary evidence of a lost document, such requirement is
controlling,

-Example: evidence of a lost notarial will should consist of a

testimony of at least two credible witnesses who can clearly and
distinctly establish its contents.

-Presentation or offer of the original may be waived upon failure to

object by the party against whom the secondary evidence is offered
when the same was presented, as the secondary evidence becomes
primary evidence. But even if admitted as primary evidence,
admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative
value.

Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or

control. - If the document is in the custody or under the control of the
adverse party, he or she must have reasonable notice to produce it.
If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or
she fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be
presented as in the case of its loss

-Requisites:
1. Original exists;
2. Said document is under the custody or control of adverse party;
3. Proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse party
reasonable notice to produce the original document;
 -No particular form of notice is required, to be given to the
adverse party, as long as it fairly appraises the other party as to
what papers are desired. Even an oral demand in open court for such
production at a reasonable time thereafter will suffice. Such notice
must, however, be given to the adverse party, or his attorney, even if
the document is in the actual possession of a third person.

-Notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of

the original or made in an open court in the presence of the adverse
party, or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in
custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the same.
When such party has the original of the writing and does not
voluntarily offer to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted.

4. Adverse party failed to produce the original document despite

the reasonable notice.
-A justified refusal or failure of the adverse party to produce
the original document will not give rise to the presumption of
suppression of evidence or create an unfavorable inference against
him. It only authorizes the presentation of secondary evidence.

-The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or
control of the party against whom it is offered does not warrant the
admission of secondary evidence. The offeror must prove that he has
done all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to
the said party to produce the document.

Q: P filed a complaint against L for the recovery of a sum of money based on

promissory note. During the hearing, P testified that the original note was with L
and the latter would not surrender to P the original note which L kept in a place
about one day’s trip from where she received the notice to produce the note and
despite such notice to produce the same within 6 hours from receipt of such
notice, L failed to do so. P presented a copy of the note which was executed at
the same time as the original and with identical contents. Over the objection of
L, can P present a copy of the PN and have it admitted as valid evidence in her
favor?

A: Yes. Although the failure of L to produce the original of the note is excusable
since she was not given reasonable notice, a requirement under the Rules before
secondary evidence may be presented, the copy in possession of P is not a
secondary evidence but a duplicate original because it was executed at the
same time as the original and with identical contents. Hence, being an original,
the rule on secondary evidence need not be complied with.

Section 7. Summaries. - When the contents of documents, records,

photographs, or numerous accounts 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
of such evidence may be presented in the form of a chart, summary,
or calculation.

The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both,

by the adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may
order that they be produced in court

-When the contents of documents, records, photographs or numerous

accounts 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 of such evidence may be
presented in the form of a chart, summary or calculation.

-A witness may be allowed to offer a summary of documents or

summary of the contents may be admitted if documents are so
voluminous and intricate as to make an examination of all of them
impracticable. They may also be in the form of charts or calculations

-Requisites:
1. Original must consist of numerous accounts or documents;
2. They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time or
inconvenient.

-Court may admit a summary of voluminous original documents, in

lieu of the original documents, if the party has shown that the underlying
writings are numerous and that an in-court examination of these
documents would be inconvenient. The rule does away with item-by-
item court identification and authentication of voluminous exhibits
which would only be burdensome and tedious for the parties and the
court.

-However, as a condition precedent to the admission of a

summary of numerous documents, the proponent must lay a proper
foundation for the admission of the original documents on which the
summary is based. The proponent must prove that the source
documents being summarized are also admissible if presented in court.
In concrete terms, the source must be shown to be original and not
secondary.

Section 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public

record. — When the original of a document is in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be
proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
thereof.

-When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or

recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a
certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

-The contents may proved by:

1. A certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof
2. Official publication

-Public records are generally not to be removed from the places

where they are recorded and kept. Hence, proof of the contents of a
document which forms part of a public record may be done by
secondary evidence.

Section 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A
party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the
same is not obliged to offer it as evidence

-When a document produced is not offered in evidence. If the party

who calls for the production of a document does not offer the same
in evidence, no unfavorable inference may be drawn from such
failure. This is because a party who calls for the production of a
document is not required to offer it.

Sec 9, Rule 130 Rule 127

Procured by mere notice to the The production of document is in
adverse party, which is a the nature of a mode of discovery
condition precedent for the and can be sought only by proper
subsequent introduction of motion in the trial court and is
secondary evidence by the permitted only upon good cause
proponent. shown.
Presupposes that the document to Contemplates a situation wherein
be produced is intended as the document is either assumed
evidence for the proponent who is to be favorable to the party in
presumed to have knowledge of possession thereof or that the
its contents party seeking its production is not
sufficient informed of the contents
of the same.

Secondary evidence may be presented upon proof of

execution/existence and cause of lost.
According to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence,
when the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may
prove its contents by presenting secondary evidence. This secondary
evidence pertains to: (1) a copy of the lost document, (2) by a recital of
the contents of the lost document in some authentic document, or (3) by
a testimony of a witnesses, in the order stated. Hence, in order for
respondent, CAMACOP to prove the existence and contents of the
purportedly lost Deed of Sale, it was incumbent upon it to present either
(1) a copy of the purported Deed of Sale, or (2) an authentic document
containing a recital of the contents of the purported Deed of Sale, or (3)
a witness who can testify as to the existence and contents of the
purported Deed of Sale, in that order. Heir of Pastora T. Cardenas and
Eustaquio Cardenas vs. The Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222614, March 20, 2019

Secondary evidence may be introduced by testimony of those familiar

with the fact in issue.
Millonte submitted a Certification indicating the fact of death of
Ambrosio, one of the purported vendors. Likewise, she presented
Certifications stating that the death certificates of Pantaleona, Lucio,
Marcelo, and Eleuteria could not be produced or located due to the fire
during the war, which burned the records of the Local Civil Registrar of
Tanauan. Moreover, the testimonies of Rolando and Florentino, and even
Millonte herself, established that Lucio, Ambrosio, and Eleuteria passed
away many years before 1970, when the Deed of Absolute Sale was
allegedly executed. As relatives of the deceased, their information was
derived from their personal experiences or conversations with those
who knew or were familiar with the Gonzaga siblings. In view of these,
Millonte's resort to secondary evidence was proper, as the original
documents (the death certificates of the other Gonzaga siblings) were
unavailable because these were destroyed by the fire. Hence, the
deaths of the Gonzagas, the supposed contracting parties, prior to the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale were sufficiently established.
City of Tanauan vs. Millonte, G.R. No. 219292, June 28, 2021, J.
Hernando

Secondary evidence may be admitted if the terms of a writing are not in

issue.
The Best Evidence Rule (now, the Original Document Rule) applies only
when the terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to
be introduced concerns external facts, such as the existence,
execution, or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the
Original Document Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary
evidence may be admitted even without accounting for the original.
Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina
Clave, G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013

4. Parol Evidence Rule

Section 10. 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, as 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 the written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a
verified 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.

-It is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence) which is intended or

tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement
embodied in a document. It may refer to testimonial, real or
documentary evidence.
-Parol evidence is evidence outside of the agreement of the parties
while parol evidence rules prevents the presentation of such parol
evidence.

-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,
as between the parties and their successor-in-interest, no evidence
of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

-Among the evidentiary rules, it is the parol evidence rule that has
direct application to the law on contracts. The rule applies only to
contracts while the parties have decided to set forth in writing.
Hence, parol evidence does not apply to oral contracts.

-Rationale: When the parties have reduced their agreement in writing

it is presumed that they made such writing as the repository of all
terms of the agreement, and whatever is not found in the said writing
must be considered as waived and abandoned.

-Condition precedent may be established by parol evidence because

there is no varying of the terms of the written contract by extrinsic
agreement because there is no contract in existence. There is
nothing in which to apply the excluding rule. Conditions
subsequently may not be established by parol evidence since a
written contract already exists.

-The present rule now requires that the admissibility of subsequent

agreements be conditioned upon its being put in issue.

REQUISITEs FOR APPLICATION OF THE RULE –

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

-Parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not be properly invoked,
by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one
party to the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written
instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right
originating in the instrument of the relation established thereby.
Thus, if one of the parties to the case is a complete stranger to the
contract involved therein, he is not bound by this rule and can
introduce extrinsic evidence against the efficacy of the writing.

-Parol evidence rule applies to agreements, i.e., contractual

obligations. However, the term “agreement” includes wills.
Therefore, there can be no evidence of the terms of the will other
than the contents of the will itself.

-While parol evidence applies to wills, an express trust concerning an

immovable or any interest therein may not be proved by parol
evidence.

WHEN PAROL EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED –

-A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms
of the written agreement if he puts in issue in a verified pleading the
following: (FIVE)
1. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of
the parties thereto;
2. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement;
3. Validity of the written agreement; or
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in the interest after the execution of the written
agreement.

MISTAKE – the mistake contemplated is one which is a mistake of

fact mutual to both parties.

-Even when a document appears on its face to be a sale, the owner

of the property may prove that the contract is really a loan with
mortgage by raising as an issue the fact that the document does not
express the true intent of the parties. In this case, parol evidence
then becomes competent and admissible to prove that the
instrument was in truth and fact given merely as a security for the
repayment of a loan.

KINDS OF AMBIGUITIES
INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC OR INTERMEDIATE
LATENT PATENT
On its face, the Ambiguity is Ambiguity consists in
writing appears apparent on the the use of equivocal
clear and face of the writing words susceptible of
unambiguous but and requires that two or more
there are collateral something to be interpretation
matters which make added to make the
the meaning meaning certain.
uncertain.
Curable by evidence Cannot be cured by Curable by evidence
aliunde. evidence aliunde aliunde
because it is only
intrinsic not
extrinsic ambiguity
which serves as an
exception to the
parol evidence rule.
Where the document Where the contract Use of terms such as
refers to a particular refers to an “dollars” “tons” and
person or thing but unidentified grantee “ounces”
there are two or or does not
more persons having particularly identify
the same name or the subject matter
two or more things thereof such that, in
to which the either case the text
description in the does not disclose
writing may apply. who are or what is
referred to.

FAILURE OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO EXPRESS THE TRUE

INTENT OF THE PARTIES
-Parol evidence may be admitted to show the true consideration of
the contract, or the want or illegality thereof, or the incapacity of the
parties, or the fact that the contract was fictitious or absolutely
simulated, or that there was fraud in inducement. Despite the
meeting of the minds, the true agreement of the parties is not
reflected in the instrument.

-In an action for reformation of instrument, the plaintiff may

introduce parol evidence to show the real intention of the parties. An
action for reformation presupposes that a meeting of the minds
exists between the parties, i.e., there is a contract between them
although the instrument that evidences the contract does not reflect
the true agreement of the parties by reason of, for instance, fraud or
mistake.
Q: P filed a complaint against L for the recovery of sum of money based on a PN.
P alleged in her complaint that although the PN says that it is payable within 120
days, the truth is that the note is payable immediately after 90 days but that if P
is willing, she may, upon request of L give the latter up to 120 days to pay the
note. During the hearing, P testified that the truth is that the agreement between
her and L is for the latter to pay immediately after 90 days time. Also, since the
original note was with L and the latter would not surrender to P the original note
which L kept in a place about one day’s travel from where she received the
notice to produce the note and in spite of such notice to produce the same
within 6 hours from receipt of such notice, L failed to do so. P presented a copy
of the note which was executed at the same time as the original and with
identical contents. Over the objection of L, will P be allowed to testify as to the
true agreement or contents of the promissory note?

A: Yes. As on exception to the parol evidence rule, a party may present evidence
to modify explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue
in his pleading the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties thereto. Here, P has alleged in her complaint that
the promissory note does not express the true intent and agreement of the
parties. Parol evidence rule may be admitted to show the true consideration of
the contract.

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Not available or there is a dispute as Presupposes that the original
to whether said writing is original document is available in court
Prohibits the introduction of Prohibits the varying of the terms of a
secondary evidence in lieu of the written agreement
original document regardless of
whether it varies the contents of the
original
Applies to all kinds of writings Applies only to agreements
(contracts) and wills.
Can be invoked by any party to an Can be invoked only when the
action whether he has participated in controversy is between the parties to
the writing involved the written agreement, their privies,
or any party affected thereby like a
cestui que trust.

-Failure to invoke the benefits of the rule constitutes as waiver of the rule.
Inadmissible evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to object.
 -Even if the parol evidence is admitted, it does not mean that the court would
give probative value to the parol evidence. Admissibility is not the equivalent of
probative value or credibility.

-Considering the agreement’s mistake, imperfection or supposed failure to

express the parties’ true intent was successfully put in issue in the complaint,
this case falls under the exceptions. Accordingly, the testimonial and
documentary parol evidence sought to be introduced, which attest to these
supposed flaws and what they aver to have been the parties’ true intent, may be
admitted and considered. However, this admission and availability for
consideration is no guarantee of how exactly the parol evidence adduced shall
be appreciated by the court. They do ot gurantee the probative value, if any, that
shall be attached to them.

Parol Evidence Rule is related to the “Plain Meaning Rule” and “Four Corners
Rule”.
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a
written instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or
before the execution of the parties' written agreement, other or different terms
were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.
Related to this is the plain meaning rule and the four corners rule. The cardinal
rule in the interpretation of contracts is embodied in the first paragraph of
Article 1370 of the Civil Code: if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control. This provision is akin to the "plain meaning rule",
which assumes that the intent of the parties to an instrument is embodied in the
writing itself, and when the words are clear and unambiguous the intent is to be
discovered only from the express language of the agreement. It also resembles
the "four corners" rule, a principle which allows courts in some cases to search
beneath the semantic surface for clues to meaning. A court's purpose in
examining a contract is to interpret the intent of the contracting parties, as
objectively manifested by them. The process of interpreting a contract requires
the court to make a preliminary inquiry as to whether the contract before it is
ambiguous. If the contract is determined to be ambiguous, then the
interpretation of the contract is left to the court, to resolve the ambiguity in the
light of the intrinsic evidence. Bacala vs. Heirs of Poliño, G.R. No. 200608,
February 10, 2021, J. Hernando

F. Testimonial Evidence (Rule 130, C)

-Testimonial or oral evidence is an evidence elicited from the mouth of a witness.
It is sometimes called viva voce evidence which literally means “living voice” or
by word of mouth. In this kind of evidence, a human being (witness) is called to
the stand, is asked questions, and answers the question asked of him.
-A witness is one who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing, a
beholder, spectator or eyewitness. One who testifies to what he has seen or
heard, or otherwise observed [Herrera citing Black’s Law Dictionary]

1. Qualifications of Witnesses
Section 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. - All persons who can perceive,
and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be
witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or

conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a
ground for disqualification.

Basic Qualifications of a Witness

1. He/she can perceive
• Corollary to perception is that the witness must have personal
knowledge of the facts surrounding the subject matter of his testimony
[Sec. 22, Rule 130]

2. He/she can make known his perception

• This means that he/she must have the ability to remember and
communicate the remembered perception
3. He/she must take an oath or affirmation [Sec. 1, Rule 132]
4. He/she must not possess any of the disqualifications

-A deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as he/she has the

faculty to make observations and he/she can make those observations
known to others

-Parties declared in default are not disqualified from taking the witness
stand for non-disqualified parties. The law does not provide default as an
exception

-There is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a

party to present some form of authorization to testify as a witness for the
party presenting him or her

-There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default

from taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties.

-It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses

but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a single witness, if
positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge
of murder.

-The number of witnesses does not determine the outcome of the case. A
positive identification will prevail over the defense of alibi, the latter being
considered a weaker defense since it can be easily fabricated.

-Drug abuse will not render a person incompetent to testify. Drug abuses
becomes relevant only if the witness was under the influence of drugs at
the time he is testifying.

-The relationship of a witness with a party does not ipso facto render him a
biased witness in a criminal case and likewise in a civil case.

-Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that do not

relate to the elements of the offense are too inconsequential to warrant a
reversal of the trial court’s judgement of conviction. Also, the defenses of
denial and frame-up must be substantiated with clear and convincing
evidence; otherwise, the same cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

Presumption of competency of a witness

GR: A person who takes the witness stand, is presumed to be qualified to
testify. A party who desires to question the competence of a witness must
do so by making an objection as soon as the facts tending to show
incompetency are apparent.

A prospective witness must show that he has the following abilities:

1. To observe – the testimonial quality of perception
2. To remember – the testimonial quality of memory;
3. To relate – the testimonial quality of narration; and
4. To recognize a duty to tell the truth – the testimonial quality of
sincerity.

XPNs: There is prima facie evidence of incompetency in the following:

1. The fact that a person has been recently found of unsound mind by a
court of competent jurisdiction; or
2. That one is an inmate of an asylum.

When Determined
-Qualification of a witness is determined at the time the said witness is
produced for examination or at the taking of their depositions.
-With respect to children of tender years, competence at the time of the
occurrence is also taken into account.

Burden of proof
Upon the party objecting to the competency of a witness to establish the
ground of incompetency

Remedy for Errors or Questions on Competence

Appeal, not certiorari, is the proper remedy for the correction of any error
as to the competency of a witness committed by an inferior court in the
course of the trial

Credibility of a Witness
-A testimony must not only come from a credible witness, but must be
credible in itself, tested by human experience, observation, common
knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.

-Credibility has nothing to do with the law or the rules. It refers to the
weight and trustworthiness or reliability of the testimony

-Mental unsoundness of the witness which occurred at the time of taking

his testimony, affects only his credibility. Nevertheless, as long as the
witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently
intelligent answers to questions propounded, she is a competent witness
even if she is feeble-minded or is a mental retardate or is a schizophrenic.

-GR: Questions concerning the credibility of a witness are best addressed

to the sound discretion of the trial court as it is in the best position to
observe his demeanor and bodily movements
-XPNs:
1. The lower court has reached a conclusion that are clearly
unsupported by evidence; or
2. It has overlooked some facts or circumstances of weight and
influence which, if considered, would affect the result of the case.

COMPETENCY OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS

Refers to the basic qualifications of Refers to the believability of a
a witness. witness
It is a matter of law or a matter of Refers to the weight and
rule. trustworthiness or the reliability of
the testimony.
It also includes the absence of any
 of the disqualifications imposed
upon a witness

GR: Discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit

and those made by him or her on the witness stand do not necessarily
discredit him or her because it is a matter of judicial experience that an
affidavit, being taken ex parte, is almost always incomplete and often
inaccurate.

XPN: The credibility of witnesses will be impaired if:

1. The omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail of the
incident that one relating the incident as an eyewitness would not be
expected to fail to mention; or
-The point of inquiry is whether the omission is important or
substantial.
2. When the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts
the testimony in court

-It is a jurisprudentially conceded rule that it is against human nature for a

young girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her
family to a lifetime of shame, especially when her charge could mean the
death or lifetime imprisonment of her own father. AAA was without a doubt
telling the truth when she declared that her father raped her. The attempt
to discredit the testimony of AAA by the accused deserves no merit. When
credibility is in issue, the Court generally defers to the findings of the trial
court considering that it was in a better position to decide the question,
having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment
during trial. Here, there is nothing from the records that would impel this
Court to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial court as
affirmed by the CA.

2. Disqualifications of Witnesses
Effect of Interest in the Subject Matter
-A person is not disqualified by reason of his interest in the subject matter
-Interest only affects credibility, not competency.

Effect of Relationship
General Rule: Mere relationship does not impair credibility
Exception: To warrant rejection, it must be clearly shown that
a. Testimony was inherently improbable or defective
b. Improper/evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate falsely
-Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity (previously
Sec. 21, Rule 130) and disqualification by reason of death or insanity of
adverse party aka Dead Man’s Statute (previously Sec. 23, Rule 130) have
been deleted in the 2019 Revisions.

In Case Person Is Convicted of a Crime

General Rule: Not disqualified. The fact that a witness has been convicted
of felony is a circumstance to be taken into consideration as affecting his
character and credibility
Exception: Otherwise provided by law, e.g. under Art. 821 of the Civil Code,
a person convicted of any of the following crimes cannot be a witness to a
will
a. Falsification of documents,
b. Perjury; or
c. False testimony

ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION RELATIVE DISQUALIFICATION

The proposed witness is prohibited The proposed witness is prohibited
to take the witness stand. to testify only on certain matters
due to interest or relationship, or to
privileges of other parties.
Disqualification by reason of Disqualification by reason of
marriage privilege communication.

a) Disqualification by Reason of Marriage (Marital disqualification Rule)

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage. - During their
marriage, the husband or the wife cannot testify against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants.

Rationale
a. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
b. If one were to testify against the other, there is a consequent
danger of perjury;
c. Policy of the law is to guard the security and confidence of
private life, and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
d. Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of
punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other
Requisites
1. The spouse against whom the testimony of the other is offered
is a party to the case;
2. That the spouses are legally married (valid until annulled)
3. That the testimony is offered during the existence of the
marriage; and
4. That the case is not by one against the other

Exceptions
1. Consent is given by the party-spouse;
2. In a civil case filed by one against the other;
3. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or latter’s direct descendants or ascendants;
4. Where the testimony was made after the dissolution of the
marriage; or
5. Where the spouse-party fails to raise the disqualifications, it is
deemed a waiver.

Waiver of spousal immunity

Objections to the competency of a husband or wife to testify in a
criminal prosecution against the other may be waived as in the case
of the other witnesses generally. Thus, the accused waives his or
her privilege by calling the other spouse as a witness for him or her.
It is also true that objection to the spouse’s competency must be
made when he or she is first offered as witness, and that the
incompetency may be waived by failure of the accused to make
timely objection to the admission of the spouse’s testimony,
although knowing of such incompetency, and the testimony is
admitted.

Extent of prohibition
The prohibition extends not only to a testimony adverse to the
spouse but also to a testimony in favor of the spouse. It also extends
to both criminal and civil cases and not only consists of utterances
but also the production of documents.

Duration
General Rule: During their marriage
Exception: Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained
that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and
tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such
harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests
disappears, and the consequent danger of perjury based on that
identity is non-existent

Scope of Rule
The rule also includes utterance as to facts or mere production of
documents. It does not only prevent disclosure of matters
communicated in nuptial confidence but is an absolute prohibition
against the spouse’s testifying to any facts affecting the other
however these facts may have been acquired

Who can claim spousal immunity

The privilege to object may be claimed only by the spouse-party and
not the other spouse who is offered as a witness.

Testimony where spouse is accused with others

The spouse could testify in a murder case against the other co-
accused who were jointly tried with the accused-spouse. This
testimony cannot, however, be used against the accused-spouse
directly or through the guise of taking judicial notice of the
proceedings in the murder case without violating the martial
disqualification rule, if the testimony is properly objected.

Marrying the witness

An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a witness by marrying
the witness. As lon as a valid marriage is in existence at the time of
the trial, the witness-spouse cannot be compelled to testify – even
where the crime charged is against the witness’ person, and even
though the marriage was entered into for the express purpose of
suppressing the testimony.

Waiver of Disqualification
If one spouse imputes the commission of a crime against the other,
the latter may testify against the former

Spouses as Co-accused
The other cannot be called as an adverse party witness under this
Rule
Q: I was estranged from her husband B for more than a year due to B’s suspicion
that she was having an affair with J, their neighbor. I was temporarily living with
her sister in Pasig. For unknown reasons, the house of I’s sister was burned,
killing the latter. I survived and saw her husband in the vicinity during the
incident. Later, B was charged with arson in an information filed with the RTC,
Pasig. During the trial, the prosecutor called I to the witness stand and offered
her testimony to prove that her husband committed arson. Can I testify over the
objection of her husband on the ground of marital privilege?

A: Yes. The marital disqualification rule is aimed at protecting the harmony and
confidences of marital relations. Hence, where the marital and domestic
relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor
peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the marital disqualification rule
no longer applies.

The act of B in setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law, knowing full well that
his wife was there, is an act totally alien to the harmony and confidences of
marital relation which the disqualification primarily seeks to protect. The
criminal act complained of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the
conjugal relation.

Q: A and B are legally married. A is charged in court with the crime of serious
physical injuries committed against C, son of B and step-son of A. Bianca
witnessed the infliction of the injuries on C by A. The public prosecutor called B
to the witness stand and offered her testimony as an eyewitness. Counsel for A
object on the ground of the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of Court.

1. Is the objection valid?

2. Will your answer be the same if B’s testimony is offered in a civil case for
recovery of personal property filed by C against A?

A: 1. No. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse, one exception is if the testimony of
the spouse is in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other
or the latter’s direct descendant or ascendants. Here, C is the direct descendant
of B, the wife of A. Hence, the testimony of B falls under the exception to the
marital disqualification rule.

2. No. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. One of the exceptions
to the marital disqualification rule is when the testimony is given in a civil case
by one spouse against the other. Here, the case involves a case by C for the
recovery of personal property against B’s spouse A.

b) Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communications; Rule on

Third Parties
Privilege
-A privilege is a rule of law that, to protect a particular relationship
or interest, either permits a witness to refrain from giving testimony
he otherwise could be compelled to give, or permits someone usually
one of the parties, to prevent the witness from revealing certain
information

-Privilege may only be invoked by the persons protected thereunder.

It may also be waived by the same persons, either impliedly or
expressly.

Scope of disqualification
Applies to both civil and criminal cases except doctor-patient
privilege, which is applicable only in civil cases. Unless waived,
disqualification remains even after the various relationships therein
have ceased to exist.

Rule on third parties

The communication shall remain privilege, even in the hands of a
third person who may have obtained the information, provided that
the original parties to the communication took reasonable
precaution to protect its confidentiality.

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications.

- The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,

cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during
the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the
latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

Husband and Wife

-Also known as marital privilege
-Rationale Confidential nature of the privilege; to preserve marital
and domestic relations
-Elements
1. The husband or the wife
2. During or after the marriage
3. Cannot be examined
4. Without the consent of the other
5. As to any communication received in confidence by one from
the other during the marriage

-Except: Spouse may testify against the other even without the
consent of the latter
1. In a civil case by one against the other, or
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants
3. Information acquired by a spouse before the marriage even if
received confidentially will not fall squarely within the privilege.

-A widow of a victim allegedly murdered may testify as to her

husband’s dying declaration as to how he died since the same was
not intended to be confidential

-Requisites for the application of marital privilege

1. Valid marriage;
2. Communication received in confidence by one from the other;
3. Confidential communication received during the marriage;
4. The spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has
not given his or her consent to such testimony

DISQUALIFICATION DISQUALIFICATION
BY REASON OF BY REASON OF
MARRIAGE MARITAL PRIVILEGE
WHEN CAN BE Only if one of the Can be claimed
INVOKED spouses is a party to whether the other
the action spouse is a party to
the action
Coverage Includes facts, Only to confidential
occurrences or information received
information even prior during the marriage
to the marriage
Duration Applies only if the Even after the
 marriage is existing marriage has been
at the time the dissolved
testimony is offered
Limitations Total prohibition Only to confidential
against any testimony communications
for or against the between the spouses
spouse of the witness
Can no longer be The spouse affected
invoked once the by the disclosure of
marriage is dissolved the information or
testimony may object
even after the
dissolution of the
marriage

Not affected by the

death of the other
spouse
In both cases, it is essential that the
marriage be valid in order to claim such
privilege.

Other items of communication overheard or in presence of third

parties
GR: Third persons who, without the knowledge of the spouses,
overhear the communication are not disqualified to testify.

XPN: When there is collusion and voluntary disclosure to a third

party, that third party becomes an agent and cannot testify.

Q: In June 1998, A told B that he killed C. After a year, A married B. Upon the
offer of testimony of B for the alleged killing of C.

a. Can A validly make an objection?

b. Suppose the testimony was offered at the time the marriage between A and
B was already terminated, can A still validly object, this time on the ground of
marital privilege rule?
c. Suppose the information received by B was communicated to A during their
marriage, can A validly object to the testimony of B if it was offered after the
dissolution of their marriage on the ground of marital disqualification rule?
A: a. Yes. Irrespective of the fact that B was informed of the killing before her
marriage to A, the testimony was offered during their marriage, which brings it
into the ambit of the marital disqualification rule.

b. No. The testimony even if confidential was not communicated to B during the
time of marriage, but before the marriage.

c. No. He can only object based on the marital disqualification rule if the
testimony was offered during their marriage and not to testimony offered after
the dissolution of the marriage. The proper objection must be based on marital
privilege rule, because such defense is applicable even after the dissolution of
marriage provided that the communication was made confidentially to B during
their marriage.

Q: J, an alien, was criminally charged of promoting and facilitating child

prostitution and other sexual abuses. The principal witness against him was his
Filipina wife, C. Earlier, she had complained that J’s hotel was being used as a
center for sex tourism and child trafficking. The defense counsel for J objected
to the testimony of C at the trial of the child prostitution case and the
introduction of the affidavits she executed against her husband as a violation of
spousal confidentiality and marital privilege rule. It turned out that P, the minor
daughter of C by her first husband was molested by J earlier. Thus, C had filed
for legal separation from J since last year. May the court admit the testimony
and affidavits of the wife, C, against her husband, J, in the criminal case
involving child prostitution?

A: Yes. If the testimony and affidavit of the wife are evidence used in the case
against her husband for child prostitution involving her daughter, the evidence
are admissible. The marital privilege communication rule, as well as the marital
disqualification rule, do not apply to and cannot be invoked in a criminal case
committed by a spouse against the direct descendants of the other.

Q: J filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to A on the ground of

psychological incapacity. He obtained a copy of the confidential psychiatric
evaluation report on his wife from the secretary of the psychiatrist. Can he
testify on the said report without offending the rule on privilege communication?

A: Yes. Under the privilege communication rule, the husband or the wife, during
or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to
any communication received in confidence by one from the other except during
the marriage except in civil cases filed by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by against the other or the latter’s direct
descendant or ascendant. In this case, A cannot prevent J from testifying
against her since the petition for declaration of nullity is a civil case filed by one
spouse against the other; hence, the rule on privileged communication between
spouses does not apply. J could testify on the confidential psychiatric evaluation
report of his wife that he obtained from the secretary of the psychiatrist, without
offending the rule on privileged communication.

(b) An attorney or person reasonably believed bv the client to be

licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the
consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made
by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the
course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an
attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons
assisting the attorney be examined without the consent of the client
and his or her employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity, except in the following cases

(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of

the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to
commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should
have known to be a crime or fraud;

(ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to a

communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim
through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims
are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;

(iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a

communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer
to his or her client, or by the client to his or her lawyer;

(iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a

communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested
document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or

(v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter

of common interest between two or more clients if the
communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or
consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of the
clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT

Requisites:
 1. There must be a communication made by the client to the
attorney, or and advice given by the attorney to his client;
2. The communication or advice must be given in confidence; and
3. The communication or advice must be given either in the
course of the professional employment or with a view of professional
employment.

-The rules of safeguarding privileged communications between

attorney and client shall apply to similar communications made to or
received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic.

-The privilege does not extend to:

a. communications where the client’s purpose is the furtherance
of a future intended crime or fraud, or
b. for the purpose of committing a crime or a tory, or
c. those made in furtherance of an illicit activity.

Purpose. To encourage full disclosure by client to her attorney of all

pertinent matters, so as to further the administration of justice.

Test in applying the attorney-client privilege.

-The test is whether the communications are made to an attorney with
a view of obtaining from him professional assistance or advice
regardless of whether there is a pending or merely impending litigation
or any litigation.

-The present rule do not require a perfected attorney-client relationship

for the privilege to exist. It is enough that the communication or advice
be “with a view to” professional employment.

-Further, the scope of this privilege is extended not only to the Attorney
but also to those persons reasonably believed by the client to be
licensed to engage in the practice of law.

Confidential communication
-Refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure
between atty and client in confidence and by means which, so far as
the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other
than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information
or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given.

Waiver of Atty-client privilege

-The privilege belongs to the client and if he waives the privilege, no
one else, including the atty can invoke it.

Doctrine of absolute privilege

-A communication is absolutely privilege when it is not actionable,
even if the author had acted in bad faith.

-Includes allegations or statements made by parties or their counsel in

pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial and
administrative proceedings, as well as answers given by the witness in
reply to questions propounded to them in the course of said
proceedings, provided that said allegations or statements are relevant
to the issues, and the answers are responsive to the questions
propounded to said witnesses.

-The absolute privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and

the presence of malice, if the statement are relevant, pertinent or
material to the cause in and or subject of the inquiry.

Communications not covered by the privilege

-If the communication is:
1. Intended to be made public;
2. Intended to be communicated to others;
3. Intended for an unlawful purpose;
-The privilege does not extend to communications where
the client’s purpose is the furtherance of a future intended crime or
fraud, or for the purpose of committing a crime or a tort, or those made
in furtherance of an illicit activity.
4. Received from third persons not acting in behalf or as agents of
the client; or
5. Made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the
attorney-client relationship

When applicable
1. Privilege is not confined to communications regarding actual
pending cases. It may also refer to anticipated litigations.
2. Communications may be oral or written but it is deemed to
extend to other forms of conduct, like physical demonstration;
3. The statement of the client need not be made to the attorney in
person. Those made to attorney’s secretary, clerk or stenographer for
purpose of professional relationship, or those knowledge acquired by
such employees in such capacity; and
4. In an action filed for payment of attorney’s fees or for damages
against the negligence of the attorney.

Elements
As regards an attorney or any person reasonably believed by the client
to be licensed to engage in the practice of law
1. Without the consent of his client
2. Cannot be examined as to a. Any communication made by the
client to him/her, or b. His/her advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment

As regards an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, clerk, or other

persons assisting the attorney
1. Without the consent of the client and his/her employer
2. Cannot be examined
3. Concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired
in such capacity

Subject-matter of the Privilege

1. Communications
2. Observations by the lawyer (regardless of medium of
transmission which may include oral or written words and actions)
3. Tangible evidence delivered to a lawyer
4. Documents entrusted to a lawyer

When not applicable

1. Furtherance of a crime or fraud/Future crime-fraud exception.
-If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or
obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the
client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;
-The rationale for this exception is that clients are not
entitled to use lawyers to help them in pursuing unlawful or fraudulent
objectives. If the privilege were to cloak such activity, the result would
be loss of public confidence and corruption of profession.
-The policy or the privilege is that of promoting the
administration of justice and it would be a perversion of the privilege to
extend it to the client who seeks advice to aid him in carrying out an
illegal fraudulent scheme. This would be tantamount to participating in
a conspiracy.

2. Claimants through some deceased client.

 -As to communication relevant to an issue between the
parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of
whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos
transaction.
-While the atty-client privilege survives the death of the
client, there is no privilege in a will contest or other case between
parties who both claim through that very client. This is because his
communications may be essential to an accurate resolution of
competing claims of succession, and the testator would presumably
favor disclosure in order to dispose of his estate accordingly.

3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client/self-defense exception.

-As to communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty
by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or her lawyer.
-If the lawyer and client become involved in a dispute
between themselves concerning the services provided by the lawyer,
the privilege does not apply to their dispute. Thus, where a client
alleges breach of duty on the part of the lawyer, i.e., professional
malpractice, incompetence, or ethical violations – or where the lawyer
sues a client for his fee, either the lawyer or client may testify as to
communications between them.
-In theory, the client has impliedly waived the privilege by
making allegations of breach of duty against the lawyer.

4. Document attested by the lawyer

-As to communication to an issue concerning an attested
document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness;

5. Joint clients
-As to communication relevant to a matter of common
interest between two or more clients if the communication was made
by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when
offered in action between any of the clients, unless they have
expressly agreed otherwise.
-The rationale for the exception is that joint clients do not
intend their communications to be confidential from each other, and
typically their communications are made in each other’s presence.
Agreeing to joint representation means that each joint client accepts
the risk that another join client may later use what he or she has said
to the lawyer.

Applicability of the rule regarding the identity of the client

 GR: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the
name or identity of his client.
XPNs:
1. Where a strong possibility exists that revealing the client’s
name would implicate the client in the very activity for which he
sought the lawyer’s advice;
2. Where the disclosure would open the client to civil liability;
3. Last link doctrine – Where the government’s lawyers have no
case against an attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client’s name,
the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict an individual for a crime.

Q: On Aug 15, 2008, E committed estafa against P in the amount of 3M. P brought
his complaint to the NBI, which found that E had visited his lawyer twice, first on
Aug 14 and the second on Aug 16, 2008; and that both visits concerned the
swindling of E.

During the trial, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to E’s lawyer for
him to testify the conversations during their first and second meetings. May the
subpoena be quashed on the ground of privilege communication?

A: No. The subpoena may not be simply quashed on the allegation that the
testimony to be elicited constitutes privilege communication. It may be noted
that the accused committed the crime swindling on Aug 15, 2008, whereas he
first visited his lawyer on Aug 14, 2008 or before he committed the swindling.

Clearly, the conversations the accused had with his lawyer before he committed
the swindling cannot be protected by the privilege between atty and client
because the crime had not been committed yet and it is no part of a lawyer’s
professional duty to assist or aid in the commission of a crime; hence not in the
course of professional employment.

The second visit by accused E to his lawyer on the next day Aug 16, 2008 after
the swindling was committed may also suffer from the same infirmity as the
conversations had during their first meeting inasmuch as there could not be a
complaint made immediately after the estafa was committed. The privilege may
not be invoked as it is not a ground for quashal of a subpoena ad testificandum.

Q: A tugboat owned by S sank in Manila Bay while helping to tow another vessel,
drowning 5 of the crew in the resulting shipwreck. At the maritime board inquiry,
the 4 survivors testified. S engaged Atty. E to defend against potential claims
and to sue the company owning the other vessel for damages to the tugh. E
obtained signed statements from the survivors. He also interviewed other
persons, in some instances making memoranda. The heirs of the 5 victims filed
an action against S.

Plaintiff’s counsel sent written interrogatories to E, asking whether statements

of witnesses were obtained; if written, copies were to be furnished, if oral, the
exact provisions were to be set forth in detail. E refused to comply, arguing that
the documents and information asked are privileged communication. Is the
contention tenable?

A: No. The documents and information sought to be disclosed are not privileged.
They are evidentiary matters which will eventually be disclosed during the trials.
Privileged matters are: (a) communications made by the client to the attorney or
(b) the advice given by the atty, in the course of, or with the view to professional
employment.

The information sought is neither a communication by the client to the atty nor
an advice by the atty to his client.

(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by

the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy
cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
examined as to any confidential communication made for the
purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical, mental or
emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, between
the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist. This
privilege also applies to persons, including members of the patient's
family, who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the
patient under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist.

Physician and patient

A "psychotherapist" is:
(a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the
diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition, or
(b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while
similarly engaged.

-For one to be considered a psychotherapist a medical doctor

need only be licensed to practice medicine and need not be a
psychiatrist, whereas a psychologist must be licensed by the
government.

Requisites for the applicability of the privilege

1. The privilege is claimed in a civil case;
 -This privilege cannot be claimed in a criminal case
presumably because the interest of the public in criminal prosecution
should be deemed more important than the secrecy of the
communication.

2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is a

physician, psychotherapist or a person reasonably believed to be
authorized to practice medicine or psychology; and
3. It refers to any confidential communication made for the
purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or
emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction.

Purpose of the privilege

-Intended to facilitate and make safe, full and confidential disclosure
by patient to doctor of all facts, circumstances, and symptoms,
unrestricted by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced
disclosure and publication on the witness stand, to the end that the
physician may form a correct opinion, and be enabled safely and
efficaciously to treat his patient.

-To encourage the patient to open up to the physician, relate to him the
history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling the
physician to make a correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the
appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician could be compelled in the
future to come to court and narrate all that had transpired between him
and the patient might prompt the latter to clam up, thus, putting his
own health at great risk.

-Does not apply to autopsy. There is no patient or treatment involved in

autopsies, the autopsy having been conducted on a dead person.

-Privilege is not limited to testimonial evidence because to compel

physician to disclose records or such documents would be in effect to
compel him to testify against the patient.

- Discovery procedure cannot be used to access evidence that is

otherwise inadmissible.
-The right to compel the production of documents has a limitation:
the documents to be disclosed are “not privileged.” Josielene of course
claims that the hospital records subject of this case are not privileged
since it is the “testimonial” evidence of the physician that may be
regarded as privileged. Section 24(c) of Rule 130 states that the
physician “cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
examined” regarding their professional conversation. The privilege,
says Josielene, does not cover the hospital records, but only the
examination of the physician at the trial. To allow, however, the
disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records — the
results of tests that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the
patient’s illness, and the advice or treatment he gave him — would be
to allow access to evidence that is inadmissible without the patient’s
consent. Physician memorializes all these information in the patient’s
records. Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the
physician to testify on privileged matters he gained while dealing with
the patient, without the latter’s prior consent.

-Attending physician may testify as an expert provided that his opinion

is strictly based on hypothetical facts, excluding and disregarding any
personal knowledge of the information on the patient acquired to the
physician-patient relationship.

Information which CANNOT be disclosed

1. Any confidential communication made for the purpose of
diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or emotional
condition, including alcohol or drug addiction.
2. Any information acquired by persons, including members of the
patient’s family who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of
the patient under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist.

Waiver of privilege by the patient: Express or implied

1. By a contract, as in medical or life insurance;
2. Disclosure by the patient of the information
3. When the patient answers questions on matters which are
supposedly privileged on cross-examination
4. By operation of law.

Cases when the privilege is not applicable

1. Communication was not given in confidence;
2. Irrelevant to the professional employment;
3. Made for an unlawful purpose
4. Intended to be made public; or
5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provision of
contract or law;
6. Dentists, pharmacists or nurses are disqualified.
XPN: If the third person is acting as an agent of the doctor
in a professional capacity.
-It is essential that at the time the communication was made, the
professional relationship is existing when the doctor was attending to
the patient for curative, preventive or palliative treatment. The
treatment may have been given at the behest of another, the patient
being in extremis (in extreme circumstances at the point of death).

-This rule does not require that the relationship between the physician and
the patient be a result of a contractual relationship. It could be the result
of a quasi-contractual relationship as when the patient is seriously ill and
the physician treats him even if he is not in a condition to give his consent.

Duration of privilege
The privilege survives the death of the patient.

(d) A minister, priest or 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 or
her, in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.

Priest and Penitent

Elements
1. A minister or priest or person reasonably believed to be so
2. Without the consent of the affected person
3. Cannot be examined as to any
a. communication; or
b. confession made to; or
c. advice given by him/her
4. in his/her professional character
5. in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the
minister or priest belongs

Purpose
-Allow and encourage individuals to fulfill their religious, emotional or
other needs by protecting confidential disclosures to religious
practitioners.

Requisites for the applicability

1. The communication, confession, or advice must have been
made to the priest in his professional character in the course of
discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest
belongs.
 2. Communication made must be confidential and must be
penitential in character, e.g., under the seal of confessional.

-Privilege also extends not only to a confession made by the penitent

but also to any advice given by the minister or priest.

-Where the penitent discussed business arrangement with the priest,

the privilege does not apply.

-A third person who overhears the confession is not disqualified.

-The person making the confession holds the privilege. The priest or
minister hearing the confession in his professional capacity is
prohibited from making a disclosure of the confession without his
consent.

Q: For over a year, N had been estranged from her husband W because of the
latter’s suspicion that she was having an affair. N lived in the meantime with her
sister. One day the house of N’s sister was burned. Her sister died and N
survived. As she was running away, N was surprised to see her husband also
running away from the scene. Dr. C, W’s psychiatrist who lived near the burned
house and whom W medically consulted after the fire, also saw W in the vicinity
some minutes before the fire. Coincidentally, Fr. P, the parish priest who
regularly hears W’s confession and who heard it after the fire, also encountered
him not too far away from the burned house. W was charged with arson and at
his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of N, the doctor
and the priest confessor, who all saw W at the vicinity of the fire at about the
time of the fire.

a. May the testimony of N be allowed over the objection of W?

b. May the testimony of Dr. C, W’s psychiatrist, be allowed over W’s objection?
c. May the testimony of Fr. P, the priest confessor, be allowed over W’s
objection?

A: a. No. N may not be allowed to testify against W. Under the Marital

disqualification rule, neither the husband nor the wife, during their marriage,
may testify against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except
in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants.

The foregoing exceptions cannot apply since it only extends to a criminal case
of one spouse against the other or the latter’s descendants or ascendants.
Clearly, N is not the offended party and her sister is not her direct ascendant or
descendant for her to fall within the exception.

b. Yes. The testimony of W’s psychiatrist may be allowed. The privileged

communication contemplated involves only persons authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics. It does not include a Psychiatrist. Moreover, the
privileged communication applies only in civil cases and not in a criminal case
for arson. Besides, the subject of the testimony of Dr. C was not in connection
with the advice or treatment given by him to W, or any information he acquired in
attending to W in a professional capacity. The testimony of Dr. C is limited only
to what he perceived at the vicinity of the fire and at about the time of the fire.

c. Yes. The priest can testify over the objection of W. The disqualification
requires that the same were made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the
course of discipline of the sect or denomination to which they belong and must
be confidential and penitential in character. Here, the testimony of Fr. P was not
previously subject of a confession of W or an advice give by him to W in his
professional character. The testimony was merely limited to what Fr. P
perceived ‘at the vicinity of the fire and at about the time of the fire.

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her

tenure as to communications made to him or her in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would
suffer by the disclosure. The communication shall remain privileged,
even in the hands of a third person who may have obtained the
information, provided that the original parties to the communication
took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality. (24a)

Public officers
Rationale
-General grounds for public policy
-The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as
to government research data used as basis for policy development,
shall be afforded to the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.

Requisites for its application

1. The holder of the privilege is the government, acting through a
public officer;
 2. The communication was given to the public officer in official
confidence;
3. The communication was given during or after his or her tenure;
and
4. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication

Cases when the privilege is inapplicable and disclosure will be

compelled
1. The disclosure is useful to vindicate the innocence of an
accused person;
2. To lessen the risk of false testimony;
3. The disclosure is essential to the proper disposition of the
case; or
4. The benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the
litigation was greater than any injury which could inure to the relation
by a disclosure of information

-To invoke this rule, it must first be established that public interest
would suffer by the disclosure. In the case of closed bank, any
disclosure of tapes and transcripts would not pose danger or peril to
the economy.

-The disclosure or non-disclosure is not dependent on the will of the

officer but on the determination by a competent court.

Executive privilege
-The power of the President and other high-ranking executive officials
to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the Congress.

-This privilege, based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of

powers, exempts the executive from disclosure requirements
applicable to the ordinary citizen or organization where such
exemption is necessary to the discharged of highly important
executive responsibilities involved in maintaining governmental
operations, and extends not only to military and diplomatic secrets but
also to documents integral to an appropriate exercise of the executive
domestic decisional and policy making functions, that is, those
documents reflecting the frank expression necessary in intra-
governmental advisory and deliberative communications.

-There are types of information which the government may withhold

from the public like secrets involving military, diplomatic and national
 security matters, and information or investigations of crimes by law
enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused were
exempted from the right to information.

-It is a privilege which protects the confidentiality of conversations

that take place in the President’s performance of his official duties.
The privilege may be invoked not only by the President, but also by his
close advisors under the “operational proximity test”.

Requisites of Presidential Communications Privilege

1. The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential
and non-delegable presidential power”
2. The communication must be authored or “solicited and
received” by a close advisor of the president or the president himself.
The judicial test is that an advisor must be in operational proximity
with the president;
3. The presidential communication privilege remains a qualified
privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such
that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and by
the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate
investigating authority.

Q: The Senate sought to question Mr. R, a member of President A’s cabinet, on

whether President A followed up the NBN project finance by Chinese loans,
whether she directed him to prioritize it, and whether she directed him to
approve it. Mr. R invoked executive privilege stating that his conversation with
the president dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic
matters relating to the impact of scandal on high government officials and
possible loss confidence by foreign investors and lenders. May Mr. R’s invocation
of executive privilege may be upheld?

A: Yes. The SC upheld Mr. R’s invocation of executive privilege (more specifically
the presidential communication privilege) stating that the disclosure might
impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with China.

Deliberative Process Privilege

-The privilege protects from disclosure advisory opinions,
recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by
which are governmental decisions and policies are formulated.

-Written advice from variety of individuals is an important element of

the government’s decision-making process and the interchange of
advice could be stifled if courts forced the government to disclose
these recommendations; thus the privilege is intended to prevent the
“chilling” of deliberative communications.

-Applies if its purpose is served, that is, to protect the frank exchange
of ideas and opinions critical to the government’s decision-making
process where disclosure would discourage such discussion in the
future.

Rule on Third Parties. — The communication shall remain privileged,

EVEN IN THE HANDS OF A THIRD PERSON who may have obtained the
information, provided that the original parties to the communication
took reasonable precaution to protect its con

c) Parental and Filial Privilege Rule

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. - No person shall be
compelled to testify against his or her parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct descendants, except when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one
parent against the other.

-It is a privilege which consists of exempting the witness, having

attended the court where his testimony is desired, from disclosing a
certain part of his knowledge.

Two-types of privilege
1. Parental privilege rule – a parent cannot be compelled to testify
against his child or other direct descendant.

-A person, however, may testify against his parents or children

voluntarily but if he refuses to do so, the rule protects him from any
compulsion. Said rule applies to both criminal and civil cases since
the rule makes no distinction.

2. Filial privilege rule – a child may not be compelled to testify

against his parents, or other direct descendants.

-Applies only to “direct ascendants and descendants, a family tie

connected by a common ancestry – a stepdaughter has no common
ancestry by her stepmother.
-An adopted child is covered by the rule.
 Criminal cases
GR: No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify
against his parents and grandparents
XPNs: The descendant may be compelled to give his testimony in the
following instances:
1. When such testimony is indispensable in a crime committed
against said descendant; or
2. In a crime committed by one parent against the other.

Q: A was convicted of raping his own daughter. His son, an 8-year old boy,
testified against him. Can he object to the testimony on the ground of filial
privilege and invoke the incompetence of the child?

A: No. The competency of hi son is not affected by the filial privilege rule. The
rule is not strictly speaking a disqualification but refers to a privilege not to
testify, which can be invoked and waived like other privileges. The son was not
compelled to testify against his father but chose to waive that filial privilege
when he voluntarily testified against the accused.

Q: A, married to B, killed the latter. One of the witnesses was C, the mother of B,
who was being compelled to testify against A. Can A object on the ground of
parental privilege?

A: No. C is not a direct descendant of A but that of B, being the mother of the
latter. Thus, the privilege does not belong to A.

-The Child witness rule provides that every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness.

Q: C is the child of spouses H and W. H sued his wife W for judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage. In the trial, the following testified over the objection of W: C,
H and D, a doctor of medicine who used to treat W. Rule on W’s objections which
are the following:

1. H cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital privilege;

2. C cannot testify against her because of doctrine of parental privilege; and
3. D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged
communication between patient and physician.
A: 1. The rule on marital privilege does not apply in the annulment case because
it is a civil case filed by one against the other.

2. W cannot invoke the privilege which belongs to the child, C may testify if he
wants to although he may not be compelled to do so.
3. D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to testify against W over her
objection as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he
may have acquired in his professional capacity.

d) Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets

Section 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. - A person cannot be
compelled to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-
disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When
disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure
as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties
and the furtherance of justice may require

-Trade secret – a secret formula or process not patented, but known

only to certain individuals using it in compounding some article of
trade having a commercial value. Trade secrets are privilege matters
whose disclosure is proscribed and penalized under the SEC and the
RPC.

-Trade secret should receive greater protection from discovery,

because they derive economic value from being generally unknown
and not readily ascertainable by the public.

Exception to the application

-The privilege is not absolute; the court may compel disclosure
where it is indispensable for doing justice.

Other privileged matters:

1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding
concerning any information, statement, or opinion received from the
child in the course of serving as guardian ad litem, unless the court
finds it necessary to promote the best interest of the child.

2. Editorial Privilege – Editors may not be compelled to disclose

the source of published news.

3. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted

 4. Information contained in tax census returns
5. Bank deposits, except in certain cases provided for by law
6. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings
7. Institutions covered by the law and its officers and employees
who communicate a suspicious transaction to the AMLC
8. Informer’s Privilege – The prosecutor may not be compelled to
present an informer to protect his identity and when his testimony
would be merely corroborative and cumulative
-Human security act provides that the name and identity of
the informant on a suspect in the crime of terrorism shall be
considered confidential and shall not be unnecessarily revealed until
after the proceedings against the suspect shall have been
terminated.

9. Media Practitioner’s Privilege

GR: Without prejudice to his liability under civil and criminal law,
any publisher, owner, duly registered or accredited journalist, writer,
reporter, contributor, opinion writer, editor, columnist manager,
media practitioner involved in the writing, editing, production, and
dissemination of news for mass circulation of any print, broadcast,
wire service organization, or electronic mass media cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of any news item, report or
information appearing or being reported or disseminated through
said media which was related in confidence to the abovementioned
media practitioners

XPN: Revelation can be compelled if the court or the Congress or

any of its committee finds that such revelation is demanded by the
security of the State.

-On the ground of public policy, the rules providing for production and
inspection of books and papers do not authorize the production or
inspection of privilege matter; that is, books and papers which,
because of their confidential and privilege character, could not be
received in evidence. Such a condition is in addition to the requisite
that the items be specifically described, and must constitute or
contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and
which are in the party’s possession, custody or control.

3. Testimonial Privilege
 Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. - No person shall be compelled to
testify against his or her parents, other direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants, except when such testimony is indispensable in
a crime against that person or by one parent against the other. (25a)

Section 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. - A person cannot be

compelled to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will
conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the
court shall take such protective measure as the interest of the owner of
the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may
require. (n)

-Discussed above.

4. Admissions and Confessions

Section 27. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a
party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.

-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.

Admission by a party
Requisites:
1. The act, declaration or omission must have been made by a party or
one by whom he is legally bound;
2. The admission must be as to relevant fact; and
3. The admission may only be given in evidence against him.

Requisites for admissions to be admissible

1. They must involve matters of fact and not of law;
2. Categorical and definite;
3. Made knowingly and voluntarily;
4. Must be adverse to the admitter’s interests, otherwise it would be
self-serving and admissible

CLASSIFICATIONS OF ADMISSIONS
Express It is a positive statement or act. Those made in
definite, certain and unequivocal language.
Implied It is one which may be inferred from the
declaration or acts of a person. Therefore, an
admission may be implied from conduct,
 statement of silence of a party.
Judicial When made in the course of a judicial proceeding.
Extrajudicial Made out of court or even in a proceeding other
than the one under consideration
Adoptive It is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by
another person when it is reasonable to treat the
party’s reaction as an admission of something
stated or implied by the other person. A third
person’s statement becomes the admission of the
party embracing or espousing it. Adoptive
admission may occur when a party:

1. Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral

statement made by another;
2. Hears a statement and later on essentially
repeats it;
3. Utters an acceptance or builds upon the
assertion of another;
4. Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific
points raised by another but ignores further points
which he or she has heard the other make; or
5. Reads and signs a written statement made by
another.

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Those made in the course of the Those made out of court or in a
proceeding in the same case. judicial proceeding other than the
one under consideration
Do not require proof and may be Regarded as evidence and must be
contradicted only by showing that offered as such, otherwise the
it was made through palpable court will not consider it in deciding
mistake or that the imputed the case.
admission was not, in fact, made.
Need not be offered in evidence Require formal offer for it to be
since it is not evidence. It is considered
superior to evidence and shall be
considered by the court in as
established.
Conclusive upon the person Rebuttable
admitting it
Subject to cross-examination Not subject to cross-examination
 ADMISSION CONFESSION
Statement of fact which does not Statement of fact which involves
involve an acknowledgement of an acknowledgement of guilt or
guilt or liability. liability.

May be made by third persons and Can only be made by the party
in certain cases, are admissible himself and, in some instances, are
against a party. admissible against his co-accused.
Applies to both criminal and civil Criminal cases only
cases
Express or tacit Must be express

-An admission, in general sense, includes confessions, the former being a

broader term because, accordingly, a confession is also an admission by
the accused of the fact charged against him or some fact essential to the
charge.

Self-serving declaration
-One which has been made extra-judicially by the party to favor his
interest. It is not admissible in evidence because they are inherently
untrustworthy, and would open the door to fraud and fabrication of
testimony.

-Inadmissible because the adverse party is not given the opportunity for
cross-examination, and their admission would encourage fabrication of
testimony.

-Statements in affidavits are not sufficient to prove the existence of

agricultural tenancy. It is self-serving, it will not suffice to prove consent
of the owner independent evidence is necessary.

-An admission against interest is the best evidence which affords the
greatest certainty of the facts in dispute since no man would declare
anything against himself unless such declaration is true. Thus, an
admission against interest binds the person who makes the same, and
absent any showing that this was made through palpable mistake, no
amount of rationalization can offset it.

Q: After working as laborer for 43 years, A resigned from P Factory. Thereafter,

he availed of his pension from SSS and executed an affidavit stating that he was
never re-employed. However, when he filed a claim for retirement benefits from
his employer before the NLRC, he alleged that he continued working for P
Factory for 4 more years. Can P Factory use A’s affidavit executed before the
SSS as an admission against his interest?

A: Yes. The document is the best evidence which affords greater certainty of
facts in dispute. While the affidavit may have facilitated the release of the
retirement benefits from SSS, hence, beneficial to him at that time, it may still
be considered as admission against interest since the disserving quality of the
admission is judged as of the time it is used or offered in evidence and not when
such admission was made. Thus, it matters not that the admission was self-
serving at the time it was made, so long as it is against A’s present claim.

Rest inter alios acta rule

-Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
-This principle literally means “things done between strangers ought not to
injure those who are not parties to them”

-Reason: On principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own

acts are binding upon himself and are evidence against him. So are his
conduct and declarations. It would not only be rightly inconvenient but
also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against
him.

Two branches of res inter alios acta rule

1. Admission by third party
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or
omission of another.

2. Similar Acts Rule

Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at
another time.

-The rule has reference to extrajudicial declarations. Hence, statements

made in open court by a witness implicating persons aside from him are
admissible as declarations from one who has personal knowledge of the
facts testified to.

-The testimony of the accused against his co-accused in open court is

considered as admissible testimony and not subject of he res inter alios
acta rule since such testimony is subject to cross examination.
Q: M sued K Corp for breach of contract on the ground that when she went on a
European tour, there was no tour manager, the Filipino guide was a first timer,
and the hotels where they were billeted were not first class. K contended that
the tour was satisfactory because out of 18 participants, only M actually
complained. Can the fact that the other participants in the tour filed no case
against K be used as evidence to show that B has no cause of action?

A: No. Rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act declaration or omission

of another. The failure of the other participants to file an action should not
prejudice M.

Admission by a third party

Section 29. Admission by third party. - The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided

GR: The act, declaration or omission made out of court of a party as to a

relevant fact may be given in evidence against him but may not be given in
evidence against another person.
XPN: Admissible when its admission is made by:
1. A partner, during the existence of the partnership.
2. An agent authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the
subject or within the scope of his or her authority, during the existence of
the agency.
3. A joint owner
4. A joint debtor
5. A person jointly interested with the party
6. A conspirator
7. A privy or successor in interest

Q: F was charged with violating Anti Fencing Decree. Among the evidence
submitted against him was the testimony that J in a previous criminal case
wherein the accused therein, P, was convicted of theft and where she stated
that F bought stolen jewelries from her. Can the admission in the previous case
be used against F?

A: No. F was not a party to the previous criminal case where P was the accused.
The acts or declarations of a person are not admissible against a third party.
Only to parties to a case are bound by a judgment of the trial court. Without
presenting J to testify on her admission during the previous criminal case, even
if made in a previous judicial proceeding, it remains an extrajudicial admission
without any effect, insofar as the present action against F is concerned.
 Admission by a co-partner or agent
Section 30. Admission by co-partner or agent. - The act or declaration of a
partner or agent authorized by the party to make a statement concerning
the subject, or within the scope of his or her authority, and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against
such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of
a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party

Requisites:
1. Act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party must be within
the scope of his authority;
2. Admission was made during the existence of the partnership or
agency;
3. Existence of partnership or agency is proven by independent
evidence other than such act or declaration. The articles of incorporation
or SPA may be presented for such purpose.

-Any declaration made before the partnership or agency existed, or those

made after, are not admissible against the other partners or principal but
remains admissible as against the partner or agent making the
declaration.

-The same rule applies to an act or declaration of a joint owner, joint

debtor or other person jointly interested with the party.

Dissolved partnership
GR: Admissions made after a partnership has been dissolved do not fall
within the exception because such are made when the partnership ceased
to exist.
XPN: Where the admissions are made in connection with the winding up of
the partnership affairs, said admissions are still admissible as the partner
is acting as agent of his co-partner in said winding up.

Q: The Republic of the Philippines filed a forfeiture case against the heirs of the
late former Marcos. In one of her manifestations before the SB, IM admitted that
she owned 90% of the Swiss bank deposits and only 10% belongs to the estate
of the late Marcos. The other heirs also made separate admissions in their
pleadings. What is the value of these admissions?

A: The individual and separate admissions of each respondent shall bind all of
them. The declaration of a party is admissible against a party whenever a
“privity of estate” exists between the declarant and the party. It generally
denotes a succession of rights. Without doubt, privity exists among the
respondents in this case. Where several co-parties exist, who are jointly
interested in the subject matter of the controversy, the admission of one is
competent against all.

Joint Interests
a. The joint interest must be first made to appear by evidence other
than the admission itself
b. The admission must relate to the subjectmatter of joint interest
[Herrera]

-The word “joint” must be construed according to its meaning in the

common law system, that is, in solidum for the whole [Jaucian v. Querol,
G.R. No. L-11307 (1918)].

-A mere community of interests between several persons is not sufficient

to make the admissions of one admissible against all [Herrera]. Just like in
partnership and agency, the interest must be a subsisting one unless for
the admission to be admissible

Admission by a conspirator
Section 31. Admission by conspirator. - The act or declaration of a
conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence may
be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act of declaration

Conspiracy
-A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

-Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. The statement
therefore of one may be admitted against the co-conspirators as an
exception to the rule of res alios acta.

Requisites
1. Declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the
conspiracy;
2. Must be in furtherance of the purpose and object of the conspiracy;
3. Conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than the declaration or
act (evidence aliunde).
 -Applies only to extrajudicial acts or admission and not to testimony at
trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-
examine the witness.

Q: A was convicted of robbery with homicide. Among the evidence used to

convict her was the extrajudicial confession of her co-accused, an alleged co-
conspirator, which confession was made with the assistance of counsel. Can
such admission be used against A?

A: No. In order for such admission to be admissible in evidence, there must be

independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession to prove
conspiracy. There being no independent evidence to prove conspiracy. A’s
culpability was not sufficiently established.

Extrajudicial admissions made after the conspiracy has been terminated

GR: Extrajudicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy
had terminated and even before the trial are not admissible against the co-
conspirator.
XPNs:
1. If made in the presence of the co-conspirator who expressly or
impliedly agreed therein;
2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed in the individual
extrajudicial confession made by the co-conspirator after their
apprehension;
3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of the witness; or
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-
conspirator’s participation in the offense.

When extrajudicial admission becomes a judicial admission

While it is true that statements made by a conspirator against a co-
conspirator are admissible only when made during the existence of the
conspiracy, if the declarant repeats the statement in court, his
extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making the
testimony admissible as to both conspirators

Admission by privies
Section 32. Admission by privies. - 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 was
holding the title.

Privies
 -Persons who are partakers or have an interest in any action or thing, or
any relation to another.

-The declaration of a person are admissible against a party whenever a

“privity of estate” exists between the declarant and the party, the term
“privity of estate” generally denoting a succession in rights. Consequently,
an admission of one in privity with a party to the record is competent.
Without doubt, privity exists among the respondents in this case. And
where several co-parties to the record are jointly interested in the subject
matter of controversy, the admission of one is competent against all.

Requisites
1. There must be an act, declaration or omission by a predecessor-in-
interest;
2. The act, declaration or omission of the predecessor must have occurred
while he has holding (not after) the title to the property; and
3. The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to the property.

Q: DM Corp filed a case to be adjudged owner of a piece of land against A

claiming that it acquired a lot from L in 1964. As defense, A presented a
document executed by L in 1968 to settle the controversy. Can the document
bind DM as successor in interest of L?

A: No. The admission of a former owner of a property must have been made
while he was the owner thereof in order that such admission may be binding
upon the present owner. Hence, L’s act of executing the 1968 document have no
binding effect on DM, the ownership of the land having passed to it in 1964.

ADMISSION BY SILENCE
Section 33. Admission by silence. - An act or declaration made in the
presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or
says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him or her
to do so, may be given in evidence against him or her.

Requisites
1. The party heard and understood the statement;
2. He or she was at a liberty to make a denial;
3. The statement was about a matter affecting his or her rights or in
which he or she was interested and which naturally calls for a response;
4. The facts were within his or her knowledge; and
5. The fact admitted from his or her silence is material to the issue.
 -The silence of a person under investigation for the commission of an
offense should not be construed as an admission by silence because a
person has the right to remain silent and to be informed of that right.

-However, if it is not the police investigator who confronted the accused

but the owner of a carnapped vehicle, the silence of one after being
implicated by the other accused serves as an admission by silence as he
did not refute the statements of his co-accused despite having heard of
them.

Q: P was brought to the police station for investigation on the alleged rape of G.
While in the police station, G pointed to P and said, “He is the one who raped
me.” P remained silent. May P’s silence be offered in evidence as an implied
admission by silence?

A: No. The rule on admission by silence does not apply since P had a right to
remain silent while under custodial investigation.

Principle of adoptive admission

-It is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it
is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something
stated or implied by the other person. The basis for admissibility of
admissions made vicariously is that arising from the ratification or
adoption by the party of the statements which the other person had made.

-Illustration: The alleged admissions made by President E when his option

had dwindled when, according to Angara Diary, the AFP withdrew its
support from him as President and Commander-in-chief. Thus, Angara had
to allegedly ask Senate President Pimentel to advise Estrada to consider
the option of “dignified exit or resignation.” Estrada did not object to the
suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country.
According to the court, his silence on this and other related suggestions
can be taken as adoptive admissions by him.

CONFESSIONS
Section 34. Confession. - The declaration of an accused acknowledging his
or her guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included
therein, may be given in evidence against him or her.

Requisites
1. It must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt;
2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense;
3. It must have been given voluntarily;
 4. It must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing the
importance or legal significance of his act;
5. There must have been no violation of Sec 12, Art III, 1987
Constitution
-A confession to a person, who is not a police officer, is
admissible in evidence. The declaration acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be
given in evidence against the declarant. Such admissions are not covered
by Secs. 12 (1) and (3), Art. III, 1987 Constitution, because they were not
extracted while he or she was under custodial investigation.

6. It must be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his

counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver and in the presence
of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal
mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor or priest or minister
of the gospel as chosen by him or her.

JUDICIAL CONFESSION EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION

One made by the accused before One made in any other place or
an open court in which the case is occasion other than the court
pending and in the course of legal where the case is pending and
proceedings therein and, by itself, cannot sustain a conviction unless
can sustain conviction against corroborated by evidence of corpus
one’s co-accused. delicti. Generally binding only upon
the confessant and is not
Governed by Secs 1, 3 and 4 of admissible against his co-accused.
Rule 116.
Governed by Sec. 33 of Rule 130.

If the accused admits having

committed the act in question but
alleges a justification therefor,
such as absence of criminal intent,
the same is merely an admission.

Admissibility of extrajudicial confessions

GR: An extrajudicial confession is not admissible against the confessor’s
co-accused. Said confession is hearsay evidence and violative of the res
inter alios acta rule.
XPN: It may be admitted in evidence against his co-accused in the
following cases:
1. In case of implied acquiescence of the co-accused to the extra-
judicial confession;
 2. In case of interlocking confessions;
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after
being apprised of such confession;
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was
confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as
corroborating evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the co-conspirator;
6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant; and
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated
by other evidence on record.

Q: The mutilated cadaver of a woman was discovered near a creek. Due to

witnesses attesting that he was the last person seen with the woman when she
was still alive, C was arrested within 5 hours after the discovery of the cadaver
and brought to the police station. The crime laboratory determined that the
woman had been raped. While in police custody, C broke down in the presence of
an assisting counsel and orally confessed to the investigator that he had raped
and killed the woman, detailing the acts he had performed up to his dumping of
the body near the creek. He was genuinely remorseful. During the trial, the State
presented the investigator to testify the oral confession in C. Is the oral
confession admissible as evidence of guilt?

A: No. The oral confession is not admissible as evidence of guilt. The confession
is in the nature of an extrajudicial confession before an investigator while under
custodial investigation. Hence, the statutory provisions under RA 7438 will have
to be complied with.

Under said law, any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested,

detained, or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel. An oral confession does not comply with
the mandator provisions of the law. Under RA 7438, the confession is admissible
in evidence in any proceeding.

Requirements for an admission of guilt of an accused during a custodial

investigation to be admitted in evidence
1. The admission must be voluntary
2. The admission must be in writing
3. The admission must be made with the assistance of competent,
independent counsel
4. The admission must be express
 5. In case the accused waives his rights to silence and to counsel, such
waiver must be in writing, executed with the assistance of competent,
independent counsel.

Doctrine of interlocking confessions

It states that extrajudicial confessions independently made without
collusion which are identical with each other in their essential details and
corroborated by other evidence against the persons implicated, are
admissible to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the
commission of the crime.

Q: May an extrajudicial confession made by an accused be sufficient ground for

conviction?
A: No, unless it is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

5. Previous Conduct as Evidence

Section 35. Similar acts as evidence. - Evidence that one did or did not do
a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or
did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received
to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme,
habit, custom or usage, and the like.

-Also referred to as the “Propensity Rule”

-Constitutes as the second branch of inter alios acta rule.

Evidence of similar or previous acts may be received to prove the

following:
1. Specific intent;
2. Knowledge;
3. Identity;
4. Plan;
5. System;
6. Scheme;
7. Custom;
8. Habit;
9. Usage; and
10. The like

Purpose of the rule

Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the defendant to meet
allegations that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his
defense, raises a variety of relevant issues, and diverts the attention of the
 court from the issues immediately before it. Hence, the evidentiary rule
guards the practical inconvenience of trying collateral issues and
protracting the trial, and prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to
litigants.

Q: The defendants argued that XEI had allowed them to pay the balance of the
purchase of a subdivision lot in 120 monthly installments. The defendants
introduced 3 contracts to sell in which XEI granted 2 lot buyers a 120-month
term of payment and a third one a 180-month term. May these 3 contracts to sell
prove a habit or custom on the part of XEI to grant 120-month terms of payments
to its buyers?

A: No. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove usage, habit or custom.

Courts must contend with the caveat that before they admit evidence of usage,
habit or pattern or conduct, the offering party must establish the degree of
specificity and frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere
tendency to act in a given manner but rather conduct that is semi-automatic in
nature. In determining whether the examples are numerous enough and
sufficiently regular, the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of
response.

Here, the defendants did not introduce evidence that XEI and all the lot buyers in
the subdivision had executed contracts of sale containing uniform terms and
conditions. Moreover, even in the 3 contracts adduced by the defendants, there
was no uniformity as 2 referred 120-month terms while the third mentioned 180-
month term.

Boston Bank v. Manalo

-HABIT, CUSTOM, USAGE, PATTERN OF CONDUCT. The examples offered in
evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must be numerous enough to
base on inference of systematic conduct
-In determining whether the examples are numerous enough, and sufficiently
regular, they key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response

US v. Pineda
- If the defendant has on more than one occasion performed similar acts,
accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negligence is intensified, and
fraudulent intent may even be established.
- As a general rule, the evidence of other offenses committed by a defendant is
inadmissible. The effort here is not to convict the accused of a second offense
nor is there an attempt to draw the mind away from the point at issue and thus
to prejudice defendant’s case. The purpose is to ascertain defendant’s
knowledge and intent, and to fix his negligence.

Previous conduct can only be offered to show the scheme of the offender.
As a rule, evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that the
accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the
offense for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove that he committed
other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he committed the
crime charged in the complaint or information. An exception to this rule is when
such evidence tends directly to establish the particular crime, and it is usually
competent to prove the motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a
common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so
related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, or the
identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. People
vs. Magpayo, G.R. Nos. 92961-64, September 1, 1993

6. Testimonial Knowledge
Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. - A witness can
testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.

Lack of firsthand knowledge Rule

-If it can be shown from the surrounding circumstances that a hearsay
declarant lacked firsthand knowledge of the subject of his declaration,
evidence of that declaration will ordinarily be excluded even if it would
otherwise come within some exception to the hearsay rule.

7. Hearsay and Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

Section 37. Hearsay. -Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the
declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of
the facts asserted therein. A statement is
(1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an
assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided
in these Rules.

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing

and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the
statement is
 (a) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under
oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding, or in a deposition; (Prior inconsistent statement under oath)
(b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an
express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or
improper influence or motive; or (Prior consistent statement)
(c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her.
(Prior statement of identification)

Hearsay testimony rests on the ground that there was no opportunity to cross-
examine.
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or in part,
on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by
whom it is sought to produce it. A person who introduces a hearsay statement is
not obliged to enter into any particular stipulation, to answer any question, to
solve any difficulties, to reconcile any contradictions, to explain any obscurities,
to remove any ambiguities; and that he/she entrenches himself/herself in the
simple assertion that he/she was told so, and leaves the burden entirely upon
the dead or absent author. For this reason, the rule against hearsay testimony
rests mainly on the ground that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the
declarant. The hearsay rule, however, does not apply to independently relevant
statements. Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020, J. Hernando

The uncompleted testimony of a witness is rendered inadmissible in evidence.

When cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is
thereby rendered incompetent and inadmissible in evidence. From the record,
Arriola had been granted sufficient opportunities to complete his cross-
examination. He had been fairly warned and notified in the September 5, 2006
Order of the RTC that his cross-examination shall be reset for the last time, and
that another failure to appear for cross-examination shall be cause for the
striking off of his direct testimony. Due to causes known only to Arriola, he failed
to even begin the same. Add to this that prior to his cross-examination, Arriola
was already remiss in his attendance for various reasons in the hearings before
the trial court. Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020, J.
Hernando

Q: In a police lineup, the victim from behind a one-way mirror, points to the
accused as the one who assaulted him. The victim dies before trial. During the
trial, the police officer conducting the lineup is asked who the victim pointed to
as the culprit. May the defense object and if so, on what grounds?
A: Yes. The defense may object on the ground of hearsay. An out-of-court
statement includes not only oral or written assertion but also non-verbal conduct
intended as an assertion. The victim’s act of pointing out a person in the lineup
is a nonverbal assertion. It is as if the victim was saying, “He is the one who
assaulted me.” The proponent may try the identification under the excited-
utterance exception.

Elements of hearsay evidence

1. There must be an out-of-court statement; and
2. The statement made out of court, is repeated and offered by the
witness in court to prove the truth of the matters asserted by the
statement.

-Newspaper clippings are hearsay and of no evidentiary value at all

whether objected to or not, unless offered for a purpose other than proving
the truth of the matter asserted.

-Medical certificates cannot be admitted in the absence of the testimony

of the physician who examined the complaint for alleged torture wounds.

-Affidavits are inadmissible unless affiants themselves are placed in the

witness stand to testify therefrom.

Statements made through an interpreter

GR: Statements made through an interpreter are considered hearsay if a
witness is offered to testify to the statements of another person, spoken in
a language not understood by him, but translated for him by an interpreter,
such witness is not qualified, because he does not speak from personal
knowledge. All that he can know as to the testimony is from the
interpretation thereof which is in fact given by another person.

XPN: In cases where the interpreter had been selected:

1. By common consent of the parties endeavoring to converse; or
2. By a party against whom the statements of the interpreter where offered
in evidence (Principal-Agent Rule)

Reason for exclusion

a. The lack of opportunity in the part of the party against which it is
offered to cross-examine the declarant, that is, the person who made the
statement.
b. The statement or declaration under oath
c. The court does not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of
the declarant.
 -In criminal cases, its admission would be a violation of the constitutional
provision that the accused shall enjoy the right of being confronted with
the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them. Moreover,
the court is without the opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay
statements by observing the demeanor of the person who made them.

HEARSAY RULE LACK OF FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE

RULE
A statement other than one made Consists of testimony that is not
by the declarant while testifying at based on personal knowledge of the
a trial or hearing, offered to prove person testifying
the truth of the facts therein.
The witness purports to give an The witness purports to give the
account of what another has told facts directly upon his own credit
him and this is offered to evidence (though it may appear later that he
the truth of the other’s report. was speaking only on the faith of
report from others)
Subject to certain exceptions Has no formal exceptions

Q: R is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a vehicular

accident. J, a witness in court, testifies that R told her that he heard A, a
witness to the accident, gives an excited account of the accident immediately
after its occurrence. Is J’s testimony admissible against R over proper and
timely objection?

A: No, because the testimony is hearsay. In her testimony, J purports to give an

account of what R had told her. In effect, she is testifying to nothing more than
her statement, and not the truth of the facts asserted therein.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

-Exceptions are hearsay but are admissible by reason of relevancy,
necessity and trustworthiness.

1. Section 38. Dying declaration. - The declaration of a dying person, made

under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any
case wherein his or her death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

-These are ante mortem statements made by a person after the mortal
wound has been inflicted under the belief that the death is certain, stating
the fact concerning the cause of and the circumstances surrounding the
attack.

-Where the elements of both a dying declaration and a statement as part of

the res gestae are present, the statement may be admitted as a dying
declaration and at the same time as part of res gestae.

Requisites
1. Declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances
of the declarant’s death;
2. Made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under
consciousness of an impending death;

-Factors in determining whether declarant is conscious of his

impending death
1. The words or statements of the declarant on the same
occasion;
2. His conduct at the time the declaration was made; and
3. The serious nature of his wounds as would necessarily
engender a belief on his part that he would not survive therefrom.

3. Declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she

survived; and
4. Offered in a case in which the subject inquiry involves the declarant’s
death.

-In order to take a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable

and imminent death must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in
impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that
renders a dying declaration admissible.

Test to determine application

Whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on
death as certainly impending

Time interval
GR: The intervening time from the making of a dying declaration up to the
time of death is immaterial in its admissibility, as long as it was made
under consciousness of impending death.
XPNs:
1. If there is retraction made by the declarant before he died; or
 2. His declaration is ambiguous as to whether he believed that his death
was imminent when he made such declaration.

-It is of no moment that the victim died seven days from the stabbing
incident and after receiving adequate care and treatment, because the
apparent proximate cause of his death was a consequence of the stabbing.

-The dying declaration of the deceased is not admissible as an ante-

mortem declaration when the deceased was in doubt as to whether he
would die or not. It may, however, be admitted as part of res gestae when
it is made immediate after a startling occurrence.

Q: S was charged with robbery with homicide. K, the victim, suffered several
stab wounds. It appears that 11 hours after the crime, K was being brought to
the hospital in a jeep, with his brother and a policeman as companions, K was
asked certain questions which she answered, pointing to S as her assailant. Her
answers were put down in writing, but since she was in a critical condition, her
brother and the policeman signed the statement. Is the statement admissible as
a dying declaration?

A: Yes. The statement is admissible as a dying declaration if the victim

subsequently died and her answers were made under the consciousness of an
impending death. The fact that she did not sign the statement pointing to the
accused as her assailant because she was in a critical condition does not affect
its admissibility as a dying declaration.

-A dying declaration may be oral or written. If oral, the witness who heard it may
testify thereto without the necessity of reproducing the word of the decedent, if
he is able to give substance thereof. An unsigned dying declaration may be used
as a memorandum by the witness who took it down.

Q: Z, while watching television heard 4 successive gunshots. When Z looked

through the door, he saw 2 men armed with .38 caliber revolvers standing a
meter away from B. He saw Palanas deliver the fourth shot but he could not
identify the other shooter. On the way to the hospital, B told Z that It was A, As
or Abe Palanas, who shot him. This statement was repeated to B’s wife, R, who
followed him at the hospital. For his part, Palanas interposed the defense of
denial and alibi. He claimed that on the day before the incident, he was in PQ
City attending to the needs of his sick father. On the next day, he went to Tondo,
Manila for baptism and stayed there from morning until 9PM, after which he
returned to his father in PQ City. He maintained that he was informed by a
neighbor that R was accusing him of killing her husband.
Can B’s statements on his way to the hospital be considered a dying declaration
and part of the res gestae?

A: Yes. B’s statements constitute a dying declaration as they pertained to the

cause and circumstances of his death. Moreover, taking into consideration the
number and severity of his wounds, it may be reasonably presumed that he
uttered the same under a fixed belief that his own death was already imminent.

In the same vein, B’s statements may likewise be deemed to form part of the res
gestae as they refer to startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot. While on his
way to the hospital, B had no time to contrive the identification of his assailants,
thus, his utterance was made in spontaneously and only in reaction to the
startling occurrence.

Assailing a dying declaration

The declaration may be attacked in the same manner as one would do a
testimony in open court. The declarant himself may be impeached through
the normal methods provided under the rules. A dying declaration, as an
exception to the hearsay rule, is not meant to confer competency on an
otherwise incompetent witness.

A dying declaration is admissible as evidence as an exception to the hearsay

rule.
It must be mentioned that a "dying declaration" is one of the recognized
exceptions to the right to confrontation. In the case at bar, it will not be amiss
to state that Mary Jane's deposition through written interrogatories is akin to
her dying declaration. There is no doubt that Mary Jane will be answering the
written interrogatories under the consciousness of an impending death — or
execution by a firing squad to be exact. To stress, Mary Jane has been
convicted by final judgment and sentenced to death by firing squad. Mary Jane
has already availed of all available legal remedies and there is no expectation
that her conviction will be overturned by the Indonesian authorities. The only
purpose for the grant of the reprieve was for Mary Jane to assist the prosecution
in erecting its case against her recruiters and traffickers. There was nary any
mention that the outcome of the legal proceedings here in the Philippines will
have a concomitant effect in Mary Jane's conviction by the Indonesian
authorities. That Mary Jane is facing impending death is undisputed considering
the nature of her reprieve which is merely temporary. It is therefore not a stretch
of imagination to state that Mary Jane's declarations in her deposition are made
in extremity, she being at the point of death, and every hope of this world is
gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the
most powerful considerations to speak the truth, to vindicate oneself, and to
secure justice to her detractors. People vs. Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, October 9,
2019, J. Hernando

Immediate death is not indispensable for a dying declaration to be admissible.

The fact that the victim did not expire right after his declaration, but survived
seven days thereafter, will not alter the probative force of his dying declaration.
The occurrence of a declarant’s death immediately thereafter is not
indispensable. The rule on dying declarations does not require that the person
should be at the time in the throes of death, or that he should die immediately,
or within any specified time thereafter, in order to give the declaration probative
force. People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 142654, November 16, 2001

2. Section 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. - In an

action against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such
person of unsound mind, where a party or assignor of a party or a person in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact occurring
before the death of the deceased person or before the person became of
unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound
mind, may be received in evidence if the statement was made upon the
personal knowledge of the deceased or the person of unsound mind at a
time when the matter had been recently perceived by him or her and while
his or her recollection was clear. Such statement, however, is inadmissible
if made under circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness.

-Requisites:
1. There is an action against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind;
2. The action is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of unsound mind;
3. A party or assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted testifies on the matter of fact occurring before the death of the
deceased person or before the person became of unsound mind;
4. There was a statement made by the deceased or other person of
unsound mind;
5. Such statement was made upon the personal knowledge of the
deceased or the person of unsound mind at a time when:
a. the matter had been recently perceived by him or her; and
b. while his or her recollection was clear.
-If all the requisites are met the statement of the decedent or the person of
unsound mind may be received in evidence as an exception to the hearsay
rule.

-Such statement is, however, INADMISSIBLE if made under circumstances

indicating its lack of trustworthiness.

-The rule proscribes the admission of testimonia evidence upon a claim

which arose before the death of the accused. It does not apply to
documentary evidence.

3. Section 40. Declaration against interest. — The declaration made by a

person deceased or unable to testify against the interest of the declarant,
if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to the declarant's own interest that a reasonable person in his or
her position would not have made the declaration unless he or she
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or
herself or his or her successors in interest and against third persons. A
statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered
to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating
circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

-A statement against interest tending to expose the declarant to criminal

liability and offered to exculpate the accused (which is presumably
different from the declarant) is not admissible unless corroborating
circumstances clearly indicate trustworthiness of the statement.

-These are ante litem motam statements made by a person who is neither
a party nor in privity with a party to the suit. Such are considered
secondary evidence and admissible only when the declarant is already
dead or unavailable to testify as a witness and may be admitted against
himself or successors-in-interest and against third persons.

Reason for the admissibility

1. Necessity – as such declaration, act, or omission is frequently the
only mode of proof available; and
2. Trustworthiness – presumed that men will neither falsify nor commit
mistakes when such falsehood or mistake would be prejudicial to their
own pecuniary interest, and because of the fact that any fraudulent motive
for making the statement may be shown.

Requisites
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify;
 -Inability to testify must be serious
2.Declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant;
3. At the time he made said declaration, he was aware that the same
was contrary to his interest; and
4. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be
true.

Actual or real Interest

It is essential that at the time of the statement, the declarant’s interest
affected thereby should be actual, real or apparent, not merely contingent,
future or conditional; otherwise, the declaration would not in reality be
against interest. E.G., Declarations regarding a declarant’s inheritance are
not admissible because these are future interests.

Q: A was charged with the crime of kidnapping H. One of the testimonies

presented by the prosecution was that of M, who testified that H confided to her
that he and A’s wife R were having an affair. Undoubtedly, his wife’s infidelity
was ample reason for A to contemplate revenge. Consequently, the trial court
convicted A based on the testimonies of the witnesses. Was the testimony of M
admissible as evidence?

A: Yes. H’s revelation to M regarding his illicit relationship with A’s wife is
admissible in evidence. With the deletion of the phrase “pecuniary or moral
interest” from the present provision, it is safe to assume that “declaration
against interest” has been expanded to include all kinds of interest, that is,
pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even penal. H having been missing since his
abduction cannot be called upon to testify. His confession to M, definitely a
declaration against his own interest, since his affair with R was a crime, is
admissible in evidence because no sane person will be presumed to tell a
falsehood to his own detriment.

DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST

Made by a non-party Made by a party to a litigation or by
one in privity with or identified in legal
interest with such party
Must be against the declarant’s Need not be against the admitter’s
interest interest.

Secondary evidence is admissible only Primary evidence is admissible

when the declarant is already dead or whether the declarant is available as
unavailable to testify as a witness. a witness.
Hearsay, but admissible as an Not hearsay, thus admissible
exception to the hearsay rule.
Must have been made ante litem May be made at any time, before or
motam, i.e., before the controversy. during the trial.
The declarant must be dead or unable No requirement that the admitter is
to testify. dead or unable to testify.

Admissible against the declarant and Admissible only against the admitter.
third persons.

4. Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. - The act or declaration of

a person deceased or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
another person related to him or her by birth, adoption, or marriage or, in
the absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so intimately
associated as to be likely to have accurate information concerning his or
her pedigree, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and
the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.

-The relationship between the declarant and the person subject of the
inquiry must be legitimate unless the issue is the legitimacy itself.

-There is no provision as to the extent of degree of relationship.

Rationale for admissibility

1. Necessity – since the facts about pedigree are usually those which
occurred many years before the trial and known only to a few persons; and
2. Trustworthiness – since these are matters which members of a family
are presumed to be interested in ascertain the truth.

Requisites:
1. Declarant is dead or unable to testify;
2. Pedigree should be in issue;
3. Declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in
question, either by birth or marriage or adoption or in the absence thereof,
by person whose family he or she was so intimately associated as to be
likely to have accurate information concerning his or her pedigree;
4. Declaration must be made ante litem motam or before the
controversy occurred; and
 5. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose
pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration.

-Such declarations are natural expressions of persons who must know the
truth. Although hearsay, it is best that the nature of the case admits and
because of greater evil might arise from the rejection of such proof than
from its admission.

Pedigree Declaration by Conduct

This rule may also consist of proof of acts or conduct of relatives and the
mode of treatment in the family of one whose parentage is in question.

People v. Alegado
It is long-settled that the testimony of a person as to his age is admissible
although hearsay. He may testify as to his age as he had learned it from his
parents and relatives and his testimony in such a case is an assertion of family
tradition.

Tison v. CA and Domingo

The general rule is that where the party claiming seeks recovery against a
relative common to both claimant and declarant, but not from the declarant
himself or the declarant’s estate, the relationship of the declarant to the
common relative may not be proved by the declaration itself. There must be
some independent proof of this fact. EXCEPT where it is sought to reach the
estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right through his
declarations to the property of some other member of the family.

The present case is one instance where the general requirement on evidence
aliunde may be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the estate of
the declarant herself. Conformably, the declaration made by Teodora Dezoller
Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is her niece, is ADMISSIBLE and constitutes
sufficient proof of such relationship.

5. Section 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The

reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in
respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in
evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family,
either by consanguinity, affinity, or adoption. Entries in family bibles or
other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and the
like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
-The declarant is the witness himself and a member of the family. The
witness is the one to whom the fact relates, it is not necessary for him to
establish by independent evidence his relationship to the family.

Reason for admissibility

These are admissible by reason of necessity since tradition is often the
sole method by which proof of matters of pedigree can be obtained.

Requisites
1. There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member of the
family;
2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned
existed previous to the controversy;
3. The statement is about the reputation or tradition of the family in
respect to the pedigree of any member of the family; and
4. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree of the person concerned must be a member of the family of said
person either by consanguinity, affinity or adoption.

How to establish
1. Through testimony in open court of a witness who must be a member
of the family either by consanguinity, affinity or adoption; or
2. Through entries in:
a. Family bible;
b. Family books or charts;
c. Engraving on rings; or
d. Family portraits and the like

-This enumeration, by ejusdem generis, is limited to “family

possessions,” or those articles which represent, in effect, a family’s joint
statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person.

-A person statement as to his date of birth and age, as he learned these

from his parents or relatives, is an ante litem motam declaration of a
family tradition.

ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT FAMILY REPUTATION OR

PEDIGREE TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE
Witness need not be a member of Witness is a member of the family
the family
Relation of the declarant and the The witness is one to whom the
person subject of, the inquiry must fact relates, it is not necessary for
be established by independent him to establish by independent
evidence evidence his relationship to the
family
Testimony is about what the Testimony is about family
declarant has said concerning the reputation or tradition covering
pedigree of the family matters of pedigree

6. Section 43. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing previous

to the controversy, as to 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, may be given in
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as
evidence of common reputation.

-It is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved
is known or exists. It means the general or substantially undivided
reputation, as distinguished from a partial or qualified one, although it
need not be unanimous.

-As a general rule, the reputation of a person should be that existing at the
place of his residence. It may also be that existing in the place where he is
best known. Character is what a man is, and reputation is what he is
supposed to be in what people say he is.

Requisites for Admissibility

1. Common reputation existed ante litem motam
2. Reputation pertains to:
a. boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community
b. events of general history important to the community
c. marriage, or
d. moral character

- The element of “antiquity” (more than thirty years old) provided for in the
old rules has also been deleted. Instead, reliability is ensured because the
testimony represents the general consensus of the community

-Marriage, if not proven through an act or declaration about pedigree may

be proven through common reputation.
-Unlike that of matters of pedigree, general reputation of marriage may
proceed from persons who are not members of the family — the reason for
the distinction is the public interest
 -Pedigree may be established by reputation in the family, but not in the
community

-Common reputation is hearsay like any other exception to the hearsay

rule, but is admissible because of trustworthiness

-Reputation has been held admissible as evidence of age, birth, race, or

raceancestry, and on the question of whether a child was born alive

Reason for admissibility

1. Necessity arising from the inherent difficulty of obtaining any other
evidence than that in the nature of common reputation; and
2. Trustworthiness of the evidence arising from:
a. The supposition that the public is conversant with the subject
to be proved because of their general interest therein; and
b. The fact that the falsity or error of such evidence could be
exposed or corrected by other testimony since the public are interested in
the same.

Q: In an attempt to discredit and impeach a prosecution witness in a homicide

case, the defense counsel called to the stand a person who had been the
boyhood friend and next-door neighbor of the said witness for 30 years. One
question that the defense counsel asked of the impeaching witness was: “Can
you tell this Honorable Court about the general reputation of the prosecution
witness in your community for aggressiveness and violent tendencies?” As the
trial prosecutor, would you interpose your objection to the question of the
defense counsel?

A: Yes. An adverse party’s witness may be properly impeached by reputation

evidence provided that it is to the effect that the witness’ general reputation for
honest, truth or integrity was bad. The reputation must only be on character for
truthfulness or untruthfulness.

-Matters of public interest involves those which are common to all citizen of the
state or to the entire people. While, matters of general interest are common only
to a single community or to a considerable number of persons forming part of the
community.

In Re Mallare
The witnesses, all natives of Macalelon, who had personal knowledge of the
person, birth and residency of both Ana Mallare and her son Esteban, were one
in their declaration that Ana is a Tagalog who had continuously resided in the
place, and that Esteban, her son was reputedly born out of wedlock. Such
declarations constitute admissible evidence of the birth and illegitimacy of
Esteban Mallare. Unlike that of matters of pedigree, general reputation of
marriage may proceed from persons who are not members of the family — the
reason for the distinction is the public interest that is taken in the question of
the existence of marital relations.

7. Section 44. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made by a person

while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement caused by the
occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may
be received as part of the res gestae.

-A latin phrase which literally means “things done”

-Refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the

participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during
or immediately after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances
are such that the statements were made as spontaneous reactions or
utterances inspired by the excitement of the occasion, and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and fabricate a false testimony.

-Refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the
main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and
contemporaneous with the main act as to exclude the idea or deliberation
and fabrication.

Test of admissibility
Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or
connected with the principal fact or even that it characterizes as to be
regarded as part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly
negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.

Reason for admissibility

The reason for the rule is human experience. It has been shown that under
certain external circumstances of physical or mental shock, the state of
nervous excitement which occurs in a spectator may produce a
 spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and
perceptions produced by the external shock.

The spontaneity of the declaration is such that the declaration itself may
be regarded as the event speaking through the declarant rather than the
declarant speaking himself.

Requisites for admissibility

1. That the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence;
2. The statement were made before the declarant had the time to
contrive or devise a falsehood; and
3. That the statements must concern the occurrence in questions and
its immediate attending circumstances.
Factors to determine spontaneity of declaration
1. The time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or
transaction and the making of the statement;
2. The place where the statement is made;
3. The condition of the declarant when the utterance is given;
4. The presence or absence of intervening events between the
occurrence and the statement relative; and
5. The nature and the circumstances of the statement itself.

Q: E was convicted of the crime of rape. One of the evidence adduced was AAA’s
spontaneous, unhesitating and immediate denuciations of the rape to her Tita T
and her mother (hindot and inano ako ni Kuya E being the term she used). Is the
statement made by AAA part of the res gestae?

A: Yes. AAA’s denunciation was part of the res gestae. AAA when to Tita T’s
house immediately after feeling from E and spontaneously, unhesitatingly and
immediately declared to Tita T that E had sexually abused her. Such manner of
denunciation of him as her rapist was confirmed by Tita T’s testimony about
AAA’s panic-stricken demeanor that rendered it difficult to quickly comprehend
what the victim was saying. Of course, AAA’s use of the words “hindot and inano
ako ni kuya E” said enough about her being raped.

Verbal acts
1. The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
2. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
3. The statement must accompany the equivocal act; and
4. The statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act.
 -The reason for the admissibility of verbal acts is that the motive,
character and object of an act are frequently indicated by what was said
by the person engaged in the act.

PART OF RES GESTAE DYING DECLARATION

The event itself which speaks A sense of impending death takes
place of an oath and the law
May be made by the killer after or regards the declarant as testifying.
during the killing or that of a third
person. Can be made by the victim only.
May precede, or accompany or Confined to matters occurring after
follow the principal act. the homicidal act.
Justification is the spontaneity of Justification is the
the statement. trustworthiness, being given by the
person who was aware of his
impending death.

Q: G Sr, G Jr, JR and RV were convicted of the crime of murder for the killing of
H. One of the pieces of evidence adduced was a statement of H to his mother
saying that B shot him in the immediate aftermath of the shooting where he was
the victim. Is the statement made by H admissible?

A: Yes. H’s statement was part of the res gestae and was admissible. The
requisites concurred herein, Firstly, the principal act of shooting H was a
startling occurrence. Secondly, his statement to his mother about being shot by
B was made before H had the time to contrive or to devise considering that it
was uttered immediately after the shooting. And thirdly, the statement directly
concerned the startling occurrence itself and its attending circumstance, that is,
the identities of the assailants.

Q: While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their barangay, PO2 A observed

shadows and heard screams from a distance. PO2 A hid himself behind the
buseshs and saw a man beating a woman whom he recognized as his neighbor,
K. When K was already in agony the man stabbed her and she fell on the ground.
The man hurriedly left thereafter. PO2 A immediately went to K’s rescue. K who
was the nin a state of hysteria, kept mentioning to PO2 A “Si R, gusto akong
patayin! Sinaksak niya ako!” When PO2 A was about to carry her, K refused and
said “Kaya ko. Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si R.” The following day, R learned
of K’s death and, bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities with
his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over media, R opted to release
his statement to the press which goes:
“I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is
proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that
may take one’s life away, I hope and pray that justice will be served in the right
way. God bless us all”

The trial court convicted R of homicide on the basis of PO2 A’s testimony, K’s
statements, and R’s statements to the press. On appeal, R raises the following
error:

The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 A’s testimony, as the latter did not
have personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and violated R’s right to due
process when it considered K’s statements despite lack of opportunity for her
cross-examination. Resolve.

A: The trial court did not err in giving weight to PO2 A’s testimony. While a
witness can only testify as to those facts which he has personal knowledge, the
Rules provide that a statement made under influence of a startling event
witnessed by the person who made the declaration before he had time to think
and make up a story, or to concoct or to contrive a falsehood, or to fabricate an
account, and without any undue influence in obtaining it, aside from referring to
the event in question or its immediate attending circumstances, is an exception
being part of res gestae.

In addition, the statement of PO2 A may fall within the purview of the doctrine of
independt relevant statement, where only the fact that such statements were
made is relevant, and the truth and falsity thereof is immaterial. On the other
hand, K’s statements are also admissible as part of res gestae since the same
were made under the influence of a startling even and without any opportunity to
concoct or devise a falsehood.

-A statement not admissible as dying declaration because it was not

made under consciousness of impending death, may still be admissible as
part of res gestae if made immediately after the incident

8. Section 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity. - A

memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing, typing, electronic,
optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission
or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in
the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the
regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown
by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted
from the rule on hearsay evidence.

-Reliability is furnished by the fact that regularly kept records typically

have a high degree of accuracy. The law does not fix any precise moment
when the entries should be made. It is sufficient if the entry was made
within a reasonable period of time so that it may appear to have taken
place while the memory of the facts was unimpaired.

-Availability or unavailability of the entrant is no longer material

Requisites for the admission

1. There is a memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing, typing,
electronic, optical or other similar means;
2. Made at or near the time of the act, event, etc;
3. Made by, or from transmission of supply of information by, a person
with knowledge of the act, event, etc.;
4. Kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity;
5. It was the regular practice of the business activity to make the
memorandum, report, record or data compilation by writing, typing,
electronic, optical or similar means;
6. All the foregoing conditions are shown by the testimony of the
custodian or other qualified witnesses.

-Business records are not prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

- If the entrant is available as a witness, the entries will not be admitted,

but they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a memorandum
to refresh his memory while testifying on the transactions reflected
therein

- Entries in the payroll, being entries in the course of business, enjoy the
presumption of regularity

Reason for rule

The duty of the employees to communicate facts is itself a badge of
trustworthiness of the entries

These entries are accorded unusual reliability because their regularity and
continuity are calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of
precision
Canque v. CA
The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books requires the
satisfaction of the following conditions:
1. The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they
refer;
2. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
3. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of
a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious; an
4. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty

Wallem Maritime v. NLRC and Macatuno

A copy of an official entry in the logbook is legally binding and serves as an
exception to the hearsay rule.

The facts appearing in the logbook should be supported by the facts gathered at
the investigation. If no investigation is conducted, the contents of the logbook
have to be duly identified and authenticated lest an injustice result from a blind
adaptation of such contents which merely serve as prima facie evidence.

Northwest Airlines v. Chiong

While there is no necessity to bring into court all the employees who individually
made the entries, it is sufficient that the person who supervised them while they
were making the entries testify that the account was prepared under his
supervision and that the entries were regularly entered in the ordinary course of
business.

9. Section 46. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made

in the performance of his or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines,
or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

Official record
The original document that is legally recognized and thus ensuring the
quality of a fact when it is established. It may be a:
1. Register;
2. Cash book; or
3. An official return or certificate

Reason for admissibility

1. Necessity – due to the impossibility of requiring the official’s
attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions
occurring in the course of his duty; and
 2. Trustworthiness – there is presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty.

Requisites for admissibility (KPOP)

1. Entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such
facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal
duty to submit the same.
2. Entries were made by a public officer in the performance of his duties
or by a person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law; and
3. Entries must have been made in official records.

ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORD ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF

BUSINESS
The entrant, if a private individual, It is sufficient that the entrant
must have acted pursuant to a made the entries pursuant to a duty
specific legal duty specifically be it legal, contractual, moral or
enjoined by law. religious.
Entrant need not be dead or unable Availability or unavailability is not
to testify. material

Need not be authenticated. Needs authentication.

Q: Should entries in the police blotter be given probative value?

A: No. They are not conclusive evidence of the truth of the contents but merely
of the fact that they were recorded.

People v. San Gabriel

The Advance Information Sheet does not constitute an exception to the hearsay
rule, hence, inadmissible. The public officer who prepared the document had no
sufficient and personal knowledge of the stabbing incident.

Sabili v. Comelec 2012

Even without being sworn to before a notary public, Barangay Captain Honrade’s
Certification would not only be admissible in evidence, but would also be
entitiled to due consideration.

First, the Barangay Secretary is required by the LGC to “keep and updated
record of all inhabitants of the barangay.”
Second, Mitra v. Comelec has recognized that “it is the business of a punong
barangay to know who the residents are in his own barangay.”

Third, the Barangay Captain’s exercise of powers and duties concomitant to his
position requires him to be privy to these records kept by the Barangay
Secertary.

10. Section 47. Commercial lists and the like. - Evidence of statements of
matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a
list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation
and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (45)

Reason for admissibility

1. Necessity – because of the usual inaccessibility of the persons
responsible for the compilation of matters contained in such lists, it would
cause the court inconvenience if it would issue summons to these
numerous individuals; and
2. Trustworthiness – persons responsible for such lists have no motive
to deceive and they further realize that unless the list, register or
periodical or other published compilation are prepared with care and
accuracy, their work will have no commercial or probative value.

Requisites for admissibility

1. Statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation;
2. Statements must be contained in a list, register, periodical, or other
published compilation;
3. Compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that
occupation; and
4. Such is generally relied upon by them.

Q: In a compulsory arbitration case between Meralco and its union, may the
Secretary of Labor take into account a newspaper report citing an All Asia
Capital finance analyst’s estimate of Meralco’s 1996 net operating income at
P5.6B and upon which the union relied upon in order to support its position on
the wage issue?
A: No. Statement of matters contained in a periodical may be admitted only “if
that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and
is generally used and relied upon by them therein.” The cited report is a mere
newspaper account and not even a commercial list. At most, it is but an analysis
or opinion which carries no persuasive weight as no sufficient figures to support
it were presented. Neither did anybody testify to its accuracy. It cannot be said
that businessmen generally rely on news items such as this in their occupation.
Besides, no evidence was presented that the publication was regularly prepared
by a person in touch with the market and that it is generally regarded as
trustworthy or reliable. Absent extrinsic proof of the accuracy, these reports are
not admissible.

Examples of commercial list

1. Trade journals reporting current prices and other market data;
2. Mortality tables compiled for life insurance;
3. Abstracts of title compiled by reputable title examining institutions or
individuals; or
4. Business directories, animal pedigree registers, and the like.

PNOC Shipping v. CA
The exhibits mentioned are mere price quotations issued personally to Del
Rosario who requested for them from dealers of equipment similar to the ones
lost at the collision of the two vessels.

Accordingly, the author of the letter should be presented as witness to provide

the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question him on the contents
of the letter.

11. Section 48. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or

pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes
judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer
of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
or her profession or calling as expert in the subject.

Reason for admissibility

The learned writers have no motive to misrepresent due to the awareness
that his work will be carefully scrutinized by the learned members of the
profession and that he shall be subject to criticisms and be ultimately
rejected as an authority on the subject matter if his conclusions are found
to be invalid.

Requisites for admissibility

1. When the court can take judicial notice of them; or
2. When an expert witness testifies that the author of such is
recognized as expert in that profession.
- Scientific studies or articles and websites which were culled from the
internet, attached to the Petition, and were not testified to by an expert
witness are hearsay in nature and cannot be given probative weight

12. Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. - The

testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or out of the Philippines or
who cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable or
otherwise unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial
or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be
given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to
cross-examine him or her.

Requisites for the rule

1. The witness is dead or unable to testify;
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing
the same interests;
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present
case, although on different causes of action;

-Requires that the issues involved in both cases must, at least, be

substantially the same; otherwise, there is no basis in saying that the
former statement was – or would have been – sufficiently tested by cross-
examination or by any opportunity to do so.

-These considerations, among others, make a distinct rule on

evidence and therefore should not be confused with the general provisions
on deposition. In other words, even if the petitioner complies on the use of
depositions, the observance of Sec 47 Rule 130 cannot simply be avoided
or disregarded.

4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same
issue involved in the present case; and
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in
the former case.

Reason for admissibility

The reason for the admissibility of testimony taken at a former trial or
proceeding are the necessity for the testimony and its trustworthiness.
However, before the former testimony can be introduced in evidence, the
proponent must first lay the proper predicate therefor, i.e., the party must
establish the basis for the admission of testimony in the realm of
admissible evidence.
 Grounds which make a witness unable to testify in a subsequent case
1. Death;
2. Insanity or mental incapacity or the former witness’s loss of memory
through old age or disease;
3. Physical disability by reason of sickness or advanced age;
4. The fact that the witness has been kept away by contrivance of the
opposite party; or
5. The fact that after diligent search the former witness cannot be
found.

Proof of former testimony

1. If reduced to writing, such writing is the primary evidence thereof and
should be used; or
2. The stenographic notes or a copy thereof.

-The judge’s notes are not evidence of what the witness said, and, as a
rule, they can be used only to refresh the memory of a witness.

Inability to Testify (Meaning and Standard)

The inability of the witness to testify must proceed from a grave cause,
almost amounting to death, as when the witness is old and has lost the
power of speech. Mere refusal shall not suffice

Tan v. CA and Tan

Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial or hostility since
testifying at the first trial does not amount to inability to testify, but such
inability proceeding from a grave cause, almost amounting to death, as when the
witness is old and has lost the power of speech.

Francisco v. People
Only parties to a case are bound by a judgment of the trial court. Strangers to a
case are not bound by the judgment of said case.

13. Section 50. Residual exception. - A statement not specifically covered

by any of the foregoing exceptions, 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
efforts; and (c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of
justice will be best served bv admission of the statement into evidence.
However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless
the proponent makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance
of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main
case, to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to
meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the
particulars of it. including the name and address of the declarant.

-A statement not specifically covered by any of the exceptions, having

circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible.

Requisites for admissibility

1. The statement, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness, must not be covered by any of the foregoing exceptions;
2. The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
3. The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered
than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through
reasonable efforts; and
4. The general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will
be best served by admission of the statement of evidence.

-A statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the

proponent makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of
the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case,
to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to meet it, the
proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it,
including the name and address of the declarant.

Independent relevant statements

These are statements which are relevant independently of whether they
are true or not. They are neither hearsay nor an exception to the hearsay
rule as the purpose thereof is not to prove the truth of the declaration or
document. It merely proves the fact that a statement was made and not
the truth of the fact asserted in the statement.

An out-of-court statement which is relevant not for the truth of a matter

asserted therein, but for something else, e.g., state of mind, intent, belief,
the mere fact of utterance, or legal effect. It is a statement relevant for
something else other than its truth. Not being hearsay, independently
relevant evidence is admissible.
 Classification of independently relevant statements
1. Those statements which are the very facts in issue; and
2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in
issue. It includes the following:
a. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his
mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-will and other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as
illness and the like; c. Statements of a person from which an
inference may be made as to the state of mind of another, i.e., the
knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Statements which may identify the date, place and person in
question; and
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness.

Q: A overheard B call R a thief. In an action for defamation filed by R against B,

is the testimony of A offered to prove the fact of utterance, admissible in
evidence?

A: Yes. The testimony of A is admissible in evidence as an independently

relevant statement. It is offered in evidence only to prove the tenor thereof, not
to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. Independently relevant
statements include statements which are on the very facts in issue or those
which are circumstantial evidence thereof. The hearsay rule does not apply

Q: A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from packages, was hired by
FDP Corp, a door-to-door forwarder company, to sniff packages in their depot at
the international airport. In one of the routinary inspections of packages waiting
to be sent to the USA, the dog sat beside one of the packages, a signal that the
package contained dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the guards opened the package
and found 2 kg of cocaine. During trial, the prosecution, through the trainer who
was present during the incident and an expert in this kind of field, testified that
the dog was highly trained to sniff packages to determine if the contents were
dangerous drugs and the sniffing technique of their highly trained dogs was
accepted worldwide and had been successful in dangerous drugs operations.
The prosecution moved to admit this evidence to justify the opening of the
package. The accused objected on the grounds that: (1) the guards had no
personal knowledge of the contents of the package before it was opened; (2) the
testimony of the trainer of the dog is hearsay; and (3) the accused could not
cross-examine the dog. Decide.

A: The objection of the accused should be overruled. An evidence is admissible

when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or the rules. A
witness can testify only to those which he knows of his personal knowledge and
derived from his own perception.

The contention that the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents of
the package before it was opened is without merit. The guards can testify as to
the facts surrounding the opening of the package since they have personal
knowledge of the circumstances thereof, being physically present at the time of
its discovery.

On the other hand, the testimony of the trainer of the dog is not hearsay on the
basis of the following grounds:
a. He has personal knowledge of the facts in issue, having witnessed the
same;
b. Hearsay merely contemplates an out-of-court declaration to prove the
truthfulness and veracity of the facts asserted therein;
c. He is an expert witness; hence, his testimony may constitute as an
exception to the hearsay rule;
d. The accused has the opportunity to cross-examine him; and
e. Testimony of a witness as to statements made by nonhuman declarations
does not violate the rule against hearsay.

The law permits the so-called “non-human evidence” on the ground that
machines and animals, unlike humans, lack a conscious motivation to tell
falsehoods, and because the workings of machines can be explained by human
witnesses who are then subject to cross-examination by opposing counsel.

Conversely, the accused may not argue that he cannot cross examine the dog as
the Constitutional right to confrontation refers only to witnesses. As alluded, the
human witnesses who have explained the workings of non-human evidence is
the one that should be cross-examined. There is no doubt that the evidence of
the prosecution is admissible for being relevant and competent.

Q: In Estrada v. Desierto, supra, at issue was whether President Estrada

resigned from his position. Submitted to prove Estrada’s intent to resign was the
Angara Diary in which the Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara recorded
Estrada’s statements which he said, “Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na,
masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. I just
want to clear my name, then I will go.” Angara himself did not testify in court.
Estrada’s lawyers argued that these statements were hearsay. Were they?

A: No. The statements are independently relevant, that is, relevant

independently of whether they are true or not. Independently relevant
statements are of two classes: (1) those statements which are the very facts in
issue; and (2) those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts
in issue.

The second includes statements of a person showing his state of mind and
statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of
mind of another.

The Angara Diary contains statements of Estrada which reflect his state of mind
and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign. It also contains
statements which one can reasonably infer Estrada’s intent to resign. Such
statements are independently relevant and are excluded from the hearsay.

Arriola v. People 24 Feb 2020

Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or in part, on the competency and
credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it.

The hearsay rule, however, does not apply to independently relevant statements
Del Rosario's testimony can and will be admitted as evidence only for the purpose of proving that
such statements regarding Arriola's lack of authority to sell the subject property were, in fact, made and
uttered by Candelaria
Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such
statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown.
Del Rosario's account as to the fact of her conversation with Candelaria and the latter's stand
against Arriola's authority to sell, irrespective of its veracity, is considered as an independently relevant
statement that may properly be received as evidence against Arriola

Assessed with other established circumstances, Arriola's fraud is evident.

Arriola had not been authorized to sell Candelaria's land.
Despite full knowledge of such fact, Arriola still proceeded to represent himself as a duly
authorized seller of the said lot.

The return by the accused of money belonging to the private complainant will not reverse a consummated
act of Estafa

Such action may even uphold a conviction

Section 27, Rule 130 states that in criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or
criminal negligence or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may
be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

Arriola's initial attempts to reimburse Del Rosario through checks, coupled with the actual return of the
latter's money after the RTC issued its judgment of conviction, may all be considered as unequivocal gestures
to compromise and which can be measured against Arriola as his implied admission of guilt.
8. Opinion Rule
Section 51. General rule. - The opinion of a witness is not admissible,
except as indicated in the following sections.

Opinion
A person’s thought belief, or inference, especially a witnesses view about
facts in dispute, as opposed to personal knowledge of the facts
themselves.

GR: The opinion of a witness is not admissible. A witness testifies only

with respect to facts personally observed by him and it is for the court to
draw conclusions from the facts testified to.

XPNs:
1. Opinion of expert witness; and
2. Opinion of ordinary witness

Opinion testimony involving questions of law or the ultimate fact in issue

is not admissible.

EVIDENCE NOT BASED ON OPINION EVIDENCE

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Consist of testimony that is not Expert evidence based on the
based on personal knowledge of personal knowledge, skill,
the person testifying. experience or training of the
person testifying and evidence of
an ordinary witness on limited
matters.

Section 52. Opinion of expert witness. - The opinion of a witness on a

matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, training or
education, which he or she is shown to possess, may be received in
evidence

-The use of the word “may”, signifies that the use of opinion of expert
witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts. It only
assists the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for the
court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the
attendant facts and the applicable law.
Expert witness
-He is one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject
matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on
questions on which he proposes special knowledge to express an opinion.

-Before one may be allowed to testify as an expert witness, his

qualification must first be established by the party presenting him.

-Expert testimony is not amissible as to a matter not in issue.

-Expert witness is not necessary when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is
applicable.

Degree of skill or knowledge

There is no definite standard in determining the degree or skill or
knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an expert as
long as the following are present:
1. Training and education;
2. Particularity, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and
3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is
based.

-An expert witness may base his opinion either on the first-hand
knowledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical questions where the
facts are presented to him hypothetically and on the assumption that they
are true, formulates his opinion on such hypothesis.

-The probative force of testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere

statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the aid that he can render
to the courts in showing the facts which serve as a basis for his criterion
and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded.

-The competence of an expert witness is a matter for the trial court to

decide upon in the exercise of its discretion. The test of qualification is
necessarily a relative one, depending upon the subject matter of the
investigation, and the fitness of the expert witness. In our jurisdiction, the
criterion remains to be the expert witness’ special knowledge, experience,
and practical training that qualify him or her to explain highly technical
medical matters to the court.

Weight to be given opinion of expert witness

In any case where the opinion of an expert witness is received in
evidence, the court has a wide latitude of discretion in determining the
weight to be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may consider the
following:
1. Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
2. Whether it is the produce of reliable principles and methods;
3. Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably
to the facts of the case; and
4. Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such
determination.

Discretion of the court in giving weight to the testimony

Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may
place whatever weight they may chose upon such testimonies in
accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency
of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to
decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions
upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which
he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for
whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative
opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he
testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his
statements.

The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be

considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the
case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be
given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert
witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the
trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of
abuse of discretion.

-The testimony of a qualified medical doctor cannot be excluded simple

because he is not a specialist. The matter of training and specialization of
the witness goes to the weight rather than admissibility.

Test in determining the need to resort to expert evidence

Whether the opinion called for will aid the court in resolving the issue.

Court discretion to exclude or include expert evidence

If men of common understanding are capable of comprehending the
primary facts and drawing correct conclusions from them, expert
testimony may be excluded by the Court
 Competency of witness is a preliminary question before testimony is
admitted
It must be shown that the witness is really an expert; determination of
competency is a preliminary

The competence of an expert witness is a matter for the trial court to

decide upon in the exercise of its discretion. The test of qualification is
necessarily a relative one, depending upon the subject matter of the
investigation, and the fitness of the expert witness. In our jurisdiction, the
criterion remains to be the expert witness' special knowledge, experience
and practical training that qualify him/her to explain highly technical
medical matters to the Court

It is the specialist's knowledge of the requisite subject matter, rather than

his/her specialty that determines his/her qualification to testify

Handwriting expert
The opinion of handwriting expert are not necessarily binding upon the
court, the expert’s function being to place before the court data upon
which the court can form its own opinion. This principle holds true
especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by visual comparison of specimens
of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. A
finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of
handwriting, experts, because the judge must conduct an independent
examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable
conclusion as to its authenticity.

Q: In case where the issue involves forgery, two expert witnesses were
presented by the plaintiff, the NBI official and a handwriting expert from the
PNP. The NBI official testified that the signatures in the deed of sale and the
other sample signatures are the same. However, the PNP handwriting expert
declared that the person who signed are not the same person. The lower court
gave credit and based the ruling on the testimony of the PNP handwriting expert
on the fact that the said witness has better credentials than the NBI witness. Is
the ruling valid, because of the fact that the court based the ruling on
credentials?

A: No. While credentials of an expert witness play a factor in the evidentiary and
persuasive weight of his testimony, the same cannot be the sole factor in
determining its value. The judge must conduct his own independent examination
of the signatures under scrutiny.
 Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. - The opinion of a witness, for
which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding –
(a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate
knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity;
and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is
sufficiently acquainted.

The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person.

-That which is given by a witness who is of ordinary capacity and who has
by opportunity acquired a particular knowledge which is outside the limits
of common observation and which may be of value in elucidating a matter
under consideration.

-The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received
in evidence regarding:
1. The identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate
knowledge;
2. A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity;
3. The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently
acquainted
-Where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not
necessary, the observation of the trial judge coupled with evidence
establishing the person’s state of mental sanity will suffice.

4. The witness’ impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or

appearance of a person.
9. Character Evidence
Character
The aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an
individual person; the general result of one’s distinguishing attributes.

Character distinguished from reputation

'Character' is what a man is, and 'reputation' is what he is supposed to be
in what people say he is. 'Character' depends on attributes possessed, and
'reputation' on attributes which others believe one to possess. The former
signifies reality and the latter merely what is accepted to be reality at
present
GR: Section 54. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions.
— Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible
for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular
occasion

-The reason for this is that the evidence of a person’s character does not
prove that such person acted in conformity with such character or trait in
a particular occasion.

XPNs:

(a) In Criminal Cases:

(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends

to establish in any reasonable degree the probability, or improbability of
the offense charged.

(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral character,
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. However, the
prosecution may not prove his or her bad moral character unless on
rebuttal.

AS TO THE ACCUSED AS TO THE AS TO THE OFFENDED

PROSECUTION PARTY
1. The character of the They may not prove the His good or bad moral
offended party may be bad moral character of character may be
proved if it tends to the accused is proved as long as it
establish in any pertinent to the moral tends to establish in
reasonable degree the trait involved in the any reasonable degree
probability, or offense charged, unless the probability of the
improbability of the in rebuttal when the offense charged.
offense charged. accused opens the
issue by introducing
2. The accused may evidence of his good
prove his or her good moral character.
moral character,
pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the
offense charged

-In criminal cases, character evidence is inadmissible under the following

situations:
 1. In rebuttal, proof of the bad character of the victim is not admissible
if the crime was committed through treachery and premeditation; and
2. In rape cases, the evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, or
reputation or opinion thereof shall not be admitted unless and only to the
extent that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to
the case.

Good Moral Character of Accused

The purpose of presenting evidence of good moral character is to prove
the improbability of his doing the act charged. The accused may prove his
good moral character only if it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged

Bad moral character of accused in rebuttal

Unless and until the accused gives evidence of his good moral character
the prosecution may not introduce evidence of his bad character

Character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics

involved in the type of offense charged. Thus:
a. On a charge of rape: character for chastity
b. On a charge of assault: character for peace ableness or violence
c. On a charge of embezzlement: character for honesty

Rape Shield Rule

In prosecution for rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct,
opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and
only to the extent that the court finds that such evidence is material and
relevant to the case

Sexual Abuse Shield Rule

The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding
involving alleged child sexual abuse:
a. Evidence to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; and
b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged
victim

Q: D is on trial for sexual assault of D, a law student who sidelines as a call

center agent. D offers the testimony of Dd, who says that D is known in the
community as a decent and discerning person. The prosecution presents a
rebuttal witness, Dv, who testifies that, if D was reputed to be a good person,
that reputation was a misperception because D had been previously convicted of
homicide. Is Dv’s testimony admissible as to the character of D?

A: No, Dv’s testimony on D’s previous conviction for homicide as evidence of his
bad character does not refer to a moral trait involved in the offense charged
which is sexual assault.

(b) In Civil Cases:

Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only

when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.

Proof of bad character

1. Cross-examination; or
2. Independent evidence of bad character.

-It is permitted only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in

the case like in a civil action for damages emanating from the offense of
libel, slander, or seduction.

-Personal opinion as to the moral character of the accused and the

specific conduct of the part exhibiting character is excluded as evidence.
However, reputation in the community is admissible.

Q: D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V to death with an

iron pipe. May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had a good reputation
for peacefulness and non-violence?

A: No. The prosecution may introduce evidence of good or even bad moral
character of the victim if it tends to establish any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged. In this case, the evidence is
not relevant.

CSC v. Belagan
When the credibility of a witness is sought to be impeached by proof of his
reputation, it is necessary that the reputation shown should be that which
existed before the occurrence of the circumstances out of which the litigation
arose, or at the time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote
from the commencement of the suit. This is because a person of derogatory
character or reputation can still change or reform himself.
 People v. Noel Lee
In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is
IRRELEVANT to determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Accused
has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in
self-defense. There is no connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and
thievery with his violent death in the hands of accused

(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases:

Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such

character has been impeached.

In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a

person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or
by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is
allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.

In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an

essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made of
specific instances of that person's conduct.

G. Burden of Proof and Presumptions (Rule 131)

Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence. - Burden of proof is the duty
of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or
her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Burden of proof
never shifts.

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 defenses by the amount of evidence required
by law. xxx Further, it is a basic principle that whoever alleges a fact has the
burden of proving it

Presumptions
-Inferences of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are
permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.

-A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence. It imposes
on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with
evidence to meet or rebut the presumption

-In a sense, a presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted.

 PRESUMPTION INFERENCE
Mandated by law and A factual conclusion that can
established a legal relation rationally be drawn from other
between or among the facts. facts.
It is a deduction directed by It is a permissive deduction.
law
EFFECT: A party in whose favor
the legal presumption exists
may rely on and invoke such
legal presumptions to establish
a fact in issue. One need not
introduce evidence to prove the
fact for a presumption is prima
facie proof of the fact
presumed.

PRESUMPTION OF LAW PRESUMPTION OF FACT

(PRAESUMPTIONES JURIS) (PRAESUMPTIONES HOMINIS)
A deduction which the law expressly A deduction which reason draws
directs to be made from particular from the facts proved without an
facts. express direction from law to that
effect. Discretion is vested in the
A certain inference must be made tribunal as to drawing the inference.
whenever the facts appear which
furnish the basis of inference.
Reduced to fixed rules and forms of Derived wholly and directly from the
the system of jurisprudence. circumstances of the particular case
by means of common experience of
mankind.
Need not be pleaded or proved if the Has to be pleaded and proved.
facts on which they are based are
duly averred and established.
Kinds:
1. Conclusive presumptions
(presumptions juris et de jure)

2. Disputable presumptions
(presumptions juris tantum)

Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. - The following are instances of conclusive

presumptions:
 (a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and
to act upon such belief, he or she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it; and

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her landlord at the
time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them

-A presumption which is rebuttable and any evidence tending to rebut the

presumption is not admissible. This presumption is in reality a rule of
substantive law.

Classes of presumptive presumptions

1. Estoppel in pais (Equitable Estoppel) – Whenever a party has, by his or her
own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to
believe a particular thing to be 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.

2. Estoppel by deed – A party to a property deed is precluded from asserting,

as against another party to the deed, any right or title in derogation of the deed,
or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the deed.

-Example: The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time
of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

-Estoppel may attach even though the landlord does not have title at the time of
the relations. It may inure in favor of the successor.

-The rule on estoppel against tenants is subject to a qualification. It does not

apply if:
1. The landlord’s title has expired;
2. It has been conveyed to another; or
3. It has been defeated by a title paramount, subsequent to the
commencement of lessor-lessee relationship.

-In other words, if there was a change in the nature of the title of the landlord
during the subsistence of the lease, then the presumption does not apply.
Otherwise, if the nature of the landlord’s title remains as it was during the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant, then estoppel lies against
the tenant.

WAIVER EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL

 A voluntary and intentional May arise however, in the absence of
abandonment or relinquishment of a any intention on the part of the
known right, it must be supported by person estopped to relinquish or
an agreement founded upon a valid change any existing right, and it
consideration. need not be supported by any
consideration, agreement, or legal
obligation.

Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are

satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence:

-Refers to a presumption which is satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be

contradicted and overcome by other evidence.

-Disputable presumptions under Sec 3, Rule 131

1. A person is innocent of a crime or wrong:
-Applies to both civil and criminal cases. Presumption of innocence of
the accused accompanies him until the rendition of judgment and disappears
after conviction, such that upon appeal, the appellate court will then presume
the guilt of the accused. The prosecution’s case must rise and fall on its own
merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

2. Unlawful act is done with unlawful intent;

3. Person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
4. Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
-GR: All persons are sane and normal and moved by substantially the
same motives. When of age and sane, they must take care of themselves.
Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by
another but because that person has been defeated or overcome illegally.
There must be a violation of the law.
-XPN: When one of the parties is unable to read or if the contract is in a
language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person
enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully
explained to the former.

5. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;

-Requisites:
a. Evidence is material;
b. Party had the reasonable opportunity to produce it; and
c. Evidence is available only to the said party.

-Not applicable when:

 a. Suppression of evidence is not willful;
b. Evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or
cumulative;
c. Evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
d. Suppression is by virtue of an exercise of privilege.

-Failure of the prosecution to present a certain witness and to proffer a

plausible explanation does not amount to willful suppression of evidence
since the prosecutor has the discretion/prerogative to determine the
witnesses he is going to present.

6. Money paid by one to another was due to the latter;

7. Thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
8. Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
9. Prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the latter ones
is produced;

10. A person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent

wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by
him or her;

-In order to raise the presumption, the following must be proved:

a. Crime was committed;
b. committed recently;
c. stolen property was found in the possession of the defendant;
and
d. defendant is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily

11. A person in possession of an order on himself or herself for the payment of

the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the
thing accordingly;

12. Person acting in public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;

-Ratio: It would cause great inconvenience if in the first instance strict

proof were required of appointment or election to office in all cases where it
might be collaterally in issue. However, the presumption of a regular
appointment does not apply to a public officer seeking to recover salary
attached to the office, or the benefits of a pension system.

13. Official duty has been regularly performed;

 -All things are presumed to have been done regularly and with due
formality until the contrary is proved. This presumption extends to persons
who have been appointed pursuant to a local or special statute to act in
quasi-public or quasi-official capacities and to professionals like lawyers and
surgeons

-GR: Applies to both civil and criminal cases

-XPN:
a. Petition for writ of amparo – presumption may not be invoked by
the respondent public officer or employee
b. Does not apply during in-custody investigation.
c. When official conduct in question is irregular on its face.

14. A court or judge acting as such whether in the PH or elsewhere, was

acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
-Lawful exercise of jurisdiction is presumed unless the record itself
shows that jurisdiction has not been acquired or the record itself shows the
absence of jurisdiction.

15. All the matters within an issue in a raised case were laid before the court
passed upon by it;

16. All matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration
were laid before arbitrators and passed upon by them;

17. Private transaction have been fair and regular;

18. Ordinary course of business has been followed;
19. There was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
20. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
21. An indorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument
was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated:
-Except where an endorsement bears date after the maturity of the
instrument, every negotiation is deemed prima facie to have been effected
before the instrument was overdue.

22. A writing is duly dated;

23. Letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the
mail;
-It must be proved that the letter was properly addressed with postage
pre-paid and it was actually mailed.
-Bare denial of receipt of a mail cannot prevail over the certification of
the postmaster, whose official duty is to send notices of registered mail.
24. Presumption of Death
a. Absence of 7 years – it being unknown, the absentee still lives, he or
she shall be presumed dead for all purposes except for those of succession;
b. Absence of 10 years – absentee shall be considered dead for the
purpose of opening his succession only after an absence of 10 years, and if he
or she disappeared after the age of 75, absence of only 5 years is sufficient;
c. The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the
division of estate among the heirs:

-Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which

is missing, who has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel
or aircraft;

-Member of the AFP who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has
been missing for 4 years;

-Person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known for 4 years;

-Married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years, the spouse
present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded
belief that the absent spouse is already dead; 2 years in case of
disappearance where there is danger of death under circumstances
hereinabove provided. Before marrying again, the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding as provided in the FC and in the rules for
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of re-appearance of the absent spouse.

25. Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact;
26. Things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and
ordinary habits of life;
27. Persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract of co-
partnership’
28. A man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage;

29. Property acquired by a man and woman who are capacitated to marry
each other and who have lived 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;
30. In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated
to marry each other and who have acquired property through their actual joint
contribution of money, property or industry, such contributions and their
corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidence of credit
are equal;

31. If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage
within 300 days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules
shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
a. A child born before 180 days after the solemnization of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former
marriage, provided it be born within 300 days after the termination of former
marriage;
b. A child born after 180 days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the 300 days after the termination of
the former marriage.

32. A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of
that nature;
33. The law has been obeyed;
34. A printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public
authority, was so printed or published;

35. A printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases

adjudged in tribunals of the country where the books is published contains
correct reports of such cases.

36. 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;

37. Except for purposes of succession, when 2 persons perish in the same
calamity, 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 age of the sexes,
according to the following rules:
a. If both were under age of 15 years, the older is deemed to have
survived;
b. If both were over age of 60, the younger is deemed to have survived;
c. If one is under 15 and other above 60, the former is deemed to have
survived;
 d. If both over 15 and under 60, and the sex be different, the male is
deemed to have survived; if the sex be the same, the older;
e. If one be under 15 or over 60, and the other between those ages, the
latter is deemed to have survived.

38. If there is 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.

Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. - There is no

presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy 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 or her allegation

-CIVIL CASES: Section 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. — In

all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law or
these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed
the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.

-INCONSISTENT PRESUMPTIONS: If presumptions are inconsistent, the

presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy shall
apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption
applies

-CRIMINAL CASES: Section 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal

cases. - If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the offense
charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact
beyond reasonable doubt

H. Presentation of Evidence (Rule 132)

1. Examination of Witnesses
GR: Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. - The examination of
witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and
under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness
shall be given orally.

Ratio
Open court examination allows the court the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witness and allows the adverse party to cross-examine the
witness.

XPNs:
The testimony of the witness may not be given in open court in the following
cases:
1. In civil cases, by depositions
2. In criminal cases, by depositions or conditional examinations
3. In criminal cases covered by Rule on Summary Procedure, the
affidavits of the parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the
witnesses who executed the same.
4. In civil cases, covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, the
parties are merely required to submit the affidavits of their witnesses and
other piece of evidence on the factual issues, setting forth the law and the
facts relied upon.
5. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the judicial affidavit shall take the
place of direct testimonies of witnesses;
6. Matters regarding the admissibility and evidentiary weight of
electronic documents may be proved by affidavits subject to cross by the
adverse party;
7. If the witness is incapacitated to speak;
8. The question calls for a different mode of answer.

OATH AFFIRMATION
An outward pledge made under an A substitute for an oath and is
immediate sense of responsibility to solemn and formal declaration that
God or a solemn appeal to the the witness will tell the truth.
Supreme Being in attestation of the
truth of some statement.

The object of the rule is to affect

the conscience of the witness to
compel him to lay him open to
punishment for perjury if he testifies
falsely.

-The option to take either an oath or affirmation is given to the witness and
not to the court room.
In order that one may be competent as a witness, it is not necessary that he
has a definite knowledge of the difference between his duty to tell the truth
after being sworn and before, or that he is able to state it, but it is necessary
that he be conscious that there is a difference.

Waiver of the right to have the witness sworn

The right may be waived. If a party admis proof to be taken in a case without
an oath, after the testimony has been acted upon by the court, and made the
basis of a judgment, such party can no longer object to the admissibility of
the testimony.

Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. - The entire proceedings of a trial or

hearing, including the:
1. questions propounded to a witness and his or her answers thereto,
and
2. 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.

Transcript Deemed Prima Facie Correct

A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official
stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be
deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings

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 the exclusion of:
a. A party who is a natural person;
b. A duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is not 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 court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented
from conversing with one another, directly through intermediaries, until all
shall have been examined.

XPNs:
1. An accused in a criminal case as it his constitutional right to be
present at all stages of the proceedings;
 2. Parties to the litigation will generally not be excluded, their presence
usually being necessary to a proper management of the case;
3. Party in interest though not a party to the record and an agent of such
party, if the presence of such agent is necessary;
4. Officers and complaining witnesses are customarily excepted from
the rule unless the circumstances warrant otherwise; and
5. Expert witness are not excluded until production of evidence bearing
upon the question or subject as to which they have been called or unless
liable to be influenced by the testimony of the other witnesses.

Recantation of a witness
Courts must not automatically exclude the original statement based solely
on the recantation. It should determine which statement should be given
credence through a comparison of the original and the new statements,
applying the general rules of evidence.

a) Rights and Obligations of a Witness

Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer
questions, although his or her answer may tend to establish a claim
against him or her. However, it is the right of a witness:

(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting

questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
-The trial court’s duty is to protect every witness against
oppressive behavior of an examiner and this is especially true where the
witness sis of advanced age.

(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 or her to
a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
-Refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness is granted
immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his
testimony, e.g., under the law providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully
acquired property and under prosecutions for bribery and graft.

(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her
reputation, unless it be to 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 or her previous final conviction for an offense
 USE OF IMMUNITY TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY
Prohibits the use of the witness’ Grants immunity to the witness
compelled testimony and its from prosecution for an offense to
fruits in any manner in which his compelled testimony
connection with the criminal relates.
prosecution of the witness.
It is immunity from prosecution by
It is immunity from use of any reason or on the basis of the
statement given by the witness. testimony.
By the grant of use-and- Transaction immunity is broader in
derivative-use immunity, a the scope of its protection. By its
witness is only assured that his grant, a witness can no longer be
or her particular testimony and prosecuted for any offense
evidence derived from it will not whatsoever arising of the act or
be used against him or her in transaction to which the testimony
subsequent prosecution. relates.

Obligations of a witness in open court

GR: A witness must answer questions, although his or her answer may
tend to establish a claim against him or her. Refusal to answer as a
witness constitutes direct contempt.

XPNs: A witness may validly refuse to answer on the basis of the

following.
1. Right against self-incrimination – his answers will tend to
subject him to punishment for an offense; or
-The constitutional assurance of the right against self-
incrimination is a prohibition against the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication from the accused. It is simply a
prohibition against legal process to extract from the accused’s own lips,
against his will, admission of his guilt. Hence, a purely mechanical act
required to be done or produced from the accused is not covered by the
right against self-incrimination.
-The privilege against self-incrimination must be invoked at
the proper time, and the proper time to invoke it is when a question
calling for an incrimination answer is propounded. Also, a person has
been summoned to testify cannot decline to appear, nor can he decline
to be sworn as a witness and no claim of privilege can be made until a
question calling for an incriminating answer is asked.
 2. Right against self-degradation – If his answer will have a direct
tendency to degrade his character.

XPNs to the XPN: A witness may not invoke the right against self-
degradation if:
1. Such question is directed to the very fact at issue or to a fact
from which the fact at issue would be presumed; or
2. If it refers to this previous final conviction for an offense.

-A witness invited by the Senate who refuse to testify and arrested for
contempt, cannot invoke the right against self-incrimination in a petition
for certiorari or prohibition. The said right may be invoked only when the
incriminating question is being asked, since he has no way of knowing
in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of him. That
this right may possibly be violated or abused is no ground for denying
the Senate Committees their power of inquiry.

Prohibition on narrative form testimony

-A witness’s testimony should be elicited by way of questions and
answers. Thus, if the witness does a narration instead of answering the
question, the answer may be stricken out upon objection. The reason is
that if a witness testifies in narrative form, the adverse party is deprived
of the opportunity to object to the testimony beforehand.

XPN: The court may allow a child witness to testify in a narrative form.

Refusal of the witness to take the witness stand

GR: A witness may not refuse to take the witness stand.
XPN:
1. An accused in a criminal case; or
2. A party who is not an accused in a criminal case is allowed not
to take the witness stand – in administrative cases/proceedings that
partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal
proceeding. As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the party thereto
can altogether decline to take the witness stand. It is not the character
of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls.

Right against self-incrimination not available under the Witness

Protection Program
 Any witness admitted into the program of the WP, Security and Benefit
Act cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or produce books,
documents, records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the
offense or offenses for which he has been admitted into the Program on
the ground of the constitutional right against self-incrimination but he
shall enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution and cannot be subjected
to any penalty or thing concerning his compelled testimony or books,
documents, records and writings produced.

Persons eligible to the WP, Security and benefit Program

Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or 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 provided that:

1. The offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as

defined under the RPC, or its equivalent under SLs;
2. His testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
3. He or any member of his family within the second civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats to life or bodily injury or
there is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed
or corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or
evasively, because or on account of his testimony; or
4. He is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would be testifying
against the other law enforcement officers. In such case, only the
immediate members of his family may avail themselves of the
protection.

Q: As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, you are convinced that he

can be utilized as a state witness. What procedure will you take?

A: As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, I would ask the prosecutor

to recommend that the accused be made a state witness. It is the prosecutor
who must recommend and move for the acceptance of the accused as a state
witness. The accused may also apply under the Witness Protection Program.

State witness may be liable for contempt or criminal prosecution

If he fails or refuses to testify or to continue to testify without just
cause when lawfully obliged to do so or if he testifies falsely or
evasively, he shall be liable to prosecution for perjury. If a state
witness fails or refuses to testify, or testifies falsely or evasively, or
 violates any condition accompanying such immunity without just
cause, as determined in a hearing by the proper court, his immunity
shall be removed and he shall be subject to contempt or criminal
prosecution. Moreover, the enjoyment of all rights and benefits under
RA 6981 shall be deemed terminated. The witness, may, however,
purge himself of the contumacious acts by testifying at any appropriate
state of the proceedings.

Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. - The

order in which an individual witness may be examined is as follows:

(a) Direct examination by the proponent – to elicit facts about the

client’s cause of action or defense;

(b) Cross-examination by the opponent

1. To bring out facts favorable to counsel’s client not
established by the direct testimony and; and
2. To enable counsel to impeach or to impair the credibility
of the witness.

(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;

1. To afford opportunity to the witness to explain or
supplement his answers given during the cross-examination; and
2. To rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been
damaged.

(d) Re-cross examination by the opponent.

1. To overcome the proponent’s attempt to rehabilitate the
witness; and
2. To rebut damaging evidence brought out during redirect
examination.

Direct examination
-The examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him or her
facts relevant to the issue.

-In light of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, most direct examinations are now
in the form of a judicial affidavit.
Q: T states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being asked but
he cannot recall them now. When handed a written record of the facts, he
testifies that the facts are correctly stated, but that he has never seen the
writing before. Is the writing admissible as part of the recollection recorded?

A: No, because for the written record to be admissible as past recollection

recorded, it must have been written or recorded by T or under his direction at
the time with the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any time when
the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded. But in this case, T has never seen the writing before.

Cross examination
-Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be
cross-examined by the adverse party on any relevant matter, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to his or her accuracy and truthfulness
and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue.

Scope of a cross-examination
1. American rule – restricts cross-examination to facts and
circumstances which are connected with the matters that have been
stated in the direct examination of the witness.
2. English rule – where a witness is called to testify to a particular
fact, he becomes a witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-
examined upon all matters material to the issue, the examination not
being confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination.

-Both rules are followed under Philippine Jurisdiction. In general, the

English Rule is being followed, which allows the cross-examination to
elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue, but this does not mean
that a party by doing so is making the witness his own. Conversely, the
American Rule is being followed as to the accused or a hostile witness,
who may only be cross-examined on matters covered by direct
examination.

Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony

GR: When cross-examination cannot be done or completed due to
causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the incomplete
testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the
record.
XPN: Where the prosecution witness was extensively cross-examined on
the material points and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be
produced despite a warrant of his arrest, the striking out is not
warranted.

Effect of death or absence of a witness after the direct examination by

the proponent
1. If the witness was not cross-examined because of causes
attributable to the cross-examining party and the witness had always
made himself available for cross-examination, the direct testimony of
the witness shall remain on record and cannot be stricken off because
the cross-examiner is deemed to have waived his right to cross-
examine.

2. If the witness was partially cross-examined but died before the

completion of his cross-examination, his testimony on direct may be
stricken out but only with respect to the testimony not covered by the
cross-examination.

3. The absence of a witness is not sufficient to warrant the

striking out of his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-
examination where the witness has already been sufficiently cross-
examined, and the matter on which cross-examination is sought is not in
controversy.

GR: The party who offered the testimony of a witness is bound by such
testimony.
XPNs:
1. In the case of a hostile witness;
2. Where the witness is the adverse party or the representative of
a juridical person which is the adverse party; and
3. When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is required by
law to be presented by the proponent, as in the case of subscribing
witnesses to a will.

Re-direct examination
 -After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he or
she may be re-examined by the party calling him or her, to explain or
supplement his or her answers given during the cross-examination

Q: On re-direct examination, may questions on matters not dealt with during

the cross-examination be allowed?

A: Yes. It may be allowed by the court in its discretion.

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 or her re-
direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be allowed
by the court in its discretion.

Recalling the witness

-GR: After the examination of a witness by both sides has been
concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court.
Recalling a witness is a matter of judicial discretion and it shall be
guided by the interests of justice.

-XPNs:
1. The examination has not been concluded;
2. If the recall of the witness was expressly reserved by a party
with the approval of the court. In these two cases the recall of a witness
is a matter of right.

-Something more than bare assertion of the need to propound additional

questions is essential before the court’s discretion may rightfully be
exercised to grant or deny recall. There must be a satisfactory showing
of some concrete, substantial ground for instance, that particularly
identified material points were not covered in the cross-examination, or
that particularly described in vital documents were not presented to the
witness whose recall is prayed for, or that the cross-examination was
conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof.
Absent such particulars, to repeat, there would be no foundation for a
trial court to authorize the recall of any witnesss.

b) Leading and Misleading Questions

Leading question
 -It is one which suggests to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires. A leading question is generally not allowed.

-The test is whether a question is leading or not is the suggestiveness of

the conduct.

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 difficulty in getting direct and intelligible
answers from a witness who is ignorant, a child of tender years, is of
feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;

-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.

(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.
(f) A child of tender years may be asked leading questions
(g) In all stages of examination of a child if the same will further
the interests of justice.

A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet

testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he or she has
previously stated. It is not allowed

c) Impeachment of Witnesses
Technique employed usually as part of cross-examination to discredit a
witness by attacking his credibility.

Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. - A witness may be

impeached by the party against whom he or she was called,
1. by contradictory evidence,
2. by evidence that his or her general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad, or
 3. 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. (11a)

Other modes of impeaching a witness are:

1. By involving him during cross-examination in contradiction;
2. By showing the impossibility or improbability of his testimony;
3. By proving action or conduct of the witness inconsistent with
his testimony; and
4. By showing bias, interest or hostile feeling against the adverse
party.

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 final judgment of a crime shall be admitted if
(a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one 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. (n)
Impeachment of a witness by evidence of particular wrong acts
GR: A witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful
acts
XPN: If it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record
the judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an offense.

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. (12a)

GR: The party presenting the witness is not allowed to impeach the
credibility of such witness.
XPN: The witness is an:
1. Unwilling or hostile;
-A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile if so
declared by the court upon showing 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.

2. Adverse party; or
3. Officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.

-In these instances, such witnesses may be impeached by the party

presenting him or her in all respects as if he had been called by the
adverse party, except by evidence of his or her bad character.

Impeachment of the adverse party as a witness

-That the witness is the adverse party does not necessarily mean that
the calling party will not be bound by the former’s testimony. The fact
remains that it was at his instance that his adversary was put on the
witness stand. He is not bound only in the sense that he may contradict
him by introducing other evidence to prove a statement of facts contrary
to what the witness testifies. Unlike an ordinary 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 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.

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

Laying the predicate

-It is the duty of a party trying to impugn the testimony of a witness by
means of prior or subsequent inconsistent statements, whether oral or
in writing, or to give the witness a chance to reconcile conflicting
declarations, such that it is only when no reasonable explanation is
given by him that he should be deemed impeached.

Laying the predicate in impeaching a witness by evidence of prior

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

-Contradicting testimony given subsequently does not necessarily

contradict the previous testimony if the contradiction is satisfactorily
explained. There is no rule which states that a previous testimony is
presumed to be false merely because a witness now says that the same
is not true. A testimony solemnly given in the court should not be lightly
set aside. Before this can be done both the previous testimony and the
subsequent one should be carefully scrutinized – in other words, all the
expedients devised by man to determine the credibility of a witnesses
should be utilized to determine which of the two contradicting
testimonies represents the truth.

-As between statements made during the preliminary investigation of

the case and the testimony of a witness in open court, the latter
deserves more credence. Preliminary investigations are commonly fairly
summary or truncated in nature, being designed simply for the
determination, not of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but of probable
cause prior to the filing of an information in court.

Inapplicability of the rule

-If the prior inconsistent statement appears in a deposition of the
adverse party, and not a mere witness, that adverse party who testifies
may be impeached without laying the predicate, as such prior
statements are in the nature of admission of said adverse party.
-The reason for laying the predicates are:
1. To avoid unfair surprise to the adversary;
2. To save time, as an admission by the witness may make the
extrinsic proof necessary; and
3. To give the witness, in fairness to him, a chance to explain the
discrepancy.

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE PRIOR INCONSISTENT

STATEMENTS
Refers to other testimony of the Refer to statements, oral or
same witness, or other evidence documentary, made by the
presented by him in the same witness sought to be impeached
case, but no the testimony of on occasions other than the trial
another witness. in which he is testifying.

Evidence of the good character of a witness

GR: Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible for
the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular
occasion.

XPN:
1. In criminal cases:
a. The character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
b. The accused may prove his or her good moral character,
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. However,
the prosecution may not prove his or her bad moral character unless on
rebuttal.

2. In civil cases:
a. Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case
is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in
the case.

3. In criminal and Civil cases

a. Evidence of the good moral character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached.
-In all cases in which evidence of character or trait of character of a
person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation
or be testimony in the form of an opinion.

-In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an

essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made
of specific instances of that person’s conduct.

Referral of witness 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 time other tie when the fact was fresh in his or her
memory and he or she knew that the same was correctly written or
recorded.

-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 recording correctly stated the transaction
when made. Such evidence must be received with caution.

PRESENT RECOLLECTION PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED

REVIVED
Applies if the witness remembers Applies where the witness does
the facts regarding his entries. not recall the facts involved.

Requisites: Requisites:
1. Memorandum has been written 1. Witness retains no recollection
by him or under his direction; and of the particular facts; and

2. Written by him: 2. But he is able to swear that the

a. When the fact occurred or record or writing correctly stated
immediately thereafter; or the transaction when made.
b. At any other time when the
fact was fresh from his memory
and he knew that the same was
correctly recorded.
Entitled to greater weight Entitled to lesser weight
Evidence is the testimony Evidence is the writing or record
(the memorandum)
Rule of evidence affected is Rule of evidence affected is the
competency of witness, best evidence rule.
examination of witness (laying the
predicate)
The witness simply testifies that Witness must swear that the
he knows that the memorandum is writing correctly states the
correctly written by him or under transaction.
his direction. There is no need to
swear that the writing correctly
states the transaction.

Right of the adverse party when writing is shown to a witness

Whenever a wiring or record is shown to a witness, it 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 examination of child witness

-The rule shall govern the examination of a child witness in all criminal
and non-criminal proceedings of a child who is: (VAW)
1. Victims;
2. Accused; and
3. Witnesses to a crime.

Child witness
1. Any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age
of 18 years old; or
2. A person over 18 years of age, if he/she is found by the court as
unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of physical or
mental disability or condition.

Presumption of competency
GR: Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. The burden of
proof to rebut such presumption lies in the party challenging his
competence.
XPN: When the court finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the
ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish
from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court, the
judge shall conduct a competency examination of a child.

Examination of a child witness

The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any
proceeding shall be done in open court. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.

Videotaped deposition
The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may apply for an order
that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be
recorded and preserved on videotape. If the court finds that the child
will not be able to testify in open court at trial, it shall issue an order
that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by videotape.

Live-link TV testimony
The court may order by an application may be made by the prosecutor,
counsel or guardian ad litem for the testimony of the child to be taken in
a room outside the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-
link television, if there is a likelihood that the child would suffer trauma
from testifying in the presence of the accused, his counsel or the
prosecutor as the case may be.

The kind of trauma contemplated is trauma that would impair the

completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.

Hearsay exception in child abuse cases

A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of
child abuse, not otherwise under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in
evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding. In ruling on the
admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the
time, content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia
of reliability. It shall consider the following factors:
a. Whether there is a motive to lie;
b. The general character of the declarant child;
c. Whether more than one person heard the statement;
d. Whether the statement was spontaneous;
e. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the
declarant child and witness;
f. Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the
declarant child;
 g. The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is
remote; and
h. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that
there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the
involvement of the accused.

Sexual abuse shield

GR: The following is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
alleged child sexual abuse:
a. Evidence is offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in
other sexual behavior; and
b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the
alleged victim.
XPN: Evidence of specific instance of sexual behavior by the alleged
victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of
semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.

Protective order
Any videotape or audiotape of child that is part of the court record shall
be under a protective order that provides as follows:
1. Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their counsel, their expert
witness, and the guardian ad litem.
2. No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any
member of the court staff, the prosecution attorney, the defense
counsel, the guard ad litem, agents of investigating law enforcement
agencies, and other persons as determined by the court to any other
person, except as necessary for the trial.
3. No person shall be granted access to the tape, its transcription
or any party thereof unless he signs a written affirmation that he has
received and read a copy of the protective order; that he submits to the
jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order; and that in
case of violation thereof, he will be subject to the contempt power of
the court.
4. Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made
available to the parties, their counsel, and respective agents shall bear
the following cautionary notice:
- This object or document and the contents thereof are subject to
a protective order issued by the court in (case title), (case number).
They shall not be examined, inspected, read, viewed, or copied by an
person, or disclosed to any person, except as provided in the protective
order. No additional copies of the tape or any of its portion shall be
made, given, sold, or shown to any person without prior court order. Any
 person violating such protective order is subject to the contempt power
of the court and other penalties prescribed by law.

5. No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person

except as ordered by the court.
6. Within 30 days from receipt, all copies of the tape and any
transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for
safekeeping unless the period is extended by the court on motion of a
party.
7. This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until
further order of the court.

Q: AA, a 12-year old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who
befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The
information for rape filed against BB states: “On or about Oct 30, 2015, in the
City of SP and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a
minor, 15 years old with lewd design and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had sexual
intercourse with AA, a minor, 12 years old, against the latter’s will and consent.”
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness
and manifested that he be allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his
direct examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a child witness.
BB’s counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a
competency examination on the witness, a requirement before the rule cited can
be applied in the case. Is BB’s counsel, correct?

A: No. Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut the

presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the
party challenging his competence. Here, AA, a 12-year old child witness who is
presumed to be competent, may be asked leading questions by the prosecutor in
conducting his direct examination pursuant to RECW and the revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure. In order to obviate the counsel’s argument on the
competency of AA as prosecution witness, the judge motu proprio conducted his
voir dire examination of AA.

2. Authentication and Proof of Documents

a) Meaning of Authentication
-Process of proving the due execution and genuineness of a document.
-Not only objects but also documents introduced in evidence need to be
authenticated. It is a preliminary step in showing the admissibility of an
evidence.

When authentication is not required

1. The writing is an ancient document
- Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private
document not necessary. - Where a private document is more than
thirty (30) years old, is produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations
or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity
need be given.

2. The writing is a public document or record

- Section 23. Public documents as evidence. - Documents
consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a
duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third
person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date
of the latter.

- Section 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public

documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody of the record, or by his 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 office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which

is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the
Philippines is also a party, or considered a public document under
such treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19
hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form
prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity
granted to public documents originating from the Philippines.

For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a

contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next
preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary of
the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
 Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his or her office.

A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent

may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate
or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and
genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be
required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and
the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has exempted the
document itself from this formality.

-A private document required by law to be recorded, while it

is transformed into a public document by the “public record” thereof,
is not included in this enumeration. Such recording does not make
the private writing itself public document so as to make it admissible
without authentication, e.g., birth certificate recorded in the NSO is
a public record, but it is still a private document.

3.The writing is a notarial document acknowledged, proved or

certified.
- Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. - Every instrument
duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may
be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved.

4. The genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document

have not been specifically denied under oath by an adverse party.
5. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to
the issue;
6. The genuineness and authenticity of the document have been
admitted
7. The document is not being offered as genuine.

b) Classes of Documents
Section 19. Classes of documents. - For the purpose of their
presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
 (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last
wills and testaments;
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under
treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and
the country of source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
required by law to be entered therein.

All other writings are private

PUBLIC DOCUMENT PRIVATE DOCUMENT

WHAT COMPRISES IT
1. Written official acts, records of All other writings are private.
official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the
Philippines or foreign country.

2. Documents acknowledged before a

notary public except last wills and
testaments

3. Documents that are considered

public documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force
between the PH and the country of
source;

4. Public records, kept in the PH of

private documents required by law to
be entered therein
AS TO AUTHENTICITY AND ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE
Admissible without need of further Before any private document offered
proof of its genuineness and due as authentic is received in evidence,
execution its due and execution and authenticity
must first be proved
AS TO PERSONS BOUND
Evidence even against third persons, Binds only the parties who executed
of the fact which gave rise to its due them or their privies, insofar as due
execution as to the date of the latter execution and date of the document
concerned
AS TO VALIDITY OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS
Certain transactions must be
contained in a public document;
otherwise they will not be given any
validity.

-Church registries of births, marriages and deaths are no longer public writings
nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials. They are private writings
and their authenticity must therefore be proved, as are all other private writings
in accordance with the rules.

c) Authentication of a Private Writing

Section 20. Proof of private documents. - Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker; or
(c) By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is

claimed to be

How to prove the due execution and authenticity of a private

document
-Before any private document offered as authentic is received, its
due execution and authenticity must be proved by any of the
following means:
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker; or 3. By other evidence showing its due execution
and authenticity.

-Any other private document need only be identified as that which it

is claimed to be.

Related jurisprudence
-In addition to the modes of authenticating a private document,
American jurisprudence also recognizes the doctrine of self-
authentication – where the facts in writing could only have been
known by the writer; and the rule of authentication by the adverse
party – where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the
sending to him and his receipt of the letter in question, a copy of
which the proponent is offering as evidence.

When authentication of private writing is not required

1. When the private document is more than 30 years old (ancient
document/authentic document rule)
-Requisites:
1. Private document is more than 30 years old
2. That it be produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine; and
-Ancient documents are considered from proper
custody if they come from a place from which they might be
reasonably be expected to be found. Custody is proper if it is proved
to have had a legitimate origin or if the circumstances of the
particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. If a
document is found where it would not properly and natural be, its
absence from the proper place must be satisfactorily accounted for.
-The requirement of proper custody was met when the
ancient document in question was presented in court by the proper
custodian thereof who is an heir or the person who would naturally
keep it.

3. That it is unblemished by any alteration or circumstances

of suspicion

2. When the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable

document have not been specifically denied under oath by the
adverse party;

3. When the genuineness and authenticity of the document have

been admitted; and

4. When the document is not offered as authentic as implied

-This rule applies only if there are no other witnesses to determine

authenticity.

-Handwriting may be proved by:

Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes
it to be the handwriting of such person because he or she has seen
the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his or hers
upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made
by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved
to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge

1. A witness who actually saw the person writing the

instrument
2. A person who is familiar or has acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person, his opinion as to the handwriting
being an exception to the opinion rule;
3. A comparison by the court of the question handwriting
from the admitted genuine specimens thereof; or
4. An expert witness

-The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and

between the different means stated above in proving the handwriting
of a person. Courts are not bound to give probative value or
evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to
handwriting experts is not mandatory.

Comparison as a mode of authentication

-Use of comparison technique to establish authenticity actually
involves two levels of authentication. In order to establish the
requisite connective relevance, the item or document in question
must be compared with an item the authenticity of which has been
demonstrated. Authenticity of the specimen, then, is a logical
prerequisite to the procedure.

-The testimony of a handwriting expert is not indispensable to the

examination or the comparison of handwritings in cases of forgery.
The judge must conduct an examination of the questioned signature
in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.
The opinions of handwriting experts are not binding upon courts,
especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity
or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of
specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently
existing ones.

-It is also hornbook doctrine that the opinions of handwriting

experts, even those from the NBI and the PC, are not binding upon
the courts. This principle holds true especially when the question
 involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be
determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned
signatures with those of the currently existing ones.

-Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of forged

documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing
them. But resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable
to the examination or the comparison of handwriting. A finding of
forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting
experts, because the judge must conduct an independent
examination of the question signature in order to arrive at a
reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.

d) Public Documents as Evidence; Proof of Official Record

Section 23. Public documents as evidence. - Documents consisting of
entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other
public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact
which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.

-When a public officer in the performance of his duty makes an entry in

the public record, the document of such entry is deemed prima facie
evidence of the facts stated in the entry. Its probative value may either
be substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence.

-Public or official records of entries made in excess of official duty are

not admissible in evidence. As to matters which the officer is not bound
to record, his certificate, being extrajudicial, is merely the statement of
a private person.

Related jurisprudence
-The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications
do not fall within the class of public documents. The certifications do
not reflect the entries in public records made in the performance of a
duty by a public officer, such as entries made by the Civil Registrar in
the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship’s logbook. The
certifications are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof, and thus
have no probative value. Certainly, the certifications cannot be
considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

Q: G Transportation submits that the USAID Certification being a private

document cannot be admitted as evidence since it is inadmissible and was not
properly authenticated nor identified in court by the signatory thereof. The
opposing party contends that the USAID Certification is a public document and
was properly admitted in evidence, because J’s widow, witness R, was able to
competently testify as to the authenticity and due execution of the said
Certification and that the signatory J personally issued and handed the same to
her. The court ruled that the USAID Certification is a public document. IS the
court’s ruling correct?

A: Yes. The USAID certification is a public document, hence, does not require
authentication, public documents are written documents are the written official
acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the PH or of a foreign country.

Here, USAID is an official government agency of a foreign country. The

authenticity and due execution of said Certification are already presumed. The
USAID certification could very well be used as basis for the award for loss of
income to the heirs.

Apostille Convention – If the public document is originating in a foreign

country which is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which
the Philippines is a contracting party, the required certificate or its
equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention
subject to reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the
Philippines.

On the other hand, if the public document is originating from a foreign

country which is not party to a treaty or convention to which the
Philippines is a contracting party, the required certificate may be made
by:
1. a secretary of the embassy or legation,
2. consul general,
3. consul,
4. vice-consul, or
5. consular agent or
6. by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
in the foreign country in which the record is kept,

And authenticated by the seal of his or her office. (Sec. 24, Rule
132 (c))

Heirs of Arcilla v. Teodoro

The rule that requires a certification n from an officer of the foreign service of the Philippines pertains to
written official acts, or records of the official of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, whether the Philippines, of a foreign country.
A certification of non-forum shopping executed in a foreign country is not covered under this rule.

However, by express provision of the present Sec. 24 Rule 132, the required certificate also applies to
documents classified under paragraph (c).

Disini v. Republic 15 Jun 2021 EN BANC

The proof of the existence of the Westinghouse and B&R contracts in relation to the BNPP project as well as
the existence of their corresponding commission agreements with Disini was-sufficiently established by the
testimonies of Vergara and Jacob.

A. However, the Republic is only entitled to temperate and exemplary damages, and not to actual damages
amounting to $50.5M as the documentary evidence presented to prove such amount was not properly
authenticated.

B. Despite the non-presentation of the original contracts themselves, Vergara's and Jacob's affidavits
satisfactorily' proved the due execution of the Westinghouse and B&R contracts and their corresponding
commission agreements with Disini

C. As to Disini's commission agreements with Westinghouse and B&R, Vergara and Jacob positively affirmed
the existence thereof as they had the opportunity to personally witness and participate in these transactions.

D. Contrary to Disini's contention, the Best Evidence Rule is not applicable in the present case. The Republic
presented the affidavits of both Vergara and Jacob to prove the existence and execution of these contracts
and the corresponding commission agreements without inference as to the contents or terms thereof

E. It was also proven that Disini received commissions from Westinghouse and B&R.

1. The sworn testimonies and affidavits of Vergara and Jacob are categorical, credible and corroborative,
sufficiently proving that Disini, through Herdis and its subsidiaries, acquired ill-gotten wealth in relation to
the BNNP project.

2. Disini trusted Jacob as he hired him as President of Herdis and even allowed him to join in his meetings
with Westinghouse. Disini also entrusted to Jacob the task of transferring his commissions from
Westinghouse and B&R to his overseas personal bank accounts.

F. Despite the fact that the Republic offered mere photocopies of the bank documents, this does not affect
the admissibility and probative value of Jacob's sworn statement as to the existence of the bank accounts
and Disini's receipt of commissions, 'especially since these statements came from a credible witness such as
Jacob

1. When the evidence presented concerns the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without
inference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked.

G. In cases involving ill-gotten wealth, EO No. 14-A requires preponderance of evidence

1. Preponderance of evidence refers to the comparative weight of the evidence presented by the opposing
parties.

H. Here, the factual circumstances established by the Republic through testimonial evidence are sufficient
and convincing enough to prove that DIsini received substantial commissions from Westinghouse and B&R in
relation to the BNPP project despite lack of documentary proof of his receipt thereof.

I. However, the Republic's witnesses did not specifically quantify the amount of commissions but referred to
certain documents which were not only mere photocopies but were also not properly authenticated. Hence,
these documents are inadmissible and have no probative value

1. Vergara and Jacob's testimony that Disini was paid 3% and 10% of the Westinghouse and B&R contracts as
commissions clearly warrants the review of the terms of the contract which is covered by the Best Evidence
Rule

2. To prove the amount of the total commissions received by Disini, the best evidence would be the
Westinghouse and B&R contracts and their corresponding commission agreements

J. Here, the Sandiganbayan accorded great weight to Exhibit E-9 or a tabulation of commissions allegedly
typewritten on Disini's stationery, which was attached to Manahan's affidavit, to arrive at the amount of
$50.5M.

1. Exhibit E-9 is a certified true copy.

K. Under the Best Evidence Rule, when the subject of inquiry is the content of a document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original document itself subject to certain exceptions.

1. Here, the Republic failed to offer any plausible reason justification why it presented a mere photocopy
instead of the original.

L. Whether a document is public or private is relevant in determining its admissibility as evidence.

1. Exhibit E-9, as a private document, must be properly authenticated to be admissible and given probative
value

2. However, its due execution and genuineness were not proved by the Republic in accordance with Section
20 of Rule 131.

M. Since Exhibit E-9 was unauthenticated, and thus inadmissible in evidence as proof of the fact stated
therein, the Sandiganbayan should not have relied thereon in determining the exact amount of commissions
received by Disini

Section 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents

referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by
his 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 office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a

contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is
also a party, or considered a public document under such treaty or
convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the
certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such
treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines.

For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a

contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next
preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by
the seal of his or her office.

A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may

be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate or its
equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and
genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be
required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the
Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has exempted the
document itself from this formality.

-Official records are written official acts, or records of the official acts
of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers (foreign law). Official records may be evidenced by:
1. If it is within the Philippines:
a. An official publication thereof; or
b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody
of the record or his deputy

2. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country

a. An official publication thereof; or
b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody
of the record or by his deputy and a certificate that such officer has
the custody.
 -If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country,
which is a contracting party to a treaty or a convention to which the PH
is also a party, or considered a public document under such treaty or
convention, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form
prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted
to public documents originating from the Philippines.

-For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a

contracting party to a treaty or convention, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul, vice-consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and
authenticated by the seal of his or her office.

-A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent

may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate or its
equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution of
genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be
required when or convention between a foreign country and the
Philippines has abolished the requirement or has exempted the
document itself from this formality.

-Upon failure to comply with the above-mentioned requirements, courts

will apply the doctrine of processual presumption.

Q: E and her son, J filed a case for damages against S Hotel, for the death of C.
To prove heirship of the plaintiff-appellee’s, they presented several documents
(Birth Certificates, Marriage Certificate and Certificate from the Oslo Probate
Court) which were all kept in Norway. The documents had been authenticated by
the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and bore the official seal of the
Ministry and Signature of one T. The documents were also accompanied by an
Authentication by the Consul, Embassy of Philippines in Stockholm, Sweden to
the effect that, T was duly authorized to legalize official documents for the
Ministry. S Hotel however, questioned their filiation with the deceased assailing
that the documents presented were incompetent for failing to comply with the
requirement of authentication. Is the contention correct?

A: No. Although the documents were not attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record or by his deputy in the manner required under the law, and
said document did not comply with the requirements, to the effect that if the
record was not kept in the Philippines a certificate of the person having custody
must accompany the copy of the document that was duly attested stating that
such person had custody of the documents, the deviation was not enough reason
to reject the utility of the documents for the purposes they were intended to
serve.

The rules of procedure may be mandatory in form and application does not forbid
a showing of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances, because
substantial compliance does not equate to a disregard of basic rules. For sure,
substantial compliance and strict adherence are not always compatible and do
not always clash in discord.

-A special power of attorney executed before a city judge-public notary in a

foreign country, without the certification or authentication required under the
rules of court, is not admissible as admissible in evidence in the Philippines
courts. The failure to have the SPA authenticated is not mere technicality but a
question of jurisdiction.

Irremovability of public records

Section 26. Irremovability of public record. - Any public record, an
official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed
from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where
the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a
pending case.

GR: Any public record must not be removed from the office in which it is
kept.
XPN: Upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is
essential to the just determination of a pending case.
Reason: They have a common repository, from where they ought not to
be removed. Besides, these records by being daily removed would be in
great danger of being lost.

Attestation of a copy
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. - Whenever a copy of a
document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the
attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of
the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if
there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal, under
the seal of such court.

-Attestation must state, in substance:

1. That the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a
specific part thereof, as the case may be, and
 2. It must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if
there be any, or if he be the clerk of court having a seal, under the seal
of such court.

Public record of a private document

Section 27. Public record of a private document. - An authorized public
record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by
a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.

-Proof of public record of a private document

1. By the original record; or
2. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record,
with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.

Proof of lack of record

Section 28. Proof of lack of record. - A written statement signed by an
officer having the custody of an official record or by his or her deputy
that, after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his or her office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records
of his or her office contain no such record or entry

-Proof of lack of record of a document consists of written statement

signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy.
The written statement must contain the following matters:
1. There has been a diligent search of the record; and
2. That despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a
specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office.

-The written statement must be accompanied by a certificate that such

officer has the custody of official records.

-The certification to be issued by the LCR must categorically state that

the document does not exist in his or her office or the particular entry
could not be found in the register despite diligent search.

Impeachment of a judicial record

Section 29. How judicial record impeached. - Any judicial record may be
impeached by evidence of:
1. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
 2. Collusion between the parties; (annulment or legal separation
cases)
3. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings.
-Fraud refers to extrinsic fraud which is a ground for
annulment of judgment.

Q: L was charged with illegal possession of firearm. During the trial, the
prosecution presented in evidence a certification of the PNP firearms and
explosives office attesting that the accused had no license to carry any firearm.
The certifying officer, however, was not presented as witness. Is the
certification of the PNP firearm and explosives office without the certifying
officer testifying on it admissible in evidence against L?

A: Yes. A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official

record or by his deputy that after diligent search, no record or entry of a
specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his
office contain no such record or entry.

The records of the PNP F&E Officer are a public record. Hence, notwithstanding
that the certifying officer was not presented as a witness for the prosecution,
the certification he made is admissible in evidence against L.

Notarial documents
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. - Every instrument duly
acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be
presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved.

-Documents acknowledged before a notary public is considered a public

document and enjoy the presumption of regularity. A notarized
document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.

-The document may be presented in evidence without further proof, the

certificate of acknowledgement being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or documents involved.

-A notarial document celebrated with all the legal requisites under a

notarial certificate is evidence of a high character, and to overcome its
recitals, it is incumbent upon the party challenging it to prove his claim
with a clear and convincing evidence.
Q: E, filed a case for illegal dismissal and money claims against his employer A.
The LA and NLRC found him to have been legally dismissed but ordered A to pay
punitive damages. CA reversed the ruling stating that for having executed an
earlier notarized affidavit stating that he received wages above the required
minimum salar, E, could not subsequently claim that he was underpaid by his
employer. Is the presumption of regularity of notarized document disputable?

A: Yes. While a notarial document is presumed to be regular, such presumption

is not absolute and may be overcome by a clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary. The fact that a document is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity
of its contents. Here, E, is an unlettered employee who may not have understood
the full import of his statements in the affidavit. Notably, he, along with a co-
worker did not state the specific amount of what they referred as salary above
the minimum required by law. The employer’s mere reliance on the foregoing
affidavit is misplaced because the requirement established jurisprudence is for
the employer to prove payment, and not merely deny the employee’s accusation
of nonpayment on the basis of the latter’s own declaration.

Alterations in a document
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. - The party
producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears
to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the
question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He or she may
show that the alteration was made by another, without his or her
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it,
or was otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did
not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he or she fails
to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.

-A party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and

appears to have been altered after its execution must account for the
alteration. He may show that the alteration: (ACID)
1. Was made by another, without his concurrence;
2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;
3. Was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
4. Did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.

-Failure to do at least one of the above will make the document

inadmissible in evidence.

Documentary evidence in an unofficial language

Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. -
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as
evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are
directed to have such translation prepared before trial.

-Shall not be admitted as evidence unless accompanied with a

translation into English or Filipino.

-The requirement that documents written in an unofficial language must

be accompanied with a translation in English or Filipino as a
prerequisite for its admission in evidence must be insisted upon by the
parties at the trial to enable the court, where a translation has been
impugned as incorrect, to decide the issue. Where such document, not
so accompanied with a translation in English or Filipino, is offered in
evidence and not objected to either by the parties or the court, it must
be presumed that the language in which the document is written is
understood by all, and the document is admissible in evidence.

Interpretation of documents (Rule 130)

Section 11. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. —
The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal
meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties
intended otherwise

Section 12. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. —

In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions
or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will
give effect to all.

Section 13. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular

provisions. — In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the
parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision
are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So, a particular
intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.

-When a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the

following rules shall be followed:
1. The particular provision is paramount to the general;
2. A particular intent will control a general one that is
inconsistent with it.
Section 14. Interpretation according to circumstances. — For the proper
construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was
made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to
it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of
those whose language he or she is to interpret.

-The proper construction of an instrument according to the

circumstance shall be as follows:
1. The circumstances under which it was made, including the
situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be
shown;
2. Such circumstances must be shown so that the judge may be
placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret.

Section 15. Peculiar signification of terms. — The terms of a writing are

presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation,
but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or
otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the
particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed
accordingly.

-The terms of a writing shall be interpreted as follows:

1. It shall be presumed to have been used in their primary and
general acceptation; 2. Evidence is admissible to show that
they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification; and
3. Evidence is admissible to show that it was so used and
understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement
must be construed accordingly.

Section 16. Written words control printed. — When an instrument

consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two
are inconsistent, the former controls the latter

-Conflict between writing and printed

When an instrument consists party of written words and partly of a
printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the written controls the
printed form.

Section 17. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain

writings. — When the characters in which an instrument is written are
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the
court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or
 who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or
the meaning of the language

-When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to

be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, it can be
proved by evidence of:
1. Persons skilled in deciphering the characters; or
2. Those who understand the language, is admissible to declare
the characters or the meaning of the language.

Medical certificate has corroborative purposes but unnecessary for conviction of

rape.
While a medical certificate attesting to the victim’s physical trauma from the
rape has corroborative purposes, it is wholly unnecessary for conviction, if not a
mere superfluity. If anything, Cabales only confirmed in his appeal that he indeed
obtained carnal knowledge of AAA. This is a complete turn- around from his
initial denial of the incident before the trial court, where he claimed that he
stayed in his house the entire day of January 16, 2005 attending to his wife who
had just given birth. Given Cabales’ contradicting stance, this Court receives his
defense with utmost caution. People vs. Cabales, G.R. No. 213831, September
25, 2019, J. Hernando

Authentication of a private document is required before it could be presented as

evidence.
The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the
documents may be presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue
of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged
before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with
the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a private
writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further
authentication to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private
document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which
some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or
sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law,
a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the
Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. Whether a document
is public or private is relevant in determining its admissibility as evidence.
Public documents are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their
due execution and genuineness. On the other hand, private documents are
inadmissible in evidence unless they are properly authenticated. Clearly, Exhibit
E-9 is a private document, thus it must be properly authenticated to be
admissible and given probative value. Disini vs. Republic, G.R. No. 205172, June
15, 2021, J. Hernando

Proof of official record can be given through an authentication by a Philippine

Consul.
The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was accompanied by an
Authentication issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the Embassy of the
Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service
Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was an official in and for Japan. The
Authentication further certified that he was authorized to sign the Certificate of
Acceptance of the Report of Divorce and that his signature in it was genuine.
Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of
Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce between petitioner and
respondent. Republic v. Kikuchi, G.R. No. 243646, June 22, 2022, J. Hernando

3. Offer and Objection

GR: Section 34. Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified

XPNs:
1. Marked exhibits not formally offered may be admitted provided it
complies with the following requisites:
a. Must be duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and
b. Must have been incorporated in the records of the case

2. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, where no full-blown trial is

held in the interest of speedy administration of justice;
3. In summary judgments under Rule 35 where the judge based his
decisions on the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits and
documents filed with the court;
4. Document whose contents are taken judicial notice by the court;
5. Documents whose contents are judicially admitted;
6. Object evidence which could not be formally offered because they
have disappeared or have become lost after they have been marked,
identified and testified on and described in the record and became the
subject of cross-examination of the witness who testified on them during
the trial.
7. Documents and affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or
administrative cases.

a) When to Make an Offer

Section 35. When to make offer. - All evidence must be offered orally.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be made at the
time the witness is called to testify. The offer of documentary and
object evidence shall be made after the presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence.

Purposes of offer of evidence

1. To notify the party of possible objection, and for the offeror to
make necessary correction at the trial level to meet the objection;
2. To allow the trial judge to rule properly;
3. To lay basis for appeal so that the appellate court can decide
intelligently.

-A formal offer is necessary, since judges are required to base their

findings of fact and their judgment solely and strictly upon the evidence
offered by the parties at the trial.

-To allow parties to attach any documents to their pleadings and then
expect the court to consider it as evidence, even without formal offer
and admission may draw unwarranted consequences. Opposing parties
will be deprived of heir chance to examine the document and to object
to its admissibility. On the other hand, the appellate court will have
difficulty reviewing the documents not previously scrutinized by the
court below.

-An offer of evidence is important because the court shall consider no

evidence which has not been formally offered.

Reasons for stating purposes of offer of evidence

1. For the court to determine whether that piece of evidence
should be admitted/considered or not; and
2. For the adverse party to interpose the proper objection.

-It is basic in the law of evidence that the court shall consider evidence
solely for the purpose for which it was offered.

IDENTIFICATION OF A FORMAL OFFER AS AN EXHIBIT

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Done in the course of the trial and Done only when the party rests
accompanied by the marking of the its case.
evidence as an exhibit.
Q: G filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against F. In the
course of the trial, G marked his evidence but his counsel failed to file a formal
offer of evidence. F then presented in evidence tax declarations in the name of
his father to establish that his father is a co-owner of the property. The court
ruled in favor of F, saying that G failed to prove sole ownership of the property in
the face of F’s evidence. Was the court correct?

A: Yes. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The trial court rendered judgment considering only the evidence offered
by F. The offer is necessary because it is the duty of the judge to rest his
findings of fact and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by
the parties at the trial.

Q: A and M were charged with murder. Upon application of the prosecution. M

was discharged from the information to be utilized as a state witness. The
prosecutor presented M as witness but forgot to state the purpose of his
testimony much less offer it in evidence. M testified that she and A conspired to
kill the victim but it was A who actually shot the victim.

The testimony of M was the only material evidence establishing the guilt of A. M
was thoroughly cross-examined by the defense counsel. After the prosecution
rested its case, the defense filed a motion for demurrer to evidence based on the
following grounds:

1. The testimony of M should be excluded because its purpose was not initially
offered in evidence; and
2. M’s testimony is not admissible against A pursuant to the rule on “res inter
alios act.”

Rule on the motions above.

A: 1. The demurrer to evidence should be denied because the defense counsel

did not object to her testimony despite the fact that the prosecutor failed to
state its purpose and offer it in evidence. Moreover, the defense counsel
thoroughly cross-examined M and thus waived the objection.

2. The rest inter alios acta rule does not apply because M testified in open court
and was subjected to cross-examination.

When to make an offer

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT
EVIDENCE
Must be made at the time the Shall be made after the
witness is called to testify. presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence.
Every time a new witness is The evidence is only offered once,
called to testify, there must be an after all the testimonial evidence
offer of evidence. are offered and prior to the resting
of the case for a party.

The presentation of a
documentary or object evidence
for marking and identification
during trial is not the offer
contemplated in the rules.

-All evidence must be made orally.

Stages in the presentation of documentary evidence

MARKING
The purpose is to facilitate the identification of the exhibit. It may be
made during the pre-trial or during the trial.
IDENTIFICATION
Presenting proof that the document being presented is the same as
the one referred to by the witness in his testimony.
AUTHENTICATION
Positive identification of the witness that the document presented is
genuine and has been duly executed or that it is neither spurious nor
counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress.
INSPECTION
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness. It may be inspected by the
adverse party.
FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBIT
After the termination of the testimonial evidence the proponent will
then make a formal offer and state the purpose for which the
document is presented.
OBJECTIONS
Objections to introduction of documentary evidence shall be made
when it is formally offered.
TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
Remedy of a party if the court improperly excluded an otherwise
admissible evidence.
Courts cannot consider evidence which was not formally offered.
In this case, even assuming that the Reply-Letter dated June 27, 2003 was
appended to the records, the fact still remains that the court cannot consider
evidence which was not formally offered. As such, any statement allegedly made
on behalf of petitioner Mandagan in the said letter could not be considered an
admission of receipt of a notice of dishonor as the same has no evidentiary value
whatsoever. Verily, the RTC could not be faulted, much less accused of
capriciousness, in appreciating the evidence without the Reply-Letter dated
June 27, 2003. Mandagan vs. Jose M. Valero Corporation, G.R. No. 215118, June
19, 2019

No formal offer is necessary for evidence duly recorded or incorporated in the

records.
In certain instances, however, this Court has relaxed the procedural rule and
allowed the trial court to consider evidence not formally offered on the condition
that the following requisites are present: (1) the evidence must have been duly
identified by testimony duly recorded; and (2) the same must have been
incorporated in the records of the case. Heirs of Serapio Mabborang vs.
Mabborang, G.R. No. 182805, April 22, 2015

b) When to Make an Objection

Section 36. Objection. - Objection to offer of evidence must be made
orally immediately after the offer is made.

Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must

be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. Objection to a
question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness
must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably
apparent.

The grounds for the objections must be specified

Ways of impeaching the evidence of the proponent

1. By objection to offer of evidence.
2. By motion to strike out answer.

Purposes of objections
1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm to a
client’s cause;
2. To protect the record, i.e., to present the issue of
inadmissibility of the offered evidence in a way that if the trial court
rules erroneously, the error can be relied upon as a ground for a future
appeal;
3. To protect a witness from being embarrassed on the stand or
from being harassed by the adverse counsel;
4. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics like his consistently
asking obviously leading questions;
5. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors
and at the same time warn the court that a ruling adverse to the
objector may supply a reason to invoke a higher court’s appellate
jurisdiction; and
6. To avoid a waiver of inadmissibility of an otherwise
inadmissible evidence.

Time when objection should be made

-Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after
the offer is made.
1. Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal
offer – as soon as the witness begins to testify.
2. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness – as soon as the grounds shall become
reasonably apparent.

-As a rule, failure to specify the grounds for the objections is in effect a
waiver of the objection except where the evidence could not have been
legally admitted for any purpose whatsoever.

-The objection must be specific enough to adequately inform the court

the rule of evidence or of substantive law that authorizes the exclusion
of evidence.

Contemporaneous Objection Rule

It requires that a specific and timely objection be made to the admission
of evidence. Objection to the admission of evidence must be made
seasonably, at the time it is introduce or offered, otherwise they are
deemed waived, and will not be entertained for the first time on appeal.

Kinds of objections
1. Irrelevant – The evidence being presented is not relevant to the
issue. (E.g., when the prosecution offers as evidence the alleged offer of
an insurance company to pay for the damages by the victim in a
homicide case.)
 2. Incompetent – The evidence is excluded by law or rules. (e.g.,
evidence obtained in violation of unreasonable searches and seizure)

3. Specific objections – e.g., parol evidence and original document

rule

4. General objections – e.g., continuing objections

a. objection to a question propounded in the course of the
oral examination of the witness; and
b. objection to an offer of evidence in writing;

5. Formal – One directed against the alleged defect in the

formulation of the question (e.g., ambiguous questions, leading and
misleading questions, repetitious questions, multiple questions,
argumentative questions)

6. Substantive – One made and directed against the very nature of

evidence (e.g., parol, not the original document, hearsay, privilege
communication, not authenticated, opinion, res inter alios acta)

-Objections to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first

time on appeal. When a party desires the court to reject the evidence
offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without objection, he
cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.

Repetition of an objection
GR: When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the
examination that the question asked are the same class as those to
which objection has been made (whether sustained or overruled). It
shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the
adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of
questions.

XPNs:
1. Where the question has not been answered, it is necessary to
repeat the objection when the evidence is again offered or the question
is again asked;
2. Incompetency is shown later;
 3. Where objection refers to preliminary question, objection must
be repeated when the same question is again asked during the
introduction of actual evidence;
4. Objection to evidence was sustained but re-offered at a later
stage of the trial;
5. Evidence is admitted on condition that its competency or
relevancy be shown by further evidence and the condition is not fulfilled,
the objection formerly interposed must be repeated or a motion to strike
out the evidence must be made; and
6. Where the court reserves the ruling on objection, the objecting
party must request a ruling or repeat the objection.

Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is
made.
Since the Republic failed to object to the offer of evidence and even manifested
that the State will not submit controverting evidence, Edwin's testimony was
properly admitted. Further, while the Republic insists that it could not have
objected to the offer because it was not served a copy of Jocelyn's formal offer
of evidence — implying that the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP)’s failure to
object did not bind the Republic because the authority conferred to it by the OSG
is subject to the reservation that the latter be furnished with notices of
"hearings, orders and other court processes" – the Court still upholds the
admission of evidence because the reservation does not cover pleadings of the
parties. It is limited only to issuances of the trial court. Besides, the records
show that the offer was done orally. Since objection to evidence offered orally
must be made immediately after the offer, the OSG, even if served a copy of all
court processes and pleadings of the parties, still could not have personally
made the objection because it was not present during the hearing and was
instead duly represented by the OCP. Republic vs. Kikuchi, G.R. No. 243646,
June 22, 2022, J. Hernando

Ruling
-The ruling on the objection must be given immediately after the
objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to
inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be
made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against to
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the
ruling.

-However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling

sustaining the objection in one or some must specify the ground or
grounds relied upon.
 -The rulings of the trial court during the course of the trial are
interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of separate appeals
or review on certiorari but are assigned as errors and reviewed on
appeal properly taken from the decision rendered by the trial court.

Q: Counsel O objected to a question posed by opposing Counsel D on the

grounds that it was hearsay and it assumed a fact not yet established. The judge
banged his gavel and ruled by saying “Sustained.” Can Counsel D ask for a
reconsideration of the ruling?
A: Yes. Counsel D may ask the judge to specify the ground/s relied upon for
sustaining the objection and thereafter move its reconsideration thereof.

Striking out of an answer

1. Objection – when the evidence is offered;
-Objections may be waived because the right to object is
merely a privilege which the party may waive. However, such waiver
only extends to the admissibility of the evidence. It does not involve an
admission that the evidence possesses the weight attributed to it by the
offering party.

2. Motion to strike or expunge;

a. When the witness answers prematurely before there is
reasonable opportunity for the adverse party to object, and such
objection is found to be meritorious;
b. When a question is not objectionable but the answer is
not responsive;
c. When a witness testifies without a question being posed
or testifies beyond limits set by the court;
d. When the witness does a narration instead of answering
the question;
e. When the answers are incompetent, irrelevant, or
improper;
f. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross-
examination through no fault of the cross-examination party;
g. When the testimony was allowed conditionally and the
condition for its admissibility was not fulfilled;
h. When a witness has volunteered statements in such a
way that the party has not been able to object thereto; or
i. Uncompleted testimonies where there is no opportunity
for the other party to cross-examination

-A direct testimony given and allowed without a prior formal offer may
not be expunged from the record. When such testimony is allowed
 without any objection from the adverse party, the latter is estopped
from questioning the non-compliance with the requirement.

c) Tender of Excluded Evidence

Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. - If documents or things
offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is
oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed
testimony.

-When an attorney is not allowed by the court to present testimony

which he thinks is competent, material and necessary to prove his case,
he must make an offer of proof. This is the method properly preserving
the record to the end that the question may be saved for purposes of
review.

-This rule is in preparation in the filing of an appeal. Moreover, the rule is

that the offeror must preserve such excluded evidence on his record and
stating the purpose of such preservation. E.g., knowing that it is
relevant and must be admitted.

Purposes of tender of excluded evidence

1. To allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the
documentary evidence and convince the trial judge to permit the
evidence or testimony; and
2. To create and preserve a record for appeal, should the judge be
not persuaded to reverse his earlier ruling.

-Even assuming that the trial court erroneously rejected the introduction
as evidence of the CA Decision, petitioner is not left without a legal
recourse. Petitioner could have availed of the remedy where he could
have included in the same in his offer of exhibits. If an exhibit sought to
be presented in evidence is rejected, the party producing it should ask
the courts permission to have the exhibit attached to the record.

OFFER OF PROOF/TENDER OF OFFER OF EVIDENCE

EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
The process by which a proponent Refers to testimonial,
of an excluded evidence tenders documentary or object evidence
the same. that are presented or offered in
court by a party so that the court
Only resorted to if admission is can consider his evidence when
refused by the court for purposes it comes to the preparation of the
of review on appeal. decision.

How tender of excluded evidence is made

1. As to documentary or object evidence: It may have the same
attached to or made part of the record.
-The party should ask that evidence ruled out at the trial be
attached to the record of case in order that same may be considered on
appeal.

2. As to oral evidence: It may state for the record the name and
other personal circumstances of the witness and the substances of the
proposed testimony.

How offer of evidence is made

1.Before the court has ruled on the objection, in which case its
function is to persuade the court to overrule the objection or deny the
privilege invoked;
2. After the court has sustained the objection, in which case its
function is to preserve for the appeal the evidence excluded by the
privilege invoked; or
3. Where the offer of proof includes the introduction of documents,
or any of the physical evidence, the same should be marked for
identification so that they may become part of the record.

When offer of proof is no required

1. When the question to which an objection has been sustained
clearly reveals on its face the substance, the purpose and relevancy of
the excluded evidence;
2. When the substance, purpose and relevancy of the excluded
evidence were made known to the court either in the court proceedings
and such parts appear on record; and
3. Where evidence is inadmissible when offered and excluded, but
thereafter becomes admissible, it must be re-offered, unless the court
indicates that a second offer would be useless.

ENGLISH EXCHEQUER RULE HARMLESS ERROR RULE

It provides that a trial court’s error The appellate court will disregard
as to the admission of evidence an error committed by the trial
 was presumed to have caused court in the admission of
prejudice and therefore, almost evidence unless in its opinion,
automatically required new trial. some substantial wrong or
miscarriage of justice has been
occasioned.

-We follow the harmless error rule, for in dealing with evidence
improperly admitted in the trial, courts examine its damaging quality
and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is
slight and insignificant, appellate courts disregard the error as it will not
overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the
prejudiced part.

I. Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

Scope and where applicable

-This rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings and incidents requiring the
reception of evidence before:

1. Municipal trial courts and Shari’a Circuit courts;

-It shall not apply to small claims cases
2. The RTC and the Shari’a District Courts;
3. The Sandiganbayan, CTA, CA and the Shari’a Appellate Courts;
4. The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the SC to receive
evidence, including the IBP; and
5. The special courts of rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the
SC, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this
Rule.

-In civil cases (with the exception of small claims), the application of the JAR is
mandatory regardless of the amount of money claimed.

Effect of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) in the Philippine judicial system
It signals a dramatic shift from dominantly adversarial system to a mix
adversarial and inquisitorial system.

Purpose of JAR
To decongest the courts of cases and to reduce delays in the disposition of
cases.
Significance of the use of a judicial affidavit
The judicial affidavit shall take the place of direct testimonies of witnesses

Notable changes by the JAR

1. Testimonies are now allowed to be taken and kept in the dialect of the
place provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino. These
will be quoted in pleadings in their original version with the English or Filipino
translation in parenthesis provided by the party, subject to counter translation
by opposing side.

2. In civil actions, the judicial affidavit rule requires the parties to lay their
cards on the table before pre-trial by submitting the judicial affidavits and
documents of the parties and their witnesses and serving copies on the adverse
party at least 5 days before the pre-trial. No further stipulations of facts are
needed at the pre-trial since, by comparing the judicial affidavits of the opposing
sides, the court will already see what matters they agree and on what matters
they dispute.

3. The court will already take active part in examining the witnesses. The
judge will no longer be limited to asking clarificatory questions; he can also ask
questions that will determine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of
his testimony and elicit the answers that the judge needs for resolving issues.

Submissions in lieu of direct testimony

Requirements of the JAR which the parties are bound to follow
-The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally
or by licensed courier service, not later than 5 days before pre-trial or
preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and
incidents, the following:

1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such
witnesses’ direct testimonies; and
2. The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be
attached to the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, and so in the
case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2 and so on in the
case of the respondent or the defendant.

-Every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall state, among others
the summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies, provided that the judicial
affidavits of said witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and form an
integral part thereof. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to
the pleading shall be presented by the parties during the trial. Except if a party
presents meritorious reasons as basis for admission of additional witnesses, no
other witnesses or affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the court.

Attachment of the original document as documentary evidence

A party or a witness may keep the original document or object evidence in his
possession after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and
authenticated, but he must warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or
reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of the
original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or
object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with the
attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be
admitted.

Contents and Procedure

-A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in a language known to the witness and, if
not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and
shall contain the following:

1. The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the

witness;
2. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the
examination of the witness and the place where the examination is being held;
3. A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully
conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for
false testimony or perjury.
4. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers,
consecutively numbered, that:
a. Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts
upon which he testifies;
b. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the
case presents; and
c. Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish
their authenticity in accordance with the rules of court
5. The signature of the witness over his printed name;
6. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or
an officer who is authorized by law to administer the same
7. Sworn attestation by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the
examination of the witness attesting to the following:
a. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he
asked and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
 b. Neither he nor any other person present or assisting him coached the
witness regarding the latter’s answers.

-A false attestation shall be subject the lawyer to disciplinary action, including

disbarment.

Effect of non-compliance with the content and attestation requirements

-The judicial affidavit shall not be admitted by the court in evidence.

-The above provisions, however, does not absolutely bar the submission of a
complaint replacement judicial affidavit as long as the replacement shall be
submitted before the hearing or trial and provided further that the following
requisites are met:
1. The submission shall be allowed only once;
2. The delay is for a valid cause;
3. The delay would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and
4. The public or private counsel responsible for the preparation and
submission of the affidavit pays a fine of not less than P1K nor more than P5K at
the discretion of the court.

Subpoena
-The requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum or duces tecum if the government official or employee, or the
requested witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile
witness:
1. Unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit; or
2. Refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or
other things under his control available for copying, authentication, and eventual
production in court.

-Regardless of whether the requested witness, who is the adverse party’s

witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without
just cause to present the documents, Sec 5 cannot be made to apply to him for
the reason that he is included in a group of individuals expressly exempt from
the provision’s application.

Submission by the prosecution of the judicial affidavit

The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later
than 5 days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused.
The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such
documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exh A, B and
so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be
admitted at the trial.
Offer and objection
Trial
-After submitting to the court and serving the adverse party a copy of the judicial
affidavits, trial shall commence as follows:

1. The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct
testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the
presentation of the witness

2. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his
affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility;
-The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause
the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of
an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to the tender of excluded
evidence.

3. The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same.

4. The party who presents the witness may examine him on re-direct;
-In ever case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness
to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the
answers that it needs for resolving the issues.

5. Upon termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party shall

immediately make an oral offer of documentary evidence, piece by piece, in their
chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the
particular exhibit.

6. After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal
ground for his objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately
make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
-Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial
affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is cited by their markings
during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description
of each exhibit.

Applications to criminal actions

-The judicial affidavit rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
1. Where the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years;
2. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of
the penalty involved; or
 3. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties
involved are.

Q: Can a party filing a criminal action cognizable by the RTC be mandated to

follow the JAR?

A: No, the jurisdiction of the RTC in criminal cases includes offenses where the
imposable penalty exceeds 6 years, thus, as a rule, the JAR has no application
except when the accused agrees to its use.

Q: Is it mandatory on the part of the accused to submit a judicial affidavit?

A: No. Since the accused is already aware of the evidence of the prosecution, he
has the option to submit or not to submit his judicial affidavits. If the accused
desires to be heard, he may submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his
witnesses within 10 days from receipt of the affidavits of the prosecution with
service upon the public and private prosecutor.

Q: The JAR took effect last Jan 1, 2013, but with some modification as to its
applicability to criminal cases. What are these modifications?

A: The JAR was modified only with respect to actions filed by public
prosecutors, subject to the following conditions:
1. For the purpose of complying with the JAR, public prosecutors in the first
and second level courts shall use the sworn statements that the complainant
and his or her witnesses submit during the initiation of the criminal action before
the office of the public prosecutor or directly before the trial court;

2. Upon presenting the witness, the attending public prosecutor shall require
the witness to affirm what the sworn statement contains and may only ask the
witness additional direct examination questions that have not been amply
covered by the sworn statement;

3. This modified compliance does not apply to criminal cases where the
complainant is represented by a duly empowered private prosecutor. The private
prosecutor shall be charged in the applicable cases the duty to prepare the
required judicial affidavits of the complainant and his or her witnesses and
cause the service of the copies of the same upon the accused.

Effect of non-compliance
GR: A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on
time shall be deemed to have waived their submissions.

XPN: The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same
provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing
party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1K nor more than
P5K, at the discretion of the court.

Appearance of the witness at the scheduled hearing

-The submission of the judicial affidavit of the witness does not exempt such
witness from appearing at the scheduled hearing. His appearance is necessary
as the adverse party has the right to cross-examine him on his judicial affidavit
and the attached exhibits.

-The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who does not appear in
the scheduled hearing of the case as required. As for the counsel, his failure to
appear without a valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his
client’s right to confront by cross-examination, the witnesses present.

Effect on other rules

As to Rules of Court and Rules of Procedure governing investigating officers and
bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence
They are repealed or modified insofar as they are inconsistent with the
provisions of the Judicial Affidavit Rule.

As to Rules of Procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies which are consistent

with it
They are thereby disapproved.

Q: P was charged with theft for stealing J’s cellphone worth P20K. Prosecutor M
at the pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of J attaching the receipt for the
purchase of the cellphone to prove civil liability. She also submitted the judicial
affidavit of M, an eyewitness who narrated therein how P stole J’s cellphone. At
the trial, P’s lawyer objected to the prosecution’s use of judicial affidavits of her
witnesses considered the imposable penalty on the offense with which his client
was charged.
a. Is P’s lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit or M?

A: No. P’s lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of M. The
judicial affidavit rule shall apply only to criminal actions where the maximum
imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years. Here, the maximum imposable
penalty for the crime of theft of a cellphone worth P20K is Arresto mayor in its
medium (3 months and 11 days to 4 months and 20 days to) to prision
correccional in its minimum (6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months)

b. Is P’s lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of J?

B: No. P’s lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit or J because
the judicial affidavit rules apply with respect to the civil aspect of the actions,
regardless of the penalties involved. Here the judicial affidavit of J was offered
to prove the civil liability of P.

c. At the conclusion of the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, Prosecutor M

orally offered the receipt attached to J’s judicial affidavit, which the court
admitted over the objection of P’s lawyer.

After P’s presentation of his evidence, the court rendered judgement finding him
guilty as charged and holding him civilly liable for P20K. P’s lawyer seasonably
filed a filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision asserting that the court
erred of the decision asserting that the court erred in awarding the civil liability
on the basis of J’s judicial affidavit, documentary evidence which Prosecutor M
failed to orally offer. Is the motion for reconsideration meritorious?

A: No. The motion for reconsideration is not meritorious. The judicial affidavit is
not required to be orally offered as separate documentary evidence, because it
is filed in lieu of direct testimony of the witness. It is offered, at the time the
witness is called to testify, and nay objection to it should have been made at the
time the witness was presented. Since the receipt attached to the judicial
affidavit was orally offered, there was enough basis for the court to award civil
liability.

Recent jurisprudence on JAR

Regardless of whether the requested witness, who is the adverse party’s
witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without
just cause to present the documents, Sec 5 cannot be made to apply to him for
the reason that he is included in a group of individuals expressly exempt from
the provision’s application.

Judicial Affidavit Rule does not apply to the presentation of an adverse party’s
witness.
Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule contemplates a situation where there is a
(a) government employee or official or (b) requested witness who is not the (1)
adverse party’s witness nor (2) a hostile witness. If this person either (a)
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or (b) refuses without just
cause to make the relevant documents available to the other party and its
 presentation to court, Section 5 allows the requesting party to avail of issuance
of subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of
Court. Thus, adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses being excluded they
are not covered by Section 5. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius: the express
mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.
Here, Yap is a requested witness who is the adverse party’s witness. Regardless
of whether he unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses
without just cause to present the documents, Section 5 cannot be made to apply
to him for the reason that he is included in a group of individuals expressly
exempt from the provision’s application. Ng Meng Tam vs. China Banking
Corporation, G.R. No. 214054, August 5, 2015

The good cause exception to allow evidence not stated in pre-trial order does
not apply to Judicial Affidavit Rule.
No documentary evidence shall be presented and offered in trial other than
those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except
if allowed by the court for good cause shown. There is no hard and fast rule to
determine what may constitute "good cause," though this Court has previously
defined it as any substantial reason "that affords a legal excuse." The good
cause exception, however, does not extend to testimonial evidence, especially
since the Judicial Affidavit Rule governs presentation of testimonial evidence.
The Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc. vs. Maningas, G.R. No. 211837, March 16,
2022, J. Hernando

J. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence (Rule 133)

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE (WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE) (Rule 133)
Weight of Evidence
-It is the probative value given by the court to particular evidence admitted to
prove a fact in issue.

-A prima facie case need not be countered by a preponderance of evidence nor

by evidence of greater weight. Defendant’s evidence which equalizes the weight
of plaintiff’s evidence or puts the case in equipoise is sufficient. As a result,
plaintiff will have to go forward with the proof. Should it happen that at the trial
the weight of evidence is equally balance or at equilibrium and presumptions
operate against plaintiff who has burden of proof, he cannot prevail.

GUIDELINES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS

1. A witness who testified in clear, positive and convincing manner and
remained consistent in cross-examination is a credible witness.
2. Findings of fact and assessment of credibility of a witness are matters best
left to the trial court that had the front-line opportunity to personally evaluate
the demeanor, conduct, and behavior of the witness while testifying.
HEIRARCHY OF QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Required to convict an accused
Moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind
Does not demand absolute-certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

Degree of proof which produces in the mind of the court a firm belief or
conviction as to the allegation sought to be established
Adduced to overcome a prima facie case or a disputable presumption

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Degree of proof required in civil cases
Evidence which is of greater weight or superior weight of evidence than that
which is offered in opposition to it

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
-Applicable in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion

-Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a credible source,
but must also be credible in itself. It must be natural, reasonable and probable
as to make it easy to belief.

-The trial courts findings of facts will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is
a clear showing that it plainly overlooked matters of substance which, if
considered might affect the result of the review. The credibility of witnesses is
best determined by the trial judge, who has the direct opportunity to observe
and evaluate their demeanor on the witness stand.

-It may suffice to convict his co-accused if it’s given in a straightforward manner
and is full of details which by their nature could not have been the result of
deliberate afterthought, otherwise, it needs corroboration, the presence or lack
of which may ultimately decide the case of the prosecution and the fate of the
accused.

-In determining the sufficiency of evidence, what matters is not the number of
witnesses but the credibility and the nature and quality of their testimony. The
testimony of a lone witness is sufficient to support a conviction if found positive
and credible.
-The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in another
part, depending on the probabilities and improbabilities of the case

-If the testimony of the witness on a material issue is willfully false and given
with an intention to deceive, the court may disregard all the witness’ testimony
under the Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus rule. This is not a mandataroy rule of
evidence but is applied by the courts in its discretion. The court may accept and
reject portions of the witness’ testimony depending on the inherent credibility
thereof.

-Falsus in uno, falsus omnibus means “false in one thing, false in everything.”
-Applies when:
1. That the false testimony is as to one or more material points; and
2. That there should be concious and deliberate intention to falsify a
material point.

-If the testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given
with an intention to deceive, the jury may disregard all the witness’ testimonies.

-The principle is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. It deals only with the
weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. Modern trend in
jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be
partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence
presented at the trial.

Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. - An

extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

An extrajudicial confession taken with color of state function without counsel is

inadmissible.
Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the
case of the “bantay bayan,” are recognized by the local government unit to
perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the
barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by the
head of “bantay bayan”, and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities
delegated to a “bantay bayan,” particularly on the authority to conduct a
custodial investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related
function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his
constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution,
otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. The extrajudicial
confession of appellant, which was taken without a counsel, is therefore
inadmissible in evidence. People vs. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. - Circumstantial evidence is

sufficient for conviction if:
1. There are more than one circumstances;
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived and proven; and
3. The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt

-Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.

-The corollary rule is that the circumstances proven must constitute an

unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as guilty person.

Q: A criminal complaint for simple arson was filed against B and he was
convicted. B then appealed. He argued that none of the prosecution’s witnesses
had positively identified him as the person who burned the nipa hut. CA affirmed
the decision. B moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence this petition
arguing that CA erred in upholding his conviction based on circumstantial
evidence, which, being merely based on conjecture, fails short of proving his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No direct evidence was presented to prove that
he actually set fire to A’s nipa hut. Moreover, there were 2 incidents that
occurred, which should be taken and analyzed separately. Is B guilty of simple
arson?

A: Yes. The identity of the perpetrator of a crime and a finding of guilt may rest
solely on the strength of circumstantial evidence. The commission of a crime the
identity of the perpetrator, and the finding of the guild may all be established by
circumstantial evidence. The circumstances must be considered as a while and
should create an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused
authored the crime. The proven circumstances must be “consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same
time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other
rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” In this case, no one saw petitioner
actually set the fire to the nipa hut. Nevertheless, the prosecution has
established multiple circumstances, which, after being considered in their
entirety, support the conclusion that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of simple arson.

WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS, HOW DETERMINED

Section 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. - In any
case where the opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court
has a wide latitude of discretion in determining the weight to be given to such
opinion, and for that purpose may consider the following:
1. Whether the opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;
2. Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
3. Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods to the
reliability of the facts of the case; and
4. Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such
determination.

ALIBI
-A defense where an accused claims that he was somewhere else at the time of
the commission of the offense. It is one of the weakest defenses an accused
may avail because of the facility with which it can be fabricated, just like a mere
denial. When this is the defense of the accused, it must be established by
positive and clear satisfactory evidence.

-A categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of

ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over an
alibi

-For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must show that:
1. He or she was somewhere else; and
2. It was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission.

-Alibi may serve as basis for acquittal if it can really be shown by clear and
convincing evidence that it was indeed physically impossible for the accused to
be at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission.
-For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be
strictly met.

OUT OF COURT IDENTIFICATION –

-A means of identifying a suspect of a crime and is done thru the following:

1. Show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face-to-face with the witness
for identification;
-Eyewitness identification is often decisive of the conviction or acquittal
of an accused. Identification of an accused through mug shots is one of the
established procedures in pinning down criminals. However, to avoid charges of
impermissible suggestion, there should be nothing in the photograph that would
focus attention on a single person.
 2. Mug shots where photographs are shown to the eyewitness to identify the
suspect; or
3. Line ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons
lined up for the purpose.
-A police line up is merely a part of the investigation process by police
investigators to ascertain the identity of offenders or confirm their identification
by a witness to the crime. Police officers are not obliged to assemble a police
line-up as a condition sine qua non to prove the identity of an offender. If, on the
basis of the evidence on hand, police officers are certain of the identity of the
offender, they need not require any police line-up anymore

ADMISSIBILITY OF OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION

-It is admissible and reliable when it satisfies the “totality of circumstances”
test. Under the totality of circumstances test, the following factors are
considered:
1. Witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
2. Witness degree of attention at the time;
3. Accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
4. Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
5. Length of time between the crime and the identification; and
6. Suggestiveness of the identification procedure

FRAME-UP –
-Allegations of frame-up by police officers are common and standard defenses in
most dangerous drugs cases. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce
clear and convincing evidence to overcome presumption that government
officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. Thus, in the
absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the
accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty shall
prevail.

CORPUS DELICTI –
-It is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It
refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not to the physical body of the
deceased or to the ashes of a burned building. The corpus delicti may be proven
by the credible testimony of a sole witness, not necessarily by physical
evidence.

-Elements:
1.Proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and
2. A person’s criminal responsibility for the act.
-Identity of the accused is not a necessary element of corpus delicti.

-A plea of guilty at the arraignment in open court, which is a confession of guilt

by the defendant, is sufficient to support a conviction without necessity of proof
aliunde of corpus delicti. In contrast, an extrajudicial confession made by
defendant does not warrant a conviction unless corroborated by independent
evidence of corpus delicti.

Q: J was charged with violation of RA 9165. He was apprehended thru a buy-bust

operation. During the trial the prosecution failed to produce the marijuana sticks
that J sold during the entrapment operation. Is there a need to produce the
marijuana sticks to convict the accused?

A: Yes. The elements necessary for a charge of illegal sale of drugs are: (1)
identity of the buyer and the seller, object and consideration and (2) delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefore. It is indispensable that the identity of
the drugs which constitutes the corpus delicti must be established before the
court. During the trial, the drugs were never presented as evidence to prove that
the appellant indeed sold the same during the entrapment operation. It is
indispensable in every prosecution for illegal sale of drugs, is the admission of
proof that the sale for the illicit drug took place between the poseur-buyer and
the seller thereof, and the presentation further of the drugs, the corpus delicti,
as evidence in court.

RES IPSA LOQUITOR –

-Means the “thing speaks for itself”. This doctrine provides that the fact of the
occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances. Where the
thing caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of
the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of participation by the
defendant, that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant’s want
of care.

-Application of the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of
negligence. It is considered merely as evidentiary or in the nature of procedural
rule. It is simply in the process of such proof, permitting the plaintiff to present
enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating an
inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the
burden of going forward with the proof to the contrary.

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT –

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable
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 in an unprejudiced
mind.

-Does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error,
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

-Moral Certainty is that degree of certainty which will justify the trial judge in
grounding on it his verdict. It is a certainty that convinces and directs the
understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to
act conscientiously upon it.

-Identity of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the
identity of the accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal
necessarily follows. Conviction for a crime rest on the strength of the
prosecution’s evidence, never on the weakness of that of the defense.

-In every criminal prosecution, the prosecution must prove two things:
1. The commission of the crime; and
2. Identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. What is
needed is positive identification made with moral certainty as to the person of
the offender.

Q: Prosecution witness positively identified J as the assailant of C. Hence, he

was convicted of homicide. However, he contends that the State failed to
present sufficient evidence against him in court. He sufficed that should the
knife he held during a fight against his longtime enemies, brothers C and M, had
been presented, it would show that difference that C’s knife, although smaller
than J’s, had more blood stains but which size fits best on the mortal wound
inflicted on himself. It would thereby be ascertained that C accidentally stabbed
himself upon losing his balance during such aggressive fight. Is J’ contention,
correct?

A: No. The non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used

in the killing did not diminish the merit of the conviction on the ground that the
other competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and
positively identified and incriminated J as the assailant of C. The presentation of
the weapon is not a prerequisite for conviction. Positive identification of the
accused despite the non-presentation of the weapon used in the commission of
the offense.

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. - In civil cases, the party
having the burden of proof must establish his or her case by a preponderance of
evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of
evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial.
The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

-Means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has
greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.

-A judgement cannot be entered in the plaintiff’s favor if his or her evidence still
does not suffice to sustain his cause of action.

Matters that the court may consider in determining whether there is

preponderance of evidence.
1. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
2. The witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony.
3. The witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and their personal credibility so
far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial; and
4. The number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with
the greater number.

-To persuade by the preponderance of evidence is not to take the evidence

quantitatively but qualitatively.

-In civil cases, only a preponderance of evidence or “greater weight of the

evidence” is required. While the charge invoices are not actionable documents
per se, they provide details on the alleged transactions. These documents need
not be attached to or stated in the complaint as these are evidentiary in nature.
In fact, the cause of action is not based on these documents but on the contract
of sale between the parties. Here, the delivery of the supplies and materials was
duly proved by the charge invoices and purchase orders indicating that Asian
Construction indeed ordered supplies and materials from H and these were
delivered.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Section 6. Substantial evidence. - In cases filed before administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

-Applies to cases filed before the administrative or quasi-judicial bodies and

which requires that in order to establish a fact, the evidence should constitute
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.

-Substantial evidence is more than mere scintilla

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE –

-That degree of evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm
belief or conviction as to allegation sought to established. It is intermediate,
being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is
required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.

-Instances when clear and convincing evidence is required:

1. Proving forgery
2. Proving ownership over a land in annulment or reconveyance of title
3. Invoking self-defense, onus is on the accused-appellant to establish his
justification for the killing
4. Proving allegation of frame-up and extortion by police officers in most drugs
cases
5. Proving physical impossibility for the accused to be at the crime scene
when using alibi as a defense
6. Using denial as a defense like in prosecution for violation for drug cases
7. Overcome presumption of due execution of notarial instruments
8. Proving bad faith to warrant an award of moral damages
9. Proving that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that
they were inspired by an improper motive
 10. When a person seeks confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to a
piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-
interest, he must prove with clear and convincing evidence compliance with the
requirements of the applicable law
11. In granting or denying bail in extradition proceedings.

-List is not exclusive.

In civil cases, burden of proof is on plaintiff to establish case by preponderance

of evidence.
In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to
establish his/her case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of
evidence is defined as the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
“greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” It
is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is
evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto. Preponderance of evidence refers to the
probability to truth of the matters intended to be proven as facts. Caranto vs.
Caranto, G.R. No. 202889 March 2, 2020, J. Hernando

Substantial evidence is the least demanding among the hierarchy of evidence.

It is a well-established rule that the party-litigant who alleges the existence of a
fact or thing necessary to establish his/her claim has the burden of proving the
same by the amount of evidence required by law, which, in labor proceedings, is
substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. To be clear, in the hierarchy of
evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is placed at the highest level,
followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and
substantial evidence, in that order. Thus, in the hierarchy of evidence, it is the
least demanding. Corollarily, the ground for the dismissal of an employee does
not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The quantum of proof required is
merely substantial evidence — which only entails evidence to support a
conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise. Accordingly, requiring a quantum of proof that is over and above
substantial evidence is contrary to law. JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo, G.R. No.
214294, September 30, 2020, J. Hernando

K. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)

Electronic Document
1. Information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which
a right is established, or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be
proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically; and

2. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable

by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message
or electronic document.

-For the document to be deemed electronic, it is important that it be received,

recorded, transmitted, stored processed, retrieved, or produced electronically.
The Rule does not absolutely require that the electronically document be initially
generated or produced electronically.

Electronic data message

Information generated, sent, received, or stored by electronic, optical or similar
means.

Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents

Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record,
instrument, memorandum or and other form of writing, such term shall be
deemed to include an electronic document.

Admissibility
1. It must comply with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of
Court and related laws;
2. It must be authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.

Privilege communication
The confidential character of a privilege communication is not denied solely on
the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.

ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT

Information generated, sent, received Information or the representation of
or stored by electronic, optical or information, data, figures, symbols or
similar means. other modes of written expression,
described or however represented, by
which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a
fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.

It includes digitally signed documents.

While “data message” has reference to information electronically sent, stored or
transmitted, it does not necessarily mean that it will give rise to a right or
extinguish and obligation, unlike an electronica document. Evidence from the
law, however, is the legislative intent to give the two terms the same
construction.

Related jurisprudence
The terms “electronic data message” and “electronic document,” as defined
under the E-Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission.
Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered be considered
electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an originally under the
Original Document Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.

What differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based document is the

manner by which the information is processed. By no stretch of the imagination
can a person’s signature be affixed manually be considered as information
electronically received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced. Hence, the argument that since the paper printouts were produced
through an electronic process, then these photocopies are electronic documents
as defined in the Rules of Evidence is obviously an erroneous, if not
preposterous, interpretation of the law.

Original of an electronic document

An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of original document
under the Original Document Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or
other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.

Copies as equivalents of the originals

GR: Copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original
when:
1. A document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time
with identical contents; or
2. It is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from
the same matrix, or b mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which are accurately
reproduction of the original.

XPNs:
1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
2. In the circumstances, it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in
lieu of the original.
-The Supreme Court held, that the picture images of the ballots are electronic
documents that are regarded as the equivalents of the original official ballots
themselves. The picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the
PCOS, are likewise official ballots that faithfully capture in electronic form the
votes cast by the voters, as defined. As such, the printouts thereof are the
functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may
be used for purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest.

-These two documents – the official ballot and its picture image- are considered
“original documents” simple means that both of them are given equal probative
weight. In short, when either is presented as evidence, one is not considered as
weightier than the other.

Probative value of Electronic Documents or Evidentiary Weight; Method of Proof

Burden of proving authenticity
The person offering the document has the burden to prove its authenticity.

Evidentiary weight of electronic documents: Factors for assessing evidentiary

weight
1. The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or
communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures,
controls, tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data
message or document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any
relevant agreement;
2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
3. The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is
recorded or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer
programs or software use as well as programming errors;
4. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
5. The nature and quality of the information which went into the
communication and information system upon which the electronic data message
or electronic document was based; or
6. Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or
integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message.

Affidavit of evidence
-All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic
document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must
affirmatively show the competence of the affiants to testify on the matters
contained therein.
-Cross-examination of the deponent is allowed as a matter of right by the
adverse party.

Electronic documents and the hearsay rule

Inapplicability of the hearsay rule
-A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions
opinions, or diagnoses made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or
near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with
knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business
activity, and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report,
record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means. All of which
are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.

-The presumption provided for in Sec. 1 Rule 8 may be overcome by evidence of

the untrustworthiness of the source or information or the method or
circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage.

Authentication of electronic documents and electronic signatures

Manner authentication of electronic documents
1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to
have signed the same;
2. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may
be authorized by the SC or by law for authentication of electronic documents
were applied to the document; or
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of
the judge.

-The above-mentioned requirements will only apply when the documents is a

private document and the same is offered as an authentic document.

Manner of authentication of electronic signatures

1. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital
signature and verify the same;
2. By any other means provided by law; or
3. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the
genuineness of the signature

Audio, video and similar evidence

Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be
admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and
shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to testify on its accuracy.
Ephemeral electronic communication
-Telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio,
streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained.

-Under Sec 2, Rule 11 of Rules on Electronic Evidence, ephemeral

communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to
the same or who has personal knowledge thereof. In this case, the complainant
who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge
thereof testified on their contents and import. Respondent herself admitted that
the cellphone number reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the
messages originated was hers. Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had
as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and
her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between
her and the complainant. It is also well to remember that in administrative
cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. There
is no doubt as to the probative value of the text messages as evidence in
determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent.

-By analogy, a deleted Facebook post may be admitted as an ephemeral

electronic communication subject to the exclusionary rule of whether it was
illegally obtained or not.

Authentication of electronic evidence can be through testimony of the origin and

transfer.
This Court agrees with the RTC in appreciating the CCTV footages and admitting
the same as evidence because they bolstered the testimonies of the witnesses
and supported the finding of treachery in the case at bar. As correctly held by
the CA, the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that persons authorized to
authenticate the video or CCTV recording is not limited solely to the person who
made the recording but also by another competent witness who can testify to its
accuracy. In the case at bar, Asas was able to establish the origin of the
recording and explain how it was transferred to the compact disc and
subsequently presented to the trial court. Hence, this Court finds no reason to
contradict such finding. People vs. Manansala y Alfaro, G.R. No. 233104,
September 2, 2020, J. Hernando

An electronic document is admissible if it complies with the rules on

admissibility.
For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must pass the
test of admissibility. According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, an electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with
the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and
is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. Rule 5 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence lays down the authentication process of electronic
documents. Section 2 of Rule 5 sets forth the required proof of authentication: —
Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: (a) by
evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed
the same; (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices
as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of
electronic documents were applied to the document; or (c) by other evidence
showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. RCBC
Bankard Services Corporation vs. Oracion, Jr., G.R. No. 223274, June 19, 201