RULE 128

General Provisions
Section 1. Evidence defined. - Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Four component elements
1. Evidence as a means of ascertainment
➤ may refer to evidentiary fact or the manner of bringing this fact forward
before the tribunal or both
2. Sanctioned by these rules
➤ not excluded by the rules
3. In a judicial proceeding
➤ contemplates a jural conflict, not a mere dispute
4. The truth respecting a matter of fact
➤ refers to an issue of fact and is both substantive and procedural
Other definitions:
"Evidence is any matter of fact which is furnished to a legal tribunal,
otherwise than by reasoning or a reference to what is noticed without proof, as the
basis of inference in ascertaining some other matter or fact"-Thayer
"Evidence represents any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or a
logical principle, considered with a view to its being offered before a legal tribunal
for the purpose of producing persuasion, positive or negative, on the par of the
tribunal, as to the truth of a proposition, not o law or of logic, on which the
determination of the tribunal is to be asked." - Wigmore
"Any matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of which is to produce in
the mind a persuasion affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of some other
matter of fact." – Betham
 Argument vs. Evidence
Evidence: The presentation of elemental facts and in piecing them together so as to
reach the conclusion
Argument: The invocation by counsel of ordinary rules of logic and rhetoric in the
combination of assumed facts

Classifications of the Rules of Evidence

I. Rules of Probative Policy
1) Exclusionary Rules
excludes certain kinds of evidence, on grounds partly of relevancy and partly
of policy.
2) Preferential Rules
These rules requires one kind of evidence in preference to any other
3) Analytic Rules
These rules subject certain kinds of evidence to rigid scrutiny, so as to expose
its possible weaknesses and shortcomings.
4) Prophylactic Rules
These are rules which apply beforehand, certain measures to prevent risk or
falsity or mis take.
5) Quantitative Rules
These rules require certain kinds of evidence to be produced in specific
quantity Appreciating the probable weakness of certain kinds of evidence, these rules
require them to be associated with other evidence when presented.
II. Rules of Extrinsic Policy
seek to exclude useful evidence for the sake of upholding other policies
considered more paramount and are either absolute or conditional.
 DIFFERENT KINDS OF EVIDENCE:
1. Relevant Evidence
Relevant evidence is evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove
any matter provable in an action. Evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in
reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.
2. Material Evidence
Evidence is material "when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined
by the rules of substantive law and pleadings".
3. Competent Evidence
Evidence is "competent when it is not excluded by law in a particular case.
4. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
Direct evidence is that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any
inference or presumption:
Circumstantial evidence is the proof of fact or facts from which, taken either
singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred
as a necessary or probable consequence.
5. Positive and Negative Evidence
Positive evidence is when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur
Negative evidence is when the witness states that he did not see or know the
occurrence of a fact.
6. Rebutting Evidence
Rebutting evidence is that which is given to repel, counteract or disprove facts
given in evidence on the other side.
7. Primary or Best and Secondary Evidence
Primary or best evidence is that which the law regards as affording the
greatest certainty of the fact in question.
Secondary evidence means inferior, it indicates the existence of more original
source of Information.
8. Expert Evidence
It is the testimony of one possessing, in regard to a particular subject or
department of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other person.
9. Prima facie Evidence
evidence which standing alone unexplained or uncontroverted, is sufficient to
maintain the proposition affirmed It is such as in judgment of law, is sufficient to
establish the fact, and if not rebutted, remains sufficient for the purpose.
10. Conclusive evidence
It is evidence which is incontrovertible.
11. Cumulative Evidence
Cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same kind bearing on the
same point. Thus, when testimony has been given by one or more witnesses as to an
assault, and other witnesses are produced who testify to the same state of facts and
to no new fact, the evidence given by such witnesses is merely cumulative.
12. Corroborative Evidence
It is additional evidence of a different kind and character, tending to prove the
same point.
While cumulative is additional evidence of the same kind and character,
corroborative evidence is also additional evidence but of different kind and
character.

FORMS OF EVIDENCE
1. Testimonial Evidence - testimony given in open court by witnesses who have
knowledge of the facts:
2. Documentary Evidence - documentary evidence such as public records, private
writings business records, photographs, maps, and the like
3. Object Evidence - tangible objects or exhibits.
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”

When evidence is required?

--When factual issues exist
When evidence is not required?
a. When pleadings in civil cases do not tender an issue of fact
b. By agreement of parties
c. On matters of judicial notice
d. When law presumes the truth of a fact
e. When a rule presumes the truth of a fact

Quantum of evidence required:

By preponderance of evidence is meant simply evidence which is of greater weight,
or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition thereto. It means that
testimony adduced by one side is more credible and conclusive than that of the other
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof as excluding
possibility of error, and/or producing absolute certainty. Moral certainty is only
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Substantial evidence means that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Distinctions between evidence in civil cases and evidence in criminal cases:

(a) In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a
preponderance of evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 133, Rules of Court). In criminal cases, the
guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 2, Rule 133,
Rules of Court).
(b) In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is
not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those
involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
(c) In civil cases, the concept of presumption of innocence does not apply and
generally there is no presumption for or against a party except in certain cases
provided for by law. Example: A common carrier is presumed to have been at fault
or negligent in case a passenger is injured in the course of his transportation by the
carrier (Art. 1756, Civil Code of the Philippines). In criminal cases, the accused
enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence (Sec. 14, Art. III, Constitution of
the Philippines
(d) The concept of "confession" does not apply to civil cases which use the more
appropriate term, "admission." A confession is a declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged (See Sec. 33, Rule 130, Rules of
Court).
(e) In civil cases, evidence of the moral character (good or bad) of a party is
admissible as long as it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case
(Sec. 51[6], Rule 130, Rules of Court). In criminal cases, the prosecution is not
allowed to prove the bad moral character of the accused even if it is pertinent to the
moral trait involved. It can only do so in rebuttal (Sec. 51[a][2], Rule 130, Rules of
Court).
(f) The rule on disqualification by reason of death or insanity under Sec. 23 of Rule
130, applies only to civil cases or special proceedings, not to criminal cases. This is
because the rule involves a claim or demand against the estate of the deceased or the
person of unsound mind (Sec. 23, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
(g) The privileged communication rule on patient physician relationship has
reference only to a civil case, not to a criminal case (Sec. 24[c], Rule 130, Rules of
Court).
(h) The rule on admission by a conspirator applies only to a criminal case, not to a
civil case (Sec. 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
(i) The rule on extrajudicial confession applies to the accused in a criminal case, not
to the defendant in a civil case (Sec. 3, Rule 133, Rules of Court
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

Two elements of admissibility:

1. Relevant
The evidence is relevant if it may establish directly or indirectly the existence
or non- existence of the facts in issue
Relevancy is determined by logic and common sense
2. Competent
The evidence is competent is it is not excluded by any rules or law, for the
purpose for which it is offered.
Competency is determined by law

Wigmore's two axioms of admissibility:

a. That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible; and
b. That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some
specific rule forbids them.

Kinds of Admissibility:
a. Multiple Admissibility
proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes
b. Limited Admissibility
evidence is admissible for one purpose (as to one party)
c. Curative Admissibility
admission of improper evidence to counter or contradict the improper
evidence presented
d. Conditional Admissibility an evidence may appear to be immaterial unless
connected with other facts to be subsequently proved

EXCLUSIONARY RULES OF EVIDENCE

1. Constitutional Exclusionary Rules
➤ Inadmissible for any proceeding
Article III, Section 2 (unreasonable searches and seizure)
Article III, Section 3 (privacy of communication and correspondence)
➤ Inadmissible against the accused, but may be used by the offended party in a suit
for damages against the violator
Article III, Section 12 (right to counsel, prohibition on torture, force, threat,
intimidation or other means which vitiate the free will; prohibition on secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado)
Article III, Section 17 (right against self-incrimination)
2. Statutory Exclusionary Rules
➤ Lack of documentary stamp tax to documents required to have ce makes
such document inadmissible as evidence in court until the requisites stamp/s
shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled (NIRC)
➤ Any communication obtained by a person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication, by tapping any wire/cable or using any
other device/arrangement to secretly overhear/intercept/record such
information by suing nay device, shall not be admissible in evidence in any
hearing or investigation (RA 4200)
Note: there must be a law that renders the evidence inadmissible
3. Exclusion under the Rules on Evidence
➤ Original Document Rule

➤ Hearsay Evidence Rule

➤ Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases
4. Exclusions under Court Issuances
➤ Rule on Electronic Evidence, e.g. compliance with authentication
requirements for electronic
evidence
➤ Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, e.g. sexual abuse shield rule

➤ Judicial Affidavit Rule

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. - Evidence must have such a relation to

the fact in issue as to induce beller 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
Evidence is relevant when it has "such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence [Sec. 4, Rule 128]
(e.g., evidence as to the age of a person who has been raped is relevant in a situation
where the age would qualify the offence to statutory rape)
Determinable by the rules of logic and human experience

Collateral matters
Matters other than the fact in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as
to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
General rule. Evidence on collateral matters is NOT allowed
Exceptions: When it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue [Sec. 4, Rule 128)
Note: What the Rules prohibit is evidence of irrelevant collateral facts
 Direct Evidence vs. Circumstantial Evidence
Direct Evidence - proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another
fact.
Circumstantial Evidence evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue through
an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established
➤ Applies when no witness saw the commission of a crime

➤ May be sufficient for conviction If the following are met:

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 a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt

Competent Evidence and Credible Evidence

Competent Evidence - not excluded by the Constitution, the law, or the Rules
Credible Evidence - refers to probative value or convincing weight Weight involves
the effect of evidence admitted, its tendency to convince and persuade. It is not
determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying
to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of
the judge trying the case.
Determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence

RULE 129
What need not be proved
General Rule:
When the case is up for trial, the judicial head is empty as to facts involved
and it is incumbent upon the litigants to the action to establish by evidence the facts
upon which they rely
 The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

What Need Not Be Proved

a. Facts of Judicial Notice
b. Judicial Admissions
c. Conclusive Presumptions
Note: Evidence is also not required when the issue is purely a question of law The
definition of "evidence" in Sec. 1, Rule 128 refers to a matter of fact

Judicial Notice
➤ The cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on
without proof because they are already known to him.
➤ It is a substitute for detailed evidence.

➤ It is based on convenience and expediency.

➤ Judicial notice takes the place of proof and is of equal force.

➤ Courts must take judicial notice with caution. Any reasonable doubt on the
subject must be resolved in the negative

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, official acts of the legislative, executive
and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of
nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
When mandatory:
1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
2. Their political history, forms of government, and symbols of nationality:
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
6. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National
Government of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions

No motion or hearing is necessary for the court to take judicial notice.

Note: It is grave abuse of discretion if the court does not allow the taking of judicial
notice.

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. - A court may take judicial notice
of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

When Discretionary
1. Matters of public knowledge:
2. Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration, and
3. Matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
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
Principle of NOTORIETY.
➤ Judicial notice is limited to facts evidence by public records and facts of general
notoriety.
➤ generally known within the territorial jurisdiction
➤ capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to resources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable

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, the basis of
his action.

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the pre-trial and the
trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety
of taking judicial notice of any matter.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take
judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case.
A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of facts
established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own
records of another case between the same parties, of the files of related cases in the
same court, and of public records on file in the same court
General rule:
As a general rule, 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 tried or
are actually pending before the same judge. [People v.
Exceptions:
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:
1. 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
2. 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

Courts may also take judicial notice of proceedings in other causes because of their
1. Close connection with the matter in controversy. Ex: In a separate civil action
against the administrator of an estate arising from an appeal against the report of the
committee on claims appointed in the administration proceedings of the said estate,
the court took judicial notice of the
record of the administration proceedings to determine whether or not the appeal was
taken on time,
2. To determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not
a previous ruling is applicable in the case under consideration.
3. The other case had been decided by the same court, involving the same subject
matter with the same cause of action, and was between the same parties (which was
not denied) and constituted res judicata on the current cause before the court

Section 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, oral 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 the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.

Elements of a judicial admission:

1. The same must be made by a party to the case.
 2. The admission, to be judicial, must be made in the course of the proceedings
in the same case.
3. Form is immaterial - can be verbal or written.

Requisites for a valid judicial admission:

1. definite
2. certain
3. unequivocal

Judicial admissions may be made in

a. the pleadings filed by the parties,
b. in the course of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations,
or c. in other stages of the judicial proceeding;
ex. stipulation of facts in a pre-trial conference, allegations in motions not
specifically
denied, pretrial, depositions, written interrogatories or requests for admission
Note:
a. Admissions made by a party pursuant to a request for admission is for the purpose
of the pending action only
b. In criminal cases, all agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-
trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel,
otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. However, in the civil case
instituted with the criminal case, such admission will be admissible against any other
party.

Note: 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.

What are the effects of a judicial admission?

■ conclusively binds the party making it and cannot thereafter take a position
contradictory to, or inconsistent with his pleadings.
■ the party cannot later challenge the fact as it is a waiver of proof

Can judicial admission be contradicted?

■ by evidence aliunde to show that it was made through palpable mistake
■ the imputed admission was not, in fact, made

Distinctions between Judicial Admission and Judicial Confession

Judicial Admission Judicial Confession

Verbal or written, made by a party in Acknowledgment of one's guilt in the

the course of the proceedings in the same case.
same case.
Does not result in liability Connotes admission of one's liability
May be express or implied Always express or facit
More of a broader scope which Only limited to the confession of a
includes judicial confession. person.

May be made by any party Can only be made by the accused in a

criminal case
Admission made in the same case Admission made in another case or out
of court admission
Need not be proven by the party being Needs to be alleged and proved like
conclusive on the part of the admitter any other fact