Sophia Legis - Evidence Reviewer

NOTES ON EVIDENCE 1
ancient civilizations, then was developed

by the Romans until they were
eventually systematized and perfected
by the English jurist. Various systems
and variations later developed such as
the trial by jury in the Americans.
INTRODUCTION
I. Evidence is Primordially a Search For Truth
A. As a continuing human endeavor to seek answers for
the purpose of knowledge; of uplifting or improving
mans life; to explore and discover the unknown or to
seek answers to the mysteries of life.
1. This may be through such disciplines as:
a. Through the academic world
b. Through philosophy
c. Scientific studies such as astronomy,
biology, medicine; mathematics, geometry
and other fields
d. Through religion
e. Through
the
conduct
of
tests,
experiments, explorations
2.
To determine the truth and thereby obtain

justice in actual controversies between people
on matters affecting their lives, personal
security, relations, beliefs, as well as their
property, economic, political and other rights
B. Methods of determining the truth in actual

controversies
1. Traditional Methods
a. Trial by Combat might is right
b. Trial by Ordeal- parties will undergo
physical challenges- the one who comes
less hurt is the one telling the truth.
c. Trial by Warfare- people will group
together, whoever emerges victorious is
the one telling the truth.
d. Cultural practices- ex. Sapata in
Benguet
Province
(public
declaration/avowal that you did not
commit the crime), so that after doing
so, then while you are walking you were
swallowed by the earth, its means you
are not telling the truth.
2.
Trial by an Impartial Tribunal- started and

developed by the Roman then perfected by the
English Jurists.
a. Rules of evidence were developed to
govern what facts may be presented as
proof, how they are to be presented, by
whom are they to be proven or
presented, what value is to be given to
certain kinds of proof, as well as the
development of
safeguards against
false proof . In short a systematic
method of ascertaining or approximating
truth was gradually developed and the
power to determine was given to a third
person or to a third body who was
supposed to be impartial.
b. The juridical system found its way in the
Review notes of Prosecutor Elmer M. Sagsago- SLU Baguio and

supplemented by the Rules of Court and Rianos Lectures.
1 www.sophialegis.weebly.com
c.
The juridical system in the Philippines is

affected by both the American and
English juridical system.
II. Rules of Evidence in the Philippines

A. Sources of the Rules
1. The Principal Source: Rules 128 to Rule 133 of the
Revised Rules of Court
a). Origin: The rules are patterned and based on the
rules of evidence as developed, applied and interpreted
in the English and American Courts. Thus the rules on
the disqualification of witnesses are pattered from the
rules applied in the State of California. Our rules
concerning confessions are patterned after American
rules.
b). Decisions of the English and American Courts, as
well as opinions and works of English and American
jurists, such as Wigmore, Clark, Jones, and others,
are given great weight.
2. The Philippine constitution particularly, its provisions on
the Bill of Rights and the Article on the Supreme Court.
3. Special Laws passed by Congress which either create,
amend or supplement existing rules of evidence. The most
recent include (i) The Electronic Evidence Act and the (ii)
The Child Witness Law.
4. Decisions of the Supreme Court (per Article of 8 of the
Civil Code).
5. Circulars issued by the Supreme Court- ex. Judicial
Affidavit
B. Power to Prescribe Rules of Evidence
1.
The power is essentially legislative in that it is

Congress which can enact laws concerning the
presentation, admissibility, and weight of evidence.
However the Supreme Court is not precluded from
issuing adopting circulars and rules concerning the
rules of evidence.
2.
New laws maybe issued under the Principle that

No person has a vested right in the rules of
evidence.
Parties to a pending case cannot
demand that a new rule of evidence should not
apply to them because it will be adverse to their
cause. Rules of evidence may be altered or repelled
at anytime and will apply to pending cases even if
the effect is adverse to a party therein. The
exceptions are rules which partake of the nature of
Ex post facto laws or Bills of Attainder.
Meaning of vested right- a right that
cannot be taken away from

individual.
Meaning of Bills of Attainder-
the
C. Stipulation and Waiver of a Rule of Evidence

1. Generally parties cannot, either by agreement or
by contract, stipulate what rules shall be binding
upon the Court. But the parties may however
stipulate on the effects of certain types of
evidence on their contractual rights as long as
the jurisdiction of the court is not affected.
2.
As to waiver (to renounce/ give-up/ abandon):

a. Rules intended for the protection of the
parties maybe waived Examples: Rules on
the Disqualification of Witnesses, the
Privileged Communication Rule, The Best
Evidence Rule.
b.
Rules grounded on public policy cannot be

waived. Examples: The Rule on the Identity
of State Secrets; the rule on the
inadmissibility of Coerced Confessions and
evidence resulting from illegal searches and
seizures; the 2 witness rule on treason.
D. Classification of the Rules of Evidence

1. Rules of Probative Policy. These are rules the
purposes of which are to improve the probative
value of the evidence offered.
a. Exclusionary Rules- those that exclude
certain kinds of evidence on the grounds of
policy and relevancy. Example: the rule that
character evidence is not admissible in civil
cases; the rule disqualifying certain persons
from being witnesses.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Preferential Rules- those which require

one kind of evidence in preference to any
other in that they are more trustworthy/
believable. Example: the rule which require
that the original of a document is preferred
over any other as proof of the contents of a
document.
Analytical rules- those that subject certain
kinds of evidence to rigid scrutiny, so as to
expose their possible weaknesses and
shortcomings. Examples: the rules which
require that testimonial evidence be
subjected to the opportunity for crossexamination.
Prophylactic rules- those that apply
beforehand certain measures to prevent risk,
falsity or mistake. Examples: the rules which
require that witnesses be placed under oath;
the rules on the separation and exclusion of
witnesses.
Quantitative Rules- the rules that require
certain kinds of evidence to be produced in
specific quantity, or that certain evidence be
required to be associated with other
evidence when presented. Examples: the 2-
witness rule in the crime of treason; the rule

which require that an extra judicial
confession be corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti; that the testimony of a state
witness be corroborated
in its material
points.
2.
Rules of Extrinsic Policy- these are rules which

seek to exclude useful evidence for the sake of
upholding
other
policies
considered
more
paramount/important (which is public policy). They
may either be absolute or conditional.
Examples: The Exclusionary Provisions of the
Constitution; the Anti-Wire Tapping Law.
E. Interpretation: The rules are to be liberally construed

and hair-splitting technicalities are to be avoided.
RULE 128. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Section 1: Evidence is the means, sanctioned by
these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding,
the truth respecting a matter of fact.
I. Dual Concept of Evidence:
1.
As the very materials presented in court consisting

of objects, documents or oral narration of
witnesses.
2.
As a system, process or methodology of proving a

fact. Hence it would refer to providing answers to
such questions as who may and who may not be
witnesses , what may be allowed as proof, how
they are to be presented; what requirements are to
be observed, what weight and importance is to be
given a certain evidence in relation to other pieces
of evidence.
3.
Section 1 stresses evidence as a system or

methodology. But the rules often use one or the
other concept. Thus which concept is followed
depends upon the context in which the word
evidence is used.
II. Definition explained:

1.
The means sanctioned by these rules- The

procedure for determining the truth is as provided
for under Rules 128 to Rule 133, including the
amendments thereto and their interpretation given
by the Courts
2.
Of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding- the

rules or procedure is applicable only to
controversies tried by the regular courts of law; the
procedure or rules of evidence does not apply in
quasi-judicial or administrative tribunals or to court
martial. The latter may adopt the rules in their
discretion.
3.
The truth:
a) The ultimate objective- of the rules of
evidence is to render justice by arriving at

the truth of a matter in dispute i.e by
knowing the facts and the meaning of these
facts.
b) Factual or moral truth- the truth which
the court seeks to know.
c) Judicial truth- the truth as found by the
courts based on the evidence presented to
it.
d) Ideal or perfect justice- when the judicial
truth is likewise the factual truth.
Where the two differ, still there is justice so long
as the court observed both substantive and
procedural due process.
Comment: the factual truth may not be the
same as the judicial truth since judicial truth is
dependent on the evidence presented. One
maybe guilty as sin, but maybe acquitted based
on the evidences presented where the court
based its conclusion.
4.
Respecting a matter of fact- the fact to be

established or the point in controversy must be
capable of being proven or ascertained by the rules
of evidence. The rules do not apply and cannot be
used to answer questions or controversies involving
religion or faith; dogma, philosophy, literature,
fantasy or fiction or those which are purely
speculative.
III. Related Concepts: In the following instances the

term evidence is understood in the sense of being
the materials presented in court and not a
methodology or proof.
1.
2.
Evidence from Proof- Strictly evidence is the

medium of proof whereas proof is the result of
evidence. Thus the materials consisting of the
weapon used, the confession of the accused, the
testimony of the complainant and witnesses, the
result of the paraffin test, will constitute the
evidence of guilt. Their combined effect will be
Proof of guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt. The two
terms are often used interchangeably.
Factum Probandum and Factum Probans.

All litigations, whether civil or criminal, involve
the relationship between these two concepts.
a.
b.
Factum
Probandum refers to the

ultimate fact to be proven, or the
proposition to be established. That, which
a party wants to prove to the court. E.g.:
guilt or innocence; existence of a breach
of contract; existence of an obligation; the
fact of payment; the injury or damage
incurred.
Factum
Probans
refers
to
the
evidentiary facts by which the factum
probandum will be proved. Examples:
the written contract; the promissory note
to prove the existence of an unpaid debt.
IV. Classification of Evidence (referring to the

materials presented in court)
A. Direct and Circumstantial
1. Direct- that which proves a fact in issue or
dispute without the aid of any inference or
presumption. It is evidence to the precise
point. Example: The eye witness account; the
scar to show the wound.
2.
Circumstantial- proof of facts or fact from

which taken singly or collectively, the existence
of the particular fact in issue maybe inferred or
presumed as a necessary or probable
consequence.
Important
considerations
on
circumstantial evidence:
a. This applies only in criminal cases and is
governed under Rule 133(4) which for
purposes of supporting a finding of guilt,
requires:
i. that there be more than one
circumstance;
ii. that the facts from which the
inference are derived are proven;
iii. The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
b.
Per the Supreme Court: it is essential

that the circumstantial evidence presented
must constitute an unbroken chain which
leads one to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person.
c.
Guidelines in the appreciation of the

probative value of circumstantial evidence:
i. It should be acted upon with
caution;
ii. All essential facts must be consistent
with the hypothesis of guilt;
iii. The facts must exclude every other
theory but that of guilt;
iv. The facts must establish such a
certainty of guilt as to convince the
judgment beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused is the one who
committed the offense.
Can a person maybe convicted based on

circumstantial evidence? Yes provided that
the requirements of law are met, e.i. there
must be more than one circumstance.
B. Positive vs. Negative Evidence
a. Positive- evidence that affirms the occurrence
of an event or existence of a fact, as when a
witness declares that there was no fight which
took place.
C.
b.
Negative- when the evidence denies the

occurrence of an event or existence of a fact,
as when the accused presents witnesses who
testify that the accused was at their party
when the crime was committed. Denials and
alibi are negative evidences.
c.
The general rule is that positive evidence

prevails over negative evidence, or that a
positive assertion is given more weight over a
plain denial.
Primary (Best) vs. Secondary Evidence

a. Primary- that which the law regards as
affording the greatest certainty of the fact in
question. E.g.: the original of a contract is the
best evidence as to its contents; the marriage
contract as to the fact of marriage; a receipt as
to the fact of payment; the birth certificate as
to filiation.
b.
Secondary- that which is necessarily inferior

and shows on its face that a better evidence
exists. E.g.: Xerox copies of documents;
narration of witnesses as to a written contract.
D. Conclusive vs. Prima facie

a. Conclusive may either be (i) that which
the law does not allow to be contradicted as
in judicial admissions or (b) that the effect of
which overwhelms any evidence to the
contrary as the DNA profile of a person as
the natural father over a denial.
b.
E.
Prima facie (at first glance/ impression) -
What is the importance of knowing the

difference of cumulative and corroborative
evidence? The court can limit the presentation
of cumulative evidence, but not corroborative
evidence. And if the law requires the
presentation of corroborative evidence, and there
is no performance thereof, then it lessens the
weight of the previously presented evidence.
F.
As to effect (criminal case only)

a. Exculpatory- evidence that will acquit/
exonerate/ establish the innocence of the
accused.
b. Incriminating/ Incriminatory- evidence
that which tend to establish the guilt of the
accused.
c. Inculpatory- evidence that connect the
accused to an event.
G. As to form:
a. Documentary- paper based documents.
b. object- those consisting of evidence which are
addressed to the senses of the court
c. Testimonialevidence
consisting
the
narration made under oath by a witness.
H. As to presentation
a. Presentation in chief- evidence presented
during the stage they are allowed to present
their evidence.
b. Rebuttal- evidence presented during the
rebuttal stage.
c. Sur-rebuttal- evidence presented during the
sur-rebuttal stage
that
which,
standing
alone
and
uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the
proposition affirmed. In the eyes of the law
it is sufficient to establish a fact until it has
been disproved, rebutted or contradicted or
overcome by contrary proof. Example:
possession of stolen articles by one who is
accused as a thieve.
Sec. 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.
Cumulative vs. corroborative

a. Cumulative- additional evidence of the
same kind bearing on the same point. E.g.:
testimonies of several eyewitnesses to the
same incident.
General Rule: Section 2 provides the Rule on Uniformity

in the Application of the Rules. The same rules shall
govern the trial in the lower courts and appellate courts, in
civil and in criminal cases. The reason is that the search
for truth is subject to the same rules.
b.
Corroborative (to confirm/ to strengthen) additional evidence of a different kind or

character but tending to prove the same
point. It is evidence which confirms or
supports. Thus: (i) the medico legal
certificate describing the injuries to have
been caused by a sharp pointed instrument
corroborates the statement that the accused
used a knife to stab the victim (ii) the
positive results of a paraffin test
corroborates the allegation that the person
fired a gun and (iii) the ballistics examination
on the gun of the suspect corroborates the
statement that he fired his gun at the victim.
I.
As to weight or value
a. Relevant
b. Material
c. Immaterial
Exceptions:
A. As to whether the rules on the presentation of
evidence shall be applied strictly
1. Cases covered by the Regular Procedure- the
rules apply strictly.
2. Cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure- the rules are relaxed and the
procedure is abbreviated.
B. Between civil and criminal proceedings
1. As to the quantum of evidence for the plaintiff
to win: proof of guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of
evidence.
2.
3.
have probative value.
As to the presence of the parties: in civil

cases the attendance of the parties is not
required and they attend on their own volition
whereas in criminal cases, the presence of the
accused is required unless he jump bail or
waived the same.
b.
As to the effect of the absence of a party: in

civil cases, except during the pre-trial, the
proceedings may proceed even in the absence
of the parties whereas in criminal cases, trial
cannot proceed if the accused jump bail or
waived his presence.
4.
As to the rule on confessions: this applies only

in criminal cases.
5.
As to the effect of an offer of compromise by

the defendant: in criminal cases the offer is
an implied admission of guilt whereas it does
not simply any liability in civil cases.
6.
As to the presumption of innocence: this

applies only in criminal cases.
7.
The rule on circumstantial

applicable only in criminal cases.
Illustration: (i). Criminal case: the

fact that the crime was committed at
nighttime is rationally or logically
relevant to a killing at 12 midnight but
evidence thereon would be not be
legally relevant if nighttime was not
alleged in the Information. It would
be immaterial. (ii) Civil Case: In an
action for sum of money based on a
promissory note, evidence that the
defendant was misled into signing the
note would be rationally relevant but
if fraud was never alleged as a
defense, then evidence thereof would
be legally irrelevant or immaterial.
evidence:
What does it mean by A fact was

properly put in issue- properly alleged
(put) in the pleadings. Thus the issues
raised in the pleadings limits the
presentation of evidence. Any evidence
presented which does not prove the issue
is legally irrelevant or immaterial.
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence- Evidence is

admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is
not excluded by law or these rules.
I.
Introduction.
A. Admissibility- the character or quality which
any material must necessarily possess for it to be
accepted and allowed to
be presented or
introduced as evidence in court. It answers the
question: should the court allow the material to
be used as evidence by the party?
B. Weight- the value given or significance or
impact, or importance given to the material after
it has been admitted; its tendency to convince or
persuade. Hence a particular evidence may be
admissible but it has no weight. Conversely, an
evidence may be of great weight or importance
but it is not admissible.
II. Conditions
for
admissibility
(Axioms
of
admissibility per Wigmore)
A. RELEVANCY (None but facts having rational
probative value are admissible). Per section 4,
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence.
1. The material presented as evidence must
affect the issue or question. It must have a
bearing on the outcome of the case. It
requires both:
a. Rational or logical relevancy in
that it has a connection to the issue
and therefore it has a tendency to
establish the fact which it is offered to
prove. The evidence must therefore
Legal relevancy in that the evidence

is offered to prove a matter which has
been properly put in issue as
determined by the pleadings in civil
cases, or as fixed by the pre-trial
order,
or
as
determined
by
substantive law. If so the matter has
materiality.
The components of relevancy are

therefore probative value and materiality.
Evidence may be logically relevant but
not necessarily legally relevant.
2.
Rule as to collateral matters: Evidence

on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the facts in issue:
a. Collateral matters- facts or matters
which are not in issue. They are not
generally allowed to be proven except
when relevant.
b.
In criminal cases, the collateral

matters allowed to be proven, being
relevant include (need not be alleged
in the information):
i. Antecedent Circumstances or
those in existing even prior to the
commission of the crime. They
include such matters as habit,
custom, bad moral character when
self-defense is invoked; or plan or
design, conspiracy.
Aggravating circumstances- must be
alleged in the information as provided by
to read such a provision into the act.

(Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 509 SCRA
190, Nov. 30, 2006).
law, so that it can be raised as a

defense. It cannot be alleged collaterally.
ii.
Concomitant circumstances or those

which accompany the commission of the
crime such as opportunity to do the act or
incompatibility.
3.
iii. Subsequent circumstances or those

which occur after the commission of the
crime,
such
as
flight,
escape,
concealment, offer of compromise.
c.
Mathew 7: 17-20- A healthy tree

bears good fruit, but a poor tree bears
bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear
bad fruit, and a poor tree cannot bear
good fruit. Any tree that does not bear
good fruit is cut down and thrown in
the fire. So then, you will know the
false prophets by what they do.
Example: Motive is generally irrelevant and

proof thereof is not allowed except: when the
evidence is purely circumstantial, when there is
doubt as to the identity of the accused, or when it
is an element of the crime.
B. COMPETENCY- All facts having rational probative

value are admissible unless some specific law or
rule forbids. In short the evidence is not excluded
by law or rules.
III. Principles which exclude relevant or material
evidence:
A. The Exclusionary Rule Principle - the
principle which mandates that evidence
obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable
search or coercive investigation, or in violation
of a particular law, must be excluded from the
trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
1.
2.
The principle judges the admissibility of

evidence based on HOW the evidence is
obtained or acquired and not WHAT the
evidence proves.
The principle is to be applied only if it is
so expressly provided for by the
constitution or by a particular law. Even
if the manner of obtaining the evidence
is in violation of a certain law but the
law does not declare that the evidence
is inadmissible, then such evidence will
be admissible.
Example: The accused claimed that
information about his bank accounts i.e.
trust funds, was obtained in violation of
the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law (R.A.
1405) and moved to have them be
excluded as evidence. HELD: R.A. 1405
nowhere provides that an unlawful
examination of bank accounts shall
render the evidence there from
inadmissible in evidence. If Congress
has both established a right and
provided exclusive remedies for its
violation,
the
court
would
be
encroaching upon the prerogatives of
congress if it authorizes a remedy not
provided for by statute. Absent a
specific reference to an exclusionary
rule, it is not appropriate for the courts
The phrase is attributed to Justice Felix

Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme and has
its biblical reference to Mathew 7: 1720.
B. The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

1. Evidence will be excluded if it was gained in an
illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive
interrogation, or violation of a particular
exclusionary law.
2.
It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which

applies to primary evidence. The doctrine
applies only to secondary or derivative
evidence. There must first be a primary
evidence which is determined to have been
illegally obtained then secondary evidence is
obtained because of the primary evidence.
Since the primary evidence is inadmissible, any
secondary evidence discovered or obtained
because of it may not also be used.
a.
The poisonous tree is the evidence seized

in
an
illegal arrest, search or
interrogation. The fruit of this poisonous
tree is evidence discovered because of
knowledge gained from the first illegal
search, arrest, or interrogation or
violation of a law.
b.
It is based on the principle that evidence

illegally obtained by the state should not
be used to gain other evidence because
the original illegally obtained evidence
taints all those subsequently obtained.
Illustration: A suspect was forced to
make a confession where he revealed he
took shabu from the room of X. Based on
this knowledge the police went to the
house of X and with the consent of X,
searched his room and found the shabu.
The confession is inadmissible because of
the exclusionary rule. It is the poisoned
tree. The shabu is inadmissible because
knowledge of its existence was based on
the confession. It is the fruit.
C.
Exceptions to the two principleswhen evidence is still admissible despite

the commission of an illegal arrest,
search or interrogation, or violation of a
particular exclusionary law.

1.
Under
the
Doctrine
of
Inevitable Discovery- Evidence is
admissible even if obtained through
an
unlawful
arrest,
search,
interrogation, or violation of an
exclusionary law, if it can be
established, to a very high
degree of probability that normal
police investigation would have
inevitably led to the discovery of
the evidence.
Ex: there a shooting spree. The
accused was arrested and the
police officers ask him where he hid
the gun. He told the location of the
weapon. The weapon is admissible
in evidence by way of exception
since by normal investigation, the
officers will inevitably locate the
weapon.
2.
Independent Source Doctrineevidence is admissible if knowledge

of the evidence is gained from a
separate or independent source
that is completely unrelated to the
illegal act of the law enforcers.
Ex: in the example supra, a
concerned citizen called the police
and told that he saw the suspect
hid the gun under the tree.
3.
Attentuation Doctrine: General

rule: clear connection of illegal act
and the evidence- evidence is
inadmissible. Exception: evidence
is admissible if there is a thin or
fragile or vague causal connection
between the illegal police action
and the evidence. Or, that the chain
of causation between the illegal
action and the tainted evidence is
too attenuated i.e too thin, weak,
decreased or fragile. This takes into
consideration the following factors:
a.
b.
c.
4.
The time period between the

illegal arrest and the ensuing
confession
or
consented
search;
The presence of intervening
factors or events;
The purpose and flagrancy of
the official misconduct.
Emergency Rule- evidence is

admissible even if obtained illegally
due the immediate need to save life
or property.
Ex: terroristyou need not advise
a terrorist who already planted a
bomb of his constitutional right to

counsel due to the exigency of the
situation.
D. Remedy in case incompetent evidence is
offered: By filing a Motion to Suppress the
Evidence.
IV. Evidence Excluded by the Constitution
A. Under Article III of the Constitution the following
evidence are inadmissible:
1. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against
unreasonable search and seizure;
2. Evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of
communication and correspondence, except upon
lawful order of the court or when public safety or
order requires otherwise;
3. Evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions
which are uncounselled, or when the confessant
was not properly informed of his constitutional
rights, or the right to counsel was not properly
waived (waiver must be in writing) or when the
confession was coerced;
4. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against
self-incrimination.
B.
Principles:
1. The exclusionary rule in all the foregoing
provisions is TOTAL in that the inadmissibility or
incompetency applies to all cases, whether civil,
criminal or administrative, and for all purposes.
2.
The incompetency applies only if the evidence

was obtained by law enforcers [include Barangay
Tanods, but not soldiers since they are tasked to
protect the state] or other authorized agencies of
the government. It does not apply if the evidence
was obtained by private persons such as private
security personnel or private detectives even if
they perform functions similar to the police
whenever a crime was committed.
a.
Thus evidence obtained by the following are

not covered by the exclusionary phrase of
the constitution, but it will be covered by
other
appropriate
principle
on
the
admissibility of evidence:
i. the security personnel or house
detectives of hotels or commercial
establishments or schools;
ii. private security agencies even if they
are guarding public or government
buildings/offices;
iii. Employers and their agents.
b.
However, by way of exception, the rule of

incompetency applies if what are involved
are the private correspondence of an
individual. In Zulueta vs. CA ( Feb. 1986) it
was held that pictures and love letters
proving the infidelity of the husband, kept by
him in his private clinic, taken by the wife
without the knowledge of the husband, are
inadmissible as evidence for being obtained
in violation of the husbands privacy of
communication and correspondence. The

intimacies between husband and wife do not
justify anyone of them breaking the drawers
and cabinet of the other and ransacking
them for any telltale evidence of marital
infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage,
does not shed his or her integrity or his right
to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is available to him
or her.
speaking or of all the parties to the

conversation must be sought. However
consent is not necessary if the words which
were taped or recorded were not intended to
be confidential as when they were intended
to be heard by an audience or when uttered
under circumstances of time, place, occasion
and similar circumstances whereby it may
reasonably be inferred that the conversation
was without regard to the presence of third
persons.
Remedy: make the office of your husband

your common office, since what is being
protected is privacy. If the office becomes
public then there is no privacy to be
protected.
c.
i. Does this apply if the recording of

the words was unintentional or
inadvertent, such as conversations
captured by a moving video camera?
No! The taping must be intentional with
the
intention
of
recording
the
conversation.
Eh panu kung ayaw ng asawa mo?

Magduda ka na. Baka may ginagawang
kalokohan .
3.
V.
Secondary evidence resulting from a violation

of the foregoing provisions is inadmissible under
the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine.
ii. Are conversations in a police entrapment

included? No, since entrapment is
authorized by law as one way of curbing
criminals.
iii. Is lip-reading included?
iv. Are
conversations
captured
in
surveillance cameras included? No! It is
the prerogative of the owner of private
establishments to set up cameras. If you
do not want your conversation to be
heard then get out.
v. Does this apply to secret taping
through spy cameras purposely made to
be aired in television programs, such as
Bitag, XXX and Cheaters? Yes.
vi. Are the gestures, snores, laughs,
weeping, included as communication or
spoken words? No!
vii. What about satellite discs and similar
facilities? Google earth? Yes!
R.A. 4200 (The Anti-Wire Tapping Law)

Exclusion as to evidence obtained through
mechanical, electronic or other surveillance or
intercepting devises. (Intercepted communications)
A. Coverage: R.A 4200 declares that evidence is

inadmissible if obtained through any of the
following ways:
1.
By using any device (any device/technology that

uses energy) to secretly eavesdrop, overhear,
intercept or record any communication or spoken
word:
a.
The person who obtained the evidence may

be a third person or a participant in the
conversation or communication.
FACTS: Ramirez and Garcia had a
confrontation in the office of Garcia. Ramirez
secretly taped their verbal confrontation and
used it as evidence in her action for
damages against Garcia who in turn filed a
criminal case against Ramirez for violation of
R.A. 4200. Ramirez held that the taping by a
participant to a conversation is not covered
by the law.
HELD: 1. the law does not make a
distinction as to whether the party sought to
be penalized is a party or not to the private
conversation. 2. The nature of the
conversation is immaterial What is
penalized is the act of secretly overhearing,
intercepting,
or
recording
private
communications by the devices enumerate
under Section 1. (Ramirez vs. C.A.,
September 28, 1995)
b.
To be admissible the consent of the person
Questions:
2.
By the unauthorized tapping of any wire or cable

as to communications used via telephone/cable,
as opposed to verbal communications.
a.
There must be a physical interruption

through a wiretap or the deliberate
installation of a device or arrangement in
order to overhear, intercept, or record the
spoken words.
i. hence over hearing through an extension
telephone wire is not included even if
intentional because each party to a
telephone conversation takes the risk
that the other party may have an
extension telephone and may allow
another to overhear the conversation
(Ganaan vs. IAC, 1986)
ii. Does the Ganaan ruling apply to
overhearing by telephone operators of
hotels, schools, hospitals and similar
establishments? Yes, because you do it at

your own risk.
B. Exceptions: when evidence through secret
recording or tapping is admissible.
1.
statement of the victim may not be admitted as a

dying declaration but as part of the res gestae.
B.
When Judicial Authorization was granted upon

a written petition filed pursuant to the
provisions of R.A. 4200 if the crimes involve:
(a) Treason- there is already the enemy, it
would be useless to ask for an
authorization
(b) espionage
(c) provoking war and disloyalty
(d) Piracy and mutiny in the high seas
(e) sedition, inciting to sedition
(f) kidnapping
(g) Other offenses against national security.
The list is exclusive and does not include
offenses which are equally or more serious as
those enumerated, such as drug trafficking,
kidnapping, Trafficking in Persons, Rape,
Murder.
2.
VI.
When Judicial Authorization is granted upon a

written petition under R.A. 9372 (The Human
Security Act of 2007) in connection with the
crimes of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism. If granted the authority covers
written communications.
C.
Exclusion by Certain Rules of Evidence

1. The rule excluding secondary evidence when
the primary or best evidence is available;
2. The rule excluding hearsay evidence;
3. The rule excluding privilege communications
Curative admissibility or fighting fire with fire

or Opening the Door
1. This applies to a situation when improper
evidence was allowed to be presented by one
party, then the other party may be allowed to
introduce or present similar improper evidence
but only to cure or to counter the prejudicial
effect of the opponents inadmissible evidence.
2.
The party presenting must have raised an

objection to the improper evidence, for if he did
not, then it is discretionary for the court to allow
him to present curative evidence.
3.
The evidence sought to be countered should not

refer to those which are incompetent due to an
exclusionary rule.
4.
Example: P vs. D for sum of money. P was

allowed to introduce evidence that D did not pay
his debt as shown by his refusal to pay his
indebtedness to X, Y and Z. Defendant may
introduce evidence that he paid his debts to A, B
and C.
Conditional Admissibility: An evidence is allowed

to be presented for the time being or temporarily,
subject to the condition that its relevancy or
connection to other facts will later be proven, or that
the party later submit evidence that it meets certain
requirements of the law or rules. If the conditions are
not later met, the evidence will be stricken from the
record.
1.
VII. Kinds of Admissibility

A. Multiple Admissibility: when a material is asked by
a party to be admitted as evidence, the party
presenting must inform the court of the purpose
which the material is intended to serve and the court
then admits the material as evidence. Multiple
admissibility may mean either (i) the evidence is
admissible for several purposes or (ii) an evidence is
not admissible for one purpose but may be admitted
for a different purpose if it satisfies all the
requirements of the other purpose.
1.
2.
Examples of the first concept: (a) a knife

may be admitted to prove the accused was
armed with a deadly weapon; to prove the
weapon is far deadlier than the weapon of the
victim; to prove it was the weapon of the
accused which cause the wounds and not some
other instrument; to corroborate the statement of
a witness who claims he saw the accused holding
a bladed instrument.
Example of the second concept: (a). the
extra judicial confession of one of several
accused may not be admitted to prove there was
conspiracy among them or to prove the guilt of
the other co-accused but it maybe admitted to
prove the guilt of the confessant (b) the
2.
Example: A Xerox copy of a document may be

allowed to be presented subject to the condition
that the original be later presented.
Example: P vs. D to recover a parcel of land. P
presents a document that the land belonged to X.
If D objects to it as being irrelevant, P can state
that he will later show that X sold the land to Y
who in turn sold it to Z and then to P. The Court
may admit the document conditionally.
VIII. Policy on the Admissibility of Evidence

A. General Rule: Policy of Liberality: In case a
question arises as to whether or not a particular
material should be admitted as evidence, Courts are
given wide discretion what to admit and to be liberal
in admitting materials offered as evidence, unless the
material is clearly incompetent. The reasons are:
i.
so that it may have a substantial range of

facts as basis for deciding the case and;
ii. in case of appeal the appellate court may have
before it all the evidence to determine whether
the decision appealed from is in accordance with
the evidence;
iii. To minimize any adverse effect of the nonadmission upon the party affected.
B.
Exceptions: Limitations:
1.
Evidence may be excluded even if relevant if its

probative value is outweighed by the risk that its
admission will cause:
a. undue or unfair prejudice
b. confusion of the issues
c. misleads the court
d. undue delay or waste of time
I.
2.
The court has the power to limit the presentation

of additional evidences which are cumulative, or
to prove points which a party has already well
presented.
II. Purpose: To save time, labor and expenses. It is

based on expediency and convenience.
RULE 129. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED.

I.
III. General Classification of Matters Subject of

Notice.
A.
INTRODUCTION. Principles on the correlation

between allegations, proof, and favorable judgment.
B. A Party Can Not Prove What He Did Not Allege

(Non Alegata Non Proba). General rule: A party
however is not authorized to introduce evidence on
matters which he never alleged. Hence plaintiff will
not be permitted to prove a cause of action which is
not stated in his complaint, and the defendant will not
be permitted to prove a defense which he never
raised in his Answer. In criminal cases, the
Prosecution is not permitted to prove a crime not
described in the Information or to prove any
aggravating circumstance not alleged in the
Information.
Exceptions: But a party may be relieved from
presenting evidence on certain matters, such as on
the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Matters or facts subject of judicial notice;

Matters or facts subject of judicial admission;
Matters or facts which are legally presumed;
Matters or facts stipulated upon;
Matters or facts which are exclusively within
the knowledge of the opposing party;
Matters or facts which are legally irrelevant/
immaterial;
Matters or facts in the nature of negative
allegations subject to certain exceptions.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Adjudicative Matters- those facts related to the

case under consideration and which may affect the
outcome thereof.
1.
A. Each Party Must Prove His Own Allegation.

Allegations in pleadings do not prove themselves. No
party wins by having the most allegations, or that the
allegation of causes of actions or defenses are crafted
in the strongest and most persuasive language. All
allegations remain but as allegations or propositions.
Hence every party to a case, who desires that a
favorable judgment be rendered in his favor, must
present evidence to support his claim, cause of action
or defense be it in the form of object evidence,
documents, or testimonies of witnesses.
Likewise, the court limits itself to only such evidence
as were properly presented and admitted during the
trial and does not consider matters or facts outside
the court.
CONCEPT: Refers to the act of the court in taking

cognizance of matters as true or as existing without
need of the introduction of evidence, or the authority
of the court to accept certain matters as facts even if
no evidence of their existence has been presented.
The action is often expressed thus The court takes
judicial notice of
2.
3.
B.
In a case where the accused set up denial and

alibi being then in Manila, court may take judicial
notice that normal travel time by bus from
Manila to Baguio City is between 6 to 7 hours.
Where the accused set up accidental shooting,
the court may take notice that a revolver does
not fire accidentally because pressure must be
applied to the trigger.
Where a witness claimed to have seen a person
by the light of day at around 6:00 PM on
December some 10 meters away, courts may
take notice of the shortened days in December
and that by 6:30 there is no more day light.
Legislative Matters- those facts which relate either

to: (i) the existence of a law or legal principle (ii) the
reason, purpose or philosophy behind the law or of a
legal principle as formulated by the legislature or the
court (iii) the law or principle itself.
The following are examples:
1. The need to protect Filipino OFWs as a primary
reason behind the Migrant Workers Act or the
increase in the incidence of drug related crimes
as reason for the increase in the penalty for
violation of the drug law;
2. That the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Law and
the Anti-Money Laundering Law were influenced
by the demands of the international community;
3. Taking notice of the increase in the age of
criminal liability ;
4. That documents presented in the Register of
Deeds are recorded according to the date and
time of their presentation;
5. The policy of the law as regards bail in heinous
crimes or of the policy of the state against the
use of illegal means to obtain evidence;
6. Gun Ban during election period
IV. Limitations. The taking of judicial notice maybe

abused and might unfairly favor a party who is unable
to prove a material point. Conversely the non-taking
notice of a fact might unduly burden a party where
proof is not readily available or impossible to obtain
and proof thereof is unnecessary, but still the court
refuses to take notice of the fact.
A. As to what maybe taken notice of: the

matter must be one covered/ enumerated by
section 1 or is authorized under Section 2 of Rule
129, otherwise it should not be taken notice.
secessionist movement; Wars in which the

Philippines participated.
B.
The official acts of the legislature, executive and

judicial departments.
1. That congress is a bicameral body; the form of
leadership in each house; the process of
legislation; the committee system; laws which
were passed;
2. State visits of the presidents; ratification of
treaties; executive
orders
and
decrees;
declaration of state of emergencies;
3. Grants of amnesty;
4. Holding of peace negotiations with the rebels;
5. Membership in the UN and other regional
organizations as well as the hosting of the ASEAN
in Cebu;
6. Decisions of appellate courts
V.
The Laws of Nature: Examples:

1. Laws relating to science which are so well known
such as that the DNA of each person being
distinct, or blood groupings as proof of filiation; or
of finger prints and dentures being distinct and
dissimilar from one person to another.
2. The law of gravity, mathematical equations,
weights and measurements.
3. The solar system, the planets and stars.
4. The composition and decay of matter.
5. The birth and period of gestation of human
beings.
6. The occurrence of natural phenomenon provided
these are constant, immutable and certain,
otherwise these occurrences are freaks of nature
a. the changing of the season
b. the cycle of day and night
c. the difference in time between places on
earth
d. the variation in vegetation
B. As to the procedure: there must be a prior

hearing pursuant to Section 3.
SECTION 1. MATTERS THE TAKING NOTICE OF
WHICH IS MANDATORY.
INTRODUCTION: If a fact falls under any of the
matters enumerated, then the court may not compel a
party to present evidence thereon and necessarily, it may
not decide against the party for the latters failure to
present evidence on the matter. The enumeration is
exclusive.
I.
As to Foreign States: their existence and territorial

extent;
forms
of
government
(monarchial,
presidential, parliamentary, royalty), symbols of
nationality (flag, national costume, anthem).
Limitation: However the recognition of a foreign
state or government is subject to the decision of the
political leadership (the country must be recognized
by the Government of the Philippines to be taken
judicial notice).
II. The Law of Nations: the body of principles, usages,

customs and unwritten precepts observed by, and
which governs, the relations between and among
states.
Examples: (i). The Principle of Equality of States (ii)
Sovereign Immunity of visiting Heads of States and
the protocol observed for said visiting dignitary such
as the 21 gun salute (iii) The Diplomatic Immunity of
foreign diplomatic representatives (iv) recognition of
piracy as a crime against humanity
III. The Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction of the
World and their Seals- courts establish to cater to
maritime cases and established their jurisdictions.
IV. The Philippine as a state
A. How did we develop as a state: Its constitution
and political history: the political set up of the
government
1. As a Spanish colony(333 years), American colony
(33 years), Japanese colony (3 years), as a
commonwealth, as a republic; Martial law years;
the political upheavals such as the assassination
of B. Aquino, EDSA I and II;
2. The cabinet system in the Office of the President;
3. Previous Presidents; the trial and conviction of
Erap and his subsequent pardon;
4. The administrative division into regions,
provinces, municipalities, cities, barangays and
into sitios or puroks;
5. Manila as the capital and the capital towns of the
provinces; the location of major rivers, lakes and
mountains;
6. Contemporary political developments such as the
ongoing communist rebellion and muslin
VI. Measures of Time: into seconds, minutes, days,

weeks months and years
VII. Geographical Division of the World such as the
number and location of the continents, and the major
oceans, the division into hemispheres; longitudes and
latitudes.
Section 2. Matters the taking of which is
discretionary.
I.
This section authorizes a court to take judicial notice

of certain matters in its discretion. The matters fall
into three groups:
1. Those which are of public knowledge;
2. Those which are capable of unquestionable
demonstration; and
3. Matters ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.
II. First Group: Matters of Public Knowledge.

A. These are matters the truth or existence of which are
accepted by the public without qualification, condition
or contenton.
B. Requirements:
1. Notoriety (notorious) of the Facts in that the
facts are well and publicly known. The existence
should not be known only to a certain portion of
the community;
2. The matter must be well and authoritatively
settled and not doubtful or uncertain;
3. The matter must be within the limits of the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Examples:
1. The existence and location of hospitals, public
buildings, plazas and markets, schools and
universities, main thoroughfares, parks, rivers
and lakes.
2. Facts of local history and contemporary
developments including political matters. For
example: the creation of the city or town,
previous and present political leaders or officials;
the increase in population; traffic congestion in
main streets. The existence and location of the
PMA in Baguio City.
Second
Group:
Matters
Capable
of
Unquestionable Demonstration
A. These are matters which, even if not notorious, can
be immediately shown to exist or be true so as to
justify dispensing with actual proof.
common knowledge.
C.
As to whether a party can introduce contrary proof:

1. If the matter is one subject of mandatory judicial
notice, contrary proof is not allowed;
2. If the matter is one which the court is allowed to
take notice in its discretion, the prohibition
applies to civil cases only, but in criminal cases,
the accused may still introduce contrary proof as
part of his right to defend himself.
C.
What is the remedy if the court takes judicial

notice of facts which should not be? Wait for the
decision and appeal the same pointing the act of the
court as one of the error. If you won, nevermind
questioning it!
V.
A.
B. Examples:
1. That poison kills or results to serious injury
2. That boiling water scalds
3. Striking the body with a sharp instruments results
to rupturing the skin and to bleeding
4. Shooting on the head kills
5. Hunger results to a weakened physical condition
6. Vehicles running at top speed do not immediately
stop even when the brakes are applied and will
leave skid marks on the road
Judicial Notice of Certain Specific Matters

As To Foreign Laws.
1. As a general rule, Philippine Courts cannot take
judicial
notice
of
the
existence
and
provisions/contents of a foreign law (it is a
question of fact), which matters must be alleged
and proven as a fact. If the existence and
provisions/contents were not properly pleaded
and proven, the Principle of Processual
Presumption applies i.e. the foreign law will be
presumed to be the same as Philippine Laws and
it will be Philippine Laws which will be applied to
the case.
2.
III. Third Group: Matters Ought To Be Known to

Judges because of their Judicial Functions
A. These are matters which pertain to the office of the
Judge or known to them based on their experience as
judges.
B. Examples:
1. The behavior of people to being witnesses such
as their reluctance to be involved in cases thus
requiring the issuance of subpoenae to them; the
varied reaction of people to similar events.
2. Procedures in the reduction of bail bonds.
IV. Principles Involved
A. The matter need not be personally known to the
judge in order to be taken judicial notice of, as in fact
the judge maybe personally ignorant thereof.
B. Personal knowledge by the Judge of a fact is not
necessarily knowledge by the Court as to be the basis
of a judicial notice.
Example: Plaintiff: I fell into a manhole, but did not
prove it.the judge cannot say that I take judicial
notice of the existence of the manhole since I passed
by that area every evening. The manhole is not of a
B.
Exceptions or when Court may take judicial

notice of a foreign law:
a. When there is no controversy among the
parties as to the existence and provision of
the foreign law.
b. When the foreign law has been previously
ruled upon by the court as to have acquired
actual knowledge of it. For example:
Knowledge of the Texan law on succession
based on the Christiansen cases; notice of
the existence of the Nevada Divorce Law.
c. The foreign law has been previously applied
in the Philippines e.g. the Spanish Penal
Code (Codigo Penal).
d. The foreign law is the source of the
Philippine Law e.g. the California Law on
Insurance, the Spanish Civil Code (Codigo
Civil).
e. When the foreign law is a treaty in which the
Philippines is a signatory it being part of the
Public International Law (Why? Because it is
the law of nations and taking judicial notice
of the law of nations is mandatory).
Domestic Laws, Administrative Rules and

Regulations
1. As to laws, rules and regulations of national
applications, their passage and effectivity and
provisions are governmental matters which must
be noticed mandatorily. [Why? Because it falls
on the mandatory of taking judicial notice relative
to the Philippines as a state].
2.
As to laws of local application:
a.
For lower Courts (RTC & MTC- direct

action): they may take notice of ordinances,
resolutions and executive or administrative
orders enforced within the town or city
where they sit.
For the RTCs: they may do so only when a
case has been appealed to them and the
lower court has taken notice thereof.
For appellate courts: on appeal and all
those enforced within any town or city in the
Philippines.
b.
c.
6.
7.
8.
C.
Decisions of Courts
1. Decisions of appellate courts must be taken
notice of mandatorily by trial court.
2. As to the records of cases pending or
decided by other courts: these may not be
taken judicial notice of.
3. As to Records of Other Cases Pending
Before the Same Court:
a.
E.
As a general rule, courts are not

authorized to take judicial notice of the
contents of records of other cases tried or
pending in the same court, even when
these cases were heard or actually
pending before the same judge.
However, this rule admits of exceptions,

i. As when reference to such records is
sufficiently made without objection
from the opposing parties. Reference
is by name and number or in some
other manner by which it is
sufficiently designated or
ii. When the original record of the
former case or any part of it, is
actually withdrawn from the archives
by the courts direction, at the request
or with the consent of the parties, and
admitted as part of the records of the
case then pending (Calamba Steel
Center Inc. vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. April 28, 2005)
F.
D. Commercial Usages and Practices: those

pertaining to business, occupation or profession.
Notice may be taken only of those which are well
known and established. Examples:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The closure of banks on Saturdays and Sundays

and of the banking hours being until 3:00 P.M.
Practice of considering checks as sale if not
presented within 6 months.
The establishment of ATM machines to facilitate
the opening of accounts and withdrawal of
money.
The practice of requiring tickets for persons to
enter theaters and movie houses or to ride in
public transports.
The holding of graduation exercises by schools
Customs, Habits and Practices of People: Notice

may be taken only of those which are generally
known and established and uniformly acted upon, and
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Particular customs and those peculiar only to
certain people must be established as a fact.
Examples:
1. Variations in handwriting.
2. The instinct of self-preservation.
3. Sleeping habits of people in the barrios.
4. Rituals digging and cleansing of bones of
buried loved ones among certain tribes and
other tribal practices, must be proved as a fact.
5. What about the natural shyness of the Filipina
woman?
This is important for purposes of filing a

motion to dismiss based on res judicata or
litis pendentia.
b.
and universities every end of the semester.

The public auction of unredeemed articles by
pawn shops.
Courts take judicial notice that before a bank
grants a loan secured by a land, it first
undertakes a careful examination of the title, as
well as a physical and on-the-spot investigation
of the land offered as security. Hence it cannot
claim to be a mortgagee in good faith as against
the actual possessor of the land (Erasustada vs.
C.A., 495 SCRA 319).
That no official receipts are issued by
sidewalk or market vendors.
As to religious matters: Courts may take notice of

the general tenets or beliefs of a particular group
including their organizational structures, but not as to
specific practices, tenets and dogmas. Examples:
1.
Thus notice maybe taken of the belief Catholics

consider Jesus as God, whereas the INC do not
but as a man, and the Muslims regard Him
merely as a prophet
lesser in stature to
Mohammed.
2.
That the Pope is the titular head of the Catholic

Church while the Dalai Llama is head of the
Tibetan Monks; Mecca is the Holiest City of the
Muslims; the Muslim belief in Ramadan; the
belief in reincarnation among the Hindus and
Buddhists while the Christians believe in
resurrection after death; whereas Christians
believe in heaven the Buddhist have their
Nirvana. Notice is proper of the Christian Bible
and the Muslim Koran as their respective Holy
Books.
SECTION 3. WHEN HEARING IS NECESSARY

I.
A.
When and How Notice is taken.

By the Trial Court: either motu proprio or upon
motion by a party .Generally this is during the trial or
presentation of evidence, but it maybe made
thereafter but before judgment and only upon a
matter which is decisive of the issue.
B.
By the appellate court: before Judgment
II. Need for Hearing

A. If motu proprio, the Court must announce its
intention and give the parties the opportunity to give
their view on whether or not the matter is a proper
subject of judicial notice.
B. If on motion of a party, the opposing party must
likewise be given the opportunity to comment
thereon.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Sec. 4: An admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission maybe
contradicted only by a showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.
General rule: judicial admissions are conclusive and
binding to the party making it and he cannot later on
present evidence to contradict it.
Exceptions: The judicial admission maybe contradicted
only by showing that it was made though:
1. Palpable mistake; and
2. No such admission was made
Meaning of palpable mistake:
Hayagang kamalian.
Example: Santiago Wakas declared in open

courtako si Brad Pitt, ay nangangakong this
can be later on contradicted by Santi kasi ito ay
hayagang kamalian or in ilokanoagdadata a
biddot!
Meaning of no such admission was made
It does not mean na dini-deny mo na sinabi mo

like- hindi ko sinabi yan!- this is not what is
contemplated by law.
I.
Rather it goes this way: may sinabi ako na akoy
nagkasakit, kaya hindi ako nakasipot sa araw na yon

kasi ako ay nagkasakit- sasabihin ng kalaban oh
admitted na siya ay nagkasakit- ang pinupuntirya ay
ang admission ng salitang sick. Defense: sinabi
ko iyon kasi ang ibig kong sabihin ay I am tired and
not physically sick.
In other words, the meaning of no such admission
was made is your statement was taken out of
context! Or hindi iyon ang ibig mong sabihin kaya
nga meron ang word na SUCH, kasi pag wala un,
plain denial lang ang mangyayari.
CONCEPT- The act or declaration of a party in
voluntary acknowledging or accepting the truth or
existence of a certain fact. The admission maybe
Judicial or Extra Judicial and in either case, they may
be oral or written.
A. Judicial- those made in the course of the

proceedings of the case in which they are to be used
as evidence. This is governed by section 4. If the
admission is used as evidence in the case where it
was made, then it is judicial admission.
B.
Extra-Judicial- those made elsewhere but not in the

course of the proceedings where they are to be used
as evidence. It was not made in the case where it is
being used.
Purpose of judicial admission- to limit the opponents

defense.
III. Effect of Judicial Admissions:
A. Upon the party making the admission: The party
making the admission is bound by it. The admission is
conclusive as to him. He will not be permitted to
introduce evidence which will vary, contradict or deny
the fact he has admitted.
1.
2.
3.
The exception is found only in those rare

instances when the trial court, in the exercise of
its discretion and because of strong reasons to
support its stand, may relieve a party from the
consequences of his admission
All such evidence to the contrary are to be
disregarded by the court even in the absence of
an objection by the adverse party.
Examples:
a. The rule on judicial admissions found its
way into black-letter law only in 1964 but
its content is supplied by case law much
older and in many instances more explicit
than the present codal provision. In the
early case of Irlanda vs. Pitarque (1918)
this court laid down the doctrine that acts
or facts admitted does not require proof
and cannot be contradicted unless it can
be shown that the admission was made
through palpable mistake. The rule was
more forcibly stated in the 1918 decision
in Ramirez vs. Orientalist Co. an
admission made in a pleading cannot be
controverted by the party making such
admission, and all proof submitted by him
contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith
should simply be ignored by the court,
whether objection was interposed by the
opposite party or not (Heirs of Clemenia
vs. Heirs of Bien, 501 SCRA 405).
b.
Joshua Alfelor vs.

(March 31, 2006):
Hosefina
Halasan
Facts: The spouses Telesforo and Cecilia

Alfelor died leaving behind several heirs.
One of the children was Jose who himself
died leaving behind children and a wife
named Teresita. In1998 the heirs filed a
complaint for partition of the estate of
their deceased parents. A certain Hosefina
Halaan filed a Motion for Intervention
claiming she is the legal wife of Jose.
Teresita and the other petitioners filed a
Reply in Intervention where Teresita
stated she knew of the previous marriage
of Jose; that Hosefina left Jose in 1959
and there had been no news of her since
then; that Jose revealed he did not annul

his marriage to Hosefina because he
believed in good faith to Hosefina. During
the hearing of the Motion for Intervention,
Teresita admitted several times she knew
of the previous marriage of Jose to
Hosefina. Since Hosefina did not appear
during the hearing to support her claim, of
being the first wife her motion was denied.
view, as that of Justice F. Regallado says

amended pleadings are still covered by
section 4.
c.
2.
Admissions and Stipulations made during the

Preliminary Conference and/or Pre-Trial which
are reduced into writing and signed by the party
and his counsel.
Issue: Was there need to prove the

existence of the first marriage?
Held: No. The admission in the Reply in
Intervention and the testimony of Teresita
as to the previous marriage qualifies as a
Judicial Admission.
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot
later challenge that fact as judicial
admissions are waiver of proof; production
of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial
admission also removes an admitted fact
from
the
field
of
controversy.
Consequently, an admission made in the
pleading cannot be controverted by the
party making such admissions and are
conclusive as to that party, and all proof
to the contrary or inconsistent therewith
should be ignored, whether objection is
interposed by the party or not. The
allegation statements or admissions are
conclusive against the pleader. A party
cannot subsequently take a position
contrary to or inconsistent with what was
pleaded.
B. Upon the opposite party: He need not introduce
any evidence on the matter which was admitted.
a.
b.
B.
b.
In a civil case: The plaintiff is bound by the

statement of causes of actions in his
Complaint including the number, nature and
circumstances thereof, as well as the
statement of facts in support thereof. The
defendant is bound by the facts alleged in
the Complaint which he expressly admits in
his Answer; by his own statement of facts;
by the nature, number and circumstances of
the defenses contained in his Answer. They
are similar bound by the allegations of facts
in their Reply, Comment or Rejoinder to each
others pleadings.
As to amended pleadings: one view holds
that the original pleadings ceased to be part
of the records and cease to be judicial
admissions. If at all they may constitute
extra-judicial admissions which will have to
be formally offered in evidence. Another
But in criminal cases, there can be no

stipulation as to circumstances which qualify
a crime or increase the penalty to death.
Example: In criminal cases of theft or
robbery there can be stipulation as to the
ownership or possessor of the property, the
value thereof; the arrest or surrender of the
accused; identity of the accused
3.
Admissions and stipulations made during the

course of the trial itself, which need not be
reduced in writing.
4.
Compromise agreements, which thus can be the

basis of a judgment which is immediately
executory.
5.
Admissions by way of responses or answers to

requests for admissions or interrogatories
pursuant to Rule 26 (Modes of Discovery).
Involuntary Admissions (Implied admissions):

those where it is the law which declares that a party
is deemed to have admitted a fact.
Section 8 of Rule 8 directs that
a. Failure to specifically under oath (you should
specifically state your reasons why you are

denying the allegation) an actionable
IV. Sources of Judicial Admissions:

A. Voluntary Admissions
1. Admissions contained in the allegations in the
pleadings
a.
In a criminal case, the narration of facts in

the body of the Information are deemed
admissions by the Prosecution
b.
document is an admission of its genuineness

and due execution- effect: cannot present any
evidence that will assail the genuineness and
due execution of the document.
Failure to specifically deny the material
averments of the Complaint is an admission of
the truth thereof [conclusions of fact need not
be denied].
What are the matters that must be specifically

denied? Material allegations
Illustration:
The complaint reads: the defendant acted recklessly
and negligently. Do you need to deny the
allegations?
No, eventhough it is material but it is not an
allegation but a conclusion. And the law provides
that conclusions need be denied.
Actionable documents:
1. Must be specifically denied; and
2.
requirements for admissibility of evidence, Rule 130

spells out the particular requirements in order that
certain kinds of materials be admitted as evidence.
It must be under oath.
Note: if a person is not a party to the actionable

document, he need not deny it under oath but he
should deny it specifically.
RULE ON USURY
It must be specifically denied and under oath, if

a case was filed for the recovery of a usurious
interest.
If usury was used as a defense no need to deny

it under oath.
C.
Effect of a Withdrawn Plea of Guilt: A plea of

guilty is an admission of the factual allegations of the
Information but not conclusions of law. The former
plea is not an admission because the accused has the
right to change his plea of guilty to not guilty.
I.
By Whom Made:
A. By the parties themselves
B. By the counsel under the principle of agency:
exceptions:
In civil cases
i. when the admission amounts to a
surrender, waiver, or destruction of the
clients cause (example: in the answer
the defense is that I am not the Father,
however in the pre-trial the lawyer
admits that the defendant is the fatherthis is not allowed since by doing so the
lawyer had virtually surrendered the
defenses of his client, hence it will not be
binding to the client).
ii. if the compromise is for an amount less
than that demanded by the client
iii. those which are due to the gross and
inexcusable ignorance or negligence of
counsel
In criminal cases:
1. Example: PP. vs. Hermones (March 6,
2002). FACTS: In a prosecution for rape
the counsel for the accused filed a
manifestation stating that the accused is
remorseful and was intoxicated when he
raped his foster daughter and he will
present evidence of intoxication, plea of
guilt and lack of intent. Are these
conclusive upon the accused? HELD: No.
The authority of an attorney to bind his
client as to any admissibility of fact is
limited to matters of judicial procedure
but not to admissions which operate as a
waiver, surrender or destruction of the
clients cause.
2. Offer of compromise in a criminal
case- compromise is an implied
admission.
RULE 130. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
II. INTRODUCTION:
A. While Rule 128
declared
the
two
general
B. Sources of Knowledge or Evidence

1. Those derived from the testimony of people
whether oral or written
2. Those obtained from circumstances
3. Those obtained through the use of the senses
a. These are the coverage of Section 1 and
are presently referred to as Object
Evidence. Formerly they were referred
to as autoptic or demonstrative
evidence
b. They occupy the highest level because
nothing is more certain than the evidence
of our sense. Physical evidence is a
mute but eloquent manifestation of truth
and rates highly in the hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence
OBJECTS AS EVIDENCE
Section 1. Object as evidence. Object 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.
I.
COVERAGE: The definition covers any material that

may be seen, heard, smelled, felt, or touched. See
the judge as the personification of the court. They are
the sensual evidence and are grouped into:
A.
Those exhibited to the Court or observed by it

during the trial.
1. The weapons used, the articles recovered or
seized as subjects of an offense, the effects of
the crime, clothing apparels.
2. The wound or scars in the body in physical
injury cases.
3. Inspection of the body of the accused and his
personal appearance to determine his body
built, physique, height, racial characteristics,
and similarities with another, in paternity suits.
4. Observations as to the demeanor of witnesses.
5. Re-enactment or demonstrations of actions
B.
Those which consists of the results of

inspections of things or places conducted by
the court (ocular/site inspections) outside the
court.
1. The observations made by the parties are
duly
recorded,
pictures
and
other
representations may be made such as
sketches and measurements.
2. Examples: inspection of the crime scene;
disputed boundaries; objects which cannot be
brought to court.
C.
Those which consists of the results of

experiments, tests or demonstrations, which
may be scientific tests/experiments, or practical
tests/demonstrations provided the conduct of
experiments/tests is subject to the discretion of the
court.
1. Forensics or Microanalysis: the application
of scientific principles to answer questions of
interest in the legal system. Applied most
often in the examination of Trace Evidence to
solve crimes based on the Principle of
Contact.
a. Trace Evidence- evidence found at a
crime scene in small but measurable
amounts such as hairs, fibers, soils,
botanical materials, explosive residue.
b. Principle of Contact: every person
who is physically involved in a crime
leaves some minute trace of his/her
presence in the crime scene or in the
victim and often takes something away
from the crime scene and/or victim
III. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY
A. Inherent Requirements: Proof of 1. Relevancy
and 2. Competency
B. Procedural
Requirement:
Proof
of
Authentication
1. The process of proving that the object being
presented in court is the very object involved
in the event.
2. The purpose is two-fold: (a) to /ensure
preserve the Identity of the Object which is to
prevent the introduction of a different object
and (b) to ensure/preserve the Integrity of the
Object which is to ensure that there are no
significant changes or alterations in the
condition of the object or that the object has
not been contaminated.
3. Important component elements of the process
of Authentication:
a.
Proof of Identity: Through the

testimony of a witness as to objects which
are readily (when?) identifiable by sight
provided there is a basis for the
identification by the witness which may
either be:
i.
ii.
b.
the markings placed by the witness

upon the object, such as his initials,
his pictures in the digital camera, or
By the peculiar characteristics of the
object i.e. by certain physical features
which sets it apart from others of the
same kind or class by which it is
readily identified. Examples: a hole
caused by burning in a sweater; the
broken hilt of a knife.
Proof of Identity and Integrity: By

proving that there was no break in the
Chain-of-Custody (movement of the object
from one person to another) in the event
the object passed into the possession of
different persons. This means proving the
chronological sequence through which the
object was handled only by persons who,
by reason of their function or office, can
reasonably be expected to have the right

or duty to possess or handle the object.
This is done by calling each of these
persons to explain how and why he came
into the possession of the object and what
he did with the object.
When the object passed into the
possession of a stranger, then there is
doubt as to the integrity, if not identity of
the object.
c.
Proof of Integrity: By proving the

Proper Preservation and Custody of the
object which consist of showing that the
object was kept in a secure place as to
make contamination or alteration difficult,
and it has not been brought out until its
presentment in court.
4.
Effect
if
there
was
improper
authentication: The object maybe excluded
upon proper objection, or that it may not be
given any evidentiary value. Thus in a criminal
case, reliance thereon may be a ground for
acquittal. Example: there was conflicting
testimony by the policemen as to the description
of the bag allegedly containing the drug. The
conviction was reversed.
5.
Authentication (the act of proving the

accuracy) as applied to certain evidences:
a. As to pictures and photographs, maps,
diagrams, the authenticity refers to
proving the accuracy of the things,
persons, things or places depicted in the
photographs which may through the
testimony of: (i) the photographer or (ii)
anyone who is familiar with the persons,
things, places shown therein.
b.
As to tape recordings: (Torralba vs. Pp.,

Aug. 22, 2005)
FACTS: The accused was convicted of
libel. One of the evidence was a tape
recording of the radio broadcast which
recording was made by the daughter of
the complainant, but the daughter was not
however presented as a witness.
Question: Was the tape recording properly
admitted?
HELD: The person who actually recorded
should be presented in order to lay the
foundation for the admission of the tape
recording. Before a tape recording is
admissible in evidence and given probative
value, the following requisites must first
be established:
i. a showing that the recording devise
was capable of taking testimony;
ii. a showing that the operator of the
device was competent;
iii. establishment of the authenticity
and correctness of the recording;

iv. a showing that changes, alterations,
or deletions have not been made;
v. a showing of the manner of the
preservation of the recording;
vi. identification of the speakers;
vii. a showing that the testimony
elicited was voluntarily made
without any kind of inducement.
c.
As to X-rays and cardiograms, motion

pictures: same requirement as to tape
recordings.
IV.
LIMITATIONS to the admission of Objects as

evidence in addition to the inherent limitations of
relevancy and competency.
A. The admission must not cause undue prejudice to
the court, such as those intended.
B. The admission is subject to the demands of
decency and propriety, unless the admission is
extremely necessary.
1. Exhibition of the private parts in sex cases;
2. Presentation of the corpse or body parts;
3. Re-enactment of violent or offensive acts;
4. Examples:
a) The case of the old man accused of rape
who had to show his private parts to prove
he is incapable of committing the crime;
b) Case of William Alford charged of shooting
a lawyer. He claimed self-defense in that
he shot the victim who was beating him
with a cane while the accused was lying
down on the ground. Prosecution witness
claimed the bullet had driven downward.
Earl Rogers demanded that the intestine
of the victim be brought to court and by
the testimony of an expert, showed that
the bullet traveled upward while the victim
was bending over, thereby confirming the
claim of the accused.
C.
Exclusion of objects which are offensive to mans

sensibilities or repulsive objects:
1. Waste matters, human excreta.
2. Carcasses of dead animals
3. Killing of an animal to prove a substance is
poison
D. The procurement, presentation or inspection must

not cause inconvenience or unnecessary expenses
out of proportion to the evidentiary value of the
object evidence.
E.
The admission must not violate the right against

self-incrimination
Handwritings: the general rule is that a person
may not be compelled to produce a sample of his
handwriting as basis for determining his criminal
liability as the author of a certain written document.
This is because writing is not a mere mechanical
act but involves the application of the intellect.
However, (exception) if the accused testifies in
his own behalf and denies authorship, he maybe

compelled to give a sample of his handwriting.
F.
V.
In cases of ocular inspections: (i) the condition

of the thing or place must not have been altered (ii)
there be prior notice of the date, time and place
given to the parties because the inspection is still
part of the trial.
NECESSITY OF PRESENTATION OF OBJECTS
IN COURT
A. The best proof that an object exists is to
present it to the court
B. The presentation is not necessary:
1. Where the existence of the object is not
the very fact in issue, but is merely a
collateral fact, of are merely used as
reference. Thus: (i) when a witness
testifies that the accused was drinking a
bottle of gin when he threatened to
shoot the witness, it is not necessary to
produce the bottle. (ii) the witness
claims the accused threw a stone at his
car, the presentation of the stone is not
necessary.
2. Where the article has not been
recovered or is outside the jurisdiction
of the court. Examples: stolen articles
which are not recovered or brought
elsewhere; unrecovered weapons used
in crimes.
C.
In crimes the gist of which is the illegal

possession of an article, a distinction has to
be made:
1. Where the article is common or
familiar article such that it can readily
be identified by sight, its presentation is
not necessary, its existence may be
shown by testimony of witnesses.
Example: In a Prosecution for Illegal
Possession of Firearms, the accused
may still be convicted even without the
presentation of the gun in court.
a. PP. vs. Taguba ( 342 SCRA
199): In cases involving illegal
possession
of
firearms
the
prosecution has the burden of
proving (a) the existence of the
subject firearm and (b) the fact
that the accused does not have
the corresponding permit to
possess. As to the first requisite,
the existence can best be
established by the presentation of
the firearm (but) there is no
requirement that the actual FA
itself must be presented in court
Its existence can be established by
testimony
thus
the
nonpresentation is not fatal to the
prosecution
of
an
illegal
possession.
b.
2.
PP. vs. Taan, (506 SCRA 219,

Oct. 30, 2006) The nonpresentation of the subject firearm
is not fatal for the prosecution as
long as the existence of the
firearm can be established by
testimony
Where the articles however are not
common or familiar to ordinary persons
and cannot be identified by sight, they
must be presented in court. Example:
drugs and contraband items
VI.
RESULTS OF SCIENTIFIC TESTS AS OBJECT

EVIDENCE
A. Forensics: application of scientific principles to
answer questions of interest in the legal system.
This is applied most often in the examination of
Trace Evidence to solve crimes based on the
Principle of Contact
1. Trace Evidence- evidence found at a crime
scene in small but measurable amounts such
as hairs, fibers, soils, botanical materials,
explosive residue
2. Principle of Contact: every person who is
physically involved in a crime leaves some
minute trace of his/her presence in the crime
scene or in the victim and often takes
something away from the crime scene
and/or victim
B. Requirements for Admissibility
1. The Daubert Test: The U.S. Supreme
Court, in the case of Daubert vs. Menell Dow
Pharmaceuticals (1993) came up with a test
of reliability and directed that trial judges are
to consider four factors when determining
the admissibility of scientific evidence, to
wit:
a. whether the theory or technique can
be tested;
b. whether the proffered work has been
subjected to peer review;
c. whether the rate of error is
acceptable;
d. Whether the method at issue enjoys
widespread acceptance.
2. This Daubert Test was adopted by the
Philippine Supreme Court when it finally
accepted the result of DNA testing as
admissible evidence.
C.
Scientific Tests that are Judicially Accepted:

1. Paraffin Tests although they are not
conclusive that a person did or did not fire a
gun
2. Lie Detection Test: The result is not
admissible as evidence in the Philippines
3. Firearms Identification Evidence or
Ballistic Test to determine whether a bullet
was fired from a particular gun
4. Questioned
Document
Test
and
Handwriting Analysis
5. Drug Tests on a Person
6. Toxicology or Test of Poison
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Psychiatric examination
Voice Identification Test
Finger Printing
Identification through Dentures
Genetic Science such as DNA or Blood Test
VII. ILLUSTRATION OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCDE:

DNA EXAMINATION
A. Important terms involved in DNA Testing (or
protocol) (PP vs. Vallejo, May 9, 2002; PP. vs.
Yatar, 428 SCRA 504
1. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a molecule
found inside all living cells which carries the
genetic information that is responsible for all
cellular processes. Except for identical twins,
each persons DNA profile is distinct and
unique.
2. DNA TYPING- the process of extracting
and analyzing the DNA of a biological sample
taken from an individual or found in a crime
scene.
a) Evidence
Samplematerial
collected from the scene of the
crime, from the victims body or that
of the suspect/subject
b) Reference Sample- material taken
from the victim or subject
3.
4.
5.
DNA PROFILE: the result of the process

which is unique in every individual except as
to identical twins
DNA MATCHING- the process of matching
or comparing the DNA profiles of the
Evidence Sample and the Reference Sample.
The purpose is to ascertain whether an
association exists between the two samples
DNA TEST RESULTS
a. Exclusion: the samples are different
and must have originated from
different sources. This conclusion is
absolute and requires no further
analysis or discussion.
b. Inconlusive: it is not possible to be
sure, whether the samples have
similar DNA types. This might be due
to
various
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
different samples to attain a more
conclusive result.
c. Inclusion: the samples are similar
and could have originated from the
same source. In such case the analyst
proceeds to determine the statistical
significance of the similarity.
B. Admissibility and Weight of DNA Profile

1. PP vs. VALLEJO ( May 2002) and PP vs.
YATAR ( 428 SCRA 504), adopting the Dauber
Test settled the admissibility of DNA tests as
object evidence this wise:
Applying the Dauber Test the DNA evidence
appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and

reliable since it is reasonably based on
scientifically valid principles of human genetics
and molecular biology.
2.
This was reiterated in HERRERA vs. ALBA on

June 11, 2005.
2.
3.
C.
As to the weight and probative value, it

depends on the observance of certain
requirements known as the Vallejo Guidelines.
To wit:
a. How the samples ( both evidence and
reference) were collected
b. How they were handled
c. The possibility of contamination of the
samples
d. The procedure followed in analyzing the
samples
e. Whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed in conducting
the test
f. The qualification of the analyst who
conducted the test
There is no violation of the right against
self-incrimination
a. The kernel of the right is not against all
compulsion
but
against
testimonial
compulsion. The right against selfincrimination is simply against the legal
processes 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. As for instance:
hair samples taken from an accused.
Hence a person may be compelled to
submit to finger printing, photographing,
paraffin, blood and DNA as there is no
compulsion involved (PP. vs. Yatar):
b. The right is directed against evidence
which is communicative in character which
is taken under duress ( Herrera vs. Alba)
Where Used:
1. To identify potential suspects or exclude
persons wrongfully accused
2.
3.
DNA Typing may either result in

Exclusion or Inclusion
To identify victims of crimes or
catastrophes
To establish paternity and family relations
and genealogy
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Comment:
Not all objects are object evidence, and not all
documents are documentary evidence. Thus,
when you use a document to prove the existence of
a contract (that an exchange of consideration
happened), then the document is use as object
evidence, but if you use the object to prove the price
of the contract, then it is documentary evidence.
Why do we need to know the distinction
between documentary and object evidence?
Because if the document is use as object evidence,
the best evidence rule, parole evidence rule, hearsay
evidence rule will not apply.
Best evidence rule will not also apply if the one
shown was the replica of the object evidence- kaya
wag mong sabihin objection not the best evidence
rule (they will all die laughing at you); yong sabihin
mo lang ay objection, not the real thing!
Illustration:
Santiago Wakas, was charged of act of
lasciviousness. He was presented in court. He is an
object evidence; however, if the issue turns to the
content of his tattoo on the chest, whether it is
born to love or born to live, then Santi becomes a
documentary evidence, kaya kailangan niyang
maghubad para makita ang nakasulat sa tattoo
niya.
Sec. 2. Documents as evidence consist of writing or
any material containing letters, words, numbers,
figures or other modes of written expressions
offered as proof of their contents.
I. Kinds of Documentary Evidence
A. Writings or Paper Based Documents
Conventional paper based writings.
B. Or any other material refers to any other
solid surface but not paper such as blackboard,
walls, shirts, tables, floor.
1. As in a contract painted on the wall;
2. They include pictures, x-rays, videos or
movies.
VIII. Demonstrative Evidence:

Tangible evidence i.e physical objects, which
illustrate a matter of importance to the case but are
not the very objects involved in the case. They
merely illustrate or represent or emphasize, visualize
or make more vivid what a party desires to
emphasize. ( visual aids)
1. Examples: movies, sound recordings,
forensic
animation,
maps,
drawings,
sketches, graphs, simulations, models or
modules of the human body.
Importance: their use is very helpful as
they provide a stronger impact and lasting
effect on the court.
Note:
Both
kinds
maybe
handwritten,
typewritten, printed, sketched or drawings or
other modes of recording any form of
communication or representation. Example: The
Rebus, Secret Codes.
C.
Electronic Evidence pursuant to the Rules of

Electronic Evidence effective August 01, 2001.
which provides:
1) Rule 3 section 1: Electronic evidence

as functional equivalent of paper-based
documents- Whenever a rule of
evidence refers to the term writing,
document,
records,
instrument,
memorandum or any other form of
writing, such term shall be deemed to
include an electronic document.
2) Electronic document refers to
information or to the presentation of
information, data, figures or 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 maybe proved and affirmed, which
is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. (It includes the print out
of the electronic document).
3) It includes digitally signed documents
and any printout or output, readable by
sight or other means which accurately
reflects the electric data message or
electronic document. For purposes of
these rules the term electronic
document maybe used interchangeably
with electronic data message
4) Rule 3, section 2: An electronic
document is admissible in evidence if it
complies with the Rules of Admissibility
prescribed by the Rules of Court and
related laws and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by these rules.
There are three requirements
for admissibility: relevancy,
competency
and
proper
authentication.
D. Text messages are electronic evidence being
ephemeral (transient) electric communications.
They maybe proved by the testimony of a person
who was a party to the same or who has
personal knowledge thereof such as the recipient
of the messages (Nuez vs. Cruz-Apao 455 SCRA
288).
II. Rules governing the admissibility of documents include
the Best Evidence Rule and the Parole Evidence Rule.
SECTION 3. BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Note: failure to specifically deny under oath an
actionable document is a waiver of the best evidence
rule. Why? Best evidence rule requires that the original
document must be presented in court. The effect of
failure to specifically deny under oath an actionable
document is that its due execution and genuineness is
admitted. Thus, a party cannot question the document
presented if it is a photocopy since he admitted its due
execution and genuineness, the very reason of the best
evidence rule.
Requirements:
1. There must be a document;
2. An inquiry was made regarding the contents of
the document.
Illustration:
Atty.: Mr. X, how do you come to know Mr. Y?
Mr. X: because we have a lease contract
Opposing Atty.: objection, not the best evidence rule
Comment: objection will be overruled since the

question does not refer to the contents of the lease
contract!
Atty.: was that contract of lease oral or written?
Opposing Atty.: objection, not the best evidence rule!
Comment: objection will be overruled since the

question does not refer to the contents of the lease
contract.
Atty.: How much is the consideration for that contract?
Opposing Atty.: objection, not the best evidence rule!
Comment: objection will be sustained since the

question refers to the contents of the lease contract.
THE GENERAL RULE: IF THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY
IS THE CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENT THERE CAN BE
NO EVIDENCE OF THE CONTENTS OTHER THAN THE
ORIGINAL OF THE DOCUMENT.
I.
Section 3 states the general rule when the original

of a document is to be presented and the four
exceptions to the rule. Hence the best evidence rule
is often referred to loosely as the the Original
Document rule. It is thus a rule of preference in that
it excludes secondary evidence once the original is
available.
II. When the Original Is to Be Presented:

A. If the subject of inquiry is the contents of the
document. This means the cause of action or
defense is based on what are contained in the
document (the cause of action or defense was
created under a written document) i.e. the terms and
conditions, the entries, data or information written on
the document. This means the plaintiff is either
enforcing a right based on, or created, by a document
or a party is seeking non-liability by virtue of the
contents of a document. Examples:
1. Enforcement of a contract, collection of money
based on (on the contents of) a promissory
note, damages for failure to comply with the
terms of a written agreement
2. Defense of release, payment, novation,
condonation, as embodied in a written
document
3. In criminal cases: where the act complained
of is:
i. made (created) upon or contained (e.g.
libel); or
ii. Evidenced by a document such as in
falsification, perjury, bigamy (first and
second marriage contract must be

presented), malversation, estafa, issuance
of a watered check, concubinage.
B. When a testimony of a witness refers to the
contents of a written document.
C.
When the rule does not apply even if an

existing and available original document is
involved:
1. Generally if the contents were never disputed as
in the following:
a. when the question refers to the external
facts about the document such as whether it
exists or not, whether it was executed, sent,
delivered or received;
b. when the writing is merely a collateral fact,
as when a witness refers to a writing of a
conversation which he heard and then jotted
down or when the writing is used merely as
a point of reference;
c. when the contents were admitted;
d. the writing is treated as an object;
2.
3.
When there was failure to deny specifically under

oath the due execution and genuineness of the
document (Consolidated Bank vs. Del Monte
Motors, July 29, 2005).
Waiver by the adverse party.
III. Justifications for the rule.

1. To ensure accuracy and to avoid the risk of
mistransmission of the contents of a writing arising
from:
i. the need of precision in presenting to the
court the exact words of a writing specially in
operative or dispositive instruments such as
deeds, will and contracts, since a slight
variation
in words may mean a great
difference in rights ;
ii. substantial danger of inaccuracy in the human
process of making a copy and;
iii. As respect oral testimony purporting to give
from memory the terms of writing, there is
special risk of error.
2. To prevent the possibility of the commission of
fraud or perjury, or substitution.
before him the document alleged to have been

simulated, counterfeited or falsified unless:
1. The original is in the possession of the adverse
party/accused who refused to deliver or present
the same despite demand;
2. The original is outside of the Philippines and
which, for official reasons, cannot be brought to
the Philippines. Example: The originals are US
Treasury Warrants which are with the US
Treasury Department in which case Photostat
copies are admitted.
VI. The Rule may be waived expressly or by failure to
object.
EXCEPTIONS: WHEN SECONDARY EVIDENCE
MAYBE PRESENTED
Condition before presenting secondary evidence:
Before one can present secondary evidence he must lay
the basis/ lay the foundation thereof.
Illustration:
Atty: Mr. X you had just testified while ago that you
executed a deed of sale with the defendant in relation to
a 1 hectare land?
Mr. X: Yes sir.
Atty: Can you show this to us for identification? Is this
the original?
Mr. X: It is a photocopy.
Atty.: What happen to the original?
Mr. X: It was lost sir.
Atty.: Thats all for the witness your honor.
During the offer of evidence, can the counsel present

secondary evidence based on the question and answer?
No. Why? The justification for presentation of secondary
evidence was not properly made. If you want to present
secondary evidence you must lay the basis/ lay the
foundation/ justify why you cannot present the original.
Defect in question and answer: the counsel just simply
said that it was lost. It did not present how it was lost
without its fault, or it was duly executed.
IV. Illustrations
1. The Marriage Contract as to the date, place,
the parties and solemnizing officer.
2. The Insurance Contract/Policy as to the
coverage of the insurance.
3. The deed of sale as to the consideration, terms
and conditions of the sale.
4. The lease contract as to the terms thereof.
5. The sworn statement as to perjury.
6. In case of libel based on a published article, the
newspaper containing the article.
7. The certified copy of the original judgment of
conviction to prove the prior conviction to
constitute recidivism or habitual delinquency.
Atty.: Mr. X, what your relationship with the plaintiff

Santi?
Mr. X: I was an instrumental witness to his transaction
with Guillermo involving the latters land.
V.
Atty: Where is it?

Mr. X: It is in Metrobank. But Metrobank was flooded and
The Gregorio Doctrine: In criminal cases of

falsification, it is indispensable that the judge have
Atty.: Is there any documents that will prove their

transaction?
Mr. X: yes, I signed a deed of sale sir.
Atty: Was it notarized?
Mr. X: Yes sir.
Atty: how many copies?
Mr. X: I only signed one copy, sir.
proven to be lost.
iii. Proof of lack of bad faith on the part of the
offeror.
iv. Proof of the contents by secondary
evidence according to the Order of
Reliability/ Order of Preference (means
that the secondary evidence must be
presented in this way- which kind of
secondary evidence is preferred?) i.e.:
a. By a copy whether machine made or
handmade so long as it is an exact
copy. It need not be a certified copy.
When do you consider a document a
copy? When it contains all the contents
of the original. (Thus, we admit that
the document was destroyed.

Atty.: what then are the contents of the deed of sale?
Mr. X: that Santi will pay 1 million pesos in favor of
Guillermos 1 hectare of land.
Now, during the offer, the counsel can present

secondary evidence, since the basis for non-presentation
of original evidence was duly laid.
I.
Secondary Evidence: refers to any evidence to

prove the contents of a document other than the
original of the said writing. It maybe oral or written.
II. First Exception: When the original has been lost,

destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without
bad faith on the part of the offeror.
1. Lost/destroyed: the original is no longer in
existence.
2.
cannot be produced in court- the original

exist but either (i) it is of a nature that it is
physically impossible to bring it in court as in the
cases of a painting on a wall or tombstone or it
consists of the data stored in a computer (ii) would
entail great inconvenience, expense or loss of time
if brought to court, as in the case of a writing on a
rock (iii) it is outside the Philippine territory.
3.
without bad faith on the part of the offeror

(not due to intentional act/ fault/ negligence) the
lost or unavailability was not due to the act or
negligence of the party presenting secondary
evidence, or if due to the act or fault of a third
person, then the offeror had no part therein.
4.
this copy is a faithful reproduction of

the original or we do not admit this
copy since it is not the exact
reproduction of the original and not
no comment.)
b.
Examples: personal diaries; letters;

annotation of encumbrances at the
back of the title; drafts or working
papers; minutes and recordings by
secretaries;
memoranda
by
an
employer to a secretary or employee;
the baptismal records as to the age of
a person.
requirement:
Laying
the
Foundation: This must be proved before a
Procedural
secondary evidence will be presented: (i) existence

(ii) execution (iii) loss and (iv) contents. Thus:
i. Proof of the existence and the due
execution of the original through the
testimonies of the persons who executed
the document; the instrumental witnesses;
by an eyewitness thereof; who saw it after
its execution and recognized the signatures
therein; by the person before whom it was
acknowledged (not necessarily a notary
public), or to whom its existence was
narrated.
Exception: Ancient documents.
ii.
Proof of the fact of loss or destruction

of the original through the testimonies of (a)
anyone who knew of the fact of the loss as
in the case of an eyewitness to the loss or
testimony of the last custodian (b) any who
made a diligent search in the places where
the original was expected to be in custody
and who failed to locate it (c) one specially
tasked to locate but was unable to find the
original, as in the case of a detective.
If the original consists of several
copies, all must be accounted for and
By
its
Recital
(Summary/
reference) of the Contents in some
Authentic Document a document
whether public or private, which is
shown to be genuine and not
manufactured or spurious, and which
narrates, summarizes
or
makes
reference to the contents of the
original document.
c.
Recollection or testimony of a
witness such as the parties,
instrumental witnesses and signatories
thereto; one who read the original; one
present when the terms were
discussed or to whom the contents
were related.
The testimony need not accurate as
long as the substance is narrated.
5.
Failure to object the presentation of

secondary evidence: If the offeror failed to lay
the proper foundation but the opposing party did
not make any objection, the secondary evidence
may be treated as if it were on the same level as
the original and given the same weight as an
original.
Illustration: PP. vs. Cayabayab (Aug. 03,
2005). In a rape case the prosecution presented a
photocopy of the birth certificate of the victim to
prove her age and which was not objected to. The
admissibility and weight were later questioned in
the Supreme Court.
1.
2.
The best evidence to prove a persons age is

the original birth certificate or certified copy
thereof; in their absence, similar authentic
documents maybe presented such as
baptismal certificates and school records. If
the original or certified true copy of the birth
certificate is not available credible testimony
of the mother or a member of the family
maybe sufficient under the circumstances. In
the event that both the birth certificate or
authentic documents and the testimonies of
the victims mother or other qualified
relatives are unavailable, the testimony of
the victim (a minor 6 years of age) maybe
admitted in evidence provided it is expressly
and clearly admitted by the accused.
Having failed to raise a valid and timely
objection against the presentation of this
secondary evidence the same became a
primary evidence and deemed admitted and
the other party is bound thereby.
III. Second Exception: When the original is in the

adverse partys custody and control.
A. The Foundation consists of the following:
1. Proof of the Existence and Due Execution of
the Original
2. Proof that the original is in the (a) actual
physical possession/custody or (b) control
i.e. possession or custody by a third person
for and in behalf of the adverse party, as
that of a lawyer, agent or the bank.
3.
4.
Maybe by the testimony of the one who

delivered the document; registry return
receipt by the Post Office or some other
commercial establishments engaged in the
delivery of articles and the receipt thereof, or
by one who witnessed the original being in
the possession of the adverse party.
Proof that reasonable notice was given to
the adverse party to produce the original:
the notice must specify the document to be
produced.
a) If the documents are self-incriminatory,
notice must still be sent as the adverse
party may waive the right
b) The notice may be a formal notice or
an-on-the-spot oral demand in court if
the documents are in the actual physical
possession of the adverse party.
Proof of failure or refusal to produce.
B. Effects of refusal or failure to produce:

1. The adverse party will not be permitted later to
produce the original in order to contradict
the other partys evidence;
2. The refusing party maybe deemed to have
admitted in advance the accuracy of the other
partys evidence;
3. The admission of secondary evidence and its
evidentiary value is not affected by the
subsequent presentation of the original.
Example: In G&M Phil. Inc. vs. Cuambot it
was held: the failure (of the employer) to

submit the original copies of the pay slips and
resignation letter raises doubts as to the
veracity of its claim that they were signed by
the employee. The failure of a party to produce
the original of a document which is in issue has
been taken against such party, and has been
considered as a mere bargaining chip, a
dilatory tactic so that such party would be
granted
the
opportunity
to
adduce
controverting evidence
C.
Proof of the contents is by the same secondary

evidence as in the case of loss.
IV. Third Exception: When the original consists of

numerous accounts or other documents which cannot
be produced in court without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be established therefrom is
only the general result of the whole. (The court
is not interested on the content of each document,
but the general result of these documents).
A. This is based on practical convenience
B. The Foundation includes:
1. Proof of the voluminous character of the
original documents.
2. Proof the general result sought is capable
of ascertainment by calculation or by a
certain process, procedure or system.
3. Availability of the original documents for
inspection by the adverse party so that he
can inquire into the correctness of the
summary.
C. How the general result is introduced: (a) by the
testimony of an expert who examined the whole
account or records (b) by the introduction of
authenticated abstracts, summaries or schedules.
D. Illustrations:
1. The income of a business entity for a period of
time maybe known through the income tax
return field by it, or by the result of the
examination of an accountant.
2. A general summary of expenses incurred
maybe embodied in a summary to which are
attached the necessary supporting receipts
witness.
3. The state of health of an individual maybe
established through the testimony of the
physician
4. The published financial statement of SLU as
appearing in the White and Blue.
V.
Fourth Exception: When the original is a public

record in the custody of a public official or is recorded
in a public office.
A. The documents involved: (a) a strictly public
document such as the record of birth, the
decision of a court and (b) a private document
which was made part of the public record, such
as a document of mortgagee involving a
registered land and submitted of the Office of the
Register of Deeds.
B. Reason: The Principle of Irremovability of Public
Records i.e. public records cannot be removed or
brought out from where they are officially kept.
Reasons: (i) the records should be made

accessible to the public at all times (ii) the great
inconvenience caused to the official custodian if
he were called to present the records to the court
every now and then and (iii) to guard against the
possibility of loss/destruction of the documents
while in transit.
C. Exception to the exception (when the original
has to be presented): Only upon prior Order from
the court as when an actual inspection is
necessary for the proper determination of the
case, as in cases of falsification pursuant to the
Gregorio Doctrine. In the absence of a court
order, the official may be liable for infidelity in
the custody of documents.
D. Secondary evidence allowed:
1. A certified copy issued by the official
custodian bearing the signature and the
official seal of his office. When presented the
document must bear the documentary and
science stamp and the accompanied by the
official receipt of payment of the copy;
2. An official publication thereof (applicable
where the law allows something to be
published)
Section 4. Meaning of the term Original
A. One the contents of which, is the subject of
inquiry as determined by the issues involved:
Which document is it that the contents of which
is in question?
Thus in case of libel and the issue is who be the
author of the libel as published? Then the
original is the letter sent to the media. But if the
question is whether the letter is libelous, then
the original is the letter.
If X Xeroxed a letter by Ana to Juan and X
changed the contents by inserting libelous
matters against Juan, then the original would be
the Xeroxed letter.
B. Duplicate Originals. Two or more copies
executed at or about the same time with
identical contents.
Examples: carbon originals, blue prints, tracing
cloths. Copies mass produced from the printing
press or from the printer of computers.
C.
Entries repeated in the regular course of

business one copied from the other at or near
the time of the transaction to which they relate,
all are considered as original.
1. Examples are entries in the Books of
Account which are copied from one
book/ledger and transferred to another
2. Entries in receipts for the sales for the day
which at night are recorded in a ledger and
which in turn are recorded in the sales for
the week and then entered in the ledger for
the sales of the month.
3. Scores in the examination booklets which
are recorded in the teachers record which
then are recorded in the official grade sheet
submitted to the deans office.

THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Comment:
Do not apply the parol evidence rule if the contact is
in its oral stage since this rule applies only to written
contracts.
The only document where there is no agreement but
parol evidence applies is a will.
Tingnan mo ang kasulatan- parole
Tingnan mo ang orihinal na kasulatan- best evidence
How to escape objection due to parol evidence
and to show parol evidence- Put in issue in your
pleading the contents of the document, like the amount
of the contract price. The rule provides: however, 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:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
the written agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
3. The validity of the written agreement; or
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successor in interests after the
execution of the written agreement.
Section 9. Evidence of Written Agreements. When
the terms of an agreement had been reduced into
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
and conditions agreed upon and there can be
between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.
I.
Essence of the Rule: It forbids or prohibits any

attempt to vary, contradict, or modify the terms of a
written agreement by the use of testimonial/oral
evidence.
III. Basis and Reason: The Principle of Integration

(consolidate/ combine) of Jural Acts (agreements).
The written agreement is the final culmination of the
negotiation and discussion of the parties as to their
respective proposals and counter-proposals and is the
final and sole repository, memorial and evidence of
what was finally agreed upon. Therefore, whatever is
not found in the written agreement is deemed to have
been abandoned, disregarded, or waived by them.
Only those contained in the written agreement are
considered the only ones finally agreed upon and no
other. Thus oral testimony will not be permitted to
show there were other agreements or terms between
the parties.
IV. Purposes: (i) to give stability and permanence to
written agreements otherwise they can be changed
anytime by mere testimony, then written agreements
would serve no useful purpose (ii) to remove the
temptation and possibility of perjury which would be
rampant if oral/parol evidence were allowed as a
party may resort to such testimony in order to either
escape compliance with his obligation, or to create

fictitious terms favorable to him.
V.
if they affect or relate to the contract, may still be

proven by the parties by oral testimony.
1. Those which refer to separate and distinct
subject matters and which do not vary or
contradict the written agreement.
Distinguished from the Best Evidence Rule. Both

refer to a written document but they differ in the
following aspects:
1. As to what is prohibited: the BER prohibits the
introduction of inferior evidence when the best
evidence is available whereas the PER prohibits
the introduction of oral testimony to vary the
terms of a written agreement.
2. As to scope: the BER applies to all kinds of
written documents while the PER is limited to
contracts and wills.
3. As to the substance of the evidence: the
BER goes to the form of the evidence while the
PER goes to the very substance of the evidence.
4. As to who may invoke: the BER may be
invoked by any party to a case while the PER
may be invoked only by a party to the written
agreement and his successor in interest, or by
one given right or imposed an obligation by a
written agreement.
5. As to the issue: BER is to the contents
VI. Requirements for the Application of the Rule

1. That there is a valid written contract or a written
document which is contractual in nature in that it
involves the disposition of properties, creation or
rights and imposition of obligations.
a. Void contracts do not create any right and
produces no legal effects.
b. The contract maybe in any written form
whether in the standard form or as worded
by the parties themselves.
c. The document may be signed or not as in
the case of way bills, tickets.
d. The rule does not cover mere receipts of
money or property since these are
incomplete and are not considered to be the
exclusive memorial of the agreement and
are inconclusive. (Not covered by the parol
evidence rule thus, you can introduce
evidence to prove that thing).
e. However a Statement of a Fact, as
distinguished
from
statements
which
constitute Terms of the Contractual
Agreement maybe varied, such as
statements as to the personal qualifications
of the parties.
2. That there is a dispute as to the terms of the
agreement.
3. That the dispute is between the parties to the
contract or their successors or that the rule is
invoked by one who is given a right or imposed
an obligation by the contract. This is because the
binding effect of a contract is only upon the
parties thereto or their successors. (Why?
Because it is them whose right were violated).
VII. Exception
to
Parol
Evidence:
When
Contemporaneous/prior agreements maybe
proved without violating the Principle of
Integration of Jural Acts: These refer to
Contemporaneous or prior agreements which, even
Example: The buyer of a land in a written

contract may prove by oral testimony that the
seller agreed to give him the right of first refusal
of the sellers adjoining lot. Similarly the promise
of first refusal by the lessor in favor of the
lessee may be proven by oral testimony.
2.
Those which constitute Conditions Precedent if

the written contract specifically stated that it
shall be complete and effective upon the
performance of certain conditions.
Example: that the contract be first referred to
a third person who must give his approval
thereto or that a third person should also sign
as a witness thereto.
3.
VIII.
Those which are the moving and inducing

cause, or that they form part of the
consideration and the contract was executed on
the faith of such oral agreement in that : (i) the
party would not have executed the contract
were it not for the oral agreement and ii) they
do not vary or contradict the written agreement.
a) The promise by a vendor to give a road
right of way to the vendee over the latters
remaining property
b) An agreement to allow the son of the
vendor to occupy a room free of charge in
the apartment sold, for a certain period of
time
c) An agreement that the vendor shall harvest
the standing crops over the land sold
d) An agreement that the vendor shall cause
the eviction of squatters from the land sold
e) That the party was to pay off the
indebtedness of the other; or to give or
deliver a thing to a third person.
STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL
EVIDENCE RULE
CONCEPT: When oral testimony is allowed even if they

pertain to the contents, terms or agreements of the
document provided they were specifically alleged in
the pleadings (non alegata non proba) by the party
concerned.
A. That there is an intrinsic ambiguity
1. Ambiguity refers to an uncertainty or doubt in
the document or something in its provisions is
not clear, or of being susceptible to various
interpretations or meanings. They are either
(a) latent or intrinsic (b) patent or extrinsic and
(c) intermediate ambiguity.
2.
Latent
or
IntrinsicThe
instrument/document itself is clear and certain
on its face but the ambiguity arises from some
extrinsic, collateral or outside factor, thus there

is an uncertainty as to how the terms are to be
enforced.
a) It is of two kinds: (i) when the
description of the person or property is
clear but it turns out the description fits
two or more persons or things and (ii)
where the description of the person or
object is imperfect or erroneous so as to
leave doubt what person or object is
referred to.
b) Examples: (i) the donee is described as
My uncle Tom but the donor has
several uncles named Tom (ii) the thing
sold is my house and lot in Baguio City
but the vendor has three houses and lots
in Baguio City (iii) the money shall be for
the tuition fee of my son who is enrolled
in SLU but it is the daughter who is
enrolled in SLU while the son is enrolled
in UB (iv) the subject of the sale is the
vendors two storey house in Bakakeng
but what he has in Bakakeng is a grocery
store and it is his house in Aurora Hill
which is two stories.
of the term sugar (iii) where in a deed of

mortgage it was uncertain which amount of
loan was being secured.
B. There was a Mistake or Imperfection
1. Imperfection
includes
situations
of
inaccurate descriptions
2. Mistake- when a person did or omitted to
do an act by reason of an erroneous belief or
interpretation of a law or assessment of a
fact, or due to ignorance, forgetfulness,
unconsciousness, or misplaced confidence.
a) Must be of a fact and is mutual to both
the parties (if one party knows the
mistake, he cannot present evidence to
contradict the document and assail the
mistake because the principle of
estoppel applies to him).
b) Examples: (i) both were in error as to
the property sold and described in the
deed of sale i.e. another property as
the one involved and not that
described in the document (ii). Two
persons were supposed to be witness
but were named instead as parties (iii)
the writing was incomplete when it
mentioned only some but not all the
terms agreed upon.
Reason for the exception: the

introduction of oral testimony does not
vary or contradict the document but it
aids the court in ascertaining and
interpreting the document thereby
enabling it to give effect and life to the
document.
C.
Patent or Extrinsic (Ambiguitas patens)

the uncertainty is very clear and apparent on the
face of the document and can easily be seen by
simply reading the terms/contents of the
document. (No amount of evidence will clear the
ambiguity).
a. Aside from being clear and apparent, the
ambiguity is permanent and incurable. It
cannot be removed or explained even with
the use of extrinsic aids or construction or
interpretation.
b. Examples: (i) A promissory note or
memorandum of indebtedness which does
not specify the amount of the obligation (ii)
sale of property without the property being
described or (iii) where the description is
one of several properties or one of several
persons is mentioned but he is not
specifically identified e.g. I leave my cash
to my favorite son.
3.
4.
Intermediate Ambiguity where the

ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal
(capable
of
several
interpretations)
words/terms/phrases
or
descriptions
of
persons or property. Parol evidenced is
admissible to ascertain which sense or
meaning or interpretation was intended by the
parties.
Examples: (i). the use of the word dollar
(which dollar are you referring to?) (ii) the use
The Failure of the Written Agreement to

Express the True Intent and Agreement of
the Parties
1. The deed maybe ambiguous or vague
either through ignorance, lack of skill or
negligence of the party/person who
drafted the deed, or through the use of
imprecise words.
2. Maybe cured through the remedy of
reformation of instrument.
3. Example: (i) The deed turned out to be a
sale when the intention was as a security
or (ii) the deed was a sale and not an SPA
D. The Validity of the Agreement is Put In

Issue- One or both parties assert the agreement
or document is null and void or unenforceable for
lack of the essential elements of a valid contract.
E.
In case of Subsequent Agreements- the

terms and conditions being testified on were
agreed upon after the execution of the
document.
1. As in the case of novation of the document,
in whole or in part.
2. Parties are free to change or modify or
abandon their written agreement in which
case it is the latter which should be given
force and effect
(NOTE: THE RULES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF

CONTRACTS TO BE SKIPPED)
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
I.
CONCEPT: This is the third kind of evidence as to
form. It is evidence consisting of the narration of a

person, known as a witness, made under oath and in
the course of the judicial proceedings in which the
evidence is offered.
II. WITNESS: A witness is a natural person who
testifies in a case or one who gives oral evidence
under oath before a judicial tribunal. Evidence
obtained through the presentation of animals is
treated as object evidence.
A. Necessity of Witnesses: Objects and documents
do not explain themselves. Their relevance,
meaning and significance, can only be known
through the testimony of a witness. Likewise,
events, as well as persons involved in an event, can
only be known through the narration of a witness.
B. Duty to Testify is a Legal Duty (obligated to go and
testify either voluntarily or compelled) and not just
a matter of civic consciousness. This may be
enforced by the imposition of sanctions by the
court, such as a citation for contempt and
consequent payment of a fine or imprisonment.
C. The following may not compelled to testify as
witnesses:
1. The President while in Office; (Rationale- not
to violate the principle of separation of
powers- to prevent embarrassment).
2. Justices of the Supreme Court;
3. Members of Congress while Congress is in
Session; (Separation of powers)
4. Foreign Ambassadors to the Philippines;
(Immune from legal processes of the
receiving state)
5. Consuls and other foreign diplomatic officials
if exempted by a treaty;
6. The accused in a criminal case. (inorder not
to violate the right against self-incrimination)
III. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES. Section 20
provides. All persons who can perceive and
perceiving can make known their perception to
others, may be witnesses.
A. Four Qualities of a Witness
1. Testimonial Quality of Perception
a) Capacity to perceive means to be able to
observe by the use of the senses including
the ability to receive impressions from the
outside world and to grasp or understand
these impressions.
b) This must exist at the time of the
occurrence of the event to which the
witness is testifying even if it is lost at the
time of testifying.
2. Testimonial Quality of Memory
a) The ability to retain the impressions
received or observations made and to
recollect them in court.
b) This must exist at the time of testifying.
c) The recollection need not be necessarily
perfect. Selective memory or lapses in
memory affect merely credibility.
3.
Testimonial Quality
Communication
of
Narration
or
a) The ability to interpret, explain, relate or

communicate in a manner which can be
understood by the court, either through
spoken words, writings, or sign language.
[Talk in a language where the court can
understand].
b) It must exist at the time of testifying.
4.
Testimonial Quality of Sincerity

a) The awareness of both a duty to tell the
truth and to be liable in case of intentional
lies, or the recognition of the obligation of
an oath.
b) The willingness to be placed under oath or
affirmation.
Riano: qualities of a witness1. One who can perceive;
2. One who can make
perception to others;
3. Can take oath.
known
his
B. Additional Requirement in cases under the

Rules on Summary Procedure: The intended
witness must have
i. Executed a sworn statement;
ii. Submitted beforehand to the court and;
iii. Is present in court and is available for crossexamination by the adverse party.
IV. COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS
1. Distinguished from credibility: Competency
is the legal fitness or legal capacity of a person to
testify as a witness. Competency involves a
determination of whether the person offered as a
witness has all the qualifications prescribed by law
and is not among those disqualified by law or by
the rules of evidence. (Note: One who is not
qualified is loosely termed as incompetent which
is not the accurate term)
Credibility goes to the character of the witness
to be believable or not. This goes to the truth of
the testimony. It includes the ability of the witness
to inspire belief or not [induce belief to the court].
[This is based on ones reputation in the
community].
Hence a witness maybe competent but is not
credible.
2.
Presumption of Competency: When a person

is offered as a witness, he is presumed to be
competent. He who claims otherwise has the
burden of proving the existence of a ground for
disqualification.
a. The Method of questioning the competency is
by raising an objection to the presentation of
the witness or to his continued testimony.
b. The time to raise an objection is as soon as the
ground becomes apparent which may either
be: (i) at the time the person is offered and
presented to be a witness and before he
actually testifies or (ii). At the time he is
actually testifying.
V.
at the time of their production for examination, is

such that they are incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others.
A. They include the following:
1. Medically Insane persons unless they are
testifying during their lucid intervals.
a. Sanity is presumed, it is the opponent
who must prove this ground.
b. However, the party presenting the
witness must prove sanity in these two
instances: (i) if the witness has been
recently declared as of unsound mind by
the court or by a competent physician
(ii) is an inmate in an asylum or mental
institution.
DISQUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS
A. Who Are Disqualified: General Rule: Only
those expressly covered under the enumerations
by law maybe disqualified from testifying
B. Exclusivity
of
The
Grounds
for
Disqualification: The grounds are limited
exclusively and restrictively to those enumerated
by the law. The following are not grounds:
i. Interest in the outcome of a case
ii. relationship to a party, as both affect merely
credibility
iii. Sex
iv. race (ethnic/ color)
v. creed (religion)
vi. property or
vii. Prior conviction of a crime.
C.
Kinds of Disqualification
Total or absolute - the person is disqualified
from being a witness due to a physical or
mental cause.
2. Partial or relative- the witness is disqualified
from testifying only on certain matters but not
as to others facts.
2.
Persons medically sane may be considered as

legally insane if at the time they are to be
presented as witness, they are incapable of
testifying truthfully or of being aware of the
obligation to testify. Included here are
drunks, those under the influence of drugs or
alcohol, or suffering from some temporary
mental disability.
3.
Mental defectives such as idiots, imbeciles or

morons and other mental retardates are not
disqualified by this reason alone although this
may affect their credibility.
4.
Deaf mutes are not disqualified so long as

they are able to communicate in some
manner which can be understood and, in case
of the use of sign-language, the interpretation
thereof can be verified.
1.
D. Voir Dire Examination: the examination

conducted by the court on the competency of a
witness whenever there is an objection to the
competency of the witness and is usually made
before the witness starts with his testimony. The
party objecting maybe allowed to present
evidence on his objection or the court itself may
conduct the questioning on the witness.
The phrase "voir dire" is French; in modern
English it is interpreted to mean "speak the
truth" and generally refers to the process by
which prospective jurors are questioned about
their backgrounds and potential biases before
being
invited
to
sit
on
a
jury.
Voir dire can include both general questions
asked of an entire pool of prospective jurors,

answered by means such as a show of hands,
and questions asked of individual prospective
jurors and calling for a verbal answer.
In a common trial, "Voir Dire" can also mean a
motion to cross-examine an expert witness
during opposing counsel's direct examination to
establish the credibility of said witness before
damaging evidence is brought to court through
this witness who may not be credible. This saves
possibly not only days of testimony and wasted
time for a court, but also insures any prejudicial
evidence is brought through by a credible, expert
witness.
SECTION 21. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY.
I. These are the two grounds for absolute incapacity.
II. Mental Incapacity: those whose mental condition
29
www.sophialegis.weebly.com
III. Mental Immaturity: these refer to children of

tender age (7 years and below) whose mental
maturity is such as to render them incapable of
perceiving the facts respecting which they are
examined and of relating them truthfully.
A. Age is not the criterion but the intelligence and
possession of the qualities of a witness.
B. The credibility of Children as witness take into
account two possibilities: (i) children are prone
to exaggerate and influenced by suggestions
from adults and (ii) lack of motive to testify
falsely.
C. Under the Rule On Examination of a Child
Witness, it is provided that:
a) Every child is presumed to be qualified to
be a witness.
b) The court may however conduct
a
competency
examination
(voir dire
examination) motu proprio or on motion of
a party, when it finds that substantial
doubt exists regarding the ability of the
child
to
perceive,
remember,
communicate, distinguish truth from
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell
the truth in court.
Marital Disqualification
a.
Marital
Privilege
Disqualification
a. Privilege
is
b.
c.
d.
e.
disqualification is
applicable
only
when one or both
spouses
are
parties.
Marital
disqualification
applies
to
testimony on any
fact.
Marital
disqualification
ceases
after
dissolution
of
marriage.
Even
if
the
communication is
not
confidential,
the
marital
disqualification
may
still
be
invoked.
Marital
disqualification is
more
concerned
with
the
consequences.
If
the rule is not
there, perjury and
domestic disunity
may result.
applicable
regardless
of
whether
the
spouses are parties
or not.
b. The
privilege
applies
to
testimonies
on
confidential
communication
only.
c. Privileged
communication
lasts even after the
death
of
either
spouse.
d. The communication
must
be
confidential.
e. Privilege
protects
the
hallowed
confidences
inherent
in
marriage
b/w
husband and wife
and
therefore
guarantees
the
preservation of the
marriage
and
further
the
relationship
between
the
spouses
as
it
encourages
the
disclosure
of
confidential matters
without
fear
of
revelation.
SECTION 22. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF

MARRIAGE OR THE MARTIAL DISQUALIFICATION
RULE
I. Statement of the Rule: During the marriage neither
spouse (i.e. the witness spouse) may testify for or
against the other (i.e. the Party spouse) without the
consent of the affected spouse (i.e. the party spouse).
II. Reason for the Rule
a. Identity of Interest: hence compelling a person
to testify against the spouse is tantamount to
compelling the witness to testify against himself.
b. To avoid the danger of admitting perjured
testimony and to prevent the witness spouse from
being liable for perjury.
c. As a matter of public policy of preserving the
marital relationship, family unity, solidarity and
harmony.
d. To prevent the danger of punishing the party
spouse through hostile testimony, especially in
cases of domestic troubles between the spouses.
IV. Requisites for Applicability
A. A married person is a party to a case, whether
civil or criminal, singly or with other third
persons.
B. The spouses are validly married. These include
voidable marriages as well as those where there
is a presumption of a valid marriage in the
absence of a marriage contract. [The reason for
marriage is immaterial]
1. Bigamous marriages and common-law
relationships are excluded.
2. The reason behind or purpose behind
the marriage is immaterial, as when the
marriage was intended precisely to
prevent one from testifying
C. The marriage is subsisting at the time one is
called to testify against the other in that it has
not been dissolved by death or by law. Thus the
prohibition is not perpetual.
D. The case is not one against the other.
E. The consent of the party spouse has not been
obtained nor has he waived the rule in any other
way.
V.
Form of Prohibited Testimony or When a

Violation Exists
A. When the spouse is actually called in court to
testify as a witness to facts, and there is no
consent from the party spouse.
B. When the witness is asked to submit objects, or
documents or other evidence in court even if not
actually called to testify. [Even if the spouse did
not actually testify, it suffice that he/she was ask
to do something which may prejudice the party
spouse].
C. When a third person is presented as a witness
and is asked to divulge declarations or
information revealed to the third person by the
spouses, which declarations or information affect
the liability of the party spouse. [Why? Because
indirectly we are using your testimony against
your husband, through the mouth of the third
person-witness].
1. The revelation must be in confidence.
2. If the declaration was made in the
presence or hearing of another person,
then there is no violation of the rule.
VI. Waiver of the Rule

A. Expressly, or when the party spouse give
consents
B. Impliedly: (i) as when the party spouses
interposes no objection to the presentation of
the witness spouse (ii) when the party-spouse
presents his/her spouses as his/her own witness
(iii) When the party-spouse imputes the wrong
doing to the other spouse, the latter may testify
to rebut the imputation.
VII. EXCEPTIONS: WHEN SPOUSES MAY TESTIFY
AGAINST EACH OTHER
A. In a civil case filed by one against the other.
Examples: cases of annulment, legal separation,
support, declaration of mental incompetency,
separation of property.
B. In a criminal case for a crime (i) committed by
one against the other such as those involving
physical assault and violence; Violation of RA
C.
9262; economic abuse or (ii) against the direct

ascendant or descendant of the other.
When the reason for the law has ceased. Where
the marital and domestic relations are so strained
that there is no more harmony to be preserved,
nor peace and tranquility which maybe disturbed,
the reasons based on such harmony and
tranquility no longer apply. In such cases, the
identity of interest disappears and the
consequent danger of perjury based on identity
of interest disappears. (The law ceases when the
reason for the law ceases)
Justification: ratione cessat lex, lex cessatwhen the reason for the law ceases, the law
ceases.
Statute or Suvivorship Disqualification Rule.

A. The disqualification is merely relative as it is based
on what the witness is to testify on.
B. The purposes are (i) to put the parties on equal
footing or equal terms as to the opportunity to
give testimony. If death has closed the lips of the
defendant, then the law closes the lips of the
plaintiff. (ii) to guard against the giving of false
testimony.
II. APPLICABILITY
A. The case must be a civil case where the defendant
is the executor, administrator or representative of
the deceased person of unsound mind. But the
rule will not apply to a counter-claim against the
plaintiff [since the defendant becomes the plaintiff
in the counterclaim].
CASE: A filed a complaint against husband and wife for

annulment of a contract by reason of fraud. (H&W both
defendants). A subpoenaed the wife to be his hostile
witness which is allowed in civil cases. When the wife
received the subpoena, the husband filed a motion in
court for the quashing of the subpoeana, on the ground
that there is a violation of the rule on marital
disqualification/spousal immunity. A told the court that
this is not a case where the wife will be giving testimony
as an adverse witness in favor of the plaintiff. So the rule
on spousal immunity does not apply. Ruling of the
Court: Spousal immunity applies. If the wife was
allowed to testify as an adverse witness for the plaintiff,
she might give testimony that he will harm her interest
and that of her husband. So that there will be a violation
of the spousal immunity.
B. The subject is a claim or demand i.e. one that

affects the real or personal properties:
1. The case must be a personal action for the
enforcement of a debt or demand involving
money judgment, or where the defendant is
demanded to deliver personal property to
plaintiff.
2. The evidence of this claim is purely testimonial
and allegedly incurred prior to the death or
insanity. They are therefore fictitious claims.
C.
A conceded. A told the court now that if he cannot

compel the wife to be an adverse witness, then he
should be allowed to get the deposition of the wife,
because under the Rules of Court when the deposition of
a person is taken, it does not necessarily mean that the
deponent will be used as a witness in court, since it is
only a mode of discovery. Ruling of the Court: Even if
the purpose is just to get the deposition of the wife the
rule on spousal immunity applies.
D. The rule does not apply to the following

1. To claims or demands which are not fictitious or
those supported by evidence such as promissory
notes, contracts, or undertakings, including the
testimony of disinterested witnesses.
2. Fraudulent transactions of the deceased or
insane person, as when the deceased was an
illegal recruiter or that he absconded with
money entrusted to him.
3. Acts amounts to a crime, tort (quasi-delict).
4. To mere witnesses.
5. Stockholders/members of a juridical entity
testifying in cases filed by the juridical entity.
6. Claims favorable to the estate.
CASE: A son filed a complaint against his own father for

recovery of property or some assets. The son asked her
mother to testify in his favor. SC held that there will be a
violation of the spousal immunity rule.
Note: As long as there is a case INVOLVING the
husband OR wife, the disqualification is absolute.
SEC. 23. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF THE
DEATH OR INSANITY OF THE ADVERSE PARTY.
Parties, or assignors of parties to a case, or
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted
against
an
executor,
administrator
or
representative of a deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand
cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
before the death of the deceased person or before
such person became of unsound mind.
I.
CONCEPT. This is also known as the Dead Mans
The subject of the testimony is as to a matter of

fact occurring before the death or insanity. The
testimony is the only evidence of the claim or
demand.
1. The death/insanity maybe before or during the
pendency of the case so long as it was before
the death/insanity.
2. The matters prohibited are those made in the
presence and hearing of the decedent which
he might testify to if alive or sane, i.e. adverse
to him, and not to those which maybe known
from other sources.
III. The rule maybe waived expressly or by failure to

object or by introducing evidence on the prohibited
matter.
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATIONS.
I.
INTRODUCTION. Claim of Privilege. Witnesses

may refuse to testify on certain matters under the
principle that the facts are not to be divulged or that

they are privileged communications. These are facts
which are supposed to be known only between the
communicant and the recipient.
A. Distinguished from incompetency.
1. A privilege is a rule of law which excuses a
witness from testifying on a particular matter
which he would otherwise be compelled to reveal
and testify on. It is a legal excuse to prevent the
witness from revealing certain data. The witness
may claim this excuse.
2. An incompetency is a ground for disqualification
which may be invoked by the opposing party to
prevent a person from being presented as a
witness.
3. Thus a person maybe competent as a witness but
he may invoke a privilege and refuse to testify on
a certain fact.
B. Purpose of a Privilege: to protect the
confidentiality or privacy of certain relationships.
They are usually based on public policy which
recognizes that the protection of certain
relationship is more paramount than the testimony
of the witness.
C. Privileges are to be strictly construed.
D. Who may claim the privilege: it may be
asserted by the person for whose benefit the
privilege was granted personally, or through a
representative, or it may be claimed for him by
the court.
II. SOURCES OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
1. Those enumerated under Section 24 of Rule 130
of the Revised Rules of Court.
2. Those declared as privileged by specific provision
of a law (Statutory Privileged Communications).
3. Those
declared
as
such
by
Privilege
Communications by Jurisprudence.
SECTION 24: DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
INTRODUCTION: The communications are privileged
provided they took place within the context of the
relationship protected by the rule and the person for
whose benefit the rule may be invoked, has not revealed
the communication to a third person.
1. THE MARITAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
DISQUALIFICATION RULE (SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE)
I.
RULE: The husband or 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.
II.
PURPOSE: same as the Marital Disqualification Rule

as well as to encourage honesty and confidentiality
between spouses.
III. REQUISITES:
1. The witness is a lawfully married person, or is
a party to voidable marriage or one which
enjoys the presumption of validity.
2.
3.
4.
5.
IV.
The case is not between the witness and the

latters spouse.
The subject of the testimony is a
communication made by and between the
witness and the latters spouse.
The communication was made during the
marriage.
The communication is confidential in that it
was intended to be known or heard only by the
other spouse and it was made precisely
because of the marriage.
a) If the receiving spouses revealed to a
third person, the communication ceases
to be privileged.
b) If the communication was heard by a
third person, the rules are as follows:
i) If the spouses were aware of the
presence of the third person, the
communication is not confidential
except if the third person: (i). is a
minor child (ii). Or stands in special
confidence to the spouses such as
their agent.
ii) If the spouses are not
aware, the communication
remains confidential, but the
third person may testify to what
was heard.
FORMS
OF
COMMUNICATION:
To
communicate is to make known, to convey an idea
or to inform of a message. The privilege thus
extends to all modes of communications whether
oral, written or through conduct, which were
intended by a spouse to convey a message. They
include the following:
1. Those which are in the form oral
expressions made directly and personally,
or through some mechanical device such
as through the phone; or written as in
conventional letters or through the use of
secret codes or through the internet or text
messages.
2. The sending of packages or things of items
symbolic of a meaning or intended to send
a message, such as sending of b-day
greeting cards, or of flowers.
3. Passive or silent acts or conduct intended to
convey a message such as a nod or shake
of the head, a finger put to the lips.
4. Silent or passive communications referring
to facts or information which came to the
knowledge of the witness-spouse by reason
of the confidentiality of the marriage.
Example: (i). a spouse cannot be made to
divulge that in his presence and observation
the husband cleaned a gun, or washed
bloody clothes or counted wads of money,
even if the husband did not explain his
actions (ii). a married person cannot be
made to divulge tattoos on the body of the
spouse or of his mannerism or habits.
However, acts not intended to be confidentially, such
as acts within public view, or tattoos displayed
publicly, are not confidential. Likewise, acts done in
secret and
confidential.
hidden
from
the
witness
are
not
d.
V.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. The privilege may be claimed by either
spouses, i.e. the communicating or recipient
spouse (some opine it is only the receiving
spouse who can claim).
2. The exceptions are the same as in the Marital
Disqualification Rule.
3. The duration is perpetual.
4. Distinctions
from
the
Marital
Disqualification Rule:
a) As to whether or not a spouse is a
party to the case
b) As to the scope of the prohibition
c) As to the duration
d) As to who can claim the protection of
the rule
5.
The waiver of the Marital Disqualification Rule

does not include a waiver of the Marital
Privilege Communication Rule.
2. BETWEEN LAWYER AND CLIENT

I.
RULE: An attorney cannot, without the

consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or
his advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment, nor
can an attorneys secretary, stenographer, or
clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity
II.
REASON: The rule is grounded on public policy and

the proper administration of justice. It is to
encourage clients to make a full disclosure of all
facts relative to a problem for which he sought the
professional services of a lawyer, without fear or
reservation that these facts will later be revealed
especially if the nature of the facts are such that
they might adversely affect his rights, property or
reputation. This is to inspire confidence and thus it is
also to enable the lawyer to give the appropriate
advice or to undertake such action that will best
serve the interest of the client.
III. REQUIREMENTS
A. There
must
be
a
lawyer-client
relationship
1. The term lawyer refers to:
b. A member of the Philippine Bar
in good standing acting in such
a capacity, whether in active
practice or not.
c. Non-lawyers allowed by law to
appear as counsel pursuant to
section 7 of Rule 118. (But in
localities where such members
of the bar are not available, the
court may appoint any person,
resident of the province and of
good repute for probity and

ability, to defend the accused.)
Non-lawyers who misrepresent
themselves as members of the
bar in order to obtain the
confidence of a person and
believed as such by the latter.
2.
Government
prosecutors
are
not
included but they are prohibited from
making disclosures under penal laws,
such as The Revised Penal Code under
its provisions on Revelation of Private
Secrets.
3. Lawyers of government agencies
created to render legal assistance to the
public are included, such as lawyers
from the PAO and the CHR.
4. The relationship maybe created by
mutual consent at the initiative of the
client, or is created by Order of the
Court as in the case of a counsel de
officio.
a) The
relationship
exists
whenever the client consults
with a lawyer in relation to a
matter which needs
the
professional services of the
lawyer be it for advice or
representation in a future or
present legal action.
b) It does not matter that no fee
was paid, or that the lawyer
later refused to represent the
client or that he withdrew from
the action.
c) however the rule does not
cover situations where the
lawyer was consulted merely
as a notary.
B. There must be a communication by the client
to the lawyer or advice given thereon by the
lawyer.
1. The communication must be for the
purpose of creating a lawyer-client
relationship or was given in the course
of such relationship.
2. The term communication includes the
following:
a) Any data or information supplied
by the client personally or
through confidential agents,
either to the lawyer or to the
lawyers employees. This may
have been supplied through any
form of oral or written
communication.
b) All documents, objects or thing
delivered to the lawyer except
those the existence and/or
contents of which are or maybe
known.
Thus titles to land, contracts,
reply-communications,
bank
pass books, dishonored checks,

cannot
be
considered
as
confidential.
c) Acts or conduct by the client,
such as physical demonstration
of actions or events, or giving a
sample of his handwriting to
show he is not the falsifier.
d) The advice given by the lawyer
to the client orally or though any
mode of written communication.
e) The identity of the client. As a
matter of public policy a lawyer
may not invoke the privilege and
refuse to divulge the name or
identity of the client except in
the situation when the clients
name has an independent
significance such that disclosure
would
reveal
the
clients
confidences.
The identity may not be
disclosed in the following
situations:
a. Where
a
strong
probability exists that
revealing
the
clients
name would implicate the
client in the very activity
for which he sought the
lawyers advise.
b. Where the disclosure
would open the client to
civil liability
c. Where the government
prosecutors have no case
against the client and
compelling the lawyer to
reveal his clients name
would furnish the only
link that would form a
chain
of
testimony
necessary to convict the
client of a crime.
d. Where it is the identity of
the client which is sought
to be confidential (
Regala
vs.
Sandiganbayan:
262
SCRA 122)
f.
Those covered by the Doctrine

of Work Product. The pleadings
prepared by the lawyer or his
private files containing either
facts and data obtained by him
or
resulting from his own
investigation
or
by
any
investigator hired by him;
and/or his impressions or
conclusions whether reduced in
writing or not, about the client
or the clients cause.
A lawyer may not therefore

testify that his client, charged
with theft of silver coins, paid
him with silver coins.
3.
The following communications are not

covered and the lawyer may reveal
them:
a) Those intended to be made
public.
b) Or intended to be communicated
to a third person.
c) Intended for an unlawful purpose
or for a future crime or act.
d) Received from a third person not
acting in behalf or as agent of the
client.
e) Those made in the presence of
third persons.
f) Those which are irrelevant.
g) The effects of a crime as well as
weapons or instruments of a
crime.
h) Opinions on abstract questions or
hypothetical questions of law.
C. The communication was confidential

D. The consent of the client to the disclosure
was not obtained
IV.
Duration and Waiver

A. The duration is perpetual even after the
lawyer-client relationship has already ceased.
B. The rule maybe waived by the client alone, or
by his representatives in case of his death,
expressly or by implication.
1. If he is a party to a case and his lawyer
was called as a witness by his
opponent: (a) by failure of the client to
object to the questions concerning the
privileged communications or (b)
having objected on direct, the client
cross-examines on the privileged
communications.
2. When the client presents evidence on
the privileged communication, the
opposing party may call on the lawyer
to rebut the evidence.
3. When the client calls on the lawyer to
testify on the privileged communication
4. In case of a suit by and between the
lawyer and the client, the rule does not
apply
5. When the lawyer is accused of a crime
in relation to the act of the client which
was the subject of their professional
relationship, he may reveal the
privileged communications to prove he
had nothing to do with the crime.
C. If the lawyer, as witness to a case which does
not involve the client, divulges confidential
communication without the prior consent of
the client, he may be liable criminally, civilly
and administratively.
patient or by one acting for the

patient, if these were essential for
the physician to act in a
professional capacity, but matters
which are not essential but believed
in good faith by the patient to be
essential and divulged in good faith
are covered.
b) All facts learned by the physician
from
his
own
interviews,
observations,
diagnosis,
examinations
or
operation
conducted upon the patient.
c) the nature of the treatment given,
his opinion or advice given to the
patient, including oral prescriptions
(written prescriptions for medicines
are intended to be read by
pharmacist and third persons and
are not confidential)
d) The clinical records, x-ray plates,
radiographs, and other documents
pertaining
to
the
treatment,
diagnosis, illness or process of
ascertaining the illness of the
patient.
3. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
I.
RULE: A person authorized to practice

medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil
case, without the consent of the patient, be
examined as to any advice or treatment given
by him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which information was
necessary to enable him to act in that capacity,
and which would blacken the reputation of the
patient.
1.
PURPOSES: (a). To inspire confidence in patients

and encourage them to make a full disclosure of all
facts, circumstances or symptoms of their sickness,
without fear of their future disclosure, so that a
physician can form an opinion and be enabled to
safely and effectively treat the patient. (b).To protect
the patients reputation.
2.
REQUIREMENT
A. The case is a civil case
1. Public policy looks to the maintenance of
peace and order, upholding the law, the
acquittal of the innocent and punishment
of the guilty, as more important than the
purposes of the privilege.
2. It is not required that the patient is a
party to this case.
B.
C.
The witness presented is a person authorized

to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
1. The witness maybe a general practitioner
or a specialist in any of the fields of
medicine.
2. Included
are
psychoanalysts,
psychologist, psychotherapists. Dentists
and mid-wives are not included, so also
with nurses unless they acted as agents
or assistants of the physician.
3. Where the person is not authorized but
represented himself to be so and which
was believed by the witness, it is believed
that the privileged may also be claimed.
4. The relationship of physician-patient may
have been created by mutual consent
between him and the patient or with any
person acting in behalf of the patient, or
was created by exigent emergencies as
when services were rendered to a patient
in extremis.
The physician-witness is asked to divulge a
communication by and between him and the
patient.
1. The communication was made while the
witness was acting in his professional
capacity i.e he was attending to a person
as a patient and to whom the physicianwitness rendered curative, palliative or
preventive treatment.
2. The privileged communication include:
a) All information divulged by the
D. The communication is confidential and was not

intended to be known by third persons except
to agents of the physician.
QUESTIONS:
1.
Are
communications
confidential if these were heard by third
persons by reason of lack of privacy of the
clinic or hospital facilities? 2. Is the fact still
confidential if a patients body part or blood
was sent by the physician for examination and
study by a specialist/technician in a laboratory?
(I submit that that the specialist acts as agent
of the physician and he may not also be
compelled to disclose his findings).
E.
3.
If disclosed the information would blacken the

reputation of the patient. It causes disgrace or
embarrassment or puts him in a bad light.
Example: disclosure that the patient is a sexual
pervert, or suffers from delusions or from a
disease.
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE

A. Criminal cases
B. When the person testifying is not the
physician. However the patient himself cannot
be compelled to testify on the privileged
communications.
C. Where the physician is presented merely as an
expert and is testifying upon hypothetical
questions.
D. Autopsies conducted to ascertain the cause of
death of a person
E. Court ordered examinations
F. When the patient, as party to a case, testifies
as to his own illness or condition, he opens the
door for the opposing party to rebut the
testimony by calling on the physician.
G. When the patient, as party to a case, calls on

the physician as his own witness.
H. In a malpractice suit against the physician by
the patient.
I. Where there is a Contractual Waiver in that the
patient agreed to undergo an examination and
make known the result thereof as a condition
to the grant or enjoyment of a privilege,
benefit or employment. Examples are the
medical examinations required to enter the AFP
or to obtain an insurance policy.
J. Communications made in the presence of third
persons.
K. Communications to commit or to conceal a
crime as when a patient undergoes a face lift
to mislead the police or the victim in identifying
him.
3.
4.
5.
C.
4. PRIEST/MINISTER- PENITENT
I.
RULE. A minister or priest cannot, without the

consent of the person making the confession,
be examined as to any confession made to or
any advice given by him in his professional
character in the course of discipline enjoined
by the church to which the minister or priest
belongs.
II. CONCEPT and PURPOSE: This is often referred to

as the Seal of the Confessional. A priest or minister
or similar religious person cannot be compelled to
testify and divulge matters which were revealed to
him by way of a confession. The purpose is in
recognition of religious freedom and to protect the
practice of making confessions.
III. REQUIREMENTS:
A. The witness is a priest or minister or similar
religious personality.
1. The term priest or minister should
not be given a restrictive meaning but
should
include
any
religious
personality of the same or similar
stature as a priest or minister.
2. Question: As worded the rule applies
only to religious personalities of the
Christian religion. Should the rule be
interpreted to include non-Christians?
Thus in Buddhism, confessing one
sins to a superior is part of the
Buddhist practice.
B.
The witness received the confession of a

penitent
1. A confession is the revelation of acts
or omissions considered as sins or
violations of religious laws/ belief or
teachings, and which may at the
same time be considered as violation
of laws of the state, which
may
subject the confessant to criminal or
civil liability or both.
2. The revelation of wrong doings must
therefore be penitential in that the
purpose is to seek spiritual absolution,
spiritual assistance, or healing of the

soul. If the purpose is otherwise, then
it is not privileged, as when all that
the person was to unburden himself
from guilty feelings.
The confession was made in
obedience to some supposed duty or
obligation.
The court may inquire preliminarily
from the priest /minister as to the
state of mind of the confessant i.e
whether it is penitential or not.
The confession is one given directly
and personally to the priest/ minister
and in secrecy. Public avowals are not
included.
The confession must have been made to the

priest/minister in his professional character
in the course of the discipline of the church
to which the priest/minister belongs.
o The church or denomination must
recognize the practice of making
confessions and authorizes said
priest/minister to receive and hear
confessions.
IV. Observations:
1. Must the confessant belong to the same church
as the priest/minister?
2. If the penitent consents, may his confession be
divulged?
5. PUBLIC OFFICER.
I.
RULE: A public officer cannot be examined during

his term of office or afterwards, as to communications
made to him in official confidence, when the court
finds that the public interest would suffer by the
disclosure.
II. PURPOSES:
o To encourage citizens to reveal their knowledge
about the commission of crime
o To protect legitimate police operations against
criminals
o To protect the safety of the informant and his
family
III. REQUIREMENTS
A. There must be a confidential official
communication, which includes:
1. all
information
concerning
the
circumstances of the commission of a
crime such as the identity of the
criminals, their whereabouts, their
accomplices, the date, time and place of
commission, their modus operandi.
2. The identity of the recipient of the
communication e.g the undercover
agent or handler.
3. The identity of the informant.
4. It has been held that official documents
of diplomatic officials, ambassadors and
consuls are included.
B.
The communication must have been made to a

public officer.
o The public officer refers to those whose
duty involves the investigation or
prosecution of public wrongs or
violations of laws. They pertain mostly
to law enforcement agents and
prosecutors, as well as those in charge
of the enforcement of the law violated.
C.
The disclosure would affect public interest.
IV. RULE ON THE INFORMERS IDENTITY

A. Concept of the Informants Privilege- a
privilege granted to the government to
withhold from disclosure, the identity of
confidential informants. The purpose is to
protect
the
governments
sources
of
information and in this way facilitate law
enforcement by preserving the anonymity of
individuals willing to furnish information.
B. Informants covered ( informers are also called
coordinating individuals (or CIs), citizens, or
assets; in American police parlance they are
called nose, snitch, or stool pigeons)
1. Walk-in or phone-in informants e.g.
those who report crimes in person or by
calling police hot lines or individual
police officers
2. Deep Penetration Agents or those
embedded who actually join criminal
organizations/gangs by pretending to be
one of them but are secretly gathering
information which they secretly relay to
the law enforcement agents
3. Stool pigeons or snitches among
prisoners
4. Regular informants or those who
regularly report on suspected criminals
and their activities. They may be
acquaintances, neighbors or friends of
the criminals themselves. They are
known only to their agent handler.
C.
When the informant may be compelled to be

presented in court or when his identity maybe
revealed
1. Per the American case of Roviero vs.
U.S (353 U.S. 53) in 1957 which ruled
thus: when it appears from the
evidence that the informer is also a
material witness, is present with the
accused at the occurrence of the alleged
crime, and might also be a material
witness as to whether the accused
knowingly and intentionally delivered
drugs as charged, his identity is relevant
and maybe helpful to the defendant, it
may said that disclosure is proper in the
following situations:
a) when his identity is known to
the accused not necessarily by
name but by face and other
physical features, unless he is
being also used in another
operations
b) when it is relevant and helpful
to the defense and is essential
to a proper disposition of the
case
c) when it is claimed that there
was an entrapment where he
participated as a decoy or
agent provocateur and the
said entrapment cannot be
established
without
his
testimony
2.
If the informant disclosed his identity to

persons other than the law enforcement
agents, this maybe basis for the accused
to demand disclosure.
STATUTORY PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

1. Contents of a Ballot under the Election Code
2. The identity and personal circumstances of
3. Minors who are victims of crimes under the Child
Abuse Law
4. The records of cases involving Children in Conflict
with the Law under the Juvenile Justice Law if (i)
the case against them has been dismissed (ii)
they were acquitted or (iii) having been convicted
and having undergone rehabilitation, they were
eventually discharged
5. Trade secrets under the Intellectual Property
Law
6. Identities and whereabouts of witnesses under
the Witness Protection Program
7. Identity of News Informants under R.A. 1477
(The Shield Law)
8. Bank Deposits under the Secrecy of Bank
Deposits law except under the following:
a. Upon the prior written permission of the
depositor
b. In case of impeachment of constitutional
officers
c. When the deposit is the subject of the
case
d. Upon Order of the Court
e. In cases involving public officers for
offenses in relation to their office or for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act
f. When the amount exceeds the limit set
under the Anti-Money Laundering Law
g. Compromise of taxes
h. Under the Anti-Terrorism Law/Human
Security Law
9.
Offers and admissions during Court Annexed

Mediation proceedings under RA 9295.
10. DNA Profiles and all the results or other
information obtained from DNA testing which
testing was court- approved / ordered, subject to
certain exceptions (Sec. 11 of the Rule on DNA
Evidence promulgated by the Supreme Court and
effective on October 15, 2007)
-o0o-
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS UNDER

JURISPRUDENCE
I.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
A. This is of American Origin but was adopted by
the Supreme Court when it decided the case
of Senate of the Philippines vs. Eduardo
Ermita ( April 20, 2006)
B.
C.
Concept: It is a power or right that the

president or other officers of the executive
branch assert when they refuse to give
congress, the courts, or private parties,
information or records which have been
requested or subpoenaed, or when they order
government witnesses not to testify before
congress. It is essentially the exemption
enjoyed by the President from disclosing
information to congressional inquiries or the
judiciary.
i.
Limitations to the Claim (Per Senate of the

Pres. Vs. Ermita)
1. It is not absolute. The privilege is
recognized only in relation to certain
types of information of a sensitive
character. A claim is valid or not
depending on the ground invoked to
justify it and the context in which it is
made.
2. A claim of privilege, being a claim of
exemption from an obligation to
CONFIDENTIALITY
OF
JUDICIAL
DELIBERATIONS
1. The working papers of a judge, such his
personal notes and researches on cases heard
by him, his written instructions to the staff,
are considered his personal or private
property and may not be compelled to be
disclosed.
2. Discussions among members of a collegial
court are likewise confidential
TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
I.
Purpose and basis. It is based on the

principle of separation of powers. It is
recognized with respect to certain information
the confidential nature of which is crucial to
the fulfillment of the unique role and
responsibilities of the executive or those
instances where exemption from disclosure is
necessary to the discharge of highly important
executive responsibilities. It is premised on
the fact that certain information must, as a
matter of necessity, be held confidential in
pursuit of public interest.
D. Matters Covered: As a rule, information

must be of such high degree as to outweigh
public
interest.
Based
on
Philippine
Jurisprudence (Almonte vs. Vasquez (1995),
Chavez vs. PCGG (1995), Chavez vs. Public
Estates Authority (2002) and Senate vs.
Ermita (2006), the following are covered:
1. State secrets regarding military,
diplomatic and other national security
matters.
2. Closed Door cabinet meetings;
presidential
conversations,
correspondence and discussions with
the cabinet and presidential advisers
under the principle of Confidentiality
of Executive Deliberations
3. Information in the investigation of
crimes by law enforcement agencies
before prosecution of the accused.
E.
3.
disclose information, must be clearly

asserted.
Only the President may personally
assert it or claim it through the
Executive Secretary.
RULE: Sec. 25. Parental and Filial privilege. No persons may be compelled to testify against
his parents, other direct descendant, children
or other direct descendants.
o The privilege maybe claimed only by the witness
in any case whether civil or criminal but it may be
waived as when he volunteers to be a witness.
B. However, by way of an exception, Article
215of the Family Code provides that a
descendant may be compelled to testify against
his parents and grandparents, if such testimony
is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against
the descendant or by one parent against the
other.
-o0oSOURCES OF A PARTYS EVIDENCE
Generally the evidence of a party are those obtained

and/or supplied from his own side. However evidence may
be taken from the opposite party especially those which
the latter does not voluntarily present because they are
adverse to him. They are in the form of (i) Admissions (ii)
Confessions and (iii) Declarations against Interest.
ADMISSIONS
Section 26. The act, declaration, or omission of a
party as to a relevant fact maybe given in evidence
against him.
I.
Concept
of
Admissions.
The
voluntary
acknowledgement made expressly or impliedly by a
party to a case or by another by whose statement the
party is bound, against his interest, of the existence
or truth of such fact in dispute, material to the issue.
By this meant that a party to a case performed an
act, made a declaration/statement whether oral or
written, or omitted to do something, which is contrary
to his cause of action or to his defense, and which
may therefore be used as evidence against him.
II. Kinds
A. As to where it is made: (i). Judicial (if made in
the proceedings of the case where it is to be
used as evidence) or (ii). extra judicial (if made

outside the proceedings of the case)
B. As to how made: (i) Express or (ii) Implied
C. As who made the admission: (i) By the party to
the case either as the offended party or
accused; or as the plaintiff or defendant (ii)
Third person due to the principle of Vicarious
Admissions or Adoptive Admissions.
D. As to form: (i) By an act or conduct (ii)
Declaration either oral or written or (iii)
through an omission
E. As to their effect: (i) Against Interest or (ii)
Self-serving admissions
III. Reason for the Rule: Presumption of truth in the
admission in that no person would do an act or
declare something which is contrary to his own
interest unless such act or declaration is true.
IV. Requirements for Admission
1. It must be relevant to the issues in the case
2. It must be express, certain, definite and
unequivocal. A declaration which goes: I am
not sure if I still owe money to X or I do not
recall having uttered those words or did the
act, Maybe
I was in error, are not
admissions.
3. Must be an admission of a fact, not an
expression of an opinion
4. Must not be self-serving (Self-serving
admissions are those made to favor a
declarant) because:
(a) they are hearsay i.e. they are testified
to by person who have no personal
knowledge of the truth of the
declarations
(b) they are inherently untrustworthy
Examples are those where a
person disclaims liability or creates
a right or a defense in his own
favor.
It would open the door to
fraud, fabrication of testimony and
commission of perjury.
Examples: Affidavits; entries in
diaries; self-praises
5. It must have been made freely and voluntarily
V.
Evidentiary Value:
1. either as independent
evidence to prove a fact or 2. For purposes of
impeachment
o Example:
Defendant files an Answer
claiming he has fully paid his obligation.
Plaintiff presents W to testify that
Defendant borrowed money from him to
purposely pay off defendants debt to
plaintiff, such testimony by W is either to
prove: (i) the existence of an unpaid money
to plaintiff and/or (ii) to destroy defendants
credibility as to his defense.
VI. How to prove. An admission may be proved by the
testimonies of those who heard the oral statement or
to whom it was given, or who saw the act, and by
presenting the written declaration itself.
VII. Examples of Admission By Conduct:

o An employees act of tendering her resignation
immediately after the discovery of the anomalous
transaction is indicative of her guilt as flight in
criminal cases. Resignation is not a way out to
evade administrative liability.
o Flight is indicative of guilt: The guilty fleeth
while no man pursueth but the innocent is as
bold as a lion (Proverbs) but the reverse is not
true: i.e. that non-flight is indicative of
innocence.
o Disguise or sudden unexpected change of
address, are admissible to prove guilt.
o Unexplained delay is an admission of lack of
merit as in: (a) claim of self-defense (b) of a
cause of action or defense
o Sending/giving an apology (gift-offerings), asking
for forgiveness, are admissible as proof of guilt or
fault
o But repair of vehicles involved in a collision is an
exercise of a right and not an admission of fault.
o The act of a lessor in repairing the leased
tenement is an implied admission that he is the
party with the obligation to make repairs and not
the lessee.
OFFER OF COMPROMISE
I.
CONCEPT: It is in the nature of a proposal to give or

make concessions to another in exchange for the
withdrawal or dismissal of a pending case, or to
prevent a litigation from arising. It is most often
called Areglo or Out of court settlement.
II. RULE IN CIVIL CASES per Section 27. An offer of

compromise is not an admission of liability or that
anything is due and is not admissible in evidence.
A. Reason: It is the policy of the law to
encourage the parties to settle their
differences peacefully without need of going
to the courts and in keeping with the trend to
settle disputes through alternative dispute
resolutions, as well as to unclog the docket
of the courts.
B. The following embody this policy.
1. Under the Local Government Code
which established the Barangay Courts
and requires that cases be referred first
to it for possible settlement before they
are elevated in court.
2. The Pre-Trial where one of the subject
matter is the possibility of the parties
arriving at a an amicable settlement.
3. The provisions allowing for a coolingoff period between members of the
family who are the parties involved.
4. R.A. 9295 on Compulsory referral of
cases for Mediation
o This is called Court-AnnexedMediation: which is a process of
settling
disputes
with
the
assistance of an acceptable,
impartial and neutral third party
called a mediator. The mediator
helps parties identify issues and

develop proposals to resolve their
dispute. Once the parties have
arrived at a mutually acceptable
arrangement,
the
agreement
becomes the basis for the courts
decision on the case.
C.
Exceptions: When the offer is admissible in

evidence
1. When the offer contains an
admission of an independent
fact.
Examples:
a) X writes Y demanding
payment of a debt. Y
answers and offers to pay
half and the other half
within an extended period
plus an additional interest,
if X foregoes suing him
because he also has to pay
off his debt to Z. In a suit
by Z against Y, such offer
of Y to X may be used in
favor of Z if Y denies
liability.
b) X sues Y for failure of Y to
deliver the jewelry subject
of a sale. Y offers during
the Pre-Trial that he will
deliver the jewelry in two
months after he has
redeemed them from Z
and if the case is
withdrawn, he will pay
additional damages to X. If
Y later files a theft case
against Z over the jewelry,
his offer in the civil case is
admissible.
2.
When the offer contains an

admission of liability, such as the
existence and correctness of the
amount.
Examples:
a) P demands of D to return
money received by D as
consideration for goods
which D did not deliver. D
offers to deliver within a
certain period of time
provided P foregoes with
the damages. D claims he
has no intention of fooling
P
as
he
suffered
temporary
business
reveres. The offer is
admissible against D.
b) P demands P to leave the
house for unpaid rentals. P
asks he be given 3 months
extension to pay as his
money has not yet arrived.
He later denies
unpaid rentals.
having
III. RULE IN CRIMINAL CASES: An Offer maybe

received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A. Offers contemplated: are those which are
made out of consciousness of guilt, where the
accused acknowledges doing the act or
incurring the omission and desires to escape
punishment by offering to buy off the
complainant.
Those
made
to
avoid
embarrassment, or inconveniences, or to
buy peace of mind, are not implied
admissions of guilt.
B. Reason for the Rule
1. As a matter of public policy, it is to
discourage
the
accused
from
preventing the prosecution of crimes
and punishment of the guilty. The
object of criminal prosecutions is to
uphold the law and discourage people
from violation of the law which
objectives may not be realized if the
parties are permitted to decide when
to pursue or not to pursue a criminal
case. This refers to the penal liability of
the accused.
2. But as to his civil liability, the parties
may enter into a compromise.
C.
Exceptions: where an offer of compromise is

not an implied admission of guilt
1. Where the law allows a compromise:
a) Those cases covered by the CourtAnnexed Mediation under R.A.
9295 (Embodies the policy to
encourage Alternative Dispute
Resolution). There are certain
criminal cases which must undergo
the
process
of
compulsory
mediation wherein the parties are
encouraged to find mutually
satisfactory terms and conditions
to put an end to their difference. A
compromise is therefore allowed
and maybe the basis for a
dismissal of the criminal case.
These criminal cases include:
i. The civil aspect of a
prosecution for B.P. 22
ii. The civil aspect of quasioffenses
Estafa,
physical
injuries, theft, crimes
covered by the Rules
on Summary Procedure
and all others which
are
not
expressly
declared by law as not
subject of compromise
such
as
any
act
constituting
violence
against women and
their children.
B. Reason: (i) Fairness and (ii) Acts of third

persons are irrelevant to the case involving
the act of a party which is the subject of the
case.
b) Prosecutions under the NIRC

where payment of the compromise
penalty will be a ground for the
non-filing of a criminal case.
c) Genuine Offers to Marry by the
accused in crimes against chastity.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Quasi-offenses which do not involve

any criminal intent
Under the Good Samaritan law an
offer to pay for the medical and
hospital bills and similar expenses
occasioned by an injury. This is to
encourage people to help those who
need immediate medical attention and
because of the possibility that the offer
to help arose from humanitarian
concerns
and not
from
guilty
conscience.
Those made pursuant to tribal customs
and traditions
Those which were not authorized by
the party or made in his behalf but
without his consent and/or knowledge.
Those where the party was induced by
fraud or force or intimidation
Those which did not arise from a guilty
conscience
D. A withdrawn plea of guilty is not an implied

admission of guilt. An offer to plead guilty to a
lesser offense, if rejected, is not also to be
considered as an admission. Both actions are
rights provided by law and no unfavorable
inference is allowed to be made there from.
ADMISSIONS BY THIRD PERSONS
RULE: Section 28. Admissions by a third party. The
rights of a party may not be prejudiced by the act,
declaration or omission of another.
I.
INTRODUCTION. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA

RULE
A. Meaning: Every act or omission results to
corresponding consequences which may be
beneficial or harmful. The rule answers the
question: Who are bound by an admission
and
who
must
bear
the
adverse
consequences? It embodies the first part of
the so called Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri
Nocere Non Debet Rule (Things done
between strangers ought not to injure those
who are not parties to it, or transactions
between two persons ought not to operate to
the prejudice of third persons). The effects
and consequences of an act or omission
should be the sole responsibility of the actor
himself and should not affect third persons
who did not participate in the act or omission.
A mans life, rights, fortune and property
should not be affected by what other peoples
conduct.
C.
Exceptions: when the conduct of a third

person is admissible as evidence against a
party to a case
1. In case of vicarious admissions
2. Under the Principle of Admission by
Adoption
FIRST EXCEPTION: VICARIOUS ADMISSIONS

I.
CONCEPT: These are admissions by one who, by

virtue of a legal relationship with another, maybe
considered as acting for and in behalf of the latter.
These are acts, omissions or declarations by a person
who is not a party to a pending case, but are however
admissible as evidence against one of the parties.
Their admissibility as evidence is based on the
identity of interest between the stranger and the
party concerned.
II. KINDS: They are enumerated under Section 29 to

31.
A. Admission by a co-partner, an agent, joint
owner, joint debtor or one jointly interested.
(Rule 29)
1. The rule as to co-partners is based
on the identity of interest among the
partners such that each partner is an
agent of the other partners. The
requirements are:
a) The existence of the partnership
must first be established by
evidence other than the act or
declaration. Proof includes formal
documents such as: (i) the
Articles
of
Partnership
or
registration papers filed with the
appropriate government agency
such as the SEC or DTI, (ii) by
the contract of partnership, or
(iii) by the acts of the partners,
(iv). by the principle of estoppel.
b) The act or declaration must refer
to a matter within the scope of
the authority of the partners, or
that it relates to the partnership.
Such as:
i. Obtaining a credit or loan
or incurring of a liability
for the partnership, such
as borrowing money to
add to the capital.
ii. Execution of a promissory
note or execution of a
similar contracts.
iii. Statements as to the
financial condition of the
partnership.
iv. declarations as to the

ownership of partnership
properties
c)
2.
3.
B.
It was made during the existence

of the partnership.
Rule as to Agent-Principal. The

agent is deemed an extension of the
principal such that the act of the agent
is the act of the principal.
a) The requirements are similar to
that among partners.
b) The relationship include:
i. Those expressly created
by virtue of a grant of a
General or Special Power
of Attorney, or Letters of
Administration and similar
formal
documents,
or
when professional services
have been retained as in
the case of a lawyer-client.
ii. Agency by Estoppel
iii. Agency
by
Referral:
when one party expressly
refers another to a specific
third person in regard to a
matter in dispute, the
declaration of the third
person binds the party
who made the referral. In
effect he made the third
person his agent.
Example: When the

seller referred the
buyer to a real estate
agent/realtor/apprais
er concerning the
value of the property
to be sold, then he is
bound to sell at the
price quoted by the
agent/realtor/apprais
er.
As to Joint Owners, they need not be
equal owners. Joint debtors refer to
solidary debtors. The requirements are
similar to that among partners, agentprincipal.
Admission by a Co-conspirator. The act

or declaration of a conspirator relating to
the conspiracy, and during its existence,
maybe given in evidence against the
conspirators after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration
(Section 30).
1.
the issue is whether these two or more

persons maybe held equally liable. It
therefore
becomes
relevant
to
determine
whether
the
act
or
declaration by one can be used as
evidence against a co-accused. The
conspiracy includes both the anterior
conspiracy
and
spontaneous
/instantaneous conspiracy.
The conspiracy has reference to

conspiracy as a mode or manner of
committing a crime which presupposes
that a crime has actually been
committed by two or more persons and
2.
The act or declaration refers to those

made extra-judicially and not to acts or
declarations by a conspirator during the
trial.
3.
Requirements:
a) The existence of the conspiracy
among the accused must first be
established.
i. May be by direct proof or
circumstantial
evidence
showing Unity of Intention or
Purpose and Unity of Action.
ii. The act or declaration may
be presented first subject to
the rule on conditional
admissibility i.e. proof of the
conspiracy be presented
latter, or the act or
declaration may be admitted
to prove the guilt of the
declarant and not to prove
the conspiracy.
b) The act or declaration must relate
to the conspiracy or common
objective, such as:
i. The participation of each in
the commission of the crime.
ii. The manner of achieving the
objective.
iii. Defenses to be made or
relating to the escape
iv. Ensuing
the
successful
execution of the plan.
Ex: The killing of an

approaching
policeman by the
look-out
in
a
robbery, even if not
agreed upon, but
was necessary to
prevent
the
discovery, is
the
liability of all the
robbers.
c)
The act or declaration was made

while the declarant was engaged
in carrying out the conspiracy in
that the conspiracy must still be
in existence, and not when the
conspiracy has ceased.
A conspiracy ceases: (i) when the
crime agreed upon has already

been committed (ii) the accused
were apprehended (iii) as to one
who left the conspiracy and did
not participate in its execution
(iv)
when
the
plan
was
abandoned.
Thus: statements by one of the
accused while in custody; acts
done upon the arrest of the
several accused, do not anymore
bind
the other. Examples:
Statements given to the media
after arrest binds only the
declarant. The act of one in
killing an arresting officer in order
to escape binds him alone.
4.
C.
The rule applies to a Conspiracy by

Adoption: When one joins a
conspiracy after its formation and he
actively participates in it, he adopts the
previous acts and declarations of his
fellow conspirators which are admissible
against him.
Admission by Privies When one derives

property from another, the act declaration, or
omission of the latter, while holding title, in
relation to the property is evidence against
the former ( Section 31).
1. Privies are those who have mutual or
succession of relationship to a property
either by: (a) law, such as heirship or
hereditary succession, or purchase in a
public sale, or (b). by the act of the
former owner, such as instituting an
heir, legatee, or devisee, or naming a
donee; or by (c). mutual consent
between the former and present owner,
such as by deed of sale.
2.
Concept of the Rule: The present

owner of a property acquires the
property subject to the same burdens,
obligations, liabilities or conditions which
could have been enforced against the
previous owner.
3.
Illustrations of acts of the prior owner

which bind the present owner:
a) The previous acts of the owner
alienating a portion of the
property, or creating a lien in
favor of a third person.
b) Contracts of Lease, mortgages.
c) Statements by the prior owner
that he obtained the property by
fraud, or that he has only a
limited interest in the property
SECOND EXCEPTION: ADOPTIVE ADMISSIONS

I.
CONCEPT: This refers to a partys reaction to a
statement or action by another person when it is

reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an
admission of something stated or implied by the other
person. The adoption may either be by positive
conduct or by silence/ inaction.
Effect: By adoptive admission, a third persons

statement becomes the admission of a party
embracing or espousing it. The statement or
conduct by the third person is evidence against
the party concerned.
II. Adoption by Positive Conduct arises when a party

either:
a) Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral
statement by another
b) Hears a statement and latter essentially
repeats it
c) Utters an acceptance or builds upon the
assertion by another
d) Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific
points raised by another but ignores further
points to which he or she has heard the other
make
e) Reads and signs a written statement made by
another ( Republic vs. Kendrick Development
Co., 498 SCRA 220)
Example: Estrada vs. Arroyo 356 SCRA 108; 353
SCRA 452: In said case Estradas lack of objection
or comment to the statements, proposals by Sen.
Angara concerning Eraps leaving Malacanang, (
as narrated in the so called Angara Diaries
serialized in the Phil Inquirer) such as the
negotiations with the Arroyo camp, the
points/conditions of his leaving the palace, were
considered as evidence admissible against Erap to
prove he acquiesced to his removal and that he
voluntarily relinquished the presidency. The court
further expounded on admission by adoption as
being:
(a) By conduct manifesting a partys belief in
the truthfulness of the statement of a third
person by expressly or implicitly concurring
with it; or responding in such a way that
manifests a the adoption of the statement
(b) By a partys refusal to refute an accusatory
statement that a reasonable person would
refute under the same or similar
circumstances
III. Adoption by Silence/Inaction
A. Rule: An act or declaration made in the
presence or 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 to do so, may be
given in evidence against him. (Section 32)
B. REASON: This is based on the human and
natural instinct to resist, rebut, deny or object
to untrue statements about ones life, family,
rights, property or interests. The failure to do
so is an implied admission of the truth of the
statement.
VIDDETUR.
QUI
TACET
CONSENTIRE
in possession of stolen articles is

not admissible in a prosecution
for physical injuries.
Hence, he who remains silent when he ought

to speak cannot be heard to speak when he
should be silent.
C.
D. Instances when silence is not an

admission
1. Silence by a suspect who is under
custody of law enforcement agents
2. Upon advice of counsel
3. When to comment would disturb a
solemn proceeding such as a mass, a
meeting, or court trial
4. When the circumstances of time, place,
and occasion does not make it proper
and appropriate for a party to comment.
5. When the matter is privileged.
6. There is no good reason to comment.
7. When the party is in a state of shock or
in some similar mental state.
8. The comment is made by strangers.
E. Other Examples of Admissions by silence.
1. Failure to reply to letters of Account is an
admission of (a) the existence of the
account and (b) the correctness of the
account.
2. Failure to call an important witness is an
admission that his testimony would be
adverse.
3. But the failure of a witness to report
immediately and to describe the
malefactor at the earliest opportunity
merely affects the accuracy but not the
veracity of a witness
REQUISITES for the application of the Rule.

1. That the party heard and understood
the statement.
a) The party must be at the place
where the statement or act was
made and must be within
hearing distance or proximate to
where the act was done, such
that, in the event the party
claims
otherwise,
it
may
reasonably be said that the
party must have heard the
statement, or that he saw the
act.
b) Hence if the party was
intoxicated, or in a state of
shock, or a deaf mute, or if the
statement is muted by noise, or
inaudible, or in a language not
understood, or when the party
was distracted, or his view was
obstructed, then the rule will not
apply.
2.
3.
The party was at liberty to interpose an

objection. There was no duress or
intimidation or fear of immediate harm
arising from his objection.
The statement was in respect to a
matter affecting his rights or in which he
is interested and calling naturally for a
comment.
a) The statements or acts impute
some wrongdoing or creates a
liability against him, or subjects
him to suspicion, or it would result
to a diminution or injury to his
rights or property, or reputation,
or to his person or that of his
family.
b) Example: A party is caught in a
very compromising situation or
flagranti delicto with a person not
his spouse, and is asked; what is
the meaning of this?, but he
makes no reply, then his silence
will be evidence of wrong doing.
4.
The facts are within his knowledge as a

person is not expected to comment or
react to matters about which he is
ignorant.
5.
The fact admitted or the inference

drawn from the silence is material to the
issue.
Thus the silence of a man caught
CONFESSIONS
I.
CONCEPT/RULE: The voluntary acknowledgement

by a person of his guilt of the offense charged or of
any offense included therein, may be given in
evidence against him. (Section 33)
A. Compared with Admissions.
1. As to concept and coverage:
An
admission is broader as it covers any fact
so long as its adverse to the interest of the
party. A confession is limited to the act of
an accused acknowledging that he
committed or
participated
in
the
commission of a crime. A confession is a
species of admissions.
2. As to form: An admission may be in the
form of an act, declaration or omission,
expressed or implied. A confession is
always in the form of written or oral
declaration, and is always expressed.
3. As to where admissible. An admission is
admissible in evidence in both civil and
criminal cases whereas a confession is
admissible only in criminal cases.
4. As to the author: an admission may be
made by a party or by third persons. A
confession is made only by the accused
personally
B. Evidentiary value:
1.
2.
3.
II.
Confessions are admissible against the

confessant. They are evidence of a high
order for the reason that no person in his
right senses would admit his guilt or
participation in the commission of a crime,
knowing that it would subject him to
punishment. He must be prompted by
truth.
But for purposes of conviction, the
confession must be corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti (body of the
crime) pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 133.
Corpus delicti, or the fact that a

crime was committed, has two
elements: (i) an injury or harm
which was suffered by a person
and (ii) the cause or origin thereof
must be criminal in nature
As to oral extra-judicial confessions, they
afford no conclusive proof of that which
they state but merely present a prima
facie case. It may still be proved they
were uttered/made in ignorance, or levity
or mistake.
III. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY

A. That the confession must be voluntary i.e it
was given freely, knowingly and intelligently.
1. This requirement applies to all kinds of
confessions
2. The accused gave the confession of his
own free will, with full understanding
and knowledge of its consequences
and that he was not coerced,
pressured, forced, intimidated or
improperly influenced, or subjected to
third degree.
The force or intimidation need

not be applied personally to the
confessant but to a third person
so long as the purpose is to
affect the will of the confessant
and the giving of the confession
is the condition for the force to
stop.
3.
The Test of Voluntariness involve two

aspects:
a) The susceptibility of the suspect
to be influenced by fear or force
considering his: (i) background
(ii) intelligence (iii) education
(iv) prior experience with the
system (v) physical condition
(vi) mental condition and (vii)
coping skills.
b) Environment and Method of
Investigation used which include
considering (i) the location of
the setting (ii) length of the
questioning (iii) intensity (iv)
frequency of the questioning (v)
food and sleep deprivation and
(vi) intimidating presence of
officers
4.
In the event the confession was due to

an inducement, consideration, promise
or exhortation, the following rules
govern:
a) The confession is voluntary if
due to religious exhortation
b) Voluntary if due to given due to
material
considerations
or
promise or reward of material or
financial or any form of gain
c) In case of a promise of
immunity, it is involuntary if the
promise was made by one who
is in a position to fulfill the
promise,
such
as
the
investigating officer or the
complainant. But a promise by
the police that he will get a
lower penalty does not make the
confession involuntary.
d) But if the accused gave a
confession as a condition for
being discharged as a state
CLASSIFICATION OF CONFESSIONS
A.
Judicial: when the accused pleads guilty

during the arraignment, or when the accused
testifies and admits the offense.
B.
Extra Judicial which may either be custodial

or non-custodial, written or oral.
1. Custodial: includes all situations
where a person is under the custody
of, or deprived of personal liberty by,
public officials whose functions include
the apprehension of criminals and/or
investigation of crimes, who are often
the law enforcement agents, as well as
those tasked to enforce the law
violated.
a) The person may have been
lawfully arrested by virtue of a
warrant of arrest
b) The person
was
arrested
lawfully without a warrant
c) The arrest is illegal
d) The
person
voluntarily
surrendered
e) The rule applies whether or not
a formal charge has already
been filed in court, or a crime is
still being investigated and the
person is merely a suspect.
2.
Non-custodial: either the confessant

is not in the custody of any person or
is custody but the custodians are
private persons, private security
agencies, or of their employers, or
even of public officials but who are not
law enforcement agents, such as the
Mayor or the Barangay Captain.
witness but he later refused to

testify,
his
confession
is
voluntary
e) Involuntary if due to a promise
or offer of a pardon by one who
is in a position to work for it.
5.
B.
3.
Admissibility
of
Confession
obtained by Trickery or Deceit
1. The general rule is that the use
of artifice, trickery or fraud in
inducing a confession will not
alone render the confession
inadmissible as evidence. For
examples: those obtained by
detective posing as prisoners or
obtained by promise of secrecy
and help to escape or by
conversations between suspects
and undercover agents are
admissible.
2. The Miranda rule does not apply
because
when
a
suspect
considers
himself
in
the
company of cell mates and not
officers,
the
coercive
atmosphere is lacking. Miranda
forbids coercion, not mere
strategic deception by taking
advantage of
a suspects
misplaced trust in one he
supposes to be a fellow
prisoner.
3. But the rule is different when
the suspect has already been
indicted or arraigned.
The Massiah rule based in the case of
Massiah vs. U.S. states that once
adversary proceedings have been
commenced against an individual, he is
entitled to counsel and the government
may
not
deliberately
elicit
incriminating statements from him,
neither openly by uniformed officers or
by secret agents.
i. The Massiah rule includes
stimulated conversions to
elicit incriminating evidence
or any form of INDIRECT
SURREPTITIOUS
INTERROGATION.
ii. However, Massiah does not
apply when a cellmate, who
agreed to be an informer,
merely listened to the suspect
and did not initiate any
conversation purposely to lead
the suspect to talk.
Additional Requirement for Custodial

Confession to be admissible
1. The confession must be in writing
2. In a language known or understood by
the confessant
4.
It was given with the assistance of

counsel, or that the right to counsel
was properly waived (in writing and
with the assistance of counsel) and the
confessant was properly Mirandized.
a) The giving of the constitutional
warnings must appear in the
confession and in fact must
preface the questioning
b) The giving must be in a
manner which communicates
meaningful information to the
confessant
c) Counsel refers to a competent,
able and independent counsel;
one who is vigilant and aware
of his responsibility as assisting
counsel. He was either chosen
by the accused or provided him
by friends or relatives, or one
appointed by the court upon
Petition by the confessant or
by one acting in his behalf.
d) If counsel as provided by the
investigating
officer,
the
counsel shall be deemed
engaged by the confessant if
he never raised any objection
against
the
formers
appointment during the course
of
the
investigation
and
thereafter subscribed to the
veracity of his statement
before
the
administering
officer.
It must be signed or thumb marked by
him
IV. RULE As to Self Incriminatory Statements or

Non Confessional Acts by persons in custody
i.
ii.
iii.
Signed Receipts of Property Seized are in

admissible unless the accused was Mirandized.
Under the 2002 Dangerous Drugs Law, the
signing of the Inventory of Seized Articles by
the accused is expressly declared to be not
admissible as evidence against him.
Evidence based on re-enactments are also
inadmissible unless the re-enactment was with
counsel or the right to counsel was properly
waived.
Facts voluntarily divulged to the media are
admissible as admissions unless the media was
in collusion with the police to elicit
inculpatory/incriminatory statements, in which
case the constitutional warning should first be
given before any interview; or if the media was
instructed to extract information as to the
details of the crime.
See as Examples: PP s. Endeno (Feb. 20,

2001) and PP v.s Taboga (Feb. 6, 2002)
involving a taped confession sent to the
media.
iv. After the accused was properly informed of his

rights, facts voluntarily divulged by him without
being asked, are admissible, unless these
statements were the result of some ploy or
stratagem by the police, as in the case of the
good cop-bad cop approach.
v. However, even
if the confession
is
inadmissible, still the evidence may be
admitted under other principles, notably: the
doctrines of Inevitable Discovery; Independent
Source, and Attentuation.
4.
5.
7.
PRESENTATION OF CONFESSION
i.
Through the officer who took the confession

who shall identify the confession, the signature
of the accused therein and his counsel if with
the assistance of counsel, and who shall testify
as to the giving of the constitutional warnings,
and that the giving of the confession as
voluntary.
The presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty cannot be
availed
of
to
assume
the
constitutional warnings were properly
given.
ii.
Through the testimony of the person to whom

the confession was handed, if it was not taken
b the police, or to whom the oral confession
was made.
PROOF OF VOLUNTARINESS
A.
B.
6.
ii.
The voluntariness of a confession is not to be

presumed but must be proven by the
prosecution.
When the accused claims the confession was
coerced or involuntary, the following may be
considered as evidence of voluntariness:
a. Failure
of the accused to present
convincing proof of duress other than the
self-serving declarations
b. Failure to complain to the administering
officer
c. Failure to show marks or physical
evidence of force
d. Failure to undergo medical examination
for alleged injuries
e. Failure to institute action against the
erring officer
f. The confession is replete with details
known only to the confessant
g. Confessions
contains
exculpatory
statements
INADMISSIBLE
THEREOF
i.
CONFESSIONS:
EFFECT
A confession is inadmissible if in any of the

following cases: (a) involuntary or coerced (b)
there was failure to give the constitutional
warning properly as to custodial confessions or
if the latter was (c) uncounseled and right to
counsel was not properly waived.
The inadmissibility is total even if the contents

are absolutely true and in case of custodial
confessions, the inadmissibility extends to all
evidence derived there from under the Fruit of
the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.
PERSONS BOUND BY A VALID CONFESSION

A.
As a rule the confession binds only the

confessant following the Res Inter Alios Acta
Rule.
B.
Exceptions: when a confession is evidence

against third persons
i. When it was confirmed or ratified by the
co-accused
ii. When the extra-judicial confession is
judicially confirmed
iii. In case of interlocking confessions i.e.
confessions made by two or more
accused independently of each other and
without collusion which are identical in
their essential details. The effects are as
follows:
a) They are circumstantial evidence
against the persons implicated
therein, of his participation in the
crime.
Thus
the
identical
confessions of 3 accused are
admissible against X who was
mentioned by all 3 as the master
mind.
b) circumstance or factor in gauging
the credibility of the testimony of
another accused and of witnesses
c) Each confession is evidence against
all confessants.
iv.
If it is a non-custodial confession given

by a co-conspirator it may be admissible
as an admission by a co-conspirator if it
meets all the requirements therefore.
PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE

Section 34. Similar conduct as evidence- 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 thing or similar thing at another
time, but it may be received to prove a specific
intent, or knowledge, identity, plan, scheme,
system, usage and the like.
I.
This is the second part of the Res Inter Alios Acta

Rule. The REASONS for the rule are as follows:
1. Past acts do not afford a logical guarantee
that a person will or will not commit an act in
question due to changes in a mans lifestyle,
habit, views, or in the circumstances or
conditions of his life.
2. Past acts are irrelevant as they merely
confuse the issue and violate the right of a
person to be informed of what he is being
charged of or made liable for.
3. There is the danger that a man may be
4.
convicted or declared liable by reason of his

dark or questionable past and not because he
committed the present act.
There maybe a denial of due process.
II. EXCEPTIONS
A. To prove specific intent or knowledge: this
applies to cases where guilty knowledge or intent
is an essential element or where the defense
raised is good faith, mistake of fact, or accident.
There must however be a rational similarity
between the condition which gave rise to the
past and present conditions.
1.
In a case of forgery or falsification past

acts involving similar forgeries are
admissible to prove intent to falsify and
not to make corrections. Ex: The accused
was previously caught changing the
amount in the check issued to him If later
he tried encashing a check with the
amount altered, and this time claims lack
of knowledge or ignorance, the previous
act will be admissible to show he really
intended to commit falsification.
2.
In a murder case or death by secret

mode, the fact that other mysterious
deaths involving previous wives of the
accused who were all insured with the
husband as the beneficiary, is admissible,
in the death of the present wife, also
heavily insured and where the husband is
a suspect, to prove motive and intent to
kill.
3.
The previous act of feeding the

substance to animals is admissible to
prove the accused knew the substance is
poison and disprove his pretense of good
faith.
4.
In an arson case, the previous acts of

trying to burn the place, about which the
accused was sternly reprimanded, shows
that this time, when the accused was
found placing, clothes soaked in gasoline
near the house, his intent was really to
burn.
5.
In a case for estafa for issuing a watered

check, the prior acts of the accused in
requesting other persons to who checks
against the same account were issued,
that cases be not filed, show knowledge
that the check he issued to the present
complainant was stale.
6.
In an action based on negligence, the act

of asking for a spare tire previously is
proof of knowledge of mechanical defects
of the vehicle.
7.
Note: under the Traffic Code, a previous
violation for three times is evidence of

negligence.
B. To prove identity i.e where there is doubt as to
a persons identity or where identity in issue.
Note: in solving a crime where there are
no eye witness, the fact that a person was
found to be the author of previous crimes
committed in the same manner as the
present, is admissible to prove he is the
author of the present crime. Example:
Serial Killers, Akyat Bahay, the Ativan
Gang
C.
To prove a plan, system, design, Modus

Operandi.
1. In estafa cases of illegal recruitment, the
prior acts of advertising the opening of
an office to assist in visa applications,
and thereafter absconding, is evidence of
a modus operandi or system of deceiving
the unwary public.
2. Prior acts of using different names to
different people from whom money is
borrowed and then unpaid, is admissible
to prove a plan or design to of deception.
3. The prior acts of claiming to be a
member of the staff of a certain politician
and asking for donation else the business
papers will not be processed, shows a
plan of extortion.
D. To prove habit, custom, usage or practice.

1. These can only be established by
showing a repetition of similar acts on
various occasions.
2. Thus wife battery requires a cycle and
previous acts have to be proven.
3. To prove negligence, the fact that a
driver almost always tries to beat the red
light is relevant.
4. To prove habituality or recidivism or
habitual delinquency, previous acts are
required.
5. The habit of a businessman to always
pay in check is proof he did not make a
purchase as no check was drawn or
made in favor of the seller-complainant.
6. The custom of the operator of vans for
hire to test the brakes before renting the
van is admissible to show the brakes
were in facts tested and the van involve
in the accident was not suffering from
any mechanical defect.
7. The habit of a passenger of clinging to
the back (or top load) of a running
jeepney is admissible to show he was not
the passenger/robber seated beside the
victim at the drivers side.
8. The habit of a woman to sit at the lap of
customers is admissible to prove the
absence of force in a charge of acts of
lasciviousness.
9. However, under the Rape Shield Law, the
fact that the victim has had previous
sexual encounters is not admissible in a

present charge for rape.
UNACCEPTED OFFER
Section 35. An offer in writing to pay a particular
sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or
specific personal property is, if rejected without a
valid cause equivalent to the actual production and
tender of the money, instrument or property
1.
2.
This may be availed as a defense where

defendant is alleged to have failed to tender
payment or delivery. It may also be a basis for the
remedy of consignation.
The tender of money must be unconditional and
for the whole amount otherwise the this is a valid
ground to reject the tender.
TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE: THE HEARSAY RULE

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Sources of What a Witness Testifies On. When a
person testifies that a certain event occurred or
that a person did or did not do an act, his
reasons or basis may either be:
1.
2.
3.
II.
Facts based on his own personal knowledge

or direct knowledge, such as when he
testifies to facts or events which he
personally saw or in which he participated,
or to statements he personally heard.
Opinions, conclusions or estimations which
the witness himself arrived at or formed.
Matters relayed to him, or learned by him
from third persons or acquired by from
sources outside of his own personal
knowledge.
Testimony based on the first source is
admissible so long as it is relevant and they
are what the rules desire to be testified
upon. Testimony based on the second is
generally not admissible. Testimony based
on the third source is generally inadmissible
and considered as hearsay.
CONCEPT OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE

A. In general, the term embraces all assertions of
facts, whether in the form of oral or written
statements or conduct, the source of which
cannot be subjected to the opportunity for crossexamination by the adverse party at the trial in
which the statements are being offered against
him.
1. The essence and test of what is hearsay is
the fact that the source i.e. the person who
made the statement, cannot be subjected
to the opportunity for cross-examination.
These two concepts cannot be separated
from one another.
2. The emphasis is on the opportunity to cross
examine and not actual cross-examination
because if there was opportunity to cross
examine but it was not actually exercised

due to the fault or negligence of the
adverse party, the evidence is admissible.
B. The rule on hearsay is intended to satisfy the
requirement of due process which is that the
adverse party has the right to confront the
witnesses against him, to test their credibility, the
truth of their statements, their accuracy, or the
reliability of the evidence against him. This is
through the process known as cross-examination.
This is why the rule on hearsay evidence cannot
be separated from the requirement of due
process.
III. KINDS OF STATEMENTS USED AS PROOF OF
FACTS
A. In-Court-Hearsay Statements. These are
assertions of facts by a witness based on his own
personal perception but the witness was not
subjected to the opportunity for cross
examination.
1. This usually occurs after a witness has
testified during the direct examination but
the testimony becomes hearsay because
the witness refused to go back to court to
be cross-examined; or he dies, becomes
incapacitated mentally or physically, goes
abroad, or where for any cause not
attributable to the adverse party, he was
prevented from cross-examining the
witness.
2. The remedy of the adverse party is to
Move To Strike From the Records the
Direct Testimony on the ground that it is
hearsay. If granted, the legal effect would
be that the direct testimony would be
erased/stricken from the records such that
it was as if the witness never testified at
all.
3. The testimony is not hearsay if the right to
cross examine was expressly waived, or if
it was lost by failure of the adverse party
to claim or exercise it despite the
opportunity given him.
B. Out-of-Court-Statements. These refer to
statements or declarations by third persons
which are being used or referred to by a witness
in order to prove a fact. The phrase aptly
describes statements or declarations or conduct
which were made elsewhere than in the trial of
the case where they are being used as evidence.
They are of three kinds:

1.
2.
The Non-Hearsay Statements also

referred to as the Independently relevant
statements and therefore admissible.
a) Statements the making of which
are the very fact in issue.
b) Statements
which
are
circumstantial evidence of the fact
in issue
The Hearsay Statements which are
inadmissible under Section 36.
3.
IV.
The Hearsay Statements but admissible

as an exception under Sections 37 to 47.
c)
He did not understand or that he

was mistaken
d) He was intoxicated
NONHEARSAY
OR
INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS
A. The purpose of introducing the statement or
declaration of another is not to prove the truth of
a fact but either: (i) to prove the statement was
indeed made, uttered, or written, or (ii) to prove
the tenor of the declaration i.e why it was made,
or that it was part of a conversation or exchange
of communications or part of a transaction or
occurrence.
B. The first kind: Statements the Making of Which
is the Very Fact in Issue. The question before
the court is: Was there such an oral or written
declaration/statement which was made? Was
there such a conduct which was done? or What
was the statement or conduct made? What were
the words uttered or written?
1. It therefore becomes necessary for a
witness to quote or refer to the
statements or declarations or conduct of
a third person in order to answer the
issue.
2. Examples are: (a). statements as
constituting libel or oral defamation; (b)
actions based on a breach of a promise
or warranty (b). statements which are
offered as an admission by the adverse
party (c). statements quoted to destroy
the credibility of a witness or party.
C.
Second
Kind:
Statements
Which
Are
Circumstantial Evidence of the Facts In Issue
1. To show the state of mind, mental
condition, belief, ill will or criminal intent of
the utterer/declarant
a) To prove insanity- I am God
b) Discernment on the part of a
minor: he said Takbo na, Tago
tayo
c) Evident Premeditation: May araw
ka rin
d) Guilty knowledge: Dont tell
anyone this money is fake, or it
was stolen
e) Bias: I will stand by him no matter
what. May pinagsamahan kami
kasi
f) Ill-Will: I hope he dies. Ma fail
ka sana
g) Anger, excitement, joy, elation,
gratitude:
h) That Erap was resigned to giving
up the presidency: Masakit,
Ayoko na,
i) He was intoxicated
2.
To prove the statement of mind of the

hearer or third person or of the witness,
such that:
a) He was not attentive
b) He is bias
V.
3.
To show the physical condition of the

utterer
a) Illness: I have a headache
b) Pain: Aray: Tama na ( to
substantiate a claim of selfdefense)
c) Tired: Lets rest. My feet are killing
me.
4.
To fix or identify date, time, place or person

in question
a) Place: Quoting statements in the
local dialect by unknown people
b) Time: Good evening, Gabi na,
tulog na kayo., Gising na, umaga
na, Kain na, Boom Tarantara
c) Identity: Kuya Pedro, My younger
brother, My seatmate, My crush,
Itay, Baket
d) Sex of a Person: words such as
Manong, ate, kuya, Sexy, Pogi
5.
To show the lack of credibility of the

witness
PURE HEARSAY AND INADMISSIBLE

A. This is what is covered by section 36 : A
witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his own personal
knowledge, that is, which are derived from
his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in these rules.
B. Concept: A witness asserts something as true
but his reason is the statement, declaration or
conduct of another. The witness merely repeats
the declarations of others, he heard (it) said, or
his testimony is to a second hand information.
C.
Illustrations:
1. Oral declarations or statements such as
relying on news broadcasts, popular
opinions, what people think or believe.
2. Written statements such as Affidavits of
third persons, newspaper reports, entries in
the police blotter, medical reports, and any
written account, report or statement ,
which even if true, but the maker/author is
not the witness testifying on it.
3. Non-verbal statements or conduct. which
are offered as assertion or proof of a fact.
Example: On the question of who killed Z,
the witness was asked: Why do you say it
was X who killed Z? and he answered: I
inquired from those present who did the
stabbing and one lifted his finger and
pointed to X . The act of pointing is nonverbal hearsay conduct.
4. However, the testimony of a witness as to a
non-human statement is not subject to the
Hearsay Rule, such as those of machines

and animals because: (a). the lack of
motive to lie on the part of animals and
machines and to (b). The workings of a
machine can be explained by human beings
who then are subjected to crossexamination. Examples:
i. To prove a party is not the owner
of the dog, a witness testified that
he saw the accused approached
the dog and he heard the dog let
out a grrrrrr
ii. To prove the accused was carrying
a prohibited article, the witness
testified that when the accused
passed
through
the
detector/machine, the machine
emitted a whirring sound.
sustaining a mortal wound, under the belief that

death is imminent, stating the facts concerning the
cause and circumstances of his mortal wound.
III.
A. Necessity. What the victim declared is material to

the case. But the victim/declarant is already dead
hence the only available remedy is to rely on the
testimony of a witness who heard, read or saw
the dying declaration. This also to prevent an
injustice if the only evidence of the crime is the
dying declaration and yet it is excluded.
B. Guarantee of Trustworthiness in that what the
victim declared is presumed to be true in that:
1. There is no more motive for a dying person
to fabricate a falsehood, or in the words of
Lord Baron Eyre
D. Evidentiary Value of Hearsay Evidence. Hearsay

evidence has no evidentiary value whatsoever
even if it was admitted without objection from
the other party. This is because this would violate
the requirements of due process and because the
source of the information was not subjected to
the personal observation of the Court as his
demeanor.
The general principle on which this

species of evidence is admitted is that
they are declarations made in
extremis, when the party is at the
point of death and when every hope
of this world is gone, when every
motive to falsehood is silenced, and
the mind is induced by the most
powerful consideration to speak the
truth; a situation so solemn and so
awful is considered by law as creating
an obligation equal to that which is
created
by
a
positive
oath
administered in a court of justice.
VI. HEARSAY STATEMENTS BUT ADMISSIBLE.

A. CONCEPT: These are the statements, oral or
written, presented as evidence in court without
the author of the statement having been
presented to testify on them. A witness offers
these statements by third persons to prove a
fact.
B. BASIS. These statements are essentially hearsay
because the makers or authors of these
statements are not presented in court and are
not subjected to the opportunity for cross
examination. They are however are admissible
because of two reasons: (1). The guarantee of
trustworthiness or that they are presumed more
likely to be true than not and (2. Necessity in
that the court has no option but to accept them
due to circumstances which exempt the authors
from being personally presented in court as
witnesses.
C.
KINDS: They are those enumerated from

section 37 to 47. The enumeration is exclusive.
Sec. 37. DYING DECLARATIONS
I.
RULE: The declaration of a dying person, made

under consciousness of an impending death,
may be received in any case where in his death
is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death.
II.
CONCEPT: Often referred to as antemortem

statements or statements in articulo mortis, they
are statements or utterances whether oral, written, or
conduct, made by a victim of violence, after
REASONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY.
2.
IV.
Another basis for the presumed truthfulness

is the fear if punishment in the afterlife
which may induce a person to speak the
truth during his last moments. But the fact
that the declarant does not believe in an
after-life of rewards and punishment does
not make his declarations less true.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION

A. THE STATEMENT MUST BE MADE UNDER
CONSCIOUSNESS OF IMPENDING DEATH
1. The declarant is aware that his death is
imminent or that his death is certain to
follow by reason of his wound. He knows,
is aware and accepts that he may die at
any moment.
2. But it is not required that death should
immediately follow for it may happen that
the victim dies after the lapse of hours or
days. It may happen that his condition
improved but nevertheless he died after
an interval of time. It is enough that
when he made the statement he believed
he was about to die.
3. If he entertained some hope of
recovering or of surviving his injury, his
statement will not constitute a dying
declaration, but if later when his
condition worsened, he ratified his
statement and thereafter died, then the
4.
statement ill be considered as a dying

declaration.
This requirement is present:
a) From the express declarations of
the victim
b) Inferred or implied from his
utterances or conduct, such as
when he begged forgiveness, asked
for a priest to give him the last
rites, asked a friend to watch over
his family.
c) Inferred from his conduct or
reaction of acquiescence when it
was communicated to him that his
condition is hopeless and he cried
or his countenance changed.
d) Inferred from the actual character
and seriousness of his wounds,
which may justify and acceptance
of mortal danger. Example: when
the victim pointed out his assailant,
he was in agony due to a mortal
wound or was gasping for breath.
B. THE DECLARATION MUST CONCERN THE

CAUSE
AND
SURROUNDING
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DECLARANTS
OWN DEATH/INJURY.
1. The declaration must relate to the why,
who, how, where and what, about his
own mortal wound. If it concerns the
wound of another, it might be admissible
under the Res Gestae Rule, or if the
declaration is something contrary to the
declarants
interest, it might be
admissible as a declaration against
interest.
2. Thus if before dying, the victim of a
shooting incident told these statements
to his friend: Pedro shot me and (b) he
also shot Peter. (c). Tell my children that
the son of Maria is their half-brother.
Statement (a) is a dying declaration
whereas statement (b) would be
admissible as part of the Res Gestae in
the prosecution of Pedro for shooting
Peter. Statement (c) would be a
declaration against interest in an action
against the estate of the victim by the
illegitimate son.
3. There are two kinds of declarations
which, even if they refer to the cause and
circumstances, are not admissible as
dying declarations: (a) Those which are
in the nature of opinions or conclusions.
Example: I believe Pedro was the one
who shot me. He is the only who wanted
me killed, and (b) those which contain
hearsay information. Example: People
say it was Pedro who shot me.
C.
THE DECLARATION IS OFFERED IN A CASE

WHERE THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY IS THE
DEATH OF THE DECLARANT
1. The case may either be criminal or civil
2.
so long as the issue involves the death of

the declarant. If a criminal case, it may
be for consummated Homicide, Murder or
Parricide, and it may be a simple or
complex crime as for example Robbery
with Homicide, Rape with Homicide,
Direct Assault with Homicide, or Multiple
Homicide.
The civil cases include action for
damages arising from the death of the
declarant, or claims for insurance.
D. THE DECLARANT MUST HAVE BEEN

COMPETENT AS A WITNESS HAD HE BEEN
CALLED UPON TO TESTIFY IN COURT.
1. Dying declarations stand in the same
footing as testimony given in open court
by a witness. At the time of the dying
declaration, the declarant has all the
qualifications as a witness and is not
suffering from any physical or mental
ground for disqualification.
2. Thus if the declarant was at that time too
drunk, under the influence of drug,
mentally insane, or an infant, his
statements would not qualify as a dying
declaration.
E.
V.
THAT THE DECLARATION WAS MADE

FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT
COERCION OR SUGGESTION OF IMPROPER
INFLUENCE.
FORM AND MANNER OF INTRODUCING DYING

DECLARATION
A. They may be oral which maybe in the form of
answers to questions asked, or voluntary
statements or utterances at the instance of the
declarant. These may be introduced through the
testimony of the person to whom the oral
declarations were given or by one who heard
them.
B. They may be written either in a paper or other
solid surface with the use of pen, pencils or
conventional writing materials, or with the use of
any material by which letters or written symbols
are formed, such as blood, lipstick or sharp
instrument. The written declaration need not be
signed by the declarant. These are introduced by
presenting the written declaration if physically
possible, else reproductions thereof may be used
in substitution or their existence and contents
maybe testified to by witnesses .
C.
It may be in the form of bodily movements such

as by pointing or hand, gestures, swinging or
nodding of the head, eye movements, or any
physical form of communication. These is
introduced by the testimony of the persons to
who received them as answers to his inquiries, or
by those who saw or observed the gestures.
D. Where the declarations are in the form of

answers to inquiries, there must be observance
of the Rule of Completeness: the declarations

/statements or answers, must be responsive to
the question asked, is not vague or equivocal,
such that it provides a complete information to
what is asked concerning the injuries of the
declarant.
VI.
WEIGHT OF DYING DECLARATIONS

A. Dying Declarations do not enjoy any advantage
nor do they deserve higher consideration over
other evidence. They are not superior evidence.
They are in the same level as all other evidence
hence:
1. They are subject to the same tests of
credibility applied to all types of evidence.
2. The court has the discretion whether to
accept or reject a dying declaration or to
give it value or not, and how much weight
it will accord it.
3. Dying declarations do not automatically
result in conviction. They must be
corroborated.
B. Dying declarations may be impeached or shown
to be unreliable through the following modes:
1. By showing that the witness testifying
thereon is not credible or that he is
untrustworthy. Example: he has a motive
against the accused, he is not fluent with
the dialect in which the declaration was
made, the possibility of having misheard
the declaration, that his attention as
focused elsewhere than to listening to the
statements.
2. By showing that the declarant is not
himself credible. Such as: his having given
contradictory or conflicting declarations;
ill-will or revenge against the accused or
possibility of improper motives, or that his
condition is too far gone as to have
affected his consciousness or ability to
give an accurate description of the
incident.
3. By showing the lack of credibility of the
declaration itself. Such as: it is hearsay, an
opinion, or is not in accordance with the
evidence.
C.
Dying declarations may be used by either party,

though generally it is the prosecution or plaintiff
who is expected to use them. However there is
no law which denies the accused or defendant
the use of a dying declaration as their own
evidence, if they believe it is to their advantage,
as when it points to other perpetrators, or negate
an aggravating circumstance.
party to a case may also use it as his own evidence.

III. DISTINGUISHED FROM AN ADMISSION
1. An admission is not necessarily against the
interest of the declarant while a declaration
against interest is always against the interest of
the declarant.
2. In admissions the admitter may be alive while the
declarant must be dead or unable to testify.
3. The admitter is a party to a case while the
declarant is not.
4. An admission is evidence only against the admitter
save in case of vicarious admissions and
admissions by adoption whereas a declaration
may be used as evidence against strangers.
5. An admission may be made at any time even
during trial, while a declaration must be made
before the controversy arose.
IV. INTEREST AFFECTED MUST BE REAL AND
ACTUAL
A. Civil, Pecuniary or Proprietary.
1. Pecuniary: The declarations may defeat
in whole or in part a money claim he has
against a person. Example: the heirs of a
deceased sued X to collect from him the
supposed unpaid consideration of a lot
sold by the deceased. X presents the best
friend of the deceased who testified that
the deceased confided to him that
although no receipt was issued, X actually
had already over paid.
2. Proprietary: The declarations may affect
his property rights. Examples: I am a
mere administrator of this property, or
The money is my collection
as a
salesman only.
Example: Creditor Z attached the land
of a deceased creditor which is
actually occupied by X to answer for
the debtors unpaid debt. X presents a
letter written by the debtor prior to
borrowing money from Z, which letter
advised the family that he is actually a
mere administrator of the land which
in truth belonged to X.
B. Criminal: The statements may subject him to a
possible criminal prosecution.
a) In an arson case the accused presents a
letter of X to his girlfriend stating that he
has to leave the country because he
accidentally burned the store of their
neighbor.
b) Statements by persons owning up a crime
for which another was charged.
c) Statement by the driver of a jeepney that
he was very sleepy while driving, is
admissible in an action for damages
against the operator arising from a
collision involving the said driver.
Sec. 38. DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST

I.
CONCEPT:
These refer to any oral or written
declaration or conduct by a person which is against
his interest provided the person is already dead or
unable to testify. The declarant is not however a
party to a case. The declaration maybe used against
his successors in interest or against third persons. A
C.
Moral:
The act of a one man showing he is the
natural father of a child, is admissible in a

paternity suit against another man.
V.
VI.
REASONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY

1. Necessity: Since the declarant is dead,
there is no other source from which the
court may know what the declarant said,
other than the testimony of a witness.
2. Guarantee of Trustworthiness: No
person would declare or do something
against his own interest unless it is true.
People are cautious about making
statements adverse to themselves and
ever they do, it is presumed that the
statements are true.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
Inability to testify includes situations where the
declarant can no longer be presented in court
due old age, physical disabilities insanity and
similar mental illness, or he cannot be located
despite diligent efforts to locate him.
a) If he is alive or present and can be
presented in court, then the testimony of
the witness would be inadmissible as
hearsay.
2.
3.
The declarant must have competent knowledge

about the matter subject of his declaration.
a) A person is presumed to know certain
matters about himself such as financial
status, condition of his business affairs,
his interest in certain properties, his
participation in an act, or in a crime.
b) Thus, in an action for money for services
rendered, plaintiff presented a letter
written by the defendants son to the
plaintiff stating that he knew his father
owed plaintiff for services rendered. It
was shown that the son did not know the
true nature of the transaction between
the plaintiff and his father- the
defendant.
There is absent a motive to falsify.
PEDIGREE
I. CONCEPT: It covers all matters or information relating

to a persons:
1. Descent: his paternity, or genealogy or family
tree. Example: who were the ancestors: the
circumstances of their birth, marriage, death, who
were legitimate and who were not.
2. The circumstances of a persons own birth,
marriage, death, legitimacy.
3. Descendants or issues if he has any including the
circumstances of their birth, marriage, death
4. Sibling, i.e. brothers or sisters, whether by blood
or b affinity, whether full or half blood, legitimate
or illegitimate or by informal adoption, as well as
circumstances of their birth, marriage, death,
families.
5. All facts concerning family history intimately
connected with pedigree e.g. the story that a

brother was lost and presumed dead when in
truth he was sent to an institution due to his
abnormality)
However pedigree does not extend to the question
of citizenship or to legal adoption.
II. PROOF OF PEDIGREE
A. The best proof of a persons pedigree would be
1) The records kept in the Office of the Local
Civil Registry
2) As provided by Article 172 of the Civil Code
as to filiations and
3) By DNA examinations.
B. However if the foregoing are not available, proof
consists of the presentation of a witness who
testifies to:
1. The declaration or admission of a relative by
birth or by marriage in accordance with
Section 39.
2. The Family Tradition or reputation provided
the witness testifying is a member of the
family either by consanguinity or affinity
pursuant to section 40.
3. Entries in Family Bibles, Family Books,
Charts, Engraving, Rings, and the like,
II. PROOF BY DECLARATION OF A RELATIVE (Sec.
39
A. Reason for admissibility: (Note that a witness
is testifying to the statements of a third person the relative- who is not available for crossexamination).
1. Necessity-to prevent a failure of justice since
matters involving the descent or relationship
of a person occurred long before the case
was filed and only a few might still be
available to testify thereon.
2. Guaranty of Trustworthiness- members of a
family are supposed to know those matters
affecting their own family
B. Requirements for Admissibility
1. The pedigree of a person is in issue or is
relevant to the main issue
Example: Cases involving inheritance,

support, filiation, use of surnames,
parricide,
incest
rape/acts
of
lasciviousness or recognition.
2.
The declarant is dead or unable to testify. If

he is available to testify then the testimony
of the witness quoting the declarant is
inadmissible.
3.
The declarant and the person whose

pedigree is in question are related to one
another.
a) The relationship may be by blood or by
affinity and need not be close in
degree.
b) The relationship must be legitimate
c)
unless the issue is the legitimacy itself.

(Personal opinion: this is based on bias
against illegitimates. Suppose the
illegitimate relative has been accepted
by the family?)
Non-relatives, no matter how close or
intimate they may be, such as close
friends, house helps, nannies, are not
included and any statement they make
upon a persons pedigree are
inadmissible.
4.
The declaration must have been ante litem

motam (before the controversy arose) in
order to ensure the declaration was not the
result of bias or improper motive.
5.
The relationship between the declarant and

the subject person must be established by
independent evidence independent of the
declaration.
4.
5.
IV.
PROOF BY ENTRIES IN FAMILY BIBLES, BOOK

CHARTS, ENGRAVINGS, RINGS AND THE LIKE.
(Sec. 40).
A. Entries may include the names, and date and
place of births, marriages, death, and other
relevant data, about a relative, as well other
important family occasions.
B. Other examples: pictures, portraits, baptismal
certificates, the name and date appearing in
wedding rings, family tree charts.
C.
C.
Examples
1. In the case of FPJ whose citizenship hinged
on whether he was acknowledged by the
father, the court admitted an Affidavit of a
sister leaving in California the contents of
which declared that FPJ was recognized by
their father.
2. Maria wants to inherit as full heir from
Pedro. X testifies that Maria is the sister of
Ellen who is married to Juan, now dead. X
presents a letter from Juan stating that
Maria and Ellen are half-sisters because the
father of Maria is not Pedro but another
man.
3. AB is charged with parricide for killing X. A
witness testifies that X is the illegitimate
child of AB per information coming from the
deceased son of AB.
III. PROOF
BY
FAMILY
REPUTATION
OR
TRADITION (Sec. 40)
A. Concept: This refers to the knowledge or beliefs
of a certain family handed from one generation
to another, or to practices or customs which are
consistently observed or engaged in by said
family. A member of said family is the one
testifying to these matters.
B. Examples:
1. The practice of making offerings to a
deceased person, burning of incense,
making of libations, visiting the grave, or
including the name of a person in the family
prayers, are evidence the dead is related to
the family.
2. The family belief by a family in Bontoc, Mt.
Province, that their surname ANDAYA was
adopted by their grandfather in honor of a
teacher from Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, who took
care of said grandfather.
3. Stories of a grandfather that he was born on
the day Bataan fell to the Japanese, or an
uncle who, during the earthquake, went to
the mountains and was probably buried in a

landslide.
Practice of a family of inviting an individual
to clan/family reunions.
Belief of a family in Aringay, La Union that
the grandfather of Noli de Castro left that
town in a particular year and migrated to
Visayas
Names of relatives in published thank you

messages in obituaries as well as in wedding
invitations.
COMMON REPUTATION (Sec. 41)
I. RULE: Common reputation existing previous to the

controversy respecting facts of public interest more
than 30 years old, or respecting marriage, or moral
character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and
inscriptions may be received as evidence of common
reputation.
A. CONCEPT: Common reputation refers to the
prevailing belief in the community as to the
existence of certain facts or aggregates of facts
arrived at from the peoples observations,
discussions, and consensus. There is absent
serious opposition, adverse or contrary opinion.
They are not just rumors or unverified reports or
say-so.
B. What common reputation may prove
1. Matters of public interests more than 30
years old or those affecting the people as
a whole and matters of general interest or
those affecting the inhabitants of a town,
province, or barangay. (Localized matters)
a) They must affect the community as
a whole and not just certain groups.
b) Examples: boundaries of lands,
existence of a road, a waterway or
irrigation canals; that a private right
exists in a public land, the
reputation of a certain area as the:
red district; the birth of a town or
barangay, how a town or city got its
name, that a land has long been
regarded as a communal land.
c) It cannot be used however to
establish ownership over private
lands.
d) Proof of common reputation:
i. Through the testimony of
persons who are in a position
to know the public or general

interest. He may testify thus:
The old folks told us the land
has always been regarded as
communal
ii. By
monuments,
and
inscriptions
such
as
old
road/streets signs; old maps
and old surveys
2.
3.
Moral character or opinion of people

concerning the moral character of a
person provided the opinion is formed
among the people in the place where a
person is known, such as in his work
place, residence, school. Examples:
a) The reputation of one as an honest,
diligent and industrious laborer, or a
fair and kind employer, among their
co-workers; or as lazy;
b) As a trouble maker in the barangay;
c) As a conscientious teacher;
d) As a person with a hostile attitude or
as a belligerent and easily provoked
person;
e) As a girl with loose morals.
The marriage between two persons
a) The reputation need not be from
family members. Thus H and W are
known as husband and wife and are
addressed or that the community
regard W as the wife of H and vice
versa.
b) But where there is a formal marriage
or documentary proof thereof,
reputation of non-marriage is not
admissible.
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
I.
RULE: Section 42: Part of the res gestaeStatements made while a startling occurrence
is taking place or immediately thereafter, or
subsequent thereto, with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of the res gestae. So also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act and
material to the issue, and giving it legal
significance, may be received as part of the res
getae.
II. CONCEPT.
1. Res gestae literally means things done. It refers
to an event, an occurrence, a transaction,
whether due to the intentional or negligent acts of
a person, or an accident, or due to the action of
nature. All these events are set in a frame of
surrounding circumstances which serve to
emphasize the event or to make it standout and
appear clear and strong.
2.
These surrounding circumstances may consist of

statements,
utterances,
exclamations
or
declarations either by the participants to the
events, or by the victims, or by mere spectators.

These persons may not be known or are
unavailable for cross-examination and what they
declared, uttered or stated, or exclaimed are
repeated by the witnesses who heard them.
3.
They are the events speaking for themselves

thought the instinctive and spontaneous words or
acts of the persons involved or present thereat.
III. CLASSIFICATION.
A. Spontaneous Statements. Those made by a
person-whether a participant, victim or spectatorwhile a startling occurrence is taking place, or
made immediately prior, during or subsequent
thereto.
B.
Verbal Acts or Contemporaneous Acts. These are

utterances or statements, which accompany
some act or conduct which explains or gives legal
significance to the act.
IV. SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS

A. Requirements for admissibility
1. There must be a startling occurrence or a
happening
which
was
sudden
or
unexpected- not anticipated- which is
capable of producing nervous excitement
such that it may induce or incite a person
to make an utterance representing the
persons actual impression about the
event.
Examples of a startling occurrence:

sudden death, collision between
vehicles
and
other
vehicular
accidents, a fight in progress, a
snatching or robbery, a fire breaking
out,
a
suicide,
an
act
of
lasciviousness, panic breaking out.
2.
The statement must relate to the

circumstances of the startling occurrence
or to the what, why, who, where and how
of an event.
a) Examples: statements describing
what is happening or referring to
the persons involved such as Si
Pedro sinasaksak, Tama na, patay
na
yan,
yong
mama,
mabubondol. Mamang driver,
dahan dahan, mabangga tayo.
Snatcher, help.
b) They include screams and cries of
alarm, cries of pain by victims, or
words by a participant such as
Matapang ka ha? OOm.
c) Exited words heard over the phone
by a policeman are also included.
3.
The statement must be spontaneous.
The utterances or declarations were

instantaneous, and instinctive. They
were reflex words and not conclusions
or products of a persons conclusion,
impression or opinion about the

event. The person had no time to
make a reflection about the event.
Thus it is said that they are the
events speaking through the person.
getae. This is under the principle of

multiple admissibility. This occurs: a) when
the victim survives b). there was no
consciousness of impending death c).
when the statement relates to the injury
of another and not the declarant.
B. Factors to determine spontaneity especially to

statements made after an occurrence.
1. The time which elapsed between the
occurrence and the making of the
statement. The declaration should not
have been made after a period of time
where it is possible for a person to reflect,
analyze, and reason out. There is no
yardstick to measure the time which
elapsed although the time must not of
such length so that the declarant can be
said to be still under nervous excitement.
The utterance by a rape victim soon

after being rescued is spontaneous
2.
The place where the statement was made

in that whether it was within the
immediate vicinity or situs of the event or
some distance away.
3.
The condition of the declarant at the time

he made the statement- whether he was
in a cool demeanor so that he could have
carefully chosen his words, or he is still in
a state of nervous excitement. If as a
victim, his groans are indicative he is still
under the influence of the event.
4.
The presence or absence of any

intervening circumstance between the
event and the making of the statements
such as those which may have diverted a
persons mind and restored his mental
balance, or which in any manner might
have affected his statement.
Examples:
a) In a collision, a driver notices that
several passengers are mortally
injured, whereupon he exclaims:
That bus was too fast.
b) The arrival of the friends of the
victim prompted him to shout, he,
he is the one who mauled us for no
reason.
c) A person lost consciousness and
then recovers whereupon he
shouts: Juan, have mercy
5.
C.
2.
D. Illustrations
1. A Policeman testifies that he saw a
commotion and while proceeding thereto,
he heard several screams such as Awatin
nyo si Pedro, Pedro maawa ka. Such
screams made by unidentified persons are
part of the res gestae.
2. A security guard testified that he saw two
persons entered the building and after
some minutes they came out running. He
asked what was the matter and one of the
two answered: napatay naming si Juan.
V.
VERBAL
ACTS
OR
CONTEMPORANEOUS
STATEMENTS.
A. CONCEPT: These are utterances, declarations
or oral statements which accompany some act or
conduct which explains or gives legal significance
to the act.
B. REQUIREMENTS:
1. There must be an act:
1. which
is
equivocal
or
one
susceptible to different meanings
such as : (i) the act of handing
money to another (ii) the act of
chopping down a tree on a piece of
land (iii) the act of building a
fence.
2. The act may be a continuing act or
that which takes place within a
span of time such as the regular
deposit of money in the account of
another for a year
3. There are however certain acts
which the law considers as selfexplanatory (res ipsa loquitor) such
as criminal acts of lasciviousness,
injuring or killing another.
2.
The oral statement must explain the act.

Thus the act of handing over money to
another was accompanied by the
statements: here is payment of my debt,
go buy yourself lunch. The man
chopping a tree exclaimed; This land is
mine, indicating an
assertion
of
ownership.
3.
The act is relevant to the issue. Example:

In a prosecution for violation of the Anti
The nature and circumstances of the

occurrence itself in that it must really be
serious and capable of producing lasting
effect.
Relation to a Dying Declaration.

1. When a statement does not qualify as a
dying declaration for failure to comply with
the requirements the latter, it may
however be admitted as part of the res
Example: The victim said: Pedro shot me.

He also shot Juan. The first is a dying
declaration if the victim dies, otherwise as
part of the res gestae. The second is
admissible as part of the res gestae in a
case involving Pedro for shooting Juan.
Fencing Law, where the accused was seen

receiving the cellphone, this statement of
the giver is admissible: Itago mo yan at
huwag na huwag mong ipakita kahit
kanino
4.
service, or assigned to a place outside the

courts jurisdiction, as well as the great
inconvenience caused to the officer, and the
disruption of public service during his absence
from his office. Thus the court has to rely on
the official records prepared by him.
The statement is contemporaneous with

the act in that it was made at the time and
place of the act and not afterwards.
2.
(NOTE: THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS ARE IN THE

FORM OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS).
I.
ENTRIES MADE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS

RULE: Sec. 43. Entries made at, or near the
transaction to which they refer, by a person
deceased, outside of the Philippines, or unable
to testify, who was in a position to know the
facts therein stated, may be received as prima
facie evidence, if such person made the entries
in his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty and in the regular course
of business or duty.
III. CONCEPT: These refer to written accounts or

recording of transactions or events, whether
pertaining to commercial activities or not, so long as
they were made by a private person.
Considerations:
The entrant is dead.
The entries were made because it is the

entrants legal, contractual, religious duty to
make a record.
In contrast to entries in official records,

the public officer who made the entry need
not be dead.
IV. REQUIREMENTS
V.
EXAMPLES:
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS.
I.
RULE: Sec. 44. Entries in official records made

in the performance of his 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.
II. Concept: Official records refer to official documents

containing data about persons, places, conditions or
properties, state of things or transactions, prepared
or made by a public officer, or by another especially
enjoined by law
IV.
Guaranty of trustworthiness: The entries are

presumed to be true and accurate due to:
a) The sense of official duty which led to the
making of the statement
b) Fear of penalty in the event of an error or
omission
c) In
the
routine
(mechanical)
and
disinterested
(
lack
of
personal
involvement or interest) origin of most of
the statements
d) In the publicity of the record, which makes
more likely the prior exposure of errors
and their consequent correction
Requirements for admissibility:

A. The person who made the entry must be a
public officer, or by another especially enjoined
by law
B. The making must be in the performance of the
officers duty or in the performance of a duty
especially enjoined by law
1. The keeping of the record must be due
to any of the following reasons:
a) It is required by law. Examples:
i. records of birth, marriage,
adoption an death kept by the
Local Civil Registrar
ii. List of voters and results of
elections by the COMELEC
Registrar
iii. List of Eligibles by the CSC
iv. List of Professionals by the
PRC Record
v. The Day Book of the Register
of Deeds
vi. List of marriages by religious
persons licensed to solemnize
marriages
vii.Sheriffs Return on a writ of
execution
viii.
Court docket officer
ix. The Notarial Registry of a
Notary Public.
x. Ship Log Book
b) The nature of his work requires the
keeping of records i.e the records are
convenient and very appropriate
modes of discharging the officers
duty.
The situation concerns facts about which a public

officer has to testify on, but in lieu of his personal
testimony, the official document prepared or kept by
him are instead presented to the court.
III. Reasons for admissibility:
1. Necessity: difficulty of bringing the officer to
court as when he has been separated from the
Examples: (i).The List of those

applying for a Prosecutors Clearance
(ii).The Visitors Log Book of the Jail
Warden (iii).Record of Cases heard by
the Barangay Police Blotter
c)
The record is required by a superior.
Example:
The
record
whereabouts of employees
C.
of
the
The officer must have sufficient knowledge of the

facts recorded by him acquired personally or
through official information ( Personal or official
knowledge)
1. Official knowledge: the facts were
supplied by subordinates who have
personal knowledge of the facts and
whose duty involves ascertainment of
such facts.
2. Examples: (i). Tax Declarations signed
by the Assessor (ii) Building Permit by
the City Engineer (iii) Birth/Death
Certificate issued by the Local Civil
Registrar
V. Probative Value: The entries are merely prima

facie evidence of the facts stated and may be
rebutted or nullified but if the entry is of a fact,
but not to those made in excess of official duty, or
those not required to be recorded.
8.
9.
Learned Treatises under section 46.

I. CONCEPT: These are published treatises, books,
journals on a subject of history, sciences, law and arts,
which were carefully researched or subjected to
scrutiny and investigation. The authors are scholars or
experts on the subject or it is a group of researchers.
II. REASON FOR ADMISIBILITY:
1. Necessity: the inaccessibility or, or inconvenience
to, the authors or researchers.
2. Trustworthiness in that the authors have no
motive to misrepresent and awareness that the
work will be subjected to inspection, scrutiny and
refutation, and criticism; the works were carefully
researched before being published and were
purposely geared towards the truth
III.
SEC. 45. Commercial List and the Like
3.
4.
Concept: This refers to journals, list, magazines, and

other publications and similar written or published works
carefully researched and investigated and especially
prepared for use in certain trades, industry or profession,
or even by the public, which rely on them.
5.
6.
The authors or publishers are private persons or entities
Examples:
1. Legal Profession: the SCRA though
published by a private entity for profit i.e
the Central Lawbook Publishing Co.
2. Banks and financial institutions rely on
the FOREX
3. Insurance Companies rely on the
Actuarial and Mortality Tables [probable
lifespan of people; Philippines-80]
4. The public on Business Phone Directories
5. Result of Stock Transactions/Exchanges
6. Census Reports [provided it is not
ordered by the government]
7. Price Index of minerals, metals
1.
2.
Sec. 45. refers to 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 as stated if that compilation is published for use by
persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used
and relied upon by them therein.
Reason for admissibility

1. Necessity in that the authors, compilers, or
publishers may not be available to testify such as
when they are foreigners, or already dead.
2. Trustworthiness in that these works were the
product of research
as to assure their
correctness or accuracy.
But not tourist guide brochures

Calendars
7.
IV.
Examples:
Textbooks in history such as Gibbons The Rise
and Fall of the Roman Empire, books on
Philippine History by Agoncillo and Constantino
Text and reference books/materials in medicine
and its branches
Books, periodicals and writings in the exact
sciences such as algebra, mathematics, the
logarithmic tables, table on weight and
measurements
Law books quoted as references by the Supreme
Court such as Evidence by Francisco ( but not
anymore Legal Medicine by Solis as it is obsolete)
Commentaries on law subjects by recognized
legal luminaries such as those by Wigmore, Clark
and Jones on Evidence; Manresa, Sanchez
Roman and Scaevola on Civil Law
Reference Books and Books on Knowledge such
as dictionaries and thesaurus, encyclopedias,
yearbooks
But not Publications on theology and religion,
literature such as novels and other works of
fiction even if the background or setting is a
historical fact; philosophy.
How introduced as evidence:

1. The court takes judicial knowledge of such
publications as learned treatises
2. An expert witness testifies that the writer or
author is a recognized authority in the subject
Testimony or Deposition in a former Proceeding

under section 47
I. Concept: A witness is sought to be presented in a
present case but he is dead, unable to testify such that
in lieu of his personal testimony, what is presented is
his testimony in a prior proceeding.
Considerations:
Present case- must be civil or criminal
Prior case- civil, criminal, or administrative.
II. Requirements
A. The witness is dead or unable to testify .
The witness may be suffering from illness or from
a mental disqualification such as having become
insane or loss of memory due to age. His
whereabouts is unknown despite diligent efforts
to locate him or he was prevented by a party
from appearing as witness, either by force or by
deceit or by persuasion. It does not cover a
situation where the witness refuses to come to
court.
B. Identity of the parties. This may refer to
identical parties or the parties are their successor
in interest or representatives.
C. Identity of issues. The issue or matter, in
which the testimony of the witness is sought is
common to both cases, even if there are other
issues involved or that the form of action is
different. [The issue in the present t case must
be the one testified by the witness in the prior
case.]
Examples of cases where there is a common
issue: (i) ejectment and recovery of right of
ownership as both would involve the question of
who has physical possession (ii) an action for
damages based on an act or omission which was
the subject of a prior criminal case such as
killing, slander or libel or estafa.
D. Opportunity for cross examination by the

opponent in the first proceeding. Tthe
opportunity to cross examine refers to the prior
case and not to the present case.]
1. If the opponent, through his act or
negligence, did not cross examine, or lost
the right, the rule still applies.
Example: the defendant was declared in
default and plaintiff then presented
evidence ex parte.
2.
III.
Thus if the proceedings in the prior

administrative cases was summary and
not adversarial/confrontational but was
decided based on affidavits and position
papers, the rule does not apply.
How to present: Present the Transcript of

Testimony which the parties may stipulate on.
What if the witness was prevented from
testifying?
The party who prevented the witness

from testifying in the prior case will not
be allowed to use the testimony of the
witness in the present case.
OPINION EVIDENCE
Sec. 48. General Rule. The opinion of a witness is

not admissible except as indicated in the rules.
I.
Concept of an opinion as evidence. This consists of

the conclusion or inference of a witness on the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. The

opinion maybe based on facts personally known to
him or as relayed to him by others.
II. Evidentiary Value. Generally opinions are not
admissible because:
A. The making of an opinion is the [proper function
of the court. The witness supply the facts and for
the court to form an opinion based on these
facts.
B. Opinions are not reliable because they are often
influenced by his own personal bias, ignorance,
disregard of truth, socio-cultural background, or
religion, and similar personal factors. Thus there
maybe as many diverse opinions as there are
witnesses.
C. The admission of opinions as evidence would
open the floodgate to the presentation of
witnesses testifying on their opinion and not on
facts.
III. Examples of matters on which opinions are irrelevant
1. The final outcome of a case such as whether an
accused should be acquitted or not, or who
should win a case, the amount of damages to be
awarded to the winner
2. The question of care or negligence
3. Motives or reasons behind the action of a
person, unless these were relayed to the witness
4. Valuation of properties
5. Cause of an event as being due to an accident,
mechanical defect or human error or action of
nature
IV. Exceptions or when an opinion is admissible as
evidence
1. In case of expert opinions given by an expert
pursuant to Section 49
2. In case of lay opinions on certain specific matters
EXPERT OPINION
Sec. 49. Opinion of an expert- The opinion of a
witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training, which he is shown to
possess, maybe received in evidence.
I.
Who is an expert- A person possessing knowledge

or skill not usually acquired or possessed by other
persons, in regard to a particular subject or aspect of
human activity. Expertise is acquired through any of
the following manners:
1. By formal education such as in the case of
lawyers, physicians, engineers, dentists,
metallurgists, chemists
2. Through special training or seminars as in the
case of ballisticians, weapons experts, finger
print experts, questioned-documents expert,
masseurs, pilots
3. Through experience based on the exercise of
a profession, trade, occupation, industry such
as carpenters, wielders, machinists or
mechanics, deep-well diggers
4. Through hobbies as in the case of stamp
collectors, coin collectors, gun collectors,
ornithologists,
photographers,
animal
breeders,
Through careful study and research as in the
case of those who study old civilizations, or
various aspects of medicine
5.
II. Requirements for the Admissibility of Expert

Opinion.
A. The subject of inquiry requires the opinion of an
expert, or that the fact in issue requires the
opinion of an expert.
1. The use of an expert is becoming more
frequent in order to explain how and why
things happened the way they did or didnt
happen the way they were supposed to, as
in the following cases:
a) In personal injury cases where
physicians or surgeons are needed to
prove the cause and effect of certain
injuries, so also economist as to the
amount of income which was lost.
b) Products liability cases where there
is need for reconstruction experts to
prove the defects in a certain
products. Such as a car accident
being due to factory defects in the
wheel, or a mechanical defect
attributable to the manufacturer.
c) Actions relating to constructions
where there is need for engineers
and architects as injury to a bridge
which collapsed, or breach of
contract in that the building was
constructed poorly
2.
Traditional areas where expert opinion is

used:
i. Questions involving handwriting
ii. Questioned documents
iii. Fingerprints
iv. Ballistics
v. Criminal cases involving injuries and
death
vi. Drug cases
vii. Value of properties
viii.Blood groupings
ix. DNA Profiling
x. Forensics
B. The witness is shown to be an expert. It must be

shown that the witness possesses certain skills or
knowledge and is therefore in a position to assist
the court based on these skills or knowledge.
III. Manner of showing the witness is an expert
1. By asking the adverse party to admit and stipulate
that the witness is an expert. This is where the
witness regularly appears in court as an expert
and is familiar to the court, or where the witness
occupies a position requiring certain knowledge or
skill, as a medico legal officer.
2. Through the process known as Qualifying the
Expert- propounding questions to the witness
concerning his background and eliciting answers
from the witness showing he possesses special
knowledge or skill on the matter on which he is to
3.
IV.
Components of Qualifying the Witness

1. Show the general professional background.
Questions propounded are directed to bring about
the facts concerning his (a) education (b) degrees
obtained (c) academic honors or scholarships
granted or earned (d) licenses obtained (e)
employment history, positions held, number of
years in his position , promotions earned.
2.
V.
testify.
If the expertise is not admitted and the witness is
not properly qualified, he is to be regarded as an
ordinary witness and may be objected in giving an
opinion
Show the specific professional background.

Questions asked are directed to bring out answers
to the specific facts or skills such as (a) special
trainings undergone (b) publications authored (c)
membership in professional associations (d) as
lecturer or speaker or resource person (e) how
often he was called as a witness and (f) particular
work experience which bear directly on the
situation about which he is testifying
Basis of Opinion or How to elicit the Experts

opinion
A. Kind of Facts as Basis for the Opinion:
1. Facts personally known to the expert or
about which he has firsthand knowledge.
2. Opinion maybe based on facts about
which he has no personal knowledge or
firsthand knowledge, but are based either
(i) on the report or facts as found by
another expert who had firsthand
knowledge, provided the report is not
hearsay or that the other expert had
testified and subjected to the opportunity
for cross-examination or (ii) on facts
already testified to by witnesses and
established by the records of the case.
[not hearsy since it has been cross
examined]
B. Manner of Questioning
1. Where the basis are facts personally
known to the expert, these facts must first
be elicited from the witness after he may
be asked directly whether he has any
opinion about them and to state what his
opinion is.
Example: The medico legal officer who
conducted the autopsy will first be asked
to state his findings as to the nature,
number, location, description, depth,
trajectory, etc, of the wounds of the victim
after which he is asked to state his opinion
as to the cause, weapon used, position of
the victim and assailant, cause of the
death, etc..
2.
By the use of Hypothetical Questions

when the opinion is based on facts not
personally known to the witness.
[provided that all facts were given to him]

a) It is a question which, for purposes
of the answer, assumes certain
facts which have counter parts in
the evidence, and asks the witness
to give an opinion as to certain
matters based on these facts. Since
the witness has no personal
knowledge of these facts, he is told
these facts and then is asked to
assume the facts to be true, and
finally to give an opinion.
b) The question must incorporate or
refer accurately to all the relevant
facts- as proven- as basis for asking
the opinion.
c) In
case of
physicians, the
phraseology
is
usually
thus:
Assuming all these facts to be
true within a reasonable degree
of medical certainty, what might
have caused the injuries?
3.
The expert may asked to state that his

opinion is supported by learned treaties or
shared by others in his class.
VI. Weight of Expert Opinion
The weight of expert opinion depends on the

matter which the expert witness is testifying on.
1.
Courts are not bound as the opinions do not

produce conclusive effect but are regarded as
persuasive and advisory which the court may or
may not consider.
2. Opinions are to be treated on the same level as
any other evidence.
3. Factors to be considered in giving weight, or
points to show the opinion is of no weight.
a) The qualification of witness: (i) The degree of
learning and academic background (ii) The
experience, professional standing and training,
or his being abreast with the latest
developments.
b) The reliability of the opinion: (i) The relative
objectivity of the witness such as the presence
or absence of personal or professional bias or
motive and (ii) the degree of concordance of
his opinion with the facts proven or the basis
and logic of his conclusions.
Example: the complainant testified that

he was hit by a rock.
Atty: Dr, in your findings what may cause

the injury?
Dr: it may be caused by a blunt
instrument.
Atty: Can it be caused by a rock?
Dr: yes sir.
The witness opinion is in concordance
with the facts and it is objective. However,

it is a different story if the witness insists
that the injury was caused by a knife.
Thus
Atty: The complainant himself testified
that he was hit by a rock. Can the injury
may be cause by a rock?
SUGGESTED CHECKLIST FOR QUALIFYING AN
EXPERT
(Taken from: Fundamentals of Trial Techniques by
Thomas Mauet, Professor of the University of Arizona)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Name, address and personal circumstances

Business or occupation: what is it-length of timedescription of field company or organization
joined- capacity and length of time where
located-prior position-description of positions
Education: (a) undergraduate-degree, year of
graduation-honors obtained (b) graduate schooldegree- when, area of study
Training: formal course-what-when-where-under
whom-length of time
Licenses: what-when-reviewed-specialty- whenrequirements
Professional associations:
Other
background:
teaching
positionspublications-lectures-consultancy work
Expert witness at trials: how many- which side
Experiences in Specialty: (a) type of examination
commonly done- how many
Example: Private Physician who treated a patient

A. Qualifications:
Licensed: where and when
Education and training: college/medical schoolwhen-degree-internship-residency
Specialty training-specialty boards-requirements
Hospital staff membership
Teaching positions
Publications and lectures
Medical Society memberships
Other honors
Previously testified as an expert
B. Experience
Description of practice
Number of patients
Examination of similar types
Experience with x-rays, lab test, etc
C. Examination of Patient
1. Description of office records
2. History of the patient
3. Examination conducted
a) complaint (symptoms)
b) positive findings or negative finding
c) x-ray findings
d) lab test findings
D. Diagnosis: tentative and definite
E. Treatment (chronological) hospitalization-operationdrug-casts
F. Subsequent examinations
G. Patients Present Condition based on last examination
H. Opinion on causation
I. Prognosis: opinion on prospects for complete recovery
J. Amount of present and future medical service
lecturing?
Dr. Yes sir.
Was to destroy the testimony of an expert during

cross examination
Illustration 1
Atty.: Mr. Witness, were you paid testifying in this
case? [pag sumagot ng yes, lubus-lubusin mo na.
pero pag no gumawa ka ng question para mapakita
nan a nabayaran sya.]
Dr: Yes.
Atty: How much was your payment? [Syempre pag
gustong magyabang yong doctor siguradong
sasabihin un halagang binayad sa kanyaone point
ka na dun ]
Dr. 50, 000 lang naman.
Atty: thats all for this witness your honor.
Purpose: for asking those series of questions, the

lawyer is discrediting the witness as an expert since
the expert knowledge is based only on theory. He
never had time to apply the theories in his lecture
since he is busy lecturing around the world.
Note: When you sense that the expert witness is not

credible, do not bring it out in court.pagkaginawa mo
na un memorandum moss aka mo ilahad ang kawalang
cridibilidad ng kanyang testemonya.
LAY OPINION
Atty: Dr. Isnt it that in a similar case where you

testified on, you were paid 100, 000.00 because that
is your minimum?
Dr.: Yes, sometimes it depends on the ability of the
client.
General Rule: lay person cannot give their opinion

as testimony in court.
Exceptions: their opinion is admitted when they are
testifying on:
1. the identity of a person
2. handwriting]
3. mental sanity
4. Impressions of the emotion, behavior,
conditions or appearance.
Will the court believe the opinion of the expert

witness?
No!
since
his
credibility
is
destroyednabayaran lang siya kaya siya pumunta
doon upang tumistigochances are his testimony is
bias.
Illustration 2
Atty: Dr. do you remember having a patient named
X?
Dr. Yes, sir
Atty: Where is he now?
Dr. He is dead.
Atty: Dr. do you remember having a patient named
W?
Dr. Yes sir.
Atty: where is she now?
Dr. She is dead.
Atty: Dr. Do you remember having as client named
Z?
Dr. Yes sir. [the doctor gets agitated ]
Atty: She is dead right?
Purpose: by asking those series of question the
lawyer want to convey to the court that the doctor is
incompetent hence his opinion is not an opinion of
an expert.
Illustration 3:
Atty: Dr. you had just testified a while ago that you
are a famous lecturer?
Dr. Yes sir.
Atty: when you said that you are a famous lecturer,
you mean that you lecturing around the world?
Dr. Yes sir.
Atty: So you spend your whole professional life
Sec. 50. 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 has
adequate knowledge
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he
is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions
of the emotion, behavior, conditions or appearance
of a person.
I.
Opinion on the identity of a person. Where the

issue is whether a particular person is involved in an
event. As for example: 1). the accused sets up alibi or
defense of mistaken identity; 2). in claims for
insurance, determining whether a body is that of the
insured 3). determining who be the victims
A. General Method of Identification
1. By Lay Opinion: by face, physical
appearance, height, body built, sex, color of
hair, racial features, mannerisms, gait,
clothing speech , defects, tattoos or marks
or scars and other marks on the body, or
by any factor which distinguishes him from
another. .
a) Identification of a person is not
solely through knowledge of his
name. In fact, familiarity with
physical features, particularly of the
face, is the best way to identify a
person. One maybe familiar with the
face but not necessarily with the
name of a person. It does not follow

therefore that to be able to identify a
person, one must necessarily know
his
name.
Example:
precisely
because of the unusual bestiality
committed
before
their
eyes,
eyewitnesses, especially victims of a
crime, can remember with high
degree of reliability the identity of
criminals.
b) The witness must however be able
to explain his basis of identification
Tip on identification by mug

files:
See if the pictures were

updated- baka kasi luma
na
ung
picture
na
nakalagay doon, and it
may create a doubt as to
the identity of your client.
2.
2. By the style of writing

3. Psychological Profile
4. Identification by scientific methods: by the
teeth; fingerprints, foot prints and by DNA
analysis
B. In-court
and Out-of-Court Identification in

criminal cases. In-court identification maybe
influenced by the reliability of the out-of-courtidentification. The latter consists of either:

1. By the police Methods of Identification of
suspects
a) Show-ups-where the suspect alone
is brought face to face with the
witness for identification
b) Mug file shots or based on the
Rouges Gallery [provided the
police did not influence the victim
to point someone]
c) Line-ups where a witness identifies
the suspect form a group of
persons lined up for the purpose
[for purposes of dissimilarity and
contrast]
Illustration: Influence by the
police
When the complainant

said, he was robbed at
Harrison road, the police
will give the mug files of
the
robbers
having
territorial jurisdiction over
Harrison road [in Baguio
thieves have their own
territorial
jurisdictionsthats we call honor among
thieves].
The police should have

just brought out all the
mug files and let the victim
go over it.
Note: Out-of-court identification
affects the reliability of in-court
identification. Of course, pag sa
labas hindi pa sigurado ang victim
kung si Pedro talaga ang salaranin,
tapos
sa
hukuman
man,
kombisidong tinuro na si Pedro ang
salarinyou should suspect that
there is something fishing that went
on.
C.
By circumstances: Totality of Circumstances

Test. Several factors are to be considered,
to wit:
a) Witness opportunity to view the
criminal at the time of the crime.
These include matters such as
presence of light, distance of
viewing, length of time of the
event; presence of obstructions to
line of visions, the position of the
witness in relation to the suspect.
b) The witness degree of attention at
that time: to what or who was he
focused on, as well as the presence
of distractions.
c) The accuracy and consistency of
any prior descriptions by the
witness.
d) The level of certainty demonstrated
by the witness at the time of the
identification. Example: the reaction
of a victim upon seeing the suspect.
e) The length of time between the
time of the occurrence and the time
of the identification
f) The
suggestiveness
of
the
identification process.
Concept
and
Types
of
Positive
Identification
1. Positive identification pertains essentially to
proof of identity and not per se to that of
being an eyewitness to the very act of
commission of the crime.
2. First Type: As direct evidence: where a
witness, as an eyewitness, may identify a
suspect or accused to the very act of the
commission of the crime.
3. Second Type: As part of circumstantial
evidence: where a witness may not have
actually witnessed the very act of the
commission of the crime but is still able to
positively identify a suspect or accused as
the perpetrator of a crime as when, for
instance, the suspect/accused is the person
last seen with the victim before or right
after the commission of the crime (Baleros
vs. People, 483 SCRA 10, Feb. 22, 2006)
Trial
technique
on
positive
identification:
It cannot be denied that there are

some cases that are scheduled for
hearing after so many years.
Chances are the witnesses cannot
any more vividly remember the

faces of the accused. So anong
gagawin?
1. Kausapin mo muna un
witness mo ago magsimula
ang trial. Instruct him na
ganito ang gagawin ninyo:
Obserbahan ka niya kasi
lalapitan mo un abogado ng
kabilang
panig
para
tanungin kung meron un
kliyente niya. Kakausapin
mo ung accusedbahala ka
na sa sasabihin mo basta
ang importante alam na ng
witness na un ang accused
na ituturo niya mamaya pag
tumistigo siya.
2. Or before the trial begin ask
the judge if the accused is
presentsyempre the judge
will ask the if the accused is
present in courtchances
are
the
accuse
will
immediately
raise
his
handby that way your
witness
already
knows
whom to point as the
accused
during
his
testimony.
II. Opinion on Handwriting. A handwriting maybe
proved to be that of a particular person by any of the
following:
1. By the opinion of an expert
The opinions of handwriting experts,

although helpful in the examination of
forged documents because of technical
procedure involved in the analysis, are not
binding upon the courts. As such, resorts to
these experts is not mandatory or
indispensable to thee 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 questioned signature in
order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion
as to its authenticity ( G& M Phil. Inc. vs.
Cuambot 507 SCRA 552)
2.
By the admission of the author/owner of the

handwriting.
3.
By the testimony of witnesses or those who

actually saw the person write, they maybe
subscribing witnesses or eye witnesses.
4.
By the testimony of those who have gained

sufficiently familiarity with the handwriting of the
person, under section 50.
a) By the fact that he has seen writing
purporting to be that of the other person
upon which he has acted or been charged.
Example: persons in receipt of demand
letters, notices, purchase orders, letters of

inquiry, directive, memorandum, letters of
authority.
b) Familiarity has been acquired due to close
personal, business, social or professional
relations which include the regular receipt,
sending and reading of mutual written
hand-written communications between the
witness and the other person. Examples
are (i) Personal or social relations such as
pen-pals, spouses, lovers, classmates (ii)
Business such as between the employee
such as secretary and employer, teacher
and student
5.
By the testimony of those who are in receipt of

reply letters (Identification by subject matter)
6.
Identification by the court based on a comparison

between the genuine handwriting and the one in
issue
7.
Identification by the style of writing
Note: Familiarity with signature is not necessarily

familiarity with handwriting and vice-versa. (The
application of section 50 may be lessened due to
increasing frequency of communications by e-mail, or
machine prepared
communications, and other
modern gadgets.)
An allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison
of the signature/handwritings by themselves cannot
support a claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be
presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on
the party alleging forgery.
Criteria to determine forgery or falsification: per
Ladignon vs. CA (390 Phil. 1161 as reiterate din
Rivera vs. Turiano (March 7, 2007)
The process of identification must include not only the
material differences between or among the
signatures/handwritings but a showing of the
following:
i. The determination of the extent, kind and
significance of the resemblance and variation
(of the handwriting or signature).
ii. That the variation is due to the operation of a
different personality and not merely an
expected and inevitable variation found in the
genuine writing of the same writer.
iii. that the resemblance is a result more or less
of a skillful imitation
and not merely a
habitual and characteristic resemblance which
normally appears in genuine handwriting
III. Opinion on the sanity of a person.
There are two instances when an ordinary person may
testify on the mental sanity or state of mind of a person:
1. Under the Civil Code it permits the opinion of a
subscribing witness to a writing the validity of
which is in dispute in that the sanity or state of
mind of a party thereto is put in issue. Examples:

(a). An attesting witness to a will may give his
opinion on whether the testator was of sound
and disposing mind (b) A subscribing witness to a
contract may give his opinion that the party was
fully conscious and aware of the nature of his
acts
2.
Under section 50 of Rule 130 in that it allows the

opinion of an intimate acquaintance who may
give his opinion based on the external conduct of
a person. Examples are family members,
immediate neighbors, house hold helps, office
and business acquaintances. Thus where the
accused puts up insanity as a defense, his
friends, relatives and family members are
competent to testify on his mental sanity. But not
strangers or casual acquaintances.
IV.
Opinions on the emotions, behavior, conduct or

appearance of a person.
1. Examples: (a) emotions: that a person is angry,
agitated, exited, tense, nervous, hesitant. Happy,
elated, grateful, afraid (b) condition or
appearance- as unkempt, dirty, well groomed,
drunk, tired, sleepy, haggard, sickly.
2. But a witness may not give his opinion on the
motive, reason or purpose why a person did or did
not do an act unless these were communicated to
the witness, such as jealousy or revenge, or
financial reward.
V.
Instantaneous impressions of the mind.

These include opinions on the conditions or
state of things, or of persons or things in
motion such as on the weather, speed of
vehicles, distance, value of his personal
things or property, or value of services.
VI.
Opinion on the age of a person.

As a general rule, the age of person maybe
established by: (a) the record of birth (b)
Opinion of an expert (c) Opinion of an
ordinary witness who is acquainted with the
person whose age is in question, such as a
relative, a contemporary, persons in the
know in the community where he lives, as
well as (d) Family tradition, entries in family
records
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
I. INTRODUCTION. Section 51 provides the general

rule that character evidence is generally not admissible
as evidence except in the cases specified therein.
II. Concept of Character As Evidence
1. Character is the sum total of all the traits of a
person which distinguishes the person from
others. They include the physical, mental,
emotional and psychological attributes of a
person. These maybe genetically acquired, or
inherited or in-born, such as a persons sex,
height, physical appearance. Or they may be
acquired and developed such as personality and
behavioral characteristics due to virtues or vices,

such as being bad, immoral, honest, lazy, antisocial or friendly.
Character is what a person truly is.
2.
Reputation on the other hand is the estimation of

a person by other people, or what people think a
person is. Character is not always ones
reputation as people may pretend and present a
public face or image different from what they are
in private. One may have a good reputation but a
bad character and vice-versa.
3.
What a person thinks of himself is either his

illusion or delusion
III. Proof of Character

1. By personal opinions- this is not allowed
2. By specific conduct- this is also not allowed
3. The only method allowed is proof of reputation in
the community or place where a person is known
by persons acquainted with him. Although it may
happen that the reputation is not always the
character.
IV. Coverage of the Rule. Where the rule allows the
introduction of character evidence, it is understood to
be limited to MORAL CHARACTER, the possession by
a person of the qualities of mind and morals
distinguishing him from others. This is limited to:
1. Good Moral Character which includes all the
elements necessary to make up such a character
as honesty, veracity in all professional, business,
commercial intercourse or dealings of a person;
the virtue of chastity, or those character which
measures up as good among people, or that
which makes a person look upon as being up to
the standards of good behavior and upright
conduct.
2.
V.
Bad Moral Character or those which defines a

persons tendency to be of loose morals, evil, to
be violent, dishonest, to disregard law and
authority and the welfare of the community.
Reason for the General Rule on Inadmissibility

Character is highly irrelevant in determining a
controversy. If the issues were allowed to be
influenced by evidence of the character or
reputation of a party, the trial would have the
aspect of a popularity contest rather than a
factual inquiry into the merits of the case.
After all the business of the court is to try the
case and not to try the man for a very bad
man may have a very good case, in much the
same manner that a very good man may have
a very bad case.
VI. Rule in Criminal Cases
1. Moral Character of the Accused.
a) The accused enjoys the presumption of good

moral character but he is given the privilege
of proving a particular moral character if it is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense i.e. the character evidence must be

relevant and germane to the kind of act or
omission charged.
i. In estafa or embezzlement or
malversation the moral trait is that of
dishonesty and deceit. Hence the
accused may introduce evidence of his
honesty, fairness and openness in his
personal and business deals or
transactions.
ii. In physical assault cases the moral trait
is violence hence the accused may
introduce evidence of his peaceable
nature, his being friendly or of his
passivity.
iii. In rape, he may prove his chaste
character
prosecution may prove his bad character as a

witness i.e. his veracity for truth is bad.
[Destroy the credibility of the accused as a
witness]
2.
The Moral Character of the Victim may be proved if

it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
a) The Prosecution may immediately

introduce evidence of the good moral
character of the victim if:
i.
ii.
b) The moral character must be one in existence

at the time of the commission of the crime
c)
Evidentiary value. Evidence of good moral

character is not a basis for acquittal.
i. It serves only as a positive defense
because it affords a presumption
against the commission of a crime in
that, it is improbable that a person
who has uniformly pursued an honest
and upright course of conduct will
depart from it.
ii. It is to be regarded only as
circumstantial evidence of innocence
as its role is to provide a basis for the
court to doubt his guilt.
b) The accused may prove the bad moral

character of the victim in the
following cases.
i. In assault or homicide cases where

he sets self-defense, or in cases of
the Battered Wife Syndrome
defense, the accused may prove the
victim is of a violent character,
quarrelsome, trouble seeker or
pugnacious. [Thus, when you put
up alibi or mistaken identity, you

cannot introduce the bad moral
character of the victim as a defense].
[Why? Because of the element of
self-defense to resist an actual or
imminent unlawful aggression---how
to prove imminent aggression? Prove
the victims bad moral character].
d) Where the crime is one of great or atrocious

nature or criminality, or the so called heinous
crimes, evidence of good moral character is of
little weight, as for instance in multiple
murder.
This is to prove it was the victim who

was the aggressor. Likewise to show
the state of mind of the accused in
that bad character of the victim
produced a reasonable belief of
imminent danger on the mind of the
accused and a justifiable conviction
that a prompt action was necessary.
e) The Prosecution may not immediately

introduce evidence of the
bad moral
character because: (i) it is to avoid undue
prejudice on the part of the judge due to the
deep tendency to punish not because the
accused is guilty but because of his bad
character and (ii) to avoid confusing the
issues
f)
Battered wife syndrome- because

of past abuses the woman feels that
her life is in imminent danger. Thus,
even if her husband is urinating, she
can stabbed him and claim battered
womans syndrome as a defense and
introduce the bad moral character of
her husband.
WHEN
MAY
THE
PROSECUTION
INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE BAD
MORAL CHARACTER OF THE ACCUSED?
(Ans). 1. Pursuant to section 51, only in
rebuttal provided the accused introduced
evidence of his own good moral character
during the presentation of his evidence-inchief. This is to prevent the accused from
having a free hand and fabricating evidenced
of his good moral character without fear of
contradiction.
2. Pursuant to the Rule on Cross-Examination,
if the accused testifies in his own behalf, the
If it is an element of the offense

charged, such as good reputation in
case of seduction, or in libel and oral
defamation.
It proves the probability of the
offense charged as in sex crimes
such that the victim could not have
given consent due to her good moral
character
ii.
In sex crimes involving unchaste

acts of the accused, where the
willingness of the woman is material,
her character as to her chastity is
admissible to show whether or not
she consented to the mans acts.
iii. In murder and in other heinous

crimes, evidence of the bad moral
character of the victim is irrelevant
[why? This is a crime mala in se, it is
inherently wrong since you deprive
someones life in committing a
heinous crime].
VII. Rule in Civil Cases
1. Evidence of the character of the parties is not
admissible unless the issue involved is character
i.e. character is of particular importance in the
case, or that the good or bad moral character of
a party will affect the outcome of the case.
2. Examples of the exception
a) Action for damages for injury to plaintiffs
reputation as in libel cases
b) Actions which impute moral turpitude such
as
the
employment
of
deceit,
misrepresentation or fraud
c) Actions for damages due to seduction
d) Legal separation or annulment of marriage
based on reasons grounded on the
character of the spouses, such as
psychological incapacity
e) Action for damages for breach of promise
to marry where the bad character of
plaintiff maybe used as a defense.
f) As a defense in actions for Alienation of
Affection.
g) In actions involving custody of children.
h) Opposition to the appointment of a
guardian, or administrator of the property
of another
Q: Mr. witness, two weeks ago there is a man

named Santi who helped the police in
apprehending a robber, how are you related to
that person?
Santi: I am that person sir.
3.
IX.
1.
2.
Illustration:
Cross examination:
Q: Mr. witness, this record shows that last month

you were charge of falsification?
Witness: Yes sir. [Naku nadali, pumangit ang
imahe ng witness, hes credibility was destroyed]
REMEDY: Redirect examination:
Q: Mr. witness, last month there is man named

Santi who returned to the owner a lost and found
bag containing big amount of money, how are
you related to that person?
Santi: I am that person sir.
However if relevant in that they may affect the

issues of the case, then evidence thereof maybe
admitted. Thus in an action for legal separation
based on adultery by the wife with a man,
evidence that the man is a person of good moral
character may be introduced as proof that the
man could not have entered into the adulterous
relationship
Section 1. Burden of Proof the duty

present evidence on the facts in issue
establish his claim by the amount
required by law. This is also known
Probandi
of a party to
necessary to
of evidence
as the Onus
I. Introduction.
Relationship between allegation and

proof. He who alleges must prove. Allegations
do not prove themselves. Although plaintiffs
causes of actions are couched in the strongest
terms and most persuasive language, the
allegations are of no consequence unless they
are substantiated. Similarly, in criminal cases,
the offense and the aggravating circumstances
charged in an information remain just
accusations until they are shown to be true by
the presentation of evidence. Defendant is not
relieved from liability simply because the raises
a defenses.
However, evidence thereof is necessary in order

to rehabilitate the character of the witness if the
same had been impugned by the adverse party.
Ilalabas mo lang ang magagandang katangian ng

testigo mo kung nasira ang diskarte niya. Kasi
tingin ng korte pogi siya pagnagtiestify siya, saka
mo lang sya papogihin pag nasira kagapwuhan
niya. Why? Hindi mo pwedeng pagwapuhin ang
sa tingin ng hukuman ay gwapu na!
Rule as to Third Parties

Generally evidence thereof is inadmissible being
irrelevant as they are neither parties nor
witnesses.
Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
VIII. Rule as to Witnesses

1. The witness enjoys the presumption of good
moral character hence it is not necessary to
introduce evidence thereof.
2.
The bad moral character as witness, his tendency

to lie or improper motives may be shown by the
adverse party. [Honesty and integrity]
II. Distinguished from related concepts:

1. Burden of Proof Proper or Burden of
Persuasion or Risk of Non Persuasion- the
duty of the party alleging the case to prove it.
a) This lies with the plaintiff.
b) This lies too with the defendant as to his
defenses and counter-claim
2.
Burden of Evidence or Burden of Going

Forward- The duty or logical necessity imposed
upon a party, at any time during the trial, to
establish a prima facie case in his favor or to
overcome a prima facie case against him.
when the prosecution has succeeded
in discharging the burden of proof by
presenting
evidence
sufficient
to
convince the court of the truth of the
allegations in the information, or has
established a prima facie case against

the accused, the burden of evidence
shifts to the accused making it
incumbent upon him to adduce evidence
in order to meet and nullify, if not
overthrow, that prima facie evidence.
[PP vs. Villanueva, 506 SCRA 280]
3.
Points of distinction:
a) The former never shifts but remains
constant with the party while the latter
shifts from one party to the other as the
trial progresses.
b) In civil cases where it lies is determined
by the pleadings while the latter is
determined by the rules of logic [Are the
evidences sufficient to build a case
against you?].
If a party has the burden of
proof, then he has the burden
of evidence.
III. Who has the Burden of Proof Proper

1. The general rule is- he who would lose the case
if no evidence is presented. Hence it is the
plaintiff as to his causes of action, and the
defendant as to his counterclaim.
2.
In criminal cases, the burden of proving guilt is

always the plaintiff/prosecution. But if the
accused sets up an affirmative defense, the
burden is on him to prove such by clear,
affirmative and strong evidence
The foregoing rests on the maxim: EL INCOMBIT

PROBOTION QUI DECIT NON QUI NEGAT [He who
asserts, not he who denies, must prove].
IV. The Equipoise Rule: where the evidence of the
parties is evenly balanced, the case will be resolved
against the plaintiff, thus in criminal cases the
accused must be acquitted and in civil cases, the
complaint must be dismissed. [Why? Because of the
constitutional presumption of innocence].
V.
What to prove in criminal cases:
A. By the Prosecution:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Each and every element of the crime

charged in the Information.
Where there be two or more accused, the
prosecution must prove the conspiracy
and the participation of each of the several
accused in the commission of the crime.
All aggravating circumstances, whether
ordinary, special or qualifying, as are
alleged in the Information.
The civil liability based on the crime.
B. By the Accused
1. Non-Liability
a) His
Affirmative
Defenses
[Exempting,
Justifying
and
absolutory causes] by clear,
positive and convincing evidence
2.
b) His negative defenses such as

denial alibi, or mistake in identity
Lesser liability: the offenses are a lesser
offense or lesser stage of commission, or
that his participation is of lesser degree.
3. Mitigating circumstances
VI. Rule as to Negative Allegations

A. General Rule: Negative allegations need not be
proved [Allegations of non-doing, non-delivery].
B. Exceptions:
1. In civil cases- if it constitutes part of the
statement of the cause of action of the
plaintiff.
a) Actions based on non-payment or
non-delivery of money or good
b) Actions based on non-compliance
with a legal obligation, such as
giving of support, or of a
contractual obligation or with the
terms or conditions of a contract
c) Allegations of lack of due care on
the part of the defendant
2. Criminal Cases:
a) If the negative allegation is an

essential element of the offense
charged or when the charge is
predicated on a negative
allegation. [The accuse committed
a crime and the crime involves nonperformance of an act required by

law].
i. Lack of permit or license in

offenses involving firearms
ii. Lack of permit or authority to
recruit
iii. Absence of a Building Permit
iv. Absence of consent of the
victim in sex crimes, theft or
robbery; Arbitrary Detention
requiring proof of absence of
formal charges filed within the
required period.
v. Lack of care or failure to obey
traffic rules, or to take
necessary precautions, in case
of reckless imprudence
b) (i) If the negative allegation of an

issue does not permit of direct
proof or (ii) the facts are more
immediately within the knowledge
of the accused in which case the
onus probandi rest upon the
accused (PP. vs. Macalaban, 395
SCRA 461) . [Things exclusively
within the knowledge of your

opponent need not be proved].
Example: Rule as to Drug Cases.

Unlike
in
offenses
involving
firearms, the prosecution has no
burden to prove the lack of
authority from the Dangerous
Drugs Board or government agency

for the accused to sell, transport or
possess dangerous drugs. It is the
accused who must prove he is
exempted from obtaining a license
or permit. The reason is because
this is a matter which is purely
within his knowledge (PP. vs.
Johnson, 348 SCRA 526).
Rationale: maybe one is in
possession of dangerous drugs
because it was required by his
physicianbut the prosecution has
no knowledge of it, since the very
reason is within the exclusive
knowledge of the possessor. Thus,
it is incumbent upon him to prove
that he is exempted from the rule
on dangerous drugs.
C.
When the Burden of Proof is Dispensed

With
1. In case of facts which were judicially
admitted
2. As to facts Judicially noticed.
3. As to facts conclusively presumed.
4. As to facts which are irrelevant.
5. As to facts which exclusively within
knowledge of the adverse party.
6. As to negative allegations
Deductive Reasoning:
All monkey eats banana
Santi eats banana
Therefore Santi is a mankey.
IV. Evidentiary Value:
1. Presumptions
cannot
substitute
for
evidence. They are to be indulged in only when
there is no evidence as to the fact in issue or
there is great difficulty in obtaining direct
evidence of the fact in issue.
2.
Once there is evidence of the fact in issue, the

presumption ceases.
3.
The role and importance of presumptions is to

relieve a party of the difficulty of complying
with the burden of proof. [Since it is impossible
to prove everything with direct evidence].
Thus there is no need to present the Bank
Representative in case of Violation of B.P. 22.
4.
In case of Conflicting Presumptions or

whenever several presumptions arise from the
same set of facts, the rule is:
a. That which has the weightier reason
prevails otherwise all will be considered
as equal and therefore all will be
disregarded and
b. Constitutional prevails over statutory
presumptions.
5.
When there is a presumption of law, the onus

probandi (burden of proof) generally imposed
upon the State, is now shifted to the party
against whom the inference is made to adduce
satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumption
and hence, to demolish the prima facie case.
Such prima facie evidence , if unexplained or
uncontroverted, can counter balance the
presumption of innocence to warrant a conviction
(Wa-acon vs. PP)
PRESUMPTIONS
I.
Introduction: The facts in issue are either (i)

proved by the presentation of testimonial,
documentary or object evidence or they are (ii)
presumed.
II.
Concept: An assumption or conclusion as to the

existence of a fact based on another fact or group of
facts which were already established. These are
based on human experience or common sense, or
laws of nature.
III. Classification:
A. Praesumptio Legis: these are presumptions
which the law directs to be made by the court
1. Juris tantum- or prima facie, rebuttable or
disputable presumption or those which may
be overcome or disproved.
2. Juris et de Jure: conclusive or those which
the law does not allow to be contradicted.
3. Statutory and Constitutional.
B. Praesumptio Hominis [Fact] these are
presumptions which may be made by anyone as
a result of the mental processes of inductive or
deductive reasoning from a fact.
Inductive reasoning:
Santi eats Banana.
All monkeys eat banana
Therefor Santi is a monkey.
V. Components of a Presumption
1. The Ultimate Fact or the Presumed Fact.
2. The basic fact or factual basis because a
presumption cannot arise or be based on another
presumption. This may either be:
a) A fact within Judicial Knowledge in
which case the presumption becomes
operative at the moment the case is filed
or at any time thereafter. The basic fact
need not be proven.
For example: The presumption of

innocence becomes operative the
moment an Information is filed in Court.
So also the presumption of sanity of
parties
and
witnesses
or
the
presumption of good moral character of
every party arises whenever a case is
filed in court and at the time the
witnesses testify.
2.
b) The basic fact which must be proven.
For example: The presumption of a

child being that of the husband arises
only after it is proven: that the parents
were validly married and the child was
born thereafter. The presumption that a
public officer was regularly appointed or
elected after it is first shown he was
acting as a public officer. Likewise the
presumption of survivorship.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Note:
There must be a rational

connection between the Ultimate Fact
and the Basic Fact
C.
Sec. 2 Conclusive Presumptions: The following are

instances of conclusive presumptions.
1.
Estoppel in Pais: whenever a party has, by

his 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 against a Tenant: the tenant is

not permitted to deny title of his landlord
at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between
them.
I. Estoppel in General: a principle which bars a person

from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of
that which has been established as the truth arising
from his own acts or representations. It may be:
1) Estoppel in Pais or equity
2) By deed i.e. document and;
3) By Record or Judgment i.e those found and
established as true by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
II. Estoppel in Pais: The essence is intentional
misrepresentation. [You led somebody to believe
something which is not true]
A. Requirements:
1.
2.
As to the party estopped: (i). a conduct

amounting to false representation or
concealment of material facts (ii). an
intention that the conduct be acted upon or
that it will influence the other party and (iii)
knowledge of the true facts.
As to the party claiming estoppel: (i) an
absolute lack of knowledge or of the means
of knowledge as to the true facts, not lack of
diligence (ii) reliance in good faith upon the
conduct of the other party and (iii) the action
or inaction resulted to his damage or injury
B. Illustrations
1. A man who represents himself to be the true
owner in a sale will not be permitted later to
deny the sale after he acquire title thereto.
Estoppel to deny validity of sale as when the

wife, in collusion with the husband,
concealed her true status induce her parents
to believe she is single and to a property
which in truth is conjugal. The husband
cannot deny the validity of the deed.
The heirs who represented the minors in a
suit for partition cannot impugn the validity
of the judgment for lack of proper
authorization.
Jurisdiction by estoppel [refer to civil
procedure].
Agency/Partnership by estoppel.
But estoppel does not apply to the
government for acts of the public officials
Estoppel against a Tenant- presupposes a

contract of lease since this rule is English in origin.
1. The relationship is that between parties to
an original contract of lease (not sublease)
involving a real property. The tenant refers
to the lessee. What is deemed conclusive as
to the tenant is the ownership of the lessor
over property.
2. The lessee cannot use his physical
possession over the property as basis to
dispossess the lessor of the latters
ownership. The law seeks to protect owners
of real property from being deprived of their
ownership by those in actual physical
possession who are their own lessees.
3. However the downside of the law is that it
does not jibe with the proposition that the
land should be owned by those who actually
till and utilize the land over those whose sole
connection to the land is merely a piece of
document.
4. However, the lessee may assert ownership if
after the lease, he acquires the property is in
his own right, such as when he buys it in an
execution sale
Sec.3. Enumerates the disputable presumptions

which are applicable in civil, criminal, political,
commercial and remedial laws.
Use it to strengthen you defense in your
memorandum.
Falsus in unom, falsus in omnibus [though not
applicable in the Philippines].
Evidence if presented will be adverse.
Witness: nakita ni Pedro hindi ako ang
pumatay!the trial end but the accused did
not present Pedro. His act creates a
presumption that if he presents Pedro it will
be adverse to him.
RULE 132. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
I. INTRODUCTION.
1. Rule 132 governs the manner by which
Testimonial and Documentary evidences are to
be presented in Court.
2.
Principles in the presentation of evidence by the

parties:
a) A case is won or lost depending upon how

effective was the presentation of evidence,
particularly as to what evidence were
presented and how they were presented.
b) Parties should be allowed a certain latitude
in the presentation of their evidence
otherwise they might be so hampered that
the ends of justice may eventually be
defeated or appear to be defeated. The
court should not limit the evidence to be
presented.
c) The parties should be allowed to maintain
their own way or style of presenting
evidence when these can be done without
injury to the speedy disposition of the case
and to the best interest of the
administration of justice.
d) The court should liberally receive all
evidence offered in the trial to be able to
render its decision with all the possibly
relevant proof in the record and to assure
the appellate court to have a good
judgment and to obviate remanding the
case for re-trial or reception of evidence
Note:
The court cannot dictate how you present

evidence, but can stop you from presenting
other evidence, such corroborating evidence.
Section 1. Provides the manner of presenting

testimonial evidence to be as follows:
By presenting the witness personally in open court
a. The witness must appear in person so that
the court and the opponent may observe
him and hear his testimony.
b. His
personal
presence
cannot
be
substituted by the submission of written
statements or audio testimony.
c. There is also no secret testimony and it
must always be in the presence of the
adverse
party,
except
when
the
presentation is allowed to be ex parte, or
testimony through interrogatories or
depositions in advance of trial before a
hearing officer but upon prior approval of
the court and with proper notice to the
adverse party.
d. CHILD WITNESSES: the witness may testify
inside a room but the child must be visible
and can be heard through the medium of
facilities appropriate for the purpose such
as a mirror.
QUESTION: May the witness testify wearing masks to
preserve his identity?
I. To be examined under oath or affirmation
To answer questions as may be asked by the

proponent, the opponent and by the court.
i. Oath: an outward pledge by the witness
that his testimony is made under an
immediate sense of responsibility to a
Supreme Being. An appeal is made to the
ii.
almighty that he will tell the truth.

Affirmation: a solemn and formal
declaration that the witness will be truthful.
iii. The purpose of an oath or affirmation

is: (i) to affect the conscience of the
witness and compel him to speak the truth
and (ii) to lay him open to punishment for
perjury. But it is not essential that he
knows what or how he will punished.
iv. If the opponent believes the witness is not
aware of his obligation and responsibility to
tell the truth and consequences of telling a
lie, the party may ask for leave to conduct
a VOIRE DIRE examination ( PP. vs. Alma
Bisda, July 17, 2003)
v. Effect of lack of oath: If the opponent
fails to object then the testimony may be
given weight as the party would be
estopped or, the party may move to
disallow the witness from testifying, or
move to strike the testimony after he found
the lack of oath. The proponent however
may ask that the witness be placed under
oath. . .
II. The form of testimony must be :
a) Oral answers to questions unless:

1. the question calls for a different form of
answer such as by bodily movements or
demonstrable actions,
2. or the witness is a deaf mute
3. In case of a child witness.
b) Not in a narrative (i) in order to prevent the
witness from testifying and narrating facts which
are irrelevant and thus he will testify straight to
the point in issue, as well as (ii) to give the
opponent an opportunity to raise an objection [of
course, some question that may be ask may

against the rule on evidence].
Sec. 2. The Proceedings must be recorded.

Courts of the Philippines are courts of record.
Anything not recorded is deemed not to have
transpired or taken-up and will not be considered
in the resolution of the case. The matter to be
recorded include:
a. Questions by the proponent, opponent and
the court, which are propounded to the
witness
b. The answers of the witness to the
questions
c. Manifestations, arguments, and statements
of counsel
d. Statements of the court to the counsel
e. Instructions or statements of the court to
the court personnel
f. Demonstrable
actions,
movements,
gestures or observations asked to be
described and recorded
g. Observations during the conduct of ocular
inspections
Matters not recorded:
Off-the-records statements
Statements which were ordered or requested to

be stricken from the record such as those which
are improper, irrelevant or objectionable.
Example: hearsay direct testimony
Re-cross examination by the opponent.
C. ORDER OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
Sec. 3. Rights and Obligations of Witnesses
The obligation of a witness is to answer all questions

which are asked of him. He cannot choose which
questions to answer and to answering others.
The witness however has the right to be protected
against tactics from the opponent which are intended
to brow beat, badger, insult, intimidate, or harass
him.
He has the right not to be detained longer that is
necessary.
He may refuse to answer the following questions:
a) Those which are not pertinent to the issue.
b) Those which are self-incriminatory except in
the following cases:
i. Where the accused is testifying as a
witness in his own behalf, as to
questions relating only to the offense
upon which he is testifying.
ii. Where the witness was granted
immunity from prosecution as when he
is under the Witness Protection Program
or was discharged to be used as a state
witness, or he is a government witness
in Anti-Graft Cases.
c) Those which are self-degrading, unless it is to
discredit the witness by impeaching his moral
character.
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
A. INTRODUCTION: Meaning of terms:
1. Examination to find out facts from the
witness or to test his memory, truthfulness or
credibility by directing him to answer appropriate
questions.
2.
Proponent - the party who owns or who called
3.
Friendly Witness- one who is expected to give
the witness to testify in his favor. Opponent- the

party against whom the witness was called.
testimony favorable to the party who called for
him.
4.
Hostile Witness, one whose testimony is not

favorable to the cause of the party who called
him as a witness.
5.
Party witness and accused-witness refer to the
plaintiff, defendant or the accused, testifying as

witness for themselves, as opposed to ordinary
witnesses.
B. ORDER OF EXAMINATION
Direct examination by the proponent.

Cross-examination by the opponent.
Re-direct examination by the proponent.
Presentation of Evidence in Chief by the Plaintiff

Presentation of Evidence in Chief by the
Defendant
Presentation of Rebuttal Evidence by the
Plaintiff
Presentation of Sur rebuttal Evidence by the
Defendant
Section 5. Direct Examination. Direct examination is

the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
A.
Procedural Requirement
Offer of Testimony- the proponent shall state

the substance of the intended testimony of the
witness (an outline of the major points) and the
purpose of said testimony (what the proponent
intends to prove by said testimony).
Importance of the Offer of testimony- (i)

The direct examination may be objected to by
the opponent (ii) Matters not included in the offer
may not be allowed to be testified on upon
proper objection and (iii) to shorten the
proceedings as the opponent may admit or
stipulate on the matters to be testified on.
In cases under the Rules on Summary

Procedure, the sworn statement of the witness
must have been submitted to the court
beforehand.
After the offer of testimony, the court will say any
comment?
Thus, answer: we will stipulate on these facts, but
we dispute the rest and subject to cross [and not
no comment or subject to cross.]
What is the value of the offer?
It may shorten the proceeding; e.g. the
other party may accept all the testimony
and they will not cross.
It affords the other party to determine
whether the testimony is part of the offer
or not thus he can post objections.
B. Importance of the Direct Examination
This is the only opportunity for the proponent to

elicit from the witness all the facts which are
important and favorable to him. The witness
should be considered as a sponge heavy with
facts. By the time the direct examination is over,
all favorable facts should have been squeezed
from the witness. The examination must be clear,
forceful, comprehensive, and must efficiently
present the facts of the case.
Points of Effective Direct Examination

a) KEEP IT SIMPLE. Avoid these two pitfalls (i) too
little time on critical points and (ii) too much time
on unimportant points.
b) ORGANIZE LOGICALLY. Determine the key points

and organize them in a logical order. If possible
resort to a chronological presentation of
testimony.
c) INTRODUCE THE WITNESS AND DEVELOP HIS
BACKGROUND.
d) USE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS WHICH ARE
INTRODUCTORY, TRANSITION OR ORIENTING
QUESTIONS.
e) ELICIT SCENE DESCRIPTION.
f) ELICIT GENERAL FLOWING DESCRIPTION. Let
the witness paint a picture. Avoid excessive
detail. [Excessive detail may destroy your theory,
since it gives the opposing party more details to

lift his question of cross].
g) USE PACE IN DESCRIBING ACTION. Control the

speed of the examination by eliciting testimony in
small segments at the most advantageous rate.
SLOW DOWN THE ACTION.
h) USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE. Choose simple words
and phrases. Word choice affects answers. Avoid
jargons, idioms and technical words. WHAT
MATTERS AND WHAT WILL BE REMEMBERED IS
NOT HOW BEAUTIFUL AND IMPRESSIVE THE
LAWYER PHRASED HIS QUESTIONS BUT WHAT
THE WITNESS NARRATED.
i) HAVE THE WITNESS EXPLAIN.
j) USE NONLEADING OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS.
k) USE EXHIBITS TO HIGHLIGHT AND SUMMARIZE.
l) PRACTICE WITH THE WITNESS.
Rules:
1. Interview the witness before presenting
him.
2. Tell what will happen in court to the
witness.
Sec. 6. Cross Examination.
A. Concept: The examination of the witness by the
opponent after the direct examination.
B. Nature:
1. An essential part of the right to procedural due
process i.e. the right of a party to confront
witnesses against him face-to-face. The
essence however is not actual cross
examination but that a party be given the
opportunity to cross examine. Hence the
consequences are as follows:
a) If the opponent was never given the
opportunity to cross examine a witness,
the direct testimony may, on motion of
the opponent, be stricken off as
hearsay.
b) All assertions of facts not based on the
personal knowledge of the witness may
also be stricken off as hearsay since the
source cannot be subjected to the
opportunity of cross-examination.
2. Limitations:
a) The right may however be waived

expressly;
b) It may be lost through the fault or
negligence of the opponent.

After a witness has been crossexamined and discharged, further crossexamination is no longer a right but
must be addressed to the sound
discretion of the court.
d) The Court may limit the crossexamination if its needlessly protracted,
or is being conducted in a manner which
is unfair to the witness or is inconsistent
with the decorum of the court, as when
it degenerates into a shouting match
with the witness
c)
3. Effect of the Loss or non-completion of

the cross examination
a) If the loss, in whole or in part, was due

to the fault of the adverse party, the
testimony of the witness is to be taken
into consideration.
b) If the cross-examination cannot be
done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party offering the
witness, the testimony is rendered
incompetent.
c) If the loss or non-completion was due
to the death or unavailability of the
witness then that part of the testimony
which
was
subjected to
crossexamination remains admissible.
4. Character of Cross Examination: It is

both an Art and a Science.
a) It is an Art because it requires
consummate skill which is acquired and
developed. There is no standard method
as it is highly personalized, subjective
and be adaptive to who the witness is
and to the subject of the cross
examination. The length, style of
questioning or approach to a witness
requires intuition and understanding of
human
nature;
of
the
habits,
weaknesses, bias and prejudices of
people; their reactions to situations,
their perception of matters, and such
other factors that vary according to
circumstances of time, place, people
and occasions.
It requires the ability to think quickly,
read quickly and to know when to quit.
The lawyers antennae must ever be
tuned in to the witness: his character,
personality; mannerism, and all traits
which will give a favorable clue; to the
adverse counsel and to the Court.
b) Should a party cross examine or not
depends on a full understanding of what
to expect. The following must be
considered before a party attempts to
cross-examine:
i. Whether the witness has hurt the
case or the impact of his testimony
on the case.
ii. Whether the witness is important,
as for example an eye witness, or a
party witness.
iii. Whether the testimony is credible.
iv. The risks that the party undertakes.
5.
It is a science. It requires a thorough

preparation
and
mastery
of
rules/jurisprudence on procedure
presentation of evidence.
C.
certain
in the
Importance and Purpose of Cross Examination.

When you cross examine you must have a purpose,
either your cross examination is constructive,
destructive or both.
Important note:
Sometimes the best cross is no cross!

Example: sit on the chair and look the
witness straight to the eyes for substantial

minutes. If the witness cannot look at you
in the eye, then say: you cannot look me
straight to the eye, how can you tell the
truth no need for cross.
Do not overcross!!!!!!!!!
Example:
In the case of rape, the victim in her
testimony testified that it is daplis
Atty.: What do you mean daplis?
Witness: konti lang pumasok
Observe that were it not for the stupid and
unnecessary cross examination of the
counsel, the accused may have been
convicted of attempted murder. Yong cross
examination kasi ang sumira sa diskarte eh,
dahil sa cross naipaliwanag ng witness ang
ibig sabihin ng daplis na konti ang pumasok
which made it as a consummated rape.
Another example:
An expert witness will testify that the
human appendix is located by the throat.
Atty. Santi: Mr. X, in your testimony you said that
the human appendix is located by the throat?
Mr. X: Yes sir.
Atty. Santi: do you know a person named Dr. Borris
Spasky?
Mr. X: Yes sir, he is my counterpart in eastern
Europe. He also specializes in modern human
anatomy?
Atty. Santi: have you read any of his books?
Mr. X: Yes sir.
Atty. Santi: I have here a book entitled modern
human anatomy by Borris Spasky, are you referring
to this book?
Mr. X: Yes sir.

Atty. Santi: let me read then par. 3 on page 69: the
human appendix is located at the back of the neck.
Thats all for the witness your honor.
Do not over cross!!!!!!! Why? Because if you
overcross, this might be the next scene
Atty. Santi: Mr. X, why is it that you said that the
human appendix is located by the throat?
Mr. X: Sir kindly turn to page 63, paragraph 1.
And the first paragraph says: this findings are
obsolete, please refer to the findings of Mr. X.
[Patay]
Cross examination is both a weapon to destroy or
weaken the testimony of the opponents witness and

a tool to build up or strengthen a partys case. The
conduct of cross-examination must always be directed
towards achieving a specific purpose or purposes.
Constructive
Cross-Examination, where the

purposes are:
1. To amplify or expand the story of the witness
so as to place the facts in a different light
which is favorable to the party. Note that the
witness of the opponent seldom volunteer
facts favorable to the cross-examiner, hence
the manner of questioning should be
insinuating, and
2. To obtain favorable or establish additional facts
favorable to the cross-examining party.
Destructive Cross-Examination; the purposes are:
1.
2.
To discredit the testimony of the witness by

showing its absurdity or that it is unbelievable
or contrary to the evidence.
To discredit the witness by showing his bias,
interest, lapse of or selective memory,
incorrect or incomplete observation of event,
and similar situations.
Accuse is the brother of the witness.
Cross:
Atty.: Do you love your brother?

Witness: Yes.
Atty.: Are you concern then with your brother?
Witness: yes.
Atty.: do you know what will happen to the
family of your brother if he will go to prison?
Witness: Yes.
Atty.: That is the reason that you came here to
testify so that your brothers case will be
dismissed.
Witness: ???
If the witness answered No then attacked
it in your memorandum the inconsistency.
Defense of Alibi
When the defense of the person is alibi,
then it is expected that he knew every
minutest details of that place, thus do not
ask question regarding such matter how
to attack: (1) do you remember any
significant event on that day so that you
are in that place? Or (2) were you present
last hearing? Yes sir, What then was I
wearing? If the witness cannot answer then
it creates a doubt on his memory. How
come that he can remember every details
that happened 5 years ago but he cannot
remember things that happened 5 days
ago?
D. Scope of Cross Examination
1. Under section 6 the witness may be examined:
a) As to any matter stated in the direct
examination;
b) Or any matter connected therewith;
c) As to the accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom of the witness from interest or
bias, or the reverse and;
d) Upon all important facts bearing upon the
issue.
2.
The English
Philippines
Rule
is
followed
in
the
English Rule: the cross examination is

not confined to matters subject of the
direct examination but extends to other
matters, even if not inquired in the direct
examination but are material to the
issues.
American Rule which holds that the
scope of the cross-examination is
confined to the facts and circumstances
brought out, or connected with, matters
stated in the direct examination
E.
Questioning by the Court:

The Court may ask questions:
a. to clarify itself on certain points;
b. To call the attention of counsel to
points at issue that are overlooked
and;
c. To direct counsel to questions on
matters to elicit facts and clarify
ambiguous answers.
d. However, the questioning by the court
should not be confrontational, probing
and insinuating. Should not be partisan
and not over extensive. The court is
not to assume the role of an advocate
or prosecutor.
BASIC RULES ON CROSS EXAMINATION
1.
2.
PREPARE. Know what the witness has testified on and

its relation to the case and how it affects your own
evidence.
KNOW YOUR OBJECTIVE. What are the points in the
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
testimony of the witness which are critical and are

these points to be brought out and emphasized.
OBSERVE PACING AND PATIENCE. Do not rush the
witness and avoid being over eager in bringing out an
important point.
LEAD THE WITNESS. State the facts and let the
witness ratify. Know how to lead. Use variation in the
phraseology of the questions.
HAVE A STYLE AND ADAPT IT TO THE OCCASION. Be
true to yourself and develop an approach or style
suited to your personality and character. Be able to
vary your style and know when is it effective to use
either a booming or soft voice; to move around or to
stay put; to be conversational or confrontational or
tough and confident.
KNOW WHEN TO QUIT. Stop when (1) the witness
has been discredited or made a monumental
concession. There is no need for an over kill or when
the witness is killing the case or the counsel.
KNOW WHAT MATERIALS TO TAKE TO CONFRONT
THE WITNESS. Have them be ready and easily
accessible.
KNOW THE JUDGE. Are you making an impact or are
you boring, antagonizing or confusing the Judge?
KNOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
ADDITIONAL PRACTICAL TIPS

1. BE BRIEF. Confine to the strongest points.
2. SHORT QUESTIONS. Use plain words and avoid
fancy words or elaborate syntax.
3. NEVER ASK A QUESTION to which you do not
already know the answer.
4. LISTEN TO THE WITNESS. Tune in if he was
contradicted by another witness or prior
testimony; is the testimony contrary to human
experience or completely inconsistent with
nature.
5. DO NOT QUARREL WITH THE WITNESS.
6. DO NOT PERMIT THE WITNESS TO EXPLAIN.
7. DO NOT REPEAT HIS TESTIMONY ON DIRECT.
8. AVOID QUESTIONS TOO MANY.
9. SAVE
THE
EXPLANATION
FOR
THE
MEMORANDUM. Questions should not be
explanations of your position.
Sec. 7. Redirect Examination by the proponent
Purpose and Scope:
To afford the party calling the witness to explain
or amplify the testimony given on crossexamination; to explain apparent contradictions,
or inconsistencies, and to rehabilitate the
testimony.
The scope is confined to matters taken up in the
cross-examination, not those outside, which may
be objected to on the ground that it is improper
for redirect.
But, new matter may be inquired into provide the
prior approval of the court was obtained and the
testimony on the new matter must be subject to
cross-examination by the opponent.
Red hearing
Point out an important matter and make it

appear that you are avoiding itso that the
opponent will have the impression that you
are avoiding it and that he will touch on it
during the cross. Then yahoooo.. pag
kinagat yong painyou can ask those
matters in the redirect.
Improper for redirect- those matters which were
not brought out in the cross.
The tone, inflection, mannerism or body

language of counsel, may also indicate if
the counsel is leading his witness.
Illustration:
Atty.: isnt it that at 3pm you are in
your house?
Accuse: Yes sir.
Atty.: in that particular hour of the
day, you were drinking with your
friends?
Accuse: Yes sir.
Sec. 8. Re-cross examination by the opponent.

This is confined to matters subject of the redirect examination.
Sec. 9. Recalling Witnesses.
A. On Motion By a party: This is not a right but
the recall must be addressed to the discretion of
the court and the recall must be on justifiable
grounds.
B. By the Court: If there be matter it wishes to
clarify.
Atty.: Isnt it that you drunk until

10pm?
Accuse: Yes sir.
Why are leading questions not
allowed?
Because it is the lawyer who is
testifying and not the witness.
The witness becomes an issue
and it is the lawyer supplying the
facts.
Sec. 10. Leading and Misleading Questions.

A. Introduction. The examination of a witness is
by asking questions the answers to which will
bring out facts from the witnesses. However a
lawyer is subject to certain rules such as to what
questions he is allowed to ask, how they are to
be phrased or worded so that facts known only
to the witness through his own perception are
revealed, or so that facts which are suppressed
or forgotten may be forced out from the witness.
Using leading questions in your favor

Use leading question to refresh
the memory of the witness if he
forgot something.
Illustration:
Atty. Santi: Mr. witness after your
drinking spree, where did you go
next? [The witness cannot remember.
Remedy of the lawyer: ask a leading
question].
Some of these limitations consist of the

prohibition on leading and misleading questions.
B. Leading Questions. Section 10 defines it as a
A question which suggest to the witness the
answer which the examining party desires. It is
also known as Suggestive Question.
1. Witnesses are to give data spontaneously
from their own memory, according to their
own perception and interpretation. The
role of the lawyer is simply to ask
questions which will help the witness recall
events. The question should be framed in
such a manner that the lawyer does not in
any way suggest or influence the answer
to be given, otherwise the fact or answer
becomes merely the product of the
suggestion, and not what the witness
personally knows.
2. If the witness is asked simply to confirm or
deny, then in effect it is the lawyer who is
supplying the facts through the mouth of
the witness who is reduced to being
merely the echo and mouthpiece of the
lawyer.
3. Test: The form or phraseology and the
contents of the question in that whether it
contains a statement of a fact which the
witness is asked to affirm or agree to. In
such case the witness contributes no
substantial data. The lawyer is coaxing.
Atty. Santi: Mr. Witness, let me ask

you again, isnt it that after your
drinking spree you went to the house
of Pedro?
Opposing counsel: Objection, leading
Court: sustained.
Reform your
question.
Atty. Santi: Mr. Witness, after your
drinking spree where did you go next?
By asking the leading question the witness
can now remember the next sequence .
Do not hesitate to ask leading question
lalo na kapag nakalimutan ng witness
yong sequence kasi hindi ka makakausad.
Ang parasu lang naman sa leading
questions ay reform your question.
C.
General Rule on Direct: The witness being a

friendly witness and having been called by the
proponent, he is naturally expected to be
sympathetic to the cause of the proponent. Thus
there is great danger that he would just confirm
any and all facts suggested to him by the
proponent. Hence leading questions are not

allowed.
that the party who called him is

allowed to cross-examine, i.e to treat
him as if he had been called by the
opposite party or (ii) one who surprises
the party and unexpectedly turns
against him.
The following instances are the exceptions when

leading questions are allowed to be asked during
direct:
In either case, the party calling the

witness must present proof of either
adverse interest on the part of the
witness, his unjustified reluctance, or
of his misleading the party into calling
him a witness, and on the basis of
which the court shall declare the
witness to be a hostile witness.
Thereafter leading questions are asked.
Instances where leading questions maybe

asked?
1. On preliminary matters
a.
b.
Those pertaining to the personal

circumstances of the witness and
which are asked at the start of the
cross-examination.
those which are intended to bring the
witness directly to the point in issue;
they are referred to as orienting,
introductory or transitory questions
In case the witness is the adverse

party, or representative or officer of a
juridical entity which is the adverse
party. Said witnesses is expected to
resist any attempt to obtain favorable
data, hence the direct examination is in
the nature of a cross-examination and
the most effective manner of forcing
favorable data, or of destroying his
credibility, would be through leading
questions.
When there is difficulty in getting direct

and intelligible answers from the
witness who by reason of the any of
the following: is immature; aged and
infirm; in bad physical condition;
ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court
proceedings;
inexperienced;
unsophisticated;
feebleminded;
confused and agitated; terrified; timid
or embarrassed while on the stand;
lacking in comprehension of questions
or slow to understand; deaf and dumb;
or unable to speak or understand the
English language or only imperfectly
familiar therewith (PP. vs. Dela Cruz,
July 11, 2002)
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.
When the witness lacks the power of
recollection a leading question is
allowed in order to refresh the
memory.
Is suffering from some mental

deficiency, or where the intelligence of
the witnesses is impaired, thereby
making necessary the making of
suggestions:
To identify persons or things.

In case of an expert witness as to his
opinion.
For example: witnesses who are

ignorant, feeble minded deaf-mutes,
minors or uneducated
2.
In case of unwilling or hostile

witnesses: they are uncooperative and
will not readily supply the facts desired
by the examiner. The approach to these
witnesses is to conduct a direct
examination as if it were a crossexamination
a.
Unwilling witnesses include (i) those

who have to be compelled to testify by
the coercive processes of the court (ii)
or those who, at the time of their
presentation at the witness stand,
become
evasive,
reluctant
or
unfriendly.
b.
hostile-may refer to (i) a witness who

manifest so much hostility and
prejudice during the direct examination
3.
In direct examination
Thus, state facts and let the witness
confirm or deny it. Never ask questions
on Why?!!!
D. Leading and Misleading Questions on Cross.

1. Rule on Leading Questions: During crossexaminations leading questions are allowed for
the reason that the witness is not expected to be
sympathetic to the cause of the opponent and
would not volunteer important facts favorable to
the opponent, or that he would resists to testify
on facts adverse to the party who called him.
Thus it becomes necessary that the opposing
counsel has to force the facts from the witness
thru leading questions.
The opponent states a fact favorable to him and
forces the witness to confirm it.
2.
Misleading Questions are not allowed. They
are of two kinds:

a. A question which assumes a fact not yet
testified to by a witness or still unproven
or by putting words into the mouth of the
witness.
b. A question premised on a fact which is
contrary to that testified to or proven or
those which distort or do not accurately
state the true facts. This is akin to twisting
the words of the witness.
witness or credibility of his testimony. Note that

credibility of the witness is different from credibility of
testimony.
B.
Impeachment of the witness of the adverse

party
Generally the witness may be impeached during
his cross-examination or during the presentation
of evidence by the party. Thus the witness of the
plaintiff may be impeached at the time he is
cross-examined by the defendant and/or during
the presentation of evidence in chief by the
defendant. On the other hand, the witness of the
defendant may be impeached by the plaintiff
during the cross examination of said witness
and/or during the presentation of evidence
during the rebuttal stage.
C.
Specific Modes pursuant to section 11 and

jurisprudence
1. By presenting evidence or facts which contradict
the version of the witness.
2. By proving the bad general reputation of the
witness for truth or honesty or integrity.
a) He cannot be impeached by the direct
testimony of witnesses of the adverse
party as to particular instances of immoral
acts, improper conduct, or other evidence
of misconduct.
b) The person who is called by the adverse
party to testify to the bad general
reputation of the witness of the opponent
is called the Impeaching witness who
himself may also be impeached.
3. By proof of prior inconsistent statements in that a
truthful person will be consistent with his
statement even on different occasions and to
different persons.
4. By introducing evidence of his bias or interest,
such as his relationship to a party, or financial
gain as well as of his motive or intent.
5. By showing his social connections, occupations
and manner of living in that he voluntarily
associates with those who are engaged in
disreputable activities, or if he is addicted to
disgraceful or vicious practices, or follows an
occupation which is loathsome and vile, even if
not criminal, as all these affects his credibility.
[Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you
who you are].
6. By proof of prior conviction: the moral integrity of
a person is placed in doubt by reason of a
conviction for violation of the law, but not by the
fact that there are pending cases against him.
[Prior conviction suggests that the person has no
respect for the law].
7. By showing the improbability of his testimony or
that it is not in accordance with ordinary human
experience. Example: (i) the claim of an
accidental firing of a caliber gun is not believable
because the mechanism of the gun which
requires that pressure be applied on the trigger
for the gun to fire (ii) the claim of four big able
men having been attacked and mauled by one
person who is who is much smaller in height and
Illustration:
1. Asking something which is not yet

in evidence.
Witness: Lagi po kaming nag-aaway?
Atty.
Santi:
ilan
beses
kang
binabanatan sa gabi?
Atty. X: objection. Misleading.
Court: Sustained. Why? The witness
did not yet testified tha she was
binabanatan..kasi pwedeng mag-away
ng salita lang eh.
Another example:
Witness: I was seated infront.
Atty. Santi: How fast were you driving?
Atty. X: Objection. Misleading.
Court: Sustained. Why? Because you
are asking a question not yet in
evidencesabi ng witness nakaupo
siya sa harap hindi nya sinabi na siya
ay nagdadrive!
2. Distorting the facts.
The witness testified that he saw the

accused open the cabinet.
Atty. Santi: Did you saw the witness open

the cabinet and took the camera?
Atty. X: Objection. Misleading.
Court: Sustained. Why? Dinagdagan ng
counsel un facts sa kanyang cross
examination eh. The witness testified that
he saw the accused opened the cabinet but
the lawyers question points that he opened
the cabinet and took a camera.
IMPEACHMENT
Note: Sometimes the witness may be credible as a
person, but his testimony is not credible
Why do we need to impeach a witness?
Because the witness is a messenger of facts. If
the messenger is tainted, it is probable that the
message is also tainted.
A. Concept: The process of showing that a witness is
not credible or that his testimony is not worthy of
belief, i.e. casting doubt as to the credibility of the
heft.
By showing defects in his observation, or that he
has a faulty or selective memory.
9. By showing that this actions or conduct is
inconsistent with his testimony.
Example: A rape victim was shown to have
been partying with the alleged rapist after
the rape.
10. By engaging the witness in contradictions and
discrepancies as to the material facts testified by
him.
statements
8.
D. Impeachment of ones own witness.

1. General Rule: It is not allowed pursuant to
section 12. The reason is that a party calling a
witness is supposed to vouch for the truthfulness
of the witness and of his testimony, which he is
assumed to know before hand, and is therefore
bound by whatever the witness testifies to in
court. A party is not permitted to let the witness
be believed as to facts favorable to him, but to
impeach him as to facts not favorable.
3. Exceptions when there is no need to lay the

foundation:
a) In case of statements made by a

deceased which contradicts his dying
declarations.
b) If the contradictory statements are
testified to by another person as an
admission
Section 14. Exclusion and separation of witness.

A.
Concept: The act of excluding a future witness from

the court room at the time another witness is
testifying or, of ordering that witnesses be kept
separate from one another to prevent them from
conversing with one another.
1. This is upon the courts own motion or on
motion of the adverse party.
2. A disobedient witness may be testify but his
(a) testimony may be excluded or (b). his
disobedience may be considered to affect his
credibility and (c) he maybe punished for
contempt of court
B.
Purpose: To ensure the witnesses testify to the truth

by preventing them from being influenced by the
testimony of others; to prevent connivance or
collusion among witnesses.
2. Exceptions: If the witness presented is any of

the following:
a) An unwilling witness
b) He turns out to be a hostile witness or a
treacherous witness and the party was
mislead into calling him as a witness.
c) An adverse party witness
E.
Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement.
1. The procedure or Laying the Foundations is

outlined by section 13. To be effective the
steps
should
follow
the
following
sequence:
a) Recommit: Confront the witness with his

prior
statements
narrating
the
circumstances of time, place, persons or
occasion, or by showing him the prior
written statement. Get the witness to
affirm he made the statements.
b) Build-Up. Let the witness affirm he made
the prior statements freely, knowingly
and that he stood by the accuracy and
truthfulness of said statements.
c) Contrast: Confront the witness by the
fact that his prior statement contradicts
or deviates or is materially different from
his present statement.
d) Demand an explanation why he made a
different statement from his previous
statements
2. Reason for the Procedure:
a) Fairness to the witness and avoid

surprising him, so that he may recollect
the facts, and to give him the opportunity
to
explain
the
reason,
nature,
circumstances, or meaning, of his
statements. Example: He might have
been too emotional then, or was
improperly influenced, or wanted to avoid
embarrassment, and similar reasons.
b) To save time if he admits his prior
[Note: the practical purpose of this rule is defeated by

the reservations for cross examination or resetting to
present another witness, such that the counsel and
other witness have the opportunity to go over the
testimony of the witnesses].
C.
Who may not be excluded.

1. Parties to an action even if they are numerous.
a) In criminal cases, the presence of the
accused is indispensable and he may not
be excluded.
b) The private offended party should not also
be excluded even if he will be a witness.
As such he has a right to be present
because it is his interest which is involved
and also to assure that the proceedings
are conducted properly. Besides he is
party to the civil aspect of the case.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Expert witnesses as they testify to their opinions

based on facts of their own knowledge, or on
hypothetical facts.
Witnesses on rebuttal.
Character witnesses.
Spectators unless they behave in a manner which
is against the proper decorum of the court or
when the evidence to be presented are sensitive
REVIVING MEMORY OF WITNESSES

Note: it is the recollection that is the evidence itself and
not the means of recollection such as memorandums and
other documents.
b) It was written at the time the fact/event

occurred or immediately thereafter or at
any time when the facts was still fresh in
his mind (when was it written?).
c) The record/memorandum is presented to
the adverse party who may cross-examine
on it, and it may be read into the evidence.
This must be made by the opponent. Why?

Because you must prepare your own witness for
direct testimony and preparation includes
informing the witness the logical sequence of
his/her testimony and the questions to be asked.
A. Introduction:
A witness may suffer from lapses of memory or
loss of recollection as to material facts so that
there is a need for him to recollect the facts. The
remedy of reviving applies more appropriately to
the adverse party conducting a cross-examination
rather than to the proponent.
The reasons are:
1. because a party presenting a witness is
presumed to know what the witness is
to testify on and is expected to have
prepared him for the direct examination
and
2. Matters favorable to the cross-examiner
may have been forgotten by the
witness.
A.
Thus the evidence is not the memorandum or

writing but what he testify remembers as now
testified provided:
a) The written record/memorandum was
written by him or by someone under his
direction (who wrote it?).
Examples: (a). Filing clerks who record

conversations then forget all about it (b) Diaries
(c) Letters
Concept: When a part of an act, declaration or

conversation, writing or record, is given in evidence
by one party, the adverse party may : (i) ask or
inquire into the whole or (b) introduce evidence on
the remainder, and in case of writing he may have
the other portion or even the entire writing be read in
evidence.
The other portions is limited to those which tend to

qualify or explain the part first given and which were
given at the same time.
B.
Examples:
1. As the issue is the nature of the transaction
between the parties, where plaintiff presented his
letter, it was proper for defendant to introduce all
the other letters which passed between them.
2. Where a letter is presented on direct
examination, it is proper on cross to ask if there
be any reply to it.
3. Where a witness testified to the occurrence of a
fight, it is proper to inquire on the antecedents
and details thereof, past altercations between
those involved or any bad blood between them.
4. Where the Prosecution presented only a part of
the records of the Preliminary Investigation, the
defense may introduce the whole record
C.
Need for Precision of Statements:

1. The general rule is that verbal accuracy is not
required but the substance or effect of the actual
words spoken will be sufficient so that the
witness may testify to the substance as best as
he can from his recollection.
2. However, in case of oral defamation, there is a
need for verbal accuracy.
A. Two Methods of Revival under Section 16.

(These are useful methods to the opposing counsel
when conducting his cross examination. The
proponent is supposed to have already gone over the
testimony of his witness and briefed him hence,
resorting to these methods reflect badly on the
proponent).
Present Recollection Revived: the witness is
presented the memorandum or record with the
expectation that it will pull a switch in the brain
and enable the witness to put aside the
memorandum and testify on what he now recalls.
3.
As a matter of procedure, in case of documents

already in court, a party merely underscores only
those portions which are material to his case. It is for
the opposing party to inquire as to the rest.
Section 16. When witness may refer to a

memorandum.
1.
Past Recollection Recorded. The same

procedure is followed but the witness is still
unable to recollect the event but he can assert
that the facts therein narrated are true. The
evidence therefore is the writing itself.
Section 17. The Rule of Completeness.
B. Modes of reviving
1. By asking leading questions;
2. By the Process of Association i.e. calling the
attention of a person to a material connected
with a certain event so it would trigger the brain
to associate the material with the event and
thereby enable the person to remember the
event.
Examples:
a) Presenting a pictorial representation of a
person, thing, place, object or person.
b) Playing the record of a conversation.
c) Presenting physical objects such as
trinkets, or other memorabilia
d) By allowing the witness to refer to a
memorandum under section 16
2.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS
I.
INTRODUCTION: The Supreme Court, in an en

banc Resolution adopted the so called-Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness which became
effective on December 15, 2000. The rule applies to
child witnesses who are victims of crimes, accused of
a crime, and witnesses to a crime. It shall apply to
criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings
involving child witnesses.
child comfortable.
B. To create a more comfortable courtroom
environment, the court may direct and supervise
the location, movement, deportment of all person
in the court room;
C. The child may testify from a place other than the
witness chair; child is not required to look at the
accused
D. To testify during the time of day that the child is
well rested
E. Reasonable periods of relief is allowed as often
as is necessary
F. The child is allowed to use testimonial aids, such
as dolls, puppets, drawings, mannequins or any
other appropriate devise
to assist in the
testimony of the child.
G. Child is allowed to have an Emotional Security
Item of his own choosing as a blanket, toy, doll.
Child Witness- any person who, at the time of

giving testimony, is below the age of 18 years. In
child abuse cases, a child includes one over 18
years but is found by the court as unable to fully
take car of himself or protect himself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or
condition.
SALIENT FEATURES
I. Creates a Presumption of Competency in favor
IV.
of a child-witness subject to a Competency Test.
A. Every child is presumed qualified to be a

witness. However the court shall conduct a
competency examination to a child motu proprio
or on motion of a party, when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of
the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate
the duty to tell the truth in court. (Sec. 6).
B. A party seeking a competency examination must
present proof of necessity of competency
examination. The age of a child shall not by itself
is not a sufficient basis for a competency
examination.
II. Allows the Court to, motu proprio or on motion,

appoint certain persons to help in the testimony of the
child-witness:
A. Guardian Ad Litem- a person to protect the best
interest of the child whose appointment took into
consideration his familiarity with the judicial
process, social service programs, and child
development. The parent if preferred, if qualified.
Has the right to be present in all proceedings, to
obtain copies of documents, interview witnesses,
make recommendations to the court, and to do
all to protect the child.
B. Interpreter- one, other than the regular court
interpreter, whom the child can understands and
who understands the child.
C. Facilitator- one who poses the questions to the
child who may be a child psychologist,
psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor,
teacher, religious leader, parent or relative.
Counsels shall pose questions only through the
facilitator.
D. Support Person- person chosen by the child to
accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial
proceeding or deposition to provide emotional
support to the child
III. Contains Child Centered Provisions during the actual
testimony such as :
A. A separate waiting area furnished to make the
Manner of Questioning and Objections

h. Leading Questions are allowed specially des
for Child-Directs
AUTHENTICATIONS AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

a.
INTRODUCTION. Per section 2 of Rule 130,
documents are writings or any material containing
letters, words, symbols, numbers, figures, or other
modes of written expressions offered as proof of
their contents. They are either paper based or other
solid surfaced based documents. These are what are
referred to by Rule 132.
As to Electronic documents, the manner of their
authentication is as provided for by the Electronics
Evidence Law.
b.
CLASSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS.
A. Section 19 provides that for purposes of
their presentation in court they are either
(i) public or (ii) private.
Importance of the classification:
1. As to the need for authentication: public
documents are admissible without further
proof of their due execution whereas private
documents must be authenticated.
2. As to the persons bound: public
documents are evidence even as against
third persons as to the fact which gave rise
to
their
execution
whereas
private
documents bind only the parties thereto and
their privies.
3. As
to
the
validity
of
certain
transactions: certain transactions are
required by law to be public documents in
order to be valid and/or enforceable. E.g.:
the law on donations of real properties,
Statute of Frauds.
B. Classification into Domestic and Foreign
Public Documents
The
following
documents:
are
public
domestic
a) Written
Official
acts
of
sovereign
authority,
official
bodies, tribunals and public
officers: such as decisions or courts
or quasi-judicial bodies, legislative
enactments,
executive
orders,
directive from superior officers or
memoranda, written appointments,
warrants
issued
by
court,
subpoenae, ships log book.
b) Record of the official acts of said
bodies or officers: e.g: the
marriage contract embodies the act
of solemnizing a marriage; records of
birth and death; written oaths;
returns and reports, congressional
records of the deliberations in
congress.
c) Acknowledged documents such
as contracts and conveyances.
d) Public record (i) kept in the
Philippines of private writings
(ii) or required by law to be kept
therein. Example of the first would
be documents affecting registered
lands which are submitted to the
Register of Deeds, Assessors Office,
Letters
of
acknowledgement
submitted to the Local Civil
Registrar. Example of the second:
Personal Bio Data or Information
Sheets submitted to form part of the
201 File of government officials
b.
AUTHENTICATION.
A. Concept: As to documents, it is the process of
proving that the document presented in court
is not spurious, falsified, or questionable, or
that it is not a different document. As to
objects, it is the process of proving that the
object presented in court is the very object
involved in the case without any alteration or
substitution.
B. Rule as to private documents: Section 20
provides that in order for a private document
to be admissible, it is necessary to prove the
due execution and authenticity of the
document in that it is not spurious, counterfeit
or a different document. This is because
private documents are not self-authenticating.
c.
How to prove a private document is authentic

or genuine
A. By direct evidence consisting of the
testimony of witness such as
1. The parties to the document
2. By an attesting /subscribing witness
3. By a person who was present and
saw its execution and
4. By the person before whom it was
executed and acknowledged.
B.
By proof or evidence of the genuineness of

the handwriting or signature of the
maker or of the parties thereto. It may be

by any of the following:
1. Direct evidence consisting of the
testimony of the maker or party
affirming his own handwriting or
signature.
2. By
the
testimony
of
the
attesting/subscribing witnesses or of
witnesses to the execution thereof.
3. By the use of Opinion Evidence
pursuant to the Section 22 of Rule
131 such as (a) by one who has
obtained sufficient familiarity (b) by
an expert (c) based on a comparison
with a genuine handwriting.
4. By the contents of the document.
5. By the style of writing
d.
When Authentication Not Necessary

A. In case of ancient documents: referring to
private document which are more than 30 years
old, produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found in genuine and unblemished
by nay alteration or circumstance of suspicion.
1. The reason is the possible unavailability of
witness due to the passage of time. Age is
to be reckoned from the execution to the
date it is offered.
2. Requirements for Ancient Documents
(a) Proof of age: to be counted
backwards from the time of offer to
its date of execution.
(b) Proof that on its face it is free from
any circumstance of suspicion, as
when it bears signatures which are
not
counter-signed,
deletions,
insertions, a missing page, a page
which is new or recent, use of
different inks, or it bears different
handwritings, or suspicious tears.
(c) Proof of proper custody: this
removes the suspicion of fraud and
suggests the document is genuine.
Proper custodian/depository includes
one who is entitled to the possession
such as a party and his successors in
interest, privies or agents; as well as
one who is connected to the
document that he may reasonably be
inferred to be in [possession thereof,
such as a common witness.
B. When the due execution and genuineness
has been admitted either expressly or by
provision of law, as in failure to deny under oath.
C.
When the due execution and authentication

is immaterial, as in documents which are used
as annexes or attachments.
D. When the document

identified.
E.
need
In case of public documents.
only
to
be
e.
bearing the certification by him, his

signature, and the seal of his office. A
certified copy is allowed by reason of the
principle of Irremovability of Public records
under Section 26.
PROBATIVE VALUE AND PRESENTATION OF

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
I.
Requirement of authentication does not apply
because of (a) necessity in that it is difficult and
inconvenient to require the attendance of the
public officer to appear in court (b)
trustworthiness of the documents.
II.
Example: Laws of national application are

proved by a certified copy thereof or a
copy appearing in the official publication.
In case of publication other than the
Official Gazette, the copy must be
accompanied by the Certificate of the
Publication by the publisher.
Probative Value Under Section 23.

1. Written Official Acts are conclusive
because it is the act which is recorded.
2. 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 stated therein
2.
This does not include those made in

excess of official duty and they are
limited to those facts which are public.
Examples:
i. Entries in the Records of Birth,
Marriage, or Death of a person,
as entered by the Local Civil
Registrar.
ii. Data in the Police Blotter
iii. Return of Search Warrants
iv. Entries in the time record
v. Entries in the Community Tax
Certificate or Tax Declaration of
Property
vi. The
terms,
conditions
or
consideration in a contract
3.
4.
4.
5.
III.
The recitals in a public instrument,

executed with all the legal formalities are
evidence against the parties thereto and
their successors in interest, and a high
degree of proof is necessary to overcome
the presumption that such recitals are
true.
In order to overcome the documentary
evidence, the oral testimony must be
clear, strong and convincing
All other public documents are evidence of the act

which gave rise to their execution and date of
execution. They are proof why they were
executed and the date thereof.
Examples: Certifications issued by a public
officer. Recommendations and endorsements by
a public official.
How to Prove a Public Document (Section 24)

1. In case of written official acts or records of
official act of public or sovereign bodies.
i. By presenting the Official Publication
thereof.
ii. By presenting a certified true copy i.e.
attested by the proper custodian and
As to written foreign public documents

i. By an Official Publication thereof.
ii. By a Copy attested by the official
custodian and accompanied by a
certificate by the proper officer of the
Philippine Foreign Service stationed in the
country where such foreign document is
kept.
Thus a Special Power of Attorney executed
abroad, must be bear the Red Ribbon
coming from the Phil. Embassy or Consul.
QUESTION: How is a foreign law proven
in the Philippines?
Answer: If it is written it is proved by: (i)
the Official Publication thereof (ii) An
official copy issued by the custodian (iii)
certified true copy accompanied by the
certification of the Phil. Foreign official and
(iii) By the testimony of an expert.
IV.
In case of the public record of a private writing

i. By the original record i.e. the very private
document kept in official custody
ii. By a copy duly certified by the custodian
Rules on presenting a certified true copy of a
written document.
Attach official receipt.
Attach documentary stamp tax.
1.
Stages in presenting documentary evidence:

Marking- putting of numbers or letters.
Plaintiff- markings are alphabetical; submarking: numerical.
Defendant- numerical; sub-markings:
alphabetical.
When is marking made? Made in the
first day of preliminary conference or pretrial.
Can you reserve a document? No.
Are you allowed to present evidence
not marked? No, except (1) if the
opponent did not object (2) those
document which came into existence after
pre-trial or during the trial; (3) documents
which despite diligent efforts cannot be
found; (4) Document which are brought
out during cross examination, rebuttal or
sur-rebuttal.
2.
Inspection
Inspection refers to the allowance for the
other party to inspect your evidence that
is to be presented.
3.
Identification
Identification- during the trial by the
witnesses.
4.
Authentication
5.
Formal offer- process of informing the court the

documents that you will submit to the court.
Identify the document and tell the purpose of
submitting such document.
Thus you can pose your objections to the
admission of the exhibits if there are any.
After presenting your evidence, then state
your prayer: wherefore we pray that the
court accepts this evidence and consider
them in his decision.
6.
Comment by the opponent.
7.
Courts ruling on
8.
The offer.
When to make offer?

After presenting all your witness.thus, the
prosecution rests its case.
Note: if a document was not formally offered, it will not
be considered. Except:
1. It was been duly testified and identified to by
witnesses; and
2. It is a part of the records.
Summary of Rules in presenting proof of the

existence and contents of documentary evidence
1. The Original of public record cannot be presented
by reason of the Rule on the Irremovability of
Public Records under section 26. Hence
secondary evidence is allowed which consist
either of the Official Publication, if so published,
or a certified true copy thereof, unless if is
extremely necessary that the original of the
public record be produced in court, but only upon
lawful order of the court.
2.
If the documents be in a non-official language,

i.e not in English or Pilipino, it must be
accompanied by a translation in either r said
language.
3.
In case of notarized documents. The

acknowledgment suffices to authenticate the
document and there is no need to present the
notary public.
4.
Private documents need not be sealed.
5.
If the documents contain alterations, the party

offering the document must explain the alteration
was: made by another without his concurrence;
as consented by all the parties, was innocently
made, or that it does not change the meaning, or
any other valid reason. Said explanation must be
made at the time of the presentation of the
document.
6.
If the document presented consist of judicial

record, such as decisions or orders, they are
conclusive and the only grounds to impeach said
records are (a) want of jurisdiction of the court
which issue them (b) there was collusion
between the court and the prevailing party and
(c) extrinsic fraud was practiced by the winning
party.
7.
If what is sought to be proven is the lack of

records in a certain public office, there must be a
certificate to that effect
Examples: 1. Certifications from the National Statistics
Office that no marriage ever took place between two
people; or (2) from the POEA in illegal recruitment cases
and the (3) FEU in prosecutions for illegal possession of
firearms.
NEED FOR FORMAL OFFER:
The purpose for which evidence is offered must
be specified because such evidence maybe
admissible for several purposes under the
doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be
admissible for one purpose and not for another,
otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the
proper objection (Uniwide vs. Titan-Ikeda 511
SCA 335)
RULE 133. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE
a. INTRODUCTION
Weight of Evidence: The balance of
evidence and in whose favor it tilts. This refers
to the indication of the greater evidence
between the parties. This depends on the
judicial evaluation within the guidelines
provided by the rules and by jurisprudence.
Sufficiency of Evidence- refers to the
adequacy of evidence. Such evidence in
character, weight, or amount, as will legally
justify the judicial action demanded or prayed
by the parties.
This refers to the question as to whether the
evidence amounts or meets the required
quantum needed to arrive at a decision in a
civil, criminal, or administrative case; or to
prove matters of defense or mitigation or to
overcome a prima facie case or a presumption
II. HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES
a) Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
b) Clear and convincing proof.
c) Preponderance of Evidence.
d) Substantial evidence.
Conclusive- overwhelming or incontrovertible.

Prima Facie- that which suffices until rebutted.
Probable Cause- as that required for filing of an
Information in Court or for the issuance of a warrant
of arrest.
truthful in his narration of

correct facts.
iv. The means and opportunity of
knowing
the
facts
which
includes his presence and
observation of the facts.
v. The nature of the facts to which
the witness is testifying such as:
whether he did the act as a
participant, whether he saw the
occurrence of an accident as he
was a passenger; the identity of
a person who is an old
acquaintance; thus as to the
circumstances of the birth a
person, the mother would be
the best witness on this point
mother.
vi. The absence or presence of
interest or basis for bias or
prejudice.
vii. Personal Credibility of the
witness, referring to his general
reputation for truth, honesty or
integrity as for example: (i) the
case of an young girl who
makes a complaint for rape ; as
for
instance
the
accused
claiming self-defense who is well
built, broad shouldered a boxer
and expert in martial arts
claiming the victim of assault by
an ordinary person
viii. The probability or improbability
of the testimony
III. QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED

A. Criminal cases: Proof of Guilt Must be Beyond
reasonable doubt.
That degree of proof, which, excluding the

possibility of error, produces moral certainty.
If the inculpatory facts 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, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a
conviction.
B. Civil Cases: Preponderance of Evidence. This
means that he weight, credit and value of the
aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the
other.
.
IV.
RULES IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

1. Courts shall consider and take into
consideration:
a. all facts which were presented during
the trial whether testimonial, object, or
documentary
b. all facts which were stipulated or
judicially admitted
c. those judicially noticed and
d. All facts which are presumed.
2. No extraneous matters shall be considered
even if the Court knows them as existing in
his personal capacity.
3. In determining the weight and sufficiency of a
partys evidence, the court shall consider
a. All the facts and circumstances of the
case.
b. The testimonial characteristics of a
witness such as:
i. The manner of testifying by a
witness which includes his
conduct and behavior on the
witness stand, the emphasis,
gestures, and inflection of his
voice in answering questions.
This is the reason why the rules
require the witness to personally
testify in open court.
iii. The intelligence of the witness.
This refers o this position to
perceive by the use of his
organs of sense, his opportunity
for accurate observation and
faithful recollection of the facts
to which he is testifying.
This
intelligence must be
coupled with integrity, a general
reputation for truth, honesty
and integrity. This is because a
witness to be believed must be
c.
The number of witnesses. However

witnesses are to been weighed not
numbered
because
quantitative
superiority does not necessarily mean
legal preponderance. Thus an accused
may be convicted based solely on the
testimony of one witness.
But where the evidence for both
parties is principally testimonial where
the version of each exhibit equal
tendency to be true and accurate, and
the witnesses have not betrayed
themselves by major contradictions
or other indications of falsehood,
there exists every reason to measure
preponderance
by
numerical
advantage.
.
4.
The Court has the power to stop the further

presentation of evidence on the same point as
when the additional evidence is only
corroborative or the point has already been
established, or when it results to unnecessary
delay.
5.
As to the testimony of a witness:

a. The court must consider everything
stated by the witness during the
b.
direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross

examinations.
The testimony of a witness maybe
believed in part and disbelieved in
other parts, depending on the
corroborative evidence and the
probabilities and improbabilities of the
case. It is accepted as a matter of
common sense that if certain parts of
the testimony are true, his testimony
can not be disregarded entirely.
against him is weak because

conviction must be on the
strength of the evidence of
the prosecution and not on
the weakness of the evidence
of the accused
b.
c.
d.
Contrast this with the so called

Falsus in unom, falsus in
omnibus
6.
The Preference of Evidence must be

observed in case of conflict:
a. Physical or Object evidence is
evidence of the highest order and
prevails over contrary testimonial
evidence.
b. Documentary
over
testimonial
evidence.
c. Positive over negative evidence. E.G.
positive identification over alibi; an
assertion of the occurrence of a thing
over a plain denial. Denials, if
unsubstantiated
by
clear
and
convincing evidence, are deemed
negative and self-serving evidence
unworthy of credence. (Wa-acon vs.
People, 510 SCRA 429).
d. Direct over circumstantial.
e. Testimony in open court over sworn
statements or affidavits.
f. The Admitted Facts Rule- evidence
of whatever description must yield to
the extent that it conflicts with
admitted or clearly established facts.
Thus courts give superior credit to
witnesses whose testimonies on
material points are in accord with
facts already established (Frondarina
vs. Malazarte 510 SCRA 223).
Inconsistency of statements
Caveat: No inconsistencies- not
credible, possibility o being coached.
7.
Rule in criminal cases:

a. For conviction
i. For
conviction:
the
prosecution
must
adduce
proof
of
guilt
beyond
reasonable doubt i.e. moral
certainty
not
absolute
certainty.
iii. Every doubt is to be resolved
in favor of the accused
iv. Accusation is not synonymous
with guilt
v. Accused need not present
evidence if the evidence
e.
V.
Affirmative Defenses be shown by

clear,
positive
and
convincing
evidence.
Two Witness Rule in Treason.
If
conviction
is
based
on
circumstantial
evidence.
The
requirements under section 4 must be
present
i) There must be more than
one circumstance
iii) The facts from which the
inferences are derived are
proven
iv) The combination of all
such
circumstances
produces
conviction
beyond reasonable doubt
If based on Extra Judicial Confession,
same must be corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE: Evidence to be believed

requires:
A. That it be credible in itself i.e. such as the
common experience and observation of
mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances. Testimony must be natural,
reasonable and probable as to make it easy to
believe.
B. Must come from a credible source- a credible
witness is one who testifies in a categorical,
straightforward spontaneous and frank manner
and remains consistent on cross examination
VI. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURT

by trial court generally accorded respect by appellate
courts as the former have first hand contact with the
evidence and were able to observe the witness as
they testified.
In matters concerning the credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts will generally not
disturb the findings of trial courts unless they
neglected, ignored or misappreciated material
and substantial facts, which could materially
affect the results of the case.
VII. EVIDENCE ON MOTION When a motion is based
on facts not appearing of record the court may hear
the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by
the respective parties, but the court may direct that
the matter be wholly or partially on oral testimony or
depositions.
This refers to collateral issues or motions
based on facts not appearing on record such
as
a. proof of service by publication
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
relief from order of default

Taking of depositions
motion for new trial
relief from judgment
issuance of writ of preliminary
injunction
REMEDIES IN THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

1. Interposing an objection
What can be objected?
a. Presentation of witnesses.
b. Testimony as stated in the offer of
testimony- those are not included
in the offer.
c. Questions- you make a specific
objection by stating your specific
ground.leading
questions,
misleading questions, question is
vague [phraseology], or the
question is argumentativebeware
also of complex questions.
d. Desired answers- those question
that will not elicit facts but
speculative answers.
e. The question has already been ask
and answered.
f. Character of the witness- the
witness had not been properly
qualified so he cannot give an
opinion.
g. Witness not competent- not the
proper person to answer a
question.
h. Approach of lawyers.
When to make objection?
a. Witness- before he takes his oath.
b. Question- wait for the question to
be finished before interposing your
objection.
2.
Continuing objections- register your objection and

that objection will be recognize to all question
regarding such matter.
3.
Motion for reconsideration- asking the court to

change its ruling on the objection.
4.
Taking exception to a ruling- the court made a

ruling, the counsel take exception to the ruling.
5.
Proffer or offer of proof- with respect oral

testimonya) when a witness was not allowed to testify,
the counsel will summarize what will the
witness would testify if he was allowed
[presupposes that the witness is in court
knows what his witness will testifythe

opponent counsel does not know what the
proponents witness will testify on..kaya nga
siya magcross- examine eh!!!.
6.
Tender of excluded evidence- submit to the court

those documents which were not allowed to be
presented as evidence. Tender it to the clerk of court
and to the judge. Purpose: ask the court to make
those documents as part of the records of the case.
7.
Motion to strike- asking the court to direct the

stenographer that the answer or part of the answer of
the witness to be erased or expunge from the record.
Why? Some answers are hearsay, not responsive to
the question or when a question was already
answered before an objection was interposed. Also,
those irrelevant statements of the counsel.
8.
Motion to suppress- with respect to evidence which

are inadmissible, because they are obtained in
violation of exclusionary law. When to make it? Before
the trial begins or before marking OR if during the
trial, file a motion to suppress upon knowledge
thereof.
9.
Motion to quash a search warrant/ warrant of

arrest.
10. Demurrer to evidence or motion to dismiss.

11. Motion to reopen trial- when? When the case is
submitted for decision and no decision was made.
What can be presented? Newly discovered evidence,
which if presented will affect the outcome of the case.
12. Perpetuation of Testimony
RULE 134: PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY
A.
To perpetuate is to preserve for future use .Rule 134

governs the procedure on how a party or witness may
preserve his testimony because the person may not
be available to personally testify in Court during the
trial of a case in which he may be involved, And
therefore the purpose is prevent the loss or
unavailability of the testimony.
B.
The depositions are of two kinds:

1. Depositions de bene esse: one filed after a
case has already been filed in court , i.e to
preserve testimony in danger of being lost
before the witness can be examined in court
Examples: a). the witness scheduled to leave
abroad with no possibility of returning b). the
witness is so sick and might die
ready to testify]
b) The witness is testifying and the opponent

objected to your question which was
sustainedthus, announced to the court if
my question was allowed these would be the
answer of my witness. Proffer of proof
belongs to the proponent and not to the
opponent [Why? Because the proponent
2.
Depositions perpetuam rei memoriam:

one taken in anticipation of a case not yet
filed in court
C.
The requirement of notice to the adverse party(ies) is

essential. It cannot be used against a party who was
not named in the Petition or not issued a notice of the
date and place of the hearing.

D. The deposition may be taken by oral testimony or by
written interrogatories, as directed by the court.
1. In oral testimony, the court may designate
before whom the testimony shall be taken.
The witness undergoes the stages of direct,
cross; re-direct t and re-cross, examinations,
which are duly recorded, including objections
by the parties.
2. If the witness is no longer available for
personal testimony during the trial, the
testimony as, recorded becomes his testimony
in court.

Sophia Legis - Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sophia Legis - Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sophia Legis - Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTES ON EVIDENCE 1

ancient civilizations, then was developed

To determine the truth and thereby obtain

B. Methods of determining the truth in actual

Trial by an Impartial Tribunal- started and

Review notes of Prosecutor Elmer M. Sagsago- SLU Baguio and

The juridical system in the Philippines is

II. Rules of Evidence in the Philippines

The power is essentially legislative in that it is

New laws maybe issued under the Principle that

cannot be taken away from

C. Stipulation and Waiver of a Rule of Evidence

As to waiver (to renounce/ give-up/ abandon):

Rules grounded on public policy cannot be

D. Classification of the Rules of Evidence

Preferential Rules- those which require

witness rule in the crime of treason; the rule

Rules of Extrinsic Policy- these are rules which

E. Interpretation: The rules are to be liberally construed

As the very materials presented in court consisting

As a system, process or methodology of proving a

Section 1 stresses evidence as a system or

II. Definition explained:

The means sanctioned by these rules- The

Of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding- the

evidence is to render justice by arriving at

Respecting a matter of fact- the fact to be

III. Related Concepts: In the following instances the

Evidence from Proof- Strictly evidence is the

Factum Probandum and Factum Probans.

Probandum refers to the

IV. Classification of Evidence (referring to the

Circumstantial- proof of facts or fact from

Per the Supreme Court: it is essential

Guidelines in the appreciation of the

Can a person maybe convicted based on

Negative- when the evidence denies the

The general rule is that positive evidence

Primary (Best) vs. Secondary Evidence

Secondary- that which is necessarily inferior

D. Conclusive vs. Prima facie

Prima facie (at first glance/ impression) -

What is the importance of knowing the

As to effect (criminal case only)

Sec. 2. Scope- The rules of evidence shall be the

Cumulative vs. corroborative

General Rule: Section 2 provides the Rule on Uniformity

Corroborative (to confirm/ to strengthen) additional evidence of a different kind or

have probative value.

As to the presence of the parties: in civil

As to the effect of the absence of a party: in

As to the rule on confessions: this applies only

As to the effect of an offer of compromise by

As to the presumption of innocence: this

The rule on circumstantial

Illustration: (i). Criminal case: the

What does it mean by A fact was

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence- Evidence is