Evidence by Francisco
Evidence by Francisco
Evidence by Francisco
Positive Evidence and Negative Evidence: • PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE – is that which
suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until
• POSITIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness contradicted and overcome by other
affirms that a fact did or did not occur. evidence
Entitled to a greater weight since the witness
represents of his personal knowledge the
presence or absence of a fact • CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE – is that which is
incontrovertible. When evidence is received
• NEGATIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness which the law does not allow to be
did not see or know of the occurrence of a contradicted.
fact. There is a total disclaimer of personal
knowledge, hence without any Cases:
representation or disavowal that the fact in “Accordingly, a party introducing in evidence
question could or could not have existed or a letter written by his agent to the adverse
happened. It is admissible only if it tends to party, is bound by the statements contained
contradict positive evidence of the other side therein.” (Lilian Realty Co. v. Erdum, 120
or would tend to exclude the existence of N.Y.S. 749)
fact sworn to by the other side.
“In an action to recover money paid in
settlement of an account in stock
Corroborative Evidence and Cumulative Evidence: transactions, plaintiff is bound by his own
testimony that the transactions were
• CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – is gambling transactions, so as to preclude
additional evidence of a different kind and recovery by him. (Atwater v. A.G. Edwards
character tending to prove the same point Brokerage Co, 147 Mo. A. 436, 126 S.W.
(Wyne v. Newman, 75, Va., 811, 817) 822)
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by
way of defense, he attempts to establish an
alibi.
2. Two axioms of Admissibility 1. His mother testifies that he was
at home in bed at the time the
murder was committed; or
a. None but facts having rational 2. A distinguished physician
probative value are admissible. – It testifies that he was attending
prescribes that whatever is presented as the defendant in his home at the
evidence shall be presented on the time the murder was committed.
hypothesis that it is calculated,
according to the prevailing standards of As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are
equally admissible. But it is likely that the
reasoning, to effect rational persuasion.
court would give greater weight to the
testimony of a disinterested physician than
b. All facts having rational probative of a mother, who might be expected to
value are admissible, unless some commit perjury in an effort to save her son.
specific rule forbids. – This principle
does not mean that anything that has
probative value is admissible. But Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407
everything having a probative value is
February 9, 2011). Admissibility of evidence
ipso facto entitled to be assumed to be refers to the question whether or not the
admissible, and therefore any rule of circumstance or evidence is to be
policy which may be valid to exclude it is considered at all. On the other hand, the
a superadded and abnormal rule. probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an
3. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from issue.
weight of evidence
4. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal 7. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts
relevancy relevant to the case
RULE 128, Sec. 3.Admissibility of evidence. b. All facts having rational probative
value are admissible, unless some
6. Requisites of admissibility of evidence. specific rule forbids. – This principle
does not mean that anything that has
a. Evidence is relevant to the issue probative value is admissible. But
b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does everything having a probative value is
not belong to that class of evidence ipso facto entitled to be assumed to be
which is excluded by the law or the admissible, and therefore any rule of
Rules of Evidence policy which may be valid to exclude it is
a superadded and abnormal rule.
Cases:
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392
March 14, 2011). The non-compliance with
Section 21 of said law, particularly the
making of the inventory and the 8. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from
photographing of the drugs confiscated weight of evidence
and/or seized, will not render the drugs
inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Admissibility of Weight of Evidence
Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is Evidence
admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or these The admissibility of The weight of evidence
rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there evidence is has to do with the effect
determined by its of evidence admitted,
should be a law or rule which forbids its
relevance and its tendency to
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the competence. convince and persuade.
evidence must be admitted subject only to
the evidentiary weight that will be accorded
it by the courts. The admissibility of The weight of evidence
evidence does not is not determined
depend on its weight mathematically by
BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. and sufficiency; numerical superiority of
168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony credibility and weight witnesses testifying to a
being questions of given fact, but depends
of Marasigan on the particulars of
fact. upon its practical effect
respondent’s supposed bank account with in inducing belief on the
Security Bank and the documentary part of the judge trying
evidence represented by the checks the case.
adduced in support thereof, are not only
incompetent for being excluded by operation
of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise It involves credibility of
witnesses and all
irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do
inherent probabilities
not appear to have any logical and and improbabilities
reasonable connection to the prosecution of deducible from the
respondent for qualified theft. evidence as a whole.
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by
7. Two axioms of Admissibility way of defense, he attempts to establish an
alibi.
a. None but facts having rational 1. His mother testifies that he was
probative value are admissible. – It at home in bed at the time the
murder was committed; or
prescribes that whatever is presented as
2. A distinguished physician
evidence shall be presented on the testifies that he was attending
hypothesis that it is calculated,
the defendant in his home at the Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by
time the murder was committed. one party and received without objection and the
opponents afterwards, for the purpose of
As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are
negativing or explaining or otherwise
equally admissible. But it is likely that the
court would give greater weight to the counteracting, offers a fact similarly
testimony of a disinterested physician than inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves
of a mother, who might be expected to to remove an unfair effect upon the court which
commit perjury in an effort to save her son. might otherwise ensue from the original fact.
G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011 The that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLLY
particularly the making of the inventory and the
SORIAGA y STO. DOMINGO
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or
seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in
For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be
evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules
a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there
of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant
to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these personal account with Security Bank. But before the
rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should testimony could be completed, respondent filed a
be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is Motion to Suppress, seeking the exclusion of
no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted Marasigan’s testimony and accompanying
subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be documents thus far received, bearing on the subject
accorded it by the courts. Security Bank account. This time respondent
invokes, in addition to irrelevancy, the privilege of
There is no provision or statement in said law or in confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405. The trial court in
any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of its order denied respondent’s motion to suppress.
the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-
compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. ISSUE:
9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance
with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight Whether or not the testimony of Marasigan and the
— evidentiary merit or probative value — to be given accompanying documents are irrelevant to the case,
the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts and whether they are also violative of the absolutely
on said evidence depends on the circumstances confidential nature of bank deposits and, hence,
obtaining in each case. excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405.
HELD:
Yes. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution Petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition
mandates that a search and seizure must be carried for certiorari under Rule 65 asserting that the trial
out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant court acted "in excess of, or without jurisdiction
predicated upon the existence of probable cause, and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
absent which such search and seizure becomes lack or excess of jurisdiction”, in issuing the order of
"unreasonable" within the meaning of said DNA testing, however, the petition was denied.
constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such an ISSUE:
unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and
should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool to
poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental determine filiation and as such be admissible in
law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any evidence in a paternity suit.
purpose in any proceeding.
HELD:
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute
and rigid proscription. One of the recognized
Yes. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to
exception established by jurisprudence is search
the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by
incident to a lawful arrest. In this exception, the law
statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant
requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search
when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest
induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
is considered legitimate if effected with a valid
Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the
warrant of arrest.
admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the
In this case, there is no gainsaying that Ambre was opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
caught by the police officers in the act of using knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is
shabu and, thus, can be lawfully arrested without a shown to possess may be received in evidence. This
warrant. His conviction stands. Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the
admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed,
even evidence on collateral matters is allowed
G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005 "when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish
ROSENDO HERRERA vs. ROSENDO ALBA the probability or improbability of the fact in issue."
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by therefore, courts should consider, among other
statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is things, the following data: how the samples were
relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non- contamination of the samples, the procedure
existence. followed in analyzing the samples, whether the
proper standards and procedures were followed in
FACTS: conducting the tests, and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted the tests. DNA analysis that
Thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba represented by his excludes the putative father from paternity should be
mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of
petition for compulsory recognition, support and Probability of Paternity (W) is less than 99.9%, the
damages against petitioner. Petitioner Herrera results of the DNA analysis should be considered as
denied that he is the biological father of respondent corroborative evidence. If the value of Probability of
and denied physical contact with respondent’s Paternity (W) is 99.9% or higher, then there is
mother.Respondent filed a motion to direct the refutable presumption of paternity.
taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the
proceedings.Petitioner opposed DNA paternity The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule
testing and contended that it has not gained on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of
acceptability and further argued that DNA paternity children, especially of illegitimate children, is without
testing violates his right against self-incrimination. prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim
The trial court granted respondent’s motion to his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid
conduct DNA paternity testing on petitioner. this investigation is obtainable through the facilities
of modern science and technology, such evidence Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon
should be considered subject to the limits duly established evidence and never on mere
established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence. conjectures or suppositions. The legal relevancy of
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004 evidence denotes "something more than a minimum
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOEL YATAR of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary
alias "KAWIT" relevance must contain a "plus value." This may be
necessary to preclude the trial court from being
The legal relevancy of evidence denotes satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
"something more than a minimum of probative exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions.
value," suggesting that such evidentiary Evidence without "plus value" may be logically
relevance must contain a "plus value." This may relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is
be necessary to preclude the trial court from incumbent upon the trial court to balance the
being satisfied by matters of slight value, probative value of such evidence against the likely
capable of being exaggerated by prejudice and harm that would result from its admission.
hasty conclusions. Evidence without "plus
value" may be logically relevant but not legally The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only
sufficient to convict. when there is relevant evidence from which the court
can properly find or infer that the accused is guilty
FACTS: beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt requires moral certainty of guilt in order to
Joel Yatar was convicted by the trial court with rape sustain a conviction. Moral certainty is that degree of
with homicide defined and penalized under Article certainty that convinces and directs the
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by understanding and satisfies the reason and
R.A. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of judgment of those who are bound to act
1997, and was accordingly, sentenced to Death. conscientiously upon it. It is certainty beyond
Pursuant to Article 47 of the revised Penal Code, an reasonable doubt. This requires that the
automatic review was made, the appellant alleging circumstances, taken together, should be of a
that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to conclusive nature and tendency; leading, on the
the evidence presented by the prosecution whole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the accused,
notwithstanding their doubtfulness and thereby he and no one else, committed the offense charged. In
should be acquitted from the crime charged due to view of the totality of evidence appreciated thus far,
reasonable doubt. we rule that the present case passes the test of
moral certainty.
KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE c. The rule must be taken with the qualification
that it relates only to such governments as have
MANDATORY DISCRETIONARY been recognized by the home government. The
recognition of a foreign government is a political
rather than a judicial matter and therefore courts conduct of the litigant
follow the determination of the executive department or witness in a similar
of the forum; matter.
Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Another Case. • After trial and before judgment
Ruling: The best evidence of the Company’s losses c. The phrase “Objects as evidence are those
would have been the sales invoices instead of the addressed to the senses of the court” and the
Manager’ oral testimony. The rule that when the words “is relevant”; “it”; “examined” have been
original consists of numerous accounts or other added in the present provision.
documents which cannot be examined in court
found on or near the victim, to show
Object (real) evidence defined – Object (real) self-defense;
evidence is that which is addressed to the
senses of the tribunal, as where objects are d. In cases involving an assault or a
presented for the inspection of the court. homicide, the clothing of the victim to
show the location of wounds, the
Object (real) evidence may consist of articles or manner or means of death, the relative
persons, which may be exhibited inside or outside positions of the victim and his assailant
the courtroom; it may also consist in the mere or the distance between them, or to
inspection of an object; or in an experiment. throw light on any material issue; also
the clothing of the victim’s companion
Scope of object (real) evidence -- This source where relevant;
of persuasion has been resorted to in a great
e. In homicide, the bones or flesh of the
number of instances. A witness may use his own
victim, to show the character and
body, or an article, to illustrate or explain the
location of wounds (it is within the
evidence. In the same way counsels, to show its
court’s discretion to order the victim’s
meaning on their theory of the case, may make any
skull exhumed so it may be offered in
use of the court room or furniture; and it has also
evidence); objects used to help hide the
been held permissible to use the furniture from the
body;
room where a crime was committed, arranged so as
to illustrate the testimony of a witness. f. In theft cases, the stolen goods,
burglars’ tools, other objects which help
Object (real) evidence is not limited to that accomplish the theft;
which may be known by the sense of vision; it
extends to what is perceived by the senses of g. In a hit-and-run case, headlight glass
hearing, taste, smell or touch. Any article made partly recovered from the scene and
important by the evidence or by the nature of the partly from the garage where repairs
investigation may be produced for inspection, or were made;
where the circumstances are such that it cannot be
or should not be brought to the court, it may be h. In a drunken driving case, liquor, tools to
inspected at the place where it is to be found. aid in its manufacture, marked money
Inspection evidence of this character may range used in its purchase;
over any line of human activity, as building or
i. In liquor cases, the liquor, tools to aid in
mechanical trades, the medical or surgical
its manufacture, marked money used in
profession, or nautical affairs. A frequent application
its purchase;
of the rule is found in the production of the tools or
implements with which as certain act was, or is j. In narcotics trials, the drug, a drug
claimed to have been worn by a person at the time container, the syringe, needle and
of an occurrence in controversy. spoon, marked money used to purchase
the drug;
Where properly identified and where
relevant to a material issue, objects such as the k. In fraud and cheating cases, any object
following have been received in evidence: which shows how the result was
a. In abortion cases, the instrument or accomplished;
medicine with which the crime was
committed, and the clothing of the l. In counterfeiting; the counterfeiting
victim; machine;
c. In any case where a weapon is used, n. In rape, any weapon used to subdue or
the weapon, including, if it is a firearm, intimidate the victim, the clothing of the
bullets and shells; weapons other than victim, the clothing of the accused;
the one used, to show intent; weapons
o. In sex cases other than rape, objects each instance depending on the admissibility of the
which throw light on the crime; fact shown by inspection. In a large number of
instances this is the real question.
p. The clothing of the accused, to identify Admission of clothing worn by plaintiff at
him or to throw light on other issues; time of accident has been held improper where the
fact of injury was uncontroverted.
q. Any object which is used in
The present condition of an object offered
accomplishing the crime;
may not be the same as to be proper evidence of its
r. Drawings and maps which help explain former condition; accordingly, autoptic preference is
the crime or the defendant’s escape allowable only on the assumption that the condition
route; is the same or sufficiently similar.
Experiments to show the quality or operation
s. Objects which illustrate a consciousness of a substance, a machine, etc., are often excluded
of guilt on defendant’s part; because of the dissimilarity of circumstances or
because of probable confusion of issues; and for this
t. Objects which corroborate or illustrate reason the exhibition of such experiments before the
verbal testimony. tribunal may of course be forbidden.
As a general rule it seems essential that
articles shown to the court be connected, at least
Reason for admissibility of object (real)
prima facie, with the crime in issue. An article of
evidence – to a rational man of perfect organization
personal property, the relevancy of which has been
the best and highest proof of which any fact is
shown by its identification with the subject-matter of
susceptible is the evidence of his senses. This is
the crime, may be exhibited in the courtroom,
the ultimate test of truth, and is therefore the first
whether as direct evidence of a relevant fact, or to
principle in the philosophy of evidence. Hence, the
enable them to understand the evidence or to realize
evidence of one’s own senses, furnishes the
more completely its cogency and force, or to assist
strongest probability and indeed the perfect and
the court in solving a material, controverted or
indubitable certainty of the existence of any sensible
doubtful point. Admission of visual, exhibitive or
fact.
demonstrative evidence is much within the discretion
Physical evidence is evidence of the highest
of the court, and the extent of identification of such
order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred
articles necessary before admission varies with
witnesses.
circumstances. The court may inspect and smell the
contents of a bottle properly identified and admitted
in evidence. Comparison of materials may also be
Requisites for admissibility of object made by the court, aided by the evidence of expert
(real) evidence – an object may be exhibited, witnesses. So in case the quality of an article, or its
examined or viewed by the court when (1) it is adaptability to a specific use or purpose, is in issue,
relevant to the fact in issue, and (2) the present a sample may be shown to the court, together with a
condition of the object is the same at the time in specimen of a like material which is shown to be of
issue. good quality or adapted to the required purpose, and
the court may then make a comparison to ascertain
possible points of difference.
If, by some principle of relevancy, a fact
offered to be shown is not admissible, because Exhibition of person – Trial courts, in
irrelevant, it cannot be shown, either in this or in any actions to recover damages, have an inherent
other way. For example, whether a person’s color is discretionary power to order a reasonable physical
black or white is best ascertained by inspecting the examination of the plaintiff to be made before trial by
person; but if his color when ascertained would be competent physicians and surgeons whenever such
irrelevant for the purpose concerned, an inspection examination is necessary to ascertain the nature,
to learn his color would obviously be unnecessary, extent, or permanency of alleged injuries. Trial
and therefore improper. Thus, his color might be courts also are generally deemed to have power to
relevant to show his race-ancestry, but not to show compel the exhibition of the plaintiff’s person, under
his state of health; in the former case inspection proper restrictions, in the trial of a personal-injury
would be allowed in the latter case not, the ruling in action; and it is within the discretion of the trial judge,
when the physical condition of a party is in question, object of all evidence is to inform the trial tribunal of
as in personal-injury actions, to permit the injured the material facts, which are relevant as bearing
party to exhibit his person to the court in order to upon the issue, in order that the truth may be elicited
show the extent and nature of his injury. Such and that a just determination of the controversy may
exhibitions of part of the plaintiff’s person are often be reached. It is not objectionable, in these cases,
permitted without objections. Under the rule stated, which the evidence may go beyond the oral narrative
the plaintiff may be permitted to exhibit an arm, and may be addressed to the senses; provided that
hand, leg, foot, and other parts of the body, such as it is kept within reasonable limits by the exercise of a
the shoulder, head, etc., provided the exhibition is fair judicial discretion. It should be only of a nature
not objectionable on the ground of indecency. to assist the court to an understanding of a situation,
Where an arm or a leg has been amputated, the of an act, or to comprehend objective symptoms
exhibition of the naked remnant may be permissible. resulting from an injury. Examples of this class of
The extent to which one may be allowed to evidence are frequent; in the viewing of the place of
exhibit his person to the court on the trial is a matter an occurrence, in the exhibition of the person and of
largely of discretion of the court. If it appears that the marks, or obvious evidences, of injuries
the exhibition by the plaintiff would necessitate an sustained. Personal injuries may be simulated and
exposure which would be indecent, the court, in the deception may be practiced in such exhibitions; but
exercise of its discretion, should not permit the that cannot more be prevented, than can perjury in
exhibition before the court. testimony. When, however, proof is attempted to be
Where an issue as to personal injuries or made by allowing the plaintiff to act out upon a
disability is involved, the injured person may be judicial stage before the court what he or his
permitted to exhibit to the court the wound or injury, physicians, have testified to be some nervous
or the member or portion of his body on which such affection, resulting from an injury, the exhibition is
wound or injury was inflicted. Thus, the court has improper because it is unfair. As something under
permitted the exhibition of an ankle, a knee, a foot, a the sole control of the witness himself, it is beyond
leg, an arm, a hand, an eye socket, and various the ordinary tests of examination. Nor does such
other parts of the body. A similar exhibition may be evidence allow any record, beyond the reporter’s
made where the injury has resulted in the death of notes of what he saw upon the trial. It is intended to
the injured person or the loss of a member or part of prejudice the mind of the judge and it is calculated to
his body. affect the calm judicial atmosphere of a court of
justice. The plaintiff, in such cases, has sufficient
Indecency or impropriety as ground for advantages without adding to them a spectacular
disallowing the introduction of object (real) illustration of his symptoms.
evidence; exception – when the object produced The exhibition of the weapons or tools of a
as evidence is indecent, or improper, it should be crime, or of the clothing or the mutilated members of
excluded, unless the same is necessary for the victim of the crime, has often been objected to
ascertaining the truth. on grounds of Undue Prejudice. The objection thus
But when justice and the discovery of truth, indicated seems to be two-fold. First, there is a
are at stake, the ordinary canons of modesty and natural tendency to infer from the mere production of
delicacy of feeling cannot be allowed to impose a any material object, and without further evidence,
prohibition upon necessary measures. If such the truth of all that is predicated on it. Secondly, the
matters were not unshrinking discussed and probed, sight of deadly weapons or of cruel injuries tends to
many kinds of crime would remain unpunished. overwhelm reason and to associate the accused
Nevertheless, needless spectators having no with the atrocity without sufficient evidence. The
responsibility for the course of justice may well be objection in its first phase may be at least partly
avoided. Where it is a question of what would overcome by requiring the object to be properly
otherwise be an indecency, two limitations seems authenticated, before or after the production; and
appropriate: (a) there should be fair necessity for this requirement is constantly enforced by the courts.
inspection, the trial court to determine; (b) the The objection in its second phase cannot be entirely
inspection should take place apart from the public overcome, even by express instruction from the
courtroom, in the sole presence of the tribunal and Court; but it is to be doubted whether the necessity
the parties. of thus demonstrating the method and results of the
Introduction of object (real) evidence for crime should give way to this possibility or undue
the purpose of arousing undue prejudice – The prejudice. No doubt such an effect may be
occasionally and in an extreme case be produced; of persons and animals, scenery, natural objects,
and no doubt the trial court has a discretion to buildings, and other artificial objects. It is
prevent the abuse if the process. But, in the vast accordingly well established that photographs of
majority of instances where such objection is made, persons, things, and places, when duly verified and
it is frivolous and there is no ground for shown by extrinsic evidence to be faithful
apprehension. Accordingly, such objections have representations of the subjects as of the time in
almost invariably been repudiated by the Courts. question, are, in the discretion of the trial court,
Where it appears that the real evidence is admissible in evidence as aids to it in arriving at an
produced merely for the purpose of arousing feeling, understanding of the evidence, the situation or
admission has been held error. For example, where condition of objects or premises, the circumstances
the plaintiff, a little girl, sues for the loss of her leg, of an accident, or the condition or identity of a
and the defendant admits the fact of amputation and person when any such matter is relevant to the
the child is present in court, the introduction of the issues being litigated.
amputated limb as preserved in spirits warrants a Where depositions of subscribing witnesses
new trial. Of such a case, the court said that, it may to a will are taken, a photographic copy of the will
however, be assumed that technically the rule of may be presented to the witnesses on their
evidence authorized the exhibition of the foot. Such examination and they may be asked the same
rule, however, is without force when the legitimate questions with respect to said copy as if it were the
purpose for which the exhibit may be made is light, original will and testimony as to the identity of the
and the strong tendency is to work improper and photographic copy shown to the witnesses is
illegitimate results. It is perfectly clear in the present admissible in evidence.
case that the direct tendency of the exhibition of this
mangled foot, coupled with the other considerations In the case of Rodelas vs. Aranza; G. R. No. L-
already noted, was to arouse the prejudice and 58509 December 7, 1982:
inflame the passions of the court into an angry
resentment against the author of the misfortune.
This condition far overbalanced any legitimate The appellant Marcela Rodelas filed a
purpose for which the exhibit might have been petition for the probate of the holographic will of
made, and made the exhibition of this foot, under the Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letter
circumstances of this case, improper. testamentary in her favor. However, it was opposed
on the following ground:
Other grounds for denying application
for the production of object (real) evidence – a.) Can a holographic will which was lost be
Beyond question it rests in the discretion of the court proved by means of a photostatic copy?
to deny applications for the production of real
evidence in cases where the order will cause great
Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the
inconvenience, or where, for other reasons, it is
affirmative. It is necessary that there be a
unjust. Thus, in Mississippi case, the court refused
comparison between sample handwritten statements
to order the exhumation of a dead body; although
of the testator and the handwritten will. But, a
the defendant, an insurance company, claimed that
photostatic copy of a holographic will may be
the deceased had made admissions that he had in
allowed because comparison can be made with the
childhood received a severe injury to the skull which
standard writings of the testator.
could only be prove by an examination. It may
happen that it is impracticable to bring an animal into
The facts as depicted by photographs are
the room where the court is sitting, and in such
usually reasonably correct representations and
cases the examination need not necessarily be has
constitute evidence of a satisfactory and conclusive
in the courtroom, so long as it is under the direction
nature.
of the court and in the presence of the parties.
Photographs of any place which may be
Similar holdings may be found with reference to
viewed by the trial court are admissible in evidence
articles of great weight, such as large steel bars.
upon proof of their exactness and accuracy.
The logic underlying the admission of
Photographs – the courts take judicial
photographs which have been authenticated by the
notice that all civilized communities rely on
operator of the camera, or by some other witness
photographic pictures for presenting resemblances
who can testify from personal knowledge as to the
accuracy of the representation, is drawn principally govern when the relevancy of any other sort of
from the cases admitting maps and diagrams. There evidence is corrected.
are, however, two fundamental distinctions between
diagrams, or drawings, and photographs, which Photographs are received in evidence for
emphasize the prejudicial implications to the latter: the following purposes:
(1) the photograph is generally accepted by courts a. To show the scene of the crime (the
as an accurate machine-made reproduction of picture need not show the complete
nature; while the diagram or drawing is recognized premises) sometimes with the body of
by them as man-made and considerably less the victim still at the scene;
accurate; a slight inaccuracy or distortion of size,
distance or shape in a photograph is thus far more b. To show the victim of an assault or a
objectionable that an error of similar degree in a homicide;
diagram; (2) the vital, mirror-like appearance of a
c. To show the identity of persons alive or
photograph makes it capable of inciting passions
dead, including the defendant and the
and prejudices of a court, whereas a lifeless map or
victim or his remains, even when
drawing of the same subject would not have this
decomposed;
effect. Thus, while photographs may be of a fairly
similar evidential character as diagrams, and maps, d. To show wound or other physical
there is little room for comparison as to their injuries, or that a child or an animal has
respective degrees of probative force. The court has been ill-treated or not properly fed;
in effect an eye witness view of the subject matter.
Photographs are admissible in evidence in criminal e. To show the fruits of the crime,
cases upon the same principles and rules governing contraband, and the weapons used;
their admission in civil cases.
The test of admissibility is whether the f. To supply facsimiles of public records;
photograph accurately portrays the scene at the time
g. To illustrate handwriting testimony and
of the crime, and the photographer is not a
fingerprint testimony;
necessary witness. Photographs of the scene, taken
several months after the crime was committed, were h. To rebut testimony of the other side.
properly admitted where it appeared that the
condition of the premises has not materially changed
in the meantime. Use of devices to accentuate
If the correctness of the photograph as a photographic evidence – In many instances a
likeness shown prima facie, either by the testimony photograph will not sufficiently depict important
of the person who made it or by other competent details of a scene to give it significance in the eyes
witnesses, to the effect that it faithfully represents of the court. This is especially true in cases
the object portrayed, it should go to the court subject involving skid marks, scratches, gouges, and other
to impeachment as to its accuracy. Whether the marks left on the road by tires or other parts of
photograph is an accurate likeness then becomes a vehicles involved in a collision. In such instances it is
question of fact to be determined by the court. not an unusual practice to lay down sticks, rocks or
The photograph or must be relevant as well other objects to indicate or intensify such features of
as correct. Its relevancy will depend on the the picture. These do not affect its admissibility when
relevancy of the scene or object it represents. If a the presence of the markers is verified and
photograph purports to represent a relevant scene or explained by the witnesses. Obviously, when a
object, but portrays it in a grossly inaccurate photographic representation includes foreign objects
manner, so that it practically represents something marking such details it is not sufficient that the
else, and the scene or object would scarcely be general accuracy of the photograph be verified.
recognized thereby, the non-reliability of the Someone must also explain why the objects appear
photograph as a correct likeness may almost be therein and what they purport to represent or mark.
considered as producing irrelevancy. But usually the If the object is nothing more than a marker, the
question of relevancy is distinct from that of exhibit is not subject to the objection that it is a
correctness, and is for the judge exclusively. It is to “posed” picture for it does not purport to recreate a
be determined upon the considerations which bygone scene. An example of this would be the
placing of a yardstick to indicate the distance
between the ground and rear fender of the cat basic characteristics, is no different from ordinary
involved in a fatal hit and run accident. photography, in regard to the visual pictures
reproduced, and on the other hand, from
Enlargements – Although magnification that phonographic records, in regard to the auditory
constitutes distortion may be objectionable, it is no recording of sound. A movie tone, duly
valid objection to the introduction of the photograph authenticated as a true portrayal of the actions and
that it is an enlargement made from an original. words of a defendant at the time it was taken is
Enlargements are, of course, subject to the usual admissible evidence.
tests of accuracy and relevancy that any photograph The question of permitting a motion picture
would be. to be displayed before the court is wholly within the
discretion of the court, and where the picture does
Color pictures – color photographs or not amplify matters, no reversible error is committed
slides are admissible on the same basis as ordinary in refusing to allow its admission or display as
black and white pictures. The same test is applies evidence.
by courts, the test of probative value. The color Authentication of motion pictures ordinarily
tends to be regarded as a more faithful type of includes (1) evidence as to the circumstances
representation that black and white photographs. surrounding the taking of the film; (2) the manner
and circumstances surrounding the development of
Aerial photographs – Aerial photographs, the film; (3) evidence in regard to the projection of
depicting ground areas pertinent to the particular the film; (4) testimony by the person present at the
issue, are held admissible upon the same foundation time the motion pictures were taken that the pictures
basis as other photographs. accurately depict the events as he saw them when
that occurred.
X-ray – In one way or another, X-rays are Video tape – The use of the video tape in
perhaps the modality of medical treatment or the courtroom have become more commonplace in
diagnosis most commonly appearing in litigation. recent times. A Michigan court has said: “A video
Diagnostic X-ray films often provide counsel with his tape is nothing more than a motion picture
best source of objective proof of his client’s injuries, synchronized with a sound recording. Therefore, a
establishing in a manner that all can see that complete video tape may be received into evidence
plaintiff’s leg bones indeed were fractured a year if the offering party lays the foundation necessary to
before trial, and the like. Even when X-ray films do admit a motion picture and the foundation necessary
not reveal their secrets clearly enough for a court to to admit sound recording. Thus, where it is testified
understand them without expert interpretation, they that the video tape is a true and accurate
nevertheless comprise a means of dramatic representation of what it is purported to represent, it
persuasion often of inestimable value. is sufficient authentication. Video tapes have been
The same rules and principles which apply admitted for confessions, admissions, lineups, crime
to ordinary pictures are applicable to an X-ray scenes, witness’s testimony, drinking driver’s
photograph, although subject to explanation or condition and even to show the actual commission of
interpretation by experts in order to make them the crime.
intelligible to the court.
Diagrams, sketches and maps – Pencil,
Motion pictures – Principles underlying pen and ink drawings and maps have been received
admissibility of talking motion pictures are not to identify or explain localities or positions of objects.
different from those governing the admissibility of Though they are received as primary evidence
still pictures and phonograph records. It is a matter appealing to the eyes of the court under the rule
of common knowledge that motion pictures are no admitting photographs, they differ from the latter in
longer a novelty. They are constantly used for that their accuracy as portraits or likeliness must be
commercial and scientific purposes. The talking affirmatively shown by the testimony of the artist or
motion picture, or movie tone, as it is technically other competent witness. There is no presumption
known, results merely from adaption of the scientific of correctness founded on general use and
processes used in producing photographic records employment, or on their being mechanical
in order that words spoken, or sounds produced at reproductions by a process which the court will
the time of the taking of the picture, may be judicially notice, as exists in the case of
reproduced with the picture. The movie tone, in photographs. The witness called to prove their
correctness must testify of his own knowledge that expert opinion. A witness may give his opinion as to
they faithfully represent the object depicted, and the correspondence of footprints to shoes, feet or
their accuracy, if disputed, is a question for the court, other footprints after testifying as to the
turning upon the credibility of the witnesses measurements or peculiarities thereof upon which
The draftsman of the map must testify as to such opinion is based.
its accuracy, but any other witnesses may refer to it
while testifying, to illustrate his testimony. It is not Phonograph and tape recordings – Sound
material by whom the map or diagram was prepared recordings are generally admitted in evidence where
providing that he can testify that the map or diagram a proper foundation has been laid to assure the
is accurate and based on knowledge derive from his authenticity of the recording. The phonograph, the
own investigation. Dictaphone, the talking motion picture machine, and
The use of diagrams, models and casts as similar recording devices, with reproducing
testimony of the objects represented rests apparatus, are now in such common use that the
fundamentally upon the theory that they represent a verity of their recordingand reproducing sounds,
method of pictorial communication of a qualified including those made by the human voice in
witness which he may use of instead of, or in conversation, is well-established; and as advances
addition to, some other method. Evidence of this in such matters of scientific research and discovery
character is helpful in aiding the court to visualize are mad and generally adopted, the courts will be
the objects and scenes in the action. Thus a model permitted to make use of them by way of present-
of a machine, a mechanical device or a bridge, may evidentiary facts.
be submitted to the court to aid them in
understanding how an event occurred or might have Voiceprints (spectrograms) – It is
been prevented. This type of evidence is properly established law that an accused person in lawful
described as illustrative evidence. It is a type of custody may be required to demonstrate his voice
demonstrative evidence especially useful to police for identification purpose on the same grounds that
officers and other witnesses in describing traffic he may be subjected to fingerprinting,
accident scenes. photographing, measurements, and the like. This
can be done through line-ups, tape recordings, video
Fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, tape, or other similar methods, in addition to
tracks, etc. – A method of proof now commonly speaking in court.
resorted to in providing identity is in the use of Another method of voice identification has
evidence as to the correspondence or similarity of been developed in recent years called “voice print”
the fingerprints, palm prints and footprints. or “spectrograms”. This device consists of a
Authenticated fingerprints, palm prints, or footprints magnetic recording device, a variable electronic
or photographs thereof of a person may be filter, a paper-carrying drum which is coupled to the
introduced in evidence and compared with other recording device, and an electronic stylus that marks
fingerprints, palm prints, or footprints found at or the paper as the drum rotates. Spectrograms can
near the scene of the crime. This comparison is be compared point for point to determine if any
usually made by experts. significant similarities exist. It is based on the theory
Testimony concerning tracks and footprints that no two persons have exactly the same physical
discovered near the scene of crime is admissible if a voice properties.
connection with defendant by means of comparison
or otherwise is shown. A comparison of footprints,
proved to have been made by the prisoner, with Personal appearance of a person – It has
other tracks or footprints found near the scene of the been held that to determine whether a person is an
homicide is relevant, but the opinion of the witness alien or not, his personal appearance, ethnological
that footprints near the scene of the crime were and racial characteristic, language, customs, dress
those of the accused not based on a comparison, is and manners may be taken into consideration. The
not admissible. The witness generally must have age of a person may also be determined by his
made some actual comparison of the footprint – not personal appearance. The resemblance between a
just looked at it. minor and his alleged father is competent and
material evidence to establish parentage. Of course,
The correspondence of footprints to shoes,
the absence of such resemblance would not be
feet or other footprints is a matter not restricted to
sufficient to show that parentage does not exist.
The accused cannot object if he be identified exclude such evidence. It is plain that evidence of
in open court without being required to stand. A an experiment whereby to test the truth of testimony
direction to a witness to look about the court and that a certain thing occurred is not admissible where
point out a person in court who he thinks committed the conditions attending the alleged occurrences and
the crime is always proper. The court or the the experiments are not shown to be similar.
prosecuting attorney may even point out the
accused and ask a witness if that is the person who Mode and place of presentation and
committed the crime. If the accused shall voluntarily inspection – No distinction shall be taken as
stand up and so thus be identified by a witness regards the mode of presentation by the party. An
pointing him out, he should not be granted a new object may be merely set forth for inspection, or
trial upon the ground that he has been compelled to some experimental process may be conducted in the
testify as against himself. And it has been held tribunal’s presence; whether the mode involves a
merely directing the accused to stand up for showing or doing, neither is in itself objectionable.
identification is not compelling him to be a witness Nor is any distinction to be taken as to the mode of
against himself, nor is the bringing of the defendant inspection by the tribunal. It may merely employ its
into court for inspection or identification or dressed in senses directly; or it may use some suitable
clothes connected with the crime. It has been held mechanical aid, such as a microscope; and it may
in some cases, however, that to go father and merely look on, or it may take an active share in the
require accused to do some affirmative act, such as process of experimentation. Nor is there any
putting on clothing found at the scene of the crime, distinction as to the place of inspection; the thing
violates his constitutional rights. may be brought into the court, or the tribunal may go
to the place where the thing is.
Experiment – In instances where it is
necessary to show the condition or quality of a Object must be inspected in open court
certain article or substance, the thing itself is the and in the presence of the defendant – When the
most powerful evidence that can be produced; it may trial court is of the opinion that the ends of justice will
be introduced in evidence as supplementing the be advanced by permitting the introduction of an
testimony of witnesses, or as direct evidence when object in evidence, the court may permit its
properly identified. Evidence of the result of an examination or inspection, but such examination or
actual experiment or test is admissible to aid in inspection must be in open court, and in the
determining the issues in a case where it is shown presence of the defendant, and at all times subject
that the conditions under which the experiment or to the control of the court. The rule permitting an
test was made were the same or similar to the inspection by the judge of places or premises, when
circumstances prevailing at the time of the in his judgment the ends of justice will be promoted
occurrence involved in the controversy. Such thereby, is simply an extension of the power of
evidence should, however, be admitted only where it inspection to places and premises which cannot be
is obvious to the court from the nature of the brought into court.
experiments that the court will be enlightened, rather
than confused. Ocular inspection or view of an object
out of court – where the object in question cannot
When evidence of an experiment is not be produced be produced in court because it is
admissible – Evidence of experiments performed is immovable or inconvenient to remove, the natural
admissible in both civil and criminal cases when the proceeding is for the tribunal to go to the object in its
judge, in his discretion, is of the opinion that the place and there observe it. This process,
evidence is beneficial, and that it does not tend to traditionally known as a “view” has been recognized
distract or confuse. On the other hand, tests and as an appropriate one. It should be remembered,
experiments are not without danger. Obviously, if however, that whether or not an ocular inspection or
the experiment is too complicated to afford any fair view of an object out of the court should be made,
inference, or if it cannot be performed in such a rest entirely on the sound discretion of the trial court.
manner as fairly to illustrate the fact to be found, it The inconvenience of adjourning court until a view
should be excluded. If the trial judge, exercising can be had, or of postponing the trial for the
reasonable judgment, concludes that evidence of purpose, may suffice to overcome the advantages of
such experiment is more likely to confuse than to a view, particularly when the nature of the issue or of
shed light upon the matter in dispute, he may
the object to be viewed renders the view off small ideas are represented on material substances;
consequence. documents; documents produced for the inspection
of the court or judge.
Ocular inspection or view must be made
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY
in the presence of, or with notice to the parties – EVIDENCE- subject to the same basic rules on
The inspection or view outside the court room should relevancy, materiality, exclusionary rules and court
be made in the presence of the parties or at least discretion as determined by the issues in the
previous notice to them in order that they may show particular case. Identity and authenticity of the
the object to be viewed. Such inspection or view is a document must be reasonably established as a pre-
part of the trial, inasmuch as evidence is thereby requisite to its admission.
being received, which is expressly authorized by
IMPORTANT RULES ON DOCUMENTARY
law. Thus, it is error for the judge to go alone to the EVIDENCE-
land in question, or to the place where the crime was
committed and take a view, without previous 1. Best Evidence Rule
knowledge or consent of the parties. 2. Rule on Secondary Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication and Proof of
Documents
Constitutional Right not violated by 5. Inadmissibility of written document in an
inspection of scene of crime – Provided that the unofficial language unless translated in
same is with consent of and accompanied by English and Filipino
counsel for the accused, it further appearing that no
evidence was taken during the inspection.
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two EXCEPTIONS: When secondary evidence be
informations for libel against Guevarra. The admitted
informations alleged that the defendant, with 1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or
malicious intent, published on page 9 of the weekly cannot be produced in court, without bad
paper IngMagumasid. The defendant demurred on faith on the part of the offeror;
the ground of duplicity of informations, he having 2. When the original is in the custody or under the
published only one libelous article in control of the party against whom the evidence is
the IngMagumasid for July 13, 1930. The fiscal offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
attempted to present as evidence for the prosecution reasonable notice;
Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which are copies of 3. When the original consists of numerous accounts
the IngMagumasid containing the libelous article or other documents which cannot be examined in
with the innuendo. Counsel for the defendant court without great loss of time and the fact sought
objected to this evidence, which objection was to be established from them is only the general
sustained. Petitioner contends that the exhibits in result of the whole; and
question are the best evidence of the libel, the 4. When the original is a public record in the custody
subject matter of the information, and should of a public officer or is recorded in a public office
therefore be admitted.
CompaniaMaritimavsAllied Free Workers Union
77 SCRA 24 (1977)
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
Facts: In 1952, CompaniaMaritima (CM) and Allied
Ruling: The rule of procedure which requires the Free Workers Union (AFWU) entered into a written
production of the best evidence, is applicable to the contract whereby the Union agreed to perform
present case. And certainly the copies of the weekly arrastre and stevedoring work in Iligan, effective for
where the libelous article was published, and its one month.
translation, constitute the best evidence of the libel
charged. The newspaper itself is the best evidence It was stipulated that the Company would revoke the
of an article published in it. contract before the expiration of the agreed term, if
the Union failed to render proper service. After a
Thus if the issue is the contents of the articles sent month, the contract was verbally renewed. In 1954,
for publication, the best evidence is the manuscript. the Union sent a letter to CM requesting to recognize
But is if issue is on what was actually published, it as the exclusive bargaining unit, to load and
then the best evidence is the copy of the news unload he cargo of its vessels in Iligan. CM ignored
paper. the request. The Union subsequently filed in CIR a
petition for certification election. Despite the witnesses in the order stated.
certification case, CM sent notice to the Union for
termination of their contract and entered into a new
contract with another stevedoring association. 1. Source.—This provision is a reproduction of
Section 4, Rule 130 the Rules of Court with the
CM assailed that the termination of the contract was following differences:
due to Union worker’s inefficiency and that the
Company suffered financial losses due to such
service. To ascertain its annual losses, CM’s Section 4 Section 5
manager hired auditors. CM relied only upon such Title of “secondary “when
auditors’ report and presented in court only a the evidence original
summary of damages. The sales invoices were not section when original document is
produced. is lost or unavailable”
destroyed”
Issue: WON the non-submission as evidence of the Change “and loss or deleted
records of the alleged losses of the Company is s destruction, or
excused because of the rule exempting voluminous unavailability”;
records from being produced in court. “may be
proved”;
Ruling: The best evidence of the Company’s losses “recollection”
would have been the sales invoices instead of the Added: “or
Manager’ oral testimony. The rule that when the existence
original consists of numerous accounts or other and the
documents which cannot be examined in court cause of its
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be unavailability
established in only the general result of the whole, without bad
the original writings need not be produce, CANNOT faith on his
BE APPLIED because the voluminous character f part, may
the records was NOT DULY ESTABLISHED. It is prove” and
also a requisite for the application of the rule that the the words
records of accounts should be made accessible to “document”;
the adverse party so that the correctness of the “the offeror”;
summary may be tested on cross-examination. “testimony”;
“in the order
When an entry is repeated in the regular course stated”
of business, one being copied from another at or
near the time of the transaction, all the entries are
regarded as originals. For as long as they are made 2. Secondary evidence explained.
within reasonable time, it is sufficient. A much longer
but reasonable delay and when entries appear to Definition:
have been made while the memory as to the a. That which shows that better, or primary
transaction as clear or the source of such knowledge evidence exists as to the proof of the
was unimpaired, still makes it admissible. fact in question.
However, a book of account containing only a single b. It is that class of evidence which is
entry or charge of money lent, which show no mutual relevant to the fact in issue, it being first
recourse of dealing between the parties, is not shown that the primary evidence of the
admissible. fact is not obtainable.
Sec. 5 . When original document is unavailable. — Ex. A warrant itself is better evidence of
When the original document has been lost or what it contains than a copy of it
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the A check is better evidence of what it
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence contains than the stub
and the cause of its unavailability without bad On why secondary evidence is admitted:
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony of
It is admitted upon the theory that the 5. Due execution of lost ancient documents
original cannot be produced by the party by whom need not be established.
the evidence is offered within a reasonable time by
the exercise of reasonable diligence. Lost document is more than 30 years old-
secondary evidence of their contents is
*This is applicable in both civil and criminal cases. admissible without proof of their execution
3. Requisites for the admissibility of But the two come together for consideration in this
secondary evidence: rule.
Parol evidence rule not applicable to - If the ambiguity is patent (one which
strangers to the instrument appears upon the face of the
instrument)
- The parol evidence rule does not o extrinsic evidence not
apply, and may not properly be admissible
invoked by either party to the o testator’s intention is to be
litigation against the other, where at ascertained from the words of
least one of the parties to the suit is the will, taking into
not a party or a privy of a party to consideration the
the written instrument in question circumstances under which it
and does not base a claim on the was made, excluding oral
instrument or assert a right declarations
originating in the instrument or the - If the ambiguity is latent (one which
relation established thereby. is not discoverable from a perusal of
Lechugas vs. CA, 143 SCRA 335 the will)
o extrinsic evidence admissible
Parol evidence not admissible to validate a when it names a person
void contract as the object of a gift or a
thing as the subject of it
- Where an instrument is on its face and there are two persons
illegal or void, because it shows a or things that answer such
violation of some statutory provision, name or description
or omits something which the law where there is a mis-
makes essential to its validity, or for description of the object
any reason, parol evidence cannot or subject
be admitted to contradict to show a
violation of the statute, to supply the Exceptions
omission, or otherwise to make
effectual that which the law declares When parol evidence is admissible
shall be of no effect, unless it can be
shown that the provision which - When any of the following is put in
renders the instrument void was issue in the pleading:
inserted by mistake.
a. an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
Waiver of benefit of rule imperfection in the written
agreement;
- by failure to object to the
introduction of parol evidence b. the failure of the written
agreement to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties
thereto;
Issue: Whether or not parol evidence rule may be The failure of the Deed of Sale to express
properly invoked by either party in the litigation the true intent and agreement of the parties was
against the other, where at least one of the parties to clearly put in issue in the Answer of the Heirs of
the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the Alfonso to the Complaint. It was alleged that the
written instrument in question and does not base a Deed of Sale was only made to lessen the payment
of estate and inheritance taxes and not meant to In determining arbitral awards then, aside
transfer ownership. The exception in paragraph (b) from the MOA, courts considered other factors and
is allowed to enable the court to ascertain the true documents including, as in this case, the financial
intent of the parties, and once the intent is clear, it documents submitted by respondent as well as its
shall prevail over what the document appears to be previous bargaining history and financial outlook and
on its face. As the true intent of the parties was duly improvements as stated in its own website.
proven in the present case, it now prevails over what
appears on the Deed of Sale. The appellate court's ruling that giving
credence to the "Pahayag" and the minutes of the
The validity of the Deed of Sale was also put meeting which were not verified and notarized would
in issue in the Answer, and was precisely one of the violate the rule on parol evidence is erroneous.
issues submitted to the RTC for resolution. The Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence,
operation of the parol evidence rule requires the should not be strictly applied in labor cases. Interphil
existence of a valid written agreement. It is, thus, not Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil
applicable in a proceeding where the validity of such Laboratories, Inc. teaches:
agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when a
contract may be void for lack of consideration. [R]eliance on the parol
Considering that the Deed of Sale has been shown evidence rule is misplaced. In
to be void for being absolutely simulated and for lack labor cases pending before the
of consideration, the Heirs of Alfonso are not Commission or the Labor
precluded from presenting evidence to modify, Arbiter, the rules of
explain or add to the terms of the written agreement. evidence prevailing in courts of
law or equity are not
Indeed, the applicability of the parol controlling. Rules of procedure
evidence rule requires that the case be between and evidence are not applied in a
parties and their successors-in-interest. In this case, very rigid and technical sense in
both the Heirs of Alfonso and the Heirs of Policronio labor cases. Hence, the Labor
are successors-in-interest of the parties to the Deed Arbiter is not precluded from
of Sale as they claim rights under Alfonso and accepting and
Policronio, respectively. The parol evidence evaluatingevidence other
rule excluding evidence aliunde, however, still than, and even contrary to, what
cannot apply because the present case falls under is stated in the CBA.
two exceptions to the rule, as discussed above.
G.R. No. 190515. June 6, 2011 G.R. No. 199430 March 21, 2012
Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, Based on theparol evidence rule, there can
should not be strictly applied in labor cases. generally be noevidence of the terms other than the
contents of the written agreement
Facts:
Facts:
The then Acting Secretary of Labor Manuel
G. Imson ruled that the wage increases to be given Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of
are P10 per day effective January 1, 2004 and P15 violation of R.A. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) for acting in evident
per day effective January 1, 2005. Respondent bad faith in the purchase of the property sold by
averred that the Secretary of Labor cannot insist on Glicerio Plaza as part of the Armed Forces of the
a ruling beyond the compromise agreement entered Philippines — Retirement Separation and Benefit
System (AFP-RSBS) Calamba Land Banking
into by the parties.
Project, The Sandiganbayan found that the true
consideration of the sale made by Plaza to AFP-
Issue: Whether or not the parol evidence rule
RSBS was only P227,460 as stated in a unilateral
should be strictly applied in labor cases. Deed of Absolute Sale, and not the disbursed
amount of P1,531,564 as reflected in the bilateral
Deed of Sale.
Held:
Issue: Whether or not the unilateral Deed of Sale Alejandra and Josefa each owned one-half (1/2) of
should be the basis to determine the true Benigna's share. On June 14, 1969, Alejandra's
consideration. heirs sold their predecessor's one-half (1/2) share
(roughly equivalent to 10,564 square meters) to the
Held: respondent, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute
Sale. Also on June 14, 1969, Josefa sold her own
one-half (1/2) share (subject property) to the
In any event, the finding that the true
respondent and the petitioner, as evidenced by
consideration was only P227,460 and not
another Deed of Absolute Sale.
P1,531,564 is supported by the evidence on record.
Here, the Sandiganbayan found that the unilateral
Deed of Sale was the official document used by the Years later, the respondent filed a complaint
buyer AFP-RSBS and seller Plaza in the registration against the petitioner, seeking the reconveyance of
of the sale; as well as in the payment of the the 1,004-square meter portion (disputed property),
registration fee, transfer tax, capital gains tax, and on the ground that the petitioner is entitled only to
documentary stamp tax necessary to effect the 3,020 square meters identified in the parties'
transfer. This finding was not disputed by the Agreement. On the other hand, the petitioner
petitioner. claimed that the respondent voluntarily participated
in executing the Affidavit, which corrected the
mistake in the previously executed Agreement and
At most, petitioner relied on the testimony of
confirmed the petitioner's ownership over the
Plaza, which referred to a consideration of
disputed property. He claimed that since the
P1,137,300 to P1,213,120 as purchase price of the
Agreement does not reflect the true intention of the
property. However, based on
parties, the Affidavit was subsequently executed in
the parol evidence rule, there can generally be
order to reflect the parties' true intention.
no evidence of the terms other than the contents of
the written agreement; and even if this were the
case, it still appears that the consideration cannot be Issue: Whether or not the written agreement failed to
the P1,531,564 disbursed according to the Status express the true intent and agreement of the parties
Transaction Report signed by petitioner. therefore beyond the ambit of parol evidence rule.
- It is an elementary rule of contract that the Art. 1375, Civil Code - Words which may have
laws in force at the time the contract was different significations shall be understood in that
made must govern its interpretation. which is most in keeping with the nature and object
- Matters bearing upon the execution, of the contract.
interpretation, and validity of a contract are
determined by the law of the place where - When a term is susceptible of different
the contract is made. meanings, it should be understood in that
- The terms of the contract where sense which is most in accord with the
unambiguous are conclusive, in the nature and object of the contract in which it
absence of averment and proof of mistake, is used, in line with the rule that the intention
the question being not what the intention of the parties must prevail.
existed in the minds of the parties but what
intention is expressed by the language Art. 1376, Civil Code- The usage or custom of the
used. place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of
the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the
Article 1371, Civil Code - In order to judge the omission of stipulations which are ordinarily
intention of the contracting parties, their established.
contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be
principally considered. - The usage or custom of the place where the
contract was entered into may be resorted to
- The contemporaneous and subsequent acts as aids in making definite what is uncertain
that may serve as indicia of the intention of or in clearing up what is doubtful or
the parties are those in which both of them ambiguous in a contract.
participate.
Art. 1377, Civil Code- The interpretation of obscure
Art. 1372, Civil Code- However general the terms words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the
of a contract may be, they shall not be understood to party who caused the obscurity.
comprehend things that are distinct and cases that
are different from those upon which the parties Art. 1378, Civil Code- When it is absolutely
intended to agree. impossible to settle doubts by the rules established
in the preceding articles, and the doubts refer to
incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract, the
least transmission of rights and interests shall - An agreement should be interpreted as a
prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall be whole and the meaning gathered from the
settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of entire context, and not form the particular
interests. words, phrases, or clauses.
If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the b. INTERPRETATION OF SEVERAL
contract in such a way that it cannot be known what INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE PART OF
may have been the intention or will of the parties, ONE TRANSACTION- Where several
the contract shall be null and void. instruments are made as part of one
transaction, they will be read together, and
- Thus if the Contract is gratuitous such each will be construed with reference to the
interpretation should be made which would other.
result in the least transmission of rights and
interest. Section 12: Interpretation according to intention;
- If the doubt refers to the principal object of general and particular provisions - In the
the contract in question and such cannot be construction of an instrument, the intention of the
resolved notwithstanding the application of parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a
said rule, the contract shall be null and void. particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is
paramount to the former. So a particular intent will
Art. 1379, Civil Code- The principles of control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
interpretation stated in Rule 123 of the Rules of
Court shall likewise be observed in the construction a. INTENTION OF THE PARTIES – The court
of contracts. must ascertain the intention of the parties
only when the terms of the contract are not
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE clear and leave doubt upon the intention of
REVISED RULES OF COURT the contracting parties, otherwise, the literal
meaning of its stipulation shall control.
Section 10: Interpretation of a writing according
to its legal meaning – The language of a writing is Section 13: Interpretation according to
to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it circumstances – for the proper construction of an
bears in the place of its execution, unless the instrument, the circumstances under which it was
parties intended otherwise. made, including the situation of the subject thereof
and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the
REQUISITES: judge may be places in the position of those whose
language he is to interpret.
1. The court must give to the legal words or
phrases the meaning they bear in the place a. CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENT
where the writing was executed; ACCORDING TO SURROUNDING
2. That such meaning shall be disregarded if CIRCUSTANCES – the surrounding
the contract shows that the parties have circumstances at the time it was made
intended to give such words or phrases a should be considered for the purpose of
meaning different from that they have at the ascertaining its meaning, but not for the
place of the execution of the writing. purpose a new distinct undertaking.
b. PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS AND
NEGOTIATIONS – In the interpretation of a
Section 11: Instruments construed so as to give writing which is intended to state the entire
effect to all provisions – In the construction of an agreement, preliminary negotiations
instrument where there are several provisions or between the parties may, however, be
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be considered in order to determine their
adopted as will give effect to all. meaning and intention, but not to vary or
contradict the plain terms of the instrument.
a. CONSTRUCTION AS A WHOLE- A contract
must be construed as a whole, and the
intention of the parties is to be collected
from the entire instrument and not from
detached portions, it being necessary to
consider all of its parts in order to determine
the meaning of any particular part as well as Section 14: Peculiar signification of terms - The
of the whole. terms of a writing are presumed to have been used
in their primary and general acceptation, but
evidence is admissible to show that they have local,
technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and Section 17: Of two constructions, which
were so used and understood in the particular preferred – When the terms of an agreement have
instance, in which case the agreement must be been intended in a different sense by the different
construed accordingly. parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either
party in which he supposed the other understood it,
a. MEANING OF WORDS: ORDINARY and when different constructions of a provision are
SENSE - in construing a written contract the otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is
words employed will be given their ordinary the most favorable to the party in whose favor the
and popularly accepted meaning, in the provision was made.
absence of anything to show that they were
used in a different sense. a. CONSTRUCTION AGAINST PARTY
b. TECHNICAL WORDS CONSTRUED – USING WORDS- Where a contract is
Where technical words are employed by ambiguous it will be construed most
parties who are obviously unfamiliar with strongly against the party preparing it.
their meaning, they may be construed in The reason for the rule being that a man
such manner as to effectuate the true is responsible for ambiguities in his own
intention of the parties. expressions and has no right to induce
c. IDIOMATIC USAGE PREVAILS OVER another to contract with him on the
LITERAL TRANSLATION – A translation supposition that his words mean one
made in accordance with the idiomatic thing, while he hopes the court will
usage of the language from which it is made adopt a construction by which they
will prevail over a literal translation which, would mean another thing more to his
while word for word correct, is not idiomatic. advantage.
Section 15:Written words control printed- When Section 18:Construction in favor of natural right
an instrument consists partly of written words and – When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
partly of printed forms, and the two are inconsistent, interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the
the former controls the latter. other against it, the former is to be adopted.
a. ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY -Can perceive, and perceiving can make known their
TO EXPLAIN THE CHARACTERS OF AN perception to others.
INSTRUMENT WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO
DECIPHER – A person who is skilled in the General Rule- A disinterested person could be
handling and inspection of documents may
state meaning of abbreviations, and of compelled to give his testimony through subpoena.
obscure or elliptical entries or figures; and
whether a set of figures, letters, marks, or Exceptions- Persons who are immune from the
writings contain an arrangement in cipher, process of subpoena by tradition, convention or law:
and, if so, what they mean.
Ambassadors of foreign countries by virtue
of treaty obligations
Attorney as witness= counsel should not testify as a
President of the Philippines or other country witness unless it is necessary and that they should
withdraw from the active management of the case.
Case: People Vs. De Jesus
= except when it is essential to the ends of
The fact that complainant displayed difficulty justice
in comprehending the questions propounded on her
is undisputed. However there is no showing that she Judge as witness= judicial conduct should not be
could not convey her ideas y words or signs. It subject to cross-examination or comment, the
appears in the records that complainant gave peculiar duties of the judge in administering oaths to
sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions the witnesses in case the court has no clerk, and in
propounded by the court and the counsels. The trial deciding upon their competency, with his power to
court is satisfied that the complainants can perceive commit for contempt when his testimony concerns
and transmit in her own way her own perceptions to merely formal or preliminary matters about which
others. She is therefore found to be a competent there is no dispute, as where he testifies in a perjury
witness. prosecution that the defendant gave testimony
before him in another proceeding in another court.
Testimonial Duty of Citizens= to support the
administration of justice by attending its courts and Persons convicted of crime as witness= persons ho
giving his testimony whenever he is properly have been convicted of perjury are not excluded law.
summoned.
=since perjury is a crime involving moral
Process to enforce duty= the performance of the turpitude, the convict whenever mad a co-accused in
citizen’s testimonial duty can only be invoked by the any criminal case, cannot be discharged to become
State after adequate notice is given. a witness for the government in that case, because
under the ROC, the court may direct the discharge
Witness= a person who testifies in a case or gives of one of the several co-accusers for that purpose
evidence before a judicial tribunal. when, in its judgement, such accused has ot at any
time been convicted of any offense involving moral
= a person called to be present at some
turpitude.
transaction soa s to be able to attest to its having
taken place. Presumption of competency of witness= means legal
fitness or ability of a witness to be heard on the trial
Interested persons as witnesses= while rightfully
of a case.
subjected to careful scrutiny, should not be rejected
on the ground of bias alone.
= if testimony is reasonable and consistent ad is not Objection to competency of witness= must be made
contradicted by evidence from any reliable source, before he has given any testimony;
there is no reason, as a general rule, for not
accepting it. =If the incompetency appears on the trial, it
mst be interposed as soon as it becomes apparent.
Case: US vs. Mante 27 Phil 134
Waiver of objection= may be done expressly or by
The testimony s interested witnesses should silence.
be subjected to careful scrutiny but they should not
be rejected on the ground of bias alone. The ff may be considered a waiver of the
objection:
Case: People vs. Natividad (CA) 50 OG 5824
a. Where the witness testifies without
Such testimony must be judged on their own objection, though at that time the party
merits. If they are clear ad convinving and are not knows of his incompetency.
destroyed by other evidence of record, they may be
believed. And the testimony of these witnesses fulfil
the requirement.
b. Here the party who might have made Rule 130, Section 22. Disqualification by reason
the objection owns the witness in of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the
support of his own case. husband nor the wife may testify for or against
the other without the consent of the affected
Sec 21 Rule 130 spouse, except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed
Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
by one against the other or the latter's direct
immaturity
descendants or ascendants.
a. Those whose mental condition, at the time
of their production for examination, is such General Rule
that they are incapable of intelligently During their marriage, neither the husband nor the
making known their perception to others. wife may testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse.
b. Children whose mental maturity is such as
to render them incapable of perceiving the Reason
facts respecting which they are examined This is based on principles which are deemed
and of relating them truthfuly. important to preserve the marriage relation as one of
full confidence and affection, and that this is
regarded as more important to the public welfare
than that the exigencies of the lawsuits should
authorize domestic peace to be disregarded, for the
Case: People vs. Salomon sake of ferreting out facts within the knowledge of
strangers.
A mental retardate is not for this reason
alone disqualified from being a witness. This applies only to a lawful wife – not a bigamous
one, nor to a paramour, nor to an affiance.
Case: People vs. Mendoza
Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72 (Riano)
Requisites of competency of a child as
The specific reasons for the rule are the
witness,:capacity of observation, capacity of
following:
recollection, and capacity of communication.
a. there is identity of interests between
Insane person as a witness= general rules is that a husband and wife
lunatic or a person affected with insanity is b. if one were to testify for or against the
admissible as a witness if he has sufficient other, there is a consequent danger of
understanding to apprehend the obligation of an perjury
oath and is capable of giving correct account of the c. the policy of the law is to guard the
matters which he has seen or hears with respect to security and confidence of private life,
the questions at issue. even at the risk of an occasional failure
of justice, and to prevent domestic
Monomanica as witness= he understand the nature disunion and unhappiness
and obligation of an oath and can give correct d. where there is want of domestic
account of what he ha seen or heard. tranquility, there is danger of punishing
one spouse through the hostile
Deaf and Dumb = may be a competent witness testimony of the other
although he us uneducated in the use of signs and
his capacity to convey his ideas to others is very Scope
circumscribed and limited. The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or
against the other applies to any form of testimony;
therefore it protects against using the spouse-
witness’ admission, or against compelling him/her to
produce documents. However, res gestae
declarations of husband and wife are admissible for
or against each other, even though each is
incompetent to testify.
a. that the case in which the husband or the
A husband may not testify for or against his wife wife is called to testify is not a civil case
without her consent; nor a wife for or against her instituted by one against the other
husband without his consent, except in a civil case b. that it is not a criminal case for a crime
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a committed by one against the other
crime committed against the other. This provision
deals with two different matters which rest on Reason for the Exceptions
different grounds of policy: the disqualification of the The identity of interests disappears and the
husband and wife to testify in each other’s behalf, as consequent danger of perjury based on that
well as their privilege not to testify against each identity is non-existing. The security and
other. confidence of private life which the law aims at
People vs. Pansensoy, 388 SCRA 669 protecting will be nothing but ideals which,
(Riano) through their absence, merely leave a void in the
Under this rule, neither the husband unhappy home.
nor the wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected Ordono vs. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 (Riano)
spouse, except in a civil case by one against The Supreme Court ruled that the
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime wife is allowed to testify against her husband
committed by one against the other or the who was accused of raping their daughter. It
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. ruled that the correct rule is the one laid
However, objections to the competency of a down in Cargill vs. State which held that,
husband and wife to testify in a criminal “The rule that the injury must amount to a
prosecution against the other may be physical wrong upon the person is too
waived as in the case of other witnesses narrow. The better rule is that, when an
generally. The objection to the competency offense directly attacks or directly and vitally
of the spouse must be made when he or she impairs the conjugal relations, it comes
is first offered as a witness. In this case, the within the exception to the statute…”
incompetency was waived by appellant’s
failure to make a timely objection to the People vs. Quidato Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (Riano)
admission of his wife’s testimony. May a spouse testify in a trial where
the spouse is a co-accused? The Court
Either Spouse Must Be a Party to the Case ruled in the affirmative but likewise held that
As to the adverseness of the testimony, courts the testimony of the wife in reference to her
generally hold this to mean that the other spouse husband must be disregarded since the
must be a party to the cause, not a third person who husband timely objected thereto under the
happens to be involved somehow in the case; marital disqualification rule. The Court
otherwise the testimony does not hurt the other explained that the disqualification is between
spouse’s legal interests. husband and wife, but the rule does not
preclude the wife from testifying when it
When Privilege Ceases involves other parties or accused. Hence,
After the death or the divorce of one spouse, the the wife could testify in the murder case
privilege ceases for the reason ceases. When the against the brothers who were jointly tried
marriage is dissolved by death, there is no more with the husband of the witness. The Court
marriage and therefore, the privilege can no longer stressed, however, that the testimony
be claimed. cannot be used against accused-appellant
directly or through the guise of taking judicial
It has been held that no unfavorable inference may notice of the proceedings in the murder case
be drawn from a fact that a party spouse invokes the without violating the marital disqualification
privilege to prevent the witness-spouse from rule. “What cannot be done directly cannot
testifying against him or her. be done indirectly.”
Exceptions
Waiver of Privilege
Wigmore asserts that the privilege of objecting to unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against
testimony concerning anti-marital facts belongs to the estate of such deceased person or against
the spouse who is a party to the action and not to such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as
the spouse who is being used as a witness. This to any matter of fact occurring before the death
seems to be the rule in this jurisdiction. Hence, the of such deceased person or before such person
right to object to the competency of one spouse became of unsound mind.
pertains solely to the spouse-party and not to the
other spouse who is offered as a witness. Object and Purpose of the Rule
This is to guard against the temptation to give false
Bar 2006 (Riano) testimony in regard of the transaction in question on
Leticia was estranged from her the part of the surviving party and further, to put the
husband Paul for more than a year due to two parties to a suit upon terms of equality in regard
his suspicion that she was having an affair to the opportunity to giving testimony. If one party to
with Manuel, their neighbor. She was the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying
temporarily living with her sister in Pasig by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the
City. For unknown reasons, the house of other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of
Leticia’s sister was burned, killing the latter. giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained
Leticia survived. She saw her husband in account of the transaction. The underlying principle
the vicinity during the incident. Later, he was of the prohibition and the reason for the same is to
charged with arson in an Information filed protect the estate from fictitious claims and to
with the RTC, Pasig City. During the trial, discourage perjury.
the prosecutor called Leticia to the witness
stand and offered her testimony to prove Dead Man’s Statute (Riano)
that her husband committed the arson. Can To level the playing field between
Leticia testify over the objection of her the lucky survivor and the poor deceased,
husband on the ground of marital privilege? our remedial law ancestors devised a rule
that would seal the lips of the survivor by
Suggested Answer declaring him incompetent to testify on the
Leticia cannot testify. Section 22 of transaction between him and the deceased.
Rule 130 bars her testimony without the The rule is definitely one that does not
consent of the husband during the marriage. protect the survivor even at the risk of not
The separation of the spouses has not paying a just and valid claim because it is
operated to terminate their marriage. (Note: the survivor who has the stronger reason to
This is an answer based on the tenor of the file a false claim. The rule is for the
Rules of Court.) protection of the guy who died. Hence, the
The following answer should also be name Dead Man’s Statute.
considered:
Leticia may testify over the objection Requisites of the Disqualification
of her husband. Where the marital and a. that the witness is a party or assignor of a
domestic relations between her and the party to a case or of a person in whose
accused-husband have become so strained behalf a case is prosecuted It is only
that there is no more harmony, peace, or parties who assert claims against an estate
tranquility to be preserved, there is no longer who are rendered incompetent to testify.
any reason to apply the Marital The word “parties” does not refer to the
Disqualification Rule. (People vs. executor or administrator who is the party
Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504; Alvarez vs. defendant. The term “assignor” of a party
Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72) means assignor of a cause of action which
has risen, and not the assignor of a right
Section 23.Disqualification by reason of death or assigned before any cause of action has
insanity of adverse party. — Parties or assignor arisen. However, this rule does not operate
of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a to exclude the testimony which is favorable
case is prosecuted, against an executor or to the representative of the deceased or
administrator or other representative of a incompetent person.
deceased person, or against a person of
b. that the action is against an executor or deceased Juan, for the recovery of a car
administrator or other representative of a which is part of the latter’s estate. During the
deceased person, or against a person of trial, Maximo presented witness Mariano
unsound mind The term “representative who testified that he was present when
of a deceased person” has been interpreted Maximo and Juan agreed that the latter
to include not only the executor or would pay a rental of P20,000 for the use of
administrator of a deceased person but also Maximo’s car for one month, after which
the person or party who has succeeded to Juan should immediately return the car to
the right of the deceased whether by Maximo. Pedro objected to the admission of
purchase or descent or operation of law. Mariano’s testimony. If you were the judge,
would you sustain Pedro’s objection? Why?
Razon vs. IAC, 207 SCRA 234 (Riano)
As held by the Court, the rule Suggested Answer
contemplates a suit against the estate, its The objection of Pedro should not
administrator or executor and not a suit filed be sustained. The testimony is admissible
by the administrator or executor of the because the witness is not disqualified to
estate. A defendant who opposes the suit testify. Those disqualified under the dead
filed by the administrator to recover alleged man’s statute or the survivorship
shares of stock belonging to the deceased is disqualification rule are parties to a case or
not barred from testifying as to his persons in whose behalf a case is
transaction with the deceased with respect prosecuted. The witness is not one of those
to the shares. enumerated under the rule (Sec. 23, Rule
130, Rules of Court).
Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, 363 SCRA 249
(Riano) d. that his testimony refers to any matter of fact
Also when a counterclaim is set up which occurred before the death of such
by the administrator of the estate, the case deceased person or before such person
is removed from the operation of the “dead became of unsound mind This refers to
man’s statute,” the plaintiff may testify to testimonies which relates to any matter of
occurrences before the death of the fact occurring before the death of the
deceased to defeat the counterclaim which decedent or before the person became of
is not brought against the representative of unsound mind. The phrase “matter of fact” is
the estate but by the representative. literally interpreted to include not only facts
tending to establish the claim or demand but
c. that the subject-matter of the action is a also incidental facts. Negative facts are not
claim or demand against the estate of such included in the matters prohibited by law.
deceased person or against such person of The testimony of a plaintiff denying the
unsound mind The words “claim or occurrence of a transaction with the
demand” mean any action or proceeding deceased may be admitted on the ground
which may affect the real or personal that such plaintiff does not testify to a fact
properties of a deceased or insane person. “occurring before the death of the decedent”
They are restricted to debts or demand but on the contrary, that such fact has not
enforceable by personal actions upon which occurred.
money judgments can be rendered. As to
other actions against estates, no Waiver
incompetency of witnesses exists. An action A waiver occurs when plaintiff’s deposition is taken
for damages for breach of an agreement to by the representative of the estate, when counsel for
devise property for services rendered is a the representative cross-examines the plaintiff as to
claim against an estate. matters occurring during deceased lifetime.
A. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
Sec. 24- Disqualification by reason of privilege HUSBAND AND WIFE
communication. - The following persons cannot
testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
2. The rule
following cases:
- The husband or the wife during of after
(a) The husband or the wife, during or the marriage, cannot b examined
after the marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to
without the consent of the other as to
any communication received in any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during confidence by one from the other during
the marriage except in a civil case by one the marriage.
against the other, or in a criminal case
for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter's direct descendants or 3. Reason of the rule-
ascendants;
• That the admission of such testimony
(b) An attorney cannot, without the would have a powerful tendency to
consent of his client, be examined as to disturb the peace of families
any communication made by the client to
him, or his advice given thereon in the
• To weaken, if not destroy the mutual
course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, nor can an attorney's confidence upon which the happiness of
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be the married state depends.
examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any
fact the knowledge of which has been 4. Requisite of the rule
acquired in such capacity;
a. Spouses must be legally married
(c) A person authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in - If they live together in illicit cohabitation,
a civil case, without the consent of the they are not entitled to the privilege
patient, be examined as to any advice or
treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired
- It is immaterial whether they believed in considered to be as
good faith that they were married if in confidential
fact they were not.
the prohibition to testify is
b. The communication must be directed only to the wife and
confidential and made during the not to the third person so
marriage the latter cannot be
prevented from testifying
- Only those communication, whether by
word or deed, as pass from one to the XPN to XPN: if the third
other by virtue of the confidence person comes into the
resulting from their intimate relation. possession of the
communication by
- Only the knowledge which the husband COLLUSION and
and the wife obtains from the other VOLUNTSRY
which for the marital relation and the DISCLOSURE on either
confidence growing out of it, would have spouse, he becomes an
been communicated, or which is of such agent of such spouse and
nature or character as that to repeat the cannot testify without the
same would tend to unduly embarrass consent of the other.
or disturb the parties in their marital
relations. b. Communication intended for
transmission to third person.
c. Form of communication
A letter written to the
- Applies to any form of confidence defendant by his wife and
disclosure. seized by the police in
search of his effects on the
- Maybe words or conduct. day of his arrest is
admissible because a
e.i > letters from husband to the privilege communication
wife from one spouse to another
> wife saw husband counting stolen comes into the hands of a
money and put it in his pocket. third party, whether legally
or not without collusion and
5. Communication presumed confidential voluntary disclosure on the
part of either spouse , the
- Marital communication presumed to be
privilege is thereby
confidential, but the presumption may
extinguished and if
be overcome by proof that they were not
competent becomes
intended to be private.
admissible.
Notwithstanding that one spouse
Statements from the notes
subsequently without consent of the
of a stenographer to whom
other disclosed such communication
the husband dictated the
to a third person.
letter and who had
transcribed it is admissible,
6. When communication between husband because normally the
and wife cease to be confidential husband and the wife
communicate without a
a. When made in the presence of a third stenographer . here the
person. communications have been
XPN: if the confidential voluntarily revealed.
communication is overheard
by a third person still
Statements in the wife’s 10. Anti-marital facts
diary not shown to the
husband is admissible. - The spouse may not testify as to as to
facts related to the crime she learned
Those business and other before they got married.
communication not related
11. Incompetency as to anti0marital facts
to or dependent on mutual
distinguished from incompetency as to
trust are not privilege. But
privilege communication
sometimes business
transaction between
husband and wife are held
Incompetency as to incompetency as to
privileged
anti-marital facts privilege
communication
Res gestae made in the
Prohibits adverse Prohibits only as to
presence of the spouse
testimony regardless knowledge obtained
may be received.
of the source through confidence or
Testimony of the former the marital realtio
wife as to the sanity of the Exists only when a Exists whether the
husband who is charged party to the action is husband or wife is a
with homicide is admissible. the husband or wife party to the action or
not
Ceases upon death or Continues even after
7. Rule not applicable to dying declaration- either spouse the termination of the
on the trial of the one who killed him. marriage.
3. The attorney cannot testify to - The principle is not affected by the fact
the fact the he had received that the attorney in this case was also a
silver coin as part of his retainer judge. The fact that he occupied that
from a client who is accused for position gave an increased weight to his
stealing a quantity of current advice.
silver coin.
- It is in the nature of the confidence
4. Those information obtained by a which exist between the client and the
detective posing as an attorney attorney.
of celebrity is excluded by court
(PP v. Barker)
19. Communications to an attorney as a
5. Sidewalk advice from attorney public officer to enable the latter to act in
upon legal questions do which that capacity not privilege
no compensation is asked or
expected and none given except - Because a complaint made to a
a luncheon should not be prosecutor will usually be made for the
regarded as privilege. purpose of inciting public prosecution
and not for the protection of the
6. Those communication between complainant’s rights.
an attorney and witness for the
client to show that the attorney
attempted to corrupt or 20. Communication for unlawful purpose not
influence a witness to color his privilege
testimony in favor of the
- Those for the purpose is to commit a
accused.
crime partakes of the nature of
16. Privilege applicable to counsel de oficio conspiracy or attempted conspiracy
- The privilege exists if the client if not - When the privilege belongs to two or
notice the presence of the third person more client, the consent of each is
overhearing the communication essential to constitute waiver.
- Third person foreign to the relation are - In a criminal trial, the court may
competent to testify to the interpose of its own motion for the
communications they overheard. protection of an accused who is entirely
ignorant of his rights to remain silent
- Where the communication was made for when he is called to state what he said
the purpose of having the attorney tell to is attorney.
others, it was not a privileged
communication
- An employee of a corporation who was Duration of privilege: Continues even after the
also stenographer where such counsel relation of client and attorney is terminated,
may give evidence as to corporate the seal of the law once fixed upon them remains
forever, unless removed by the party himself in
correspondence where such evidence
whose favor it is there placed.
did not come from her relationship with
corporation attorney Waiver of privilege: either be express or implied
Result: the attorney may give in evidence matters
confidentially communicated either for the purpose
of giving evidence in chief or purposes of
impeachment Privilege cannot be extended by construction to
Implied waiver consists of: persons employing curative processes not coming
a) Clients failure to object to attorneys within the ordinary meaning of the term practice of
testimony medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
b) In giving evidence on the privilege Communications made by a patient to dentist,
communication pharmacists, and nurses who are not acting as
c) When privilege communication falls on the agents of physicians, surgeons, or obstetrics
hands of the adverse party are not privileged.
d) In calling or cross examining his attorney
regarding privileged communication Covers all facts learned by the observation and by
all methods necessary to enable the physician to
The clients representative may, waive the privilege, prescribe, including communication by the
but only when the application of the rule would be physician by third person on behalf of the patient to
disadvantageous to his estate. enable him to perform his professional duty.
The waiver of the right precludes the assertion of Communications of the body, observation of
the right upon appeal or upon subsequent trial of symptoms, results of the doctors examination,
the case but does not constitute a waiver of the the patient’s condition as fund by the doctor,
privilege in another independent transaction. the name of the ailment, the nature of any
operation performed, the statement of facts or
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND opinion given to the patient. Including opinions
PATIENT (curative, preventive or palliative and prescriptions.
treatment)
Privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe, full The attending physician may not testify even
and confidential disclosure by patient of all facts, though employed as an expert witness by the other
circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by side.
apprehension of their subsequent and enforced
disclosure and publication on the witness stand Privilege includes examination of patients
-to the end that the physician may form a employed by a third party in order for the
correct opinion and be enabled safely and physician to report to his principal and to the
efficaciously to treat his patient efficacy of certain treatment, being given by other
-lend a sense of security and confidence to physicians.
the relation of patient and physician so that the
patient will not be reticent about making disclosures X-ray plates and radiographs are considered
which may be material to his physical welfare privilege including the oral communications or
observations made or had for the purpose of
Requisites for the rule to apply: enabling the physician to treat or prescribe for his
a) Action in which the Advice or treatment patient.
given or any information be in a civil case
b) Physician and patient relations existed Where information is clearly immaterial to the
c) Information was acquire while patient’s treatment, it cannot be considered
professionally attending the patient privilege, but if it was obtained from observation
d) Information was necessary for the and inspection of the patient’s body, privilege
performance of his professional duty applies regardless of whether or not such
e) Disclosure of the information would tend information was necessary for the treatment.
to blacken the reputation of the patient
Tend to blacken his reputation- which might
Limited to civil cases only: in criminal cases bring reproach or disgrace upon the patient.
the privilege does not apply for the Privilege rests upon the person objecting and
maintenance of public order and the life and must show that relation of physician and patient
liberty of the citizens are deemed more existed.
important than the purpose for which the
privilege was created The court not the physician determines whether the
- Not conferred to shield/ weapon to be physician must testify, court may hold preliminary
used by a person charged with crime hearing to determine circumstances. Not the duty of
Not indispensable that the patient the court to require physician to testify.
should have actually employed the
physician, surgeon or obstetrician. May After the patient has gone to his grave, the living
be applied in extremis in view to a are not permitted to impair his name and disgrace
curative treatment any information his memory. An express waiver maybe made by the
obtained by him for that reason is patient himself, or the deceased person’s
privilege
representative or the beneficiary of the insurance incriminating himself, it was held that the
policy. communication was not privileged.
Also by giving express consent, to the testimony of Prosecution for the crime of bigamy that the
the physician, or by calling the physician to testify statements made by the accused to a priest who
as to the privilege matter. The guardian of the minor was to communicate them to the first wife, to induce
may also give his consent provided that it is not to are not privileged.
the minor’s prejudice. A communication to a priest made otherwise
Implied waiver is found when the patient than in his ecclesiastical capacity is not
himself takes the stand to testify about his privileged.
physical condition, including the sending of a
physician’s certificate of a cause of death, as Confession must be made in the profession
part of the proofs of death required by a life character of the priest and in the course of
insurance policy. discipline enjoined by the rules of practice of
the denomination to which the priest or minister
Once the waiver is made, such waiver is final and belongs.
cannot be recalled. Privilege is not waived by the Not including statements made by a church
patient in making voluntary disclosure outside the member in the presence of his minister and fellow
court. Where the waiver is procured by fraud or members. There can be no privilege, where a
coercion, the waiver is not effect and the privilege minister is consulted, but as a notary or a friend and
may not be claimed. interpreter,
Determination through the question from the
Privilege not applicable where patient brings circumstances and facts leading up to the making
action against physician, for is a patient makes of the confession, disclosure should not be required
public in a court of justice the occurrences of the unless it appears that the claim of privilege is
sickroom, for obtaining a judgment for damages erroneously made.
against his physician , he cannot shut out the
physician himself not any other who was present at Waiver of privilege when a penitent to the extent
the time covered by the testimony. By his of giving evidence of what took place at the
voluntary act he breaks down the barrier and confessional he cannot complaint of evidence
the professional duty of secrecy ceases. which goes no further to established the facts
revealed by him.
When privilege may be invoked: the privilege may But a distinction must be made between
now be invoked in both civil and criminal cases. confessions and admissions. A confession, as
distinguished from an admission, is a declaration
3. Admissions and Confessions made at any time by a person, voluntarily and
without compulsion or inducement, stating or
Section 26.Admission of a party. — The act, acknowledging that he had committed or
declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant participated in the commission of a crime. The
fact may be given in evidence against him.
term admission, on the other had, is usually
applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by
1. Admission defined.
An admission is a voluntary the accused which do not directly involve an
acknowledgement in express terms or by acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused or of
implication, by a party interest or by another by criminal intent to commit the offense with which
whose statement he is legally bound, against his he is charged. The statutory provision excluding
interest, of the existence or truth of a fact in evidence as to confessions until and unless the
dispute material to the issue. prescribed foundation is laid not applicable to
admissions, which do not amount to confessions
although they may be sufficient, when taken
together with other evidence of surrounding
2. Admission Classified. circumstances to sustain an inference of the
Admission may be classified into judicial, guilt of the accused. The reason for the rule
extra-judicial, express and implied. excluding evidence as to confessions unless it is
first made to appear that they are made
Express admissions- made in express terms
voluntarily does not apply in cases of
and of the very fact in issue or in dispute.
admissions, although, of course, evidence of the
Implied admissions- those which result from fact that a particular statement was made under
an act done or undone. duress would tend very strongly to destroy its
evidentiary value.
3. Certainty.
An admission should possess the same 5. Admission distinguished from
degree of certainty as would be required in declaration against interest.
the evidence which it represents, and hence Admission:
mere conjectures or suggestions as to what
Primary evidence;
might have happened are not competent.
Receivable when declarant
4. Admission distinguished from
is available as witness;
confession.
Competent only when
Admission: usually applied in criminal cases to declarant is a party to the action.
statements of fact by the accused which do not
Declaration against interest:
directly involved an acknowledgement of the
Secondary evidence;
Receivable only when It may be introduced in evidence in two ways: a) as
declarant is unavailable as witness; independent evidence, and b) as impeaching
evidence.
Competent even if declarant
is not a party to the action. a) As independent evidence- admission are
original evidence and no foundation is
necessary for their introduction of evidence.
i. Oral Admissions. Admission was made
6. Admission distinguished from self- orally, it may proved by any competent
contradiction. witnesses who heard them.
Admission is for a party-opponent.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEFINA N.
Self-contradiction is to witness- a statement SAMSON, G.R. No. L-14110
made somewhere else, and inconsistent with his March 29, 1963
allegations of claim or defense in the case on
trial. The appellant claims that there is no competent
evidence that the victim and the appellant were
7. Relevancy and materiality. husband and wife. The claim is without merit. The
In order that a statement offered as an testimony of the appellant on direct examination
admission may be received it must, at the time disclosed several times that she was married to
when it is offered be relevant to, and have a the deceased in both “Church and civil marriages.”
material bearing on the issues in the case. On cross examination, she testified on the exact
date of her marriage to the deceased (4 July
1934) and the place (Pili, Camarines Sur) where
they were married. She did not only admit that the
deceased was her husband but also brought out
ADMISSION BY ACT the fact that out of the marriage they had five
children and that only three are living, namely:
Admission implied from conduct or utterance of a Glenda, Manuel and Felix. Indeed, there could be
party. no better proof of marriage in a parricide case than
the admission by the accused of the existence of
GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC., vs. WORKMEN'S such marriage. More, Ramon M. Velasco, mayor
COMPENSATION COMMISSION G.R. No. L-14936 of Libon, Albay, and uncle of the deceased
July 30, 1960
testified that when he saw the appellant in the
afternoon of 13 October 1954 at the municipal jail,
The record also shows that the company has
voluntarily paid a part of the compensation, which she immediately begged for his forgiveness and
circumstances likewise indicates admission of the told him that she had shot her husband Pepe
compensability of the claim, (Bachrach Motor Co. (referring to the deceased) because the latter had
Inc. vs. Domingo Panaligan, 99 Phil., 238; 52 Off. a mistress and she could not bear or suffer it any
Gaz., [7] 3583). The above facts are admissions longer.
against interest and admissible in evidence against
the respondent company (Sec. 7, Rule 123, Rules of Admission made over telephone.
Court).
An admission made in a telephone
There may be no other evidence presented by the conversion may be proved, where the witness
claimant but the admissions of the company as identified the speaker by his voice or otherwise, and
above-indicated together with the causes stated in
there is no doubt as to the identity of the person who
the claim, are sufficient evidence to sustain the
decision sought herein to be set aside. The finding made the admission.
that the claim is compensable involves an exercise
of discretion by the Workmen's Compensation Admissions made through interpreter.
Commission and the same should not be disturbed
on appeal because there is no abuse thereof. A competent oral admission may be made
through an interpreter, where such method of
ADMISSION BY DECLARATION conversation is, in some manner, voluntarily adopted
by the parties.
i. Written Admissions. When the admission is There is nothing in the description contained in this
in a private document, there must be some document which indicates that it is the same land
proof of the authenticity or identity of the described in the complaint in this action. The
document in accordance with Section 20,
Plaintiff, however, testified that it was, and that he
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, that
is, the party offering it must prove its due had been in possession thereof from 1860 to 1902,
execution and authenticity. when he was dispossessed by the Defendants.
There is no other evidence in the case which relates
to any of the Defendants except to the Defendant
Admission made in letters.
Tranquilino Bascos. As to him the Plaintiff introduced
Where the statement offered against a party in evidence a document signed by Bascos in May,
is in the form of a written declaration, such 1893. This document stated that the tract of land for
admissions requires greater weight than mere verbal which Bascos had obtained the deed from the State
admissions. had been returned by him to its former owner, the
Plaintiff.
Admissions made in documents or memoranda.
It showed that the Defendant Bascos had not
delivered the possession of this land to the Plaintiff,
and his claim is that he was induced to sign the
document by reason of threats made at the time by
the parish priest of the locality. It is claimed by the
MUNICIPALITY OF OAS, vs. ROA,G.R. No. L-2017
Plaintiff that this document operated as a transfer of
November 24, 1906
the title of the land from the Defendant Bascos to the
The two statements signed by Roa, one in 1892 and Plaintiff. We do not think that it can be given any
the other in 1893, are competent evidence against such effect. It amounted, in our opinion, only to an
him. They are admissions by him to the effect that at extrajudicial admission that the Plaintiff was the
that time the pueblo was the owner of the property in owner of the land. It was competent for the
question. They are, of course, not conclusive against Defendant to overcome the effect of this admission
him. He was entitled to, and did present evidence to by evidence showing that the Plaintiff was not in fact
overcome the effect of these admissions. The the owner of the land, and the evidence produced by
evidence does not make out a case of estoppel the Defendant did, in our opinion, prove that the
against him. (sec. 333, par. 1, Code of Civil Plaintiff was not the owner.
Procedure.)
ASUNCION GEFES, vs. SALVIO, ET AL., G.R. No.
The admissibility of these statements made by Roa L-11387, February 7, 1917
do not rest upon section 278 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which relates to declarations or The fact is indisputable that these lands did not
admissions made by persons not a party to the suit, belong to the defendant, and if he bought them at
but it rests upon the principle that when the public auction in December, 1908, for P661, he did
defendant in a suit has himself made an admission so with his wife Asuncion’s own money. This is
of any fact pertinent to issue involved, it can be evidenced by Exhibit A, a document signed by the
received against him. said Salvio before the notary Nicolas Tomas on
March 27, 1909, in which he clearly sets forth that
EVANGELISTA, vs. BASCOS, ET AL., G.R. No. the said sum of P661, Philippine currency, which he
2332, November 10, 1905. paid for the properties above-mentioned, belonged
to the private funds of his wife Asuncion Gefes. He
The evidence does not show that he has any
furthermore declared in the said document that she
documentary title to any of the land. He introduced in
was the true and absolute owner of the said lands by
evidence a paper, executed by the principales of the
him purchased out of his wife’s funds and in her
town in 1860, which purported to give him and
behalf. This document was ratified before a notary
Leonardo Evangelista the ownership of a certain
and attests the truth of all its contents, even against
tract of land in said barrio for the purpose of
third persons. The defendant’s denial of its
cultivating the same. The title to this land could not
authenticity is not supported by any reliable
have been granted by this instrument, because the
evidence, nor by the affidavit (record, p. 75)
persons executing it had no power to convey it.
presented for the purpose of obtaining a reopening
of the case. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the Hemady and the Hashims in the earlier case, the
defendant Salvio cannot be heard to repudiate what defendant-appellant did not claim that said testimony
he solemnly declared in a notarial document. contained admissions against interest by the parties
to the action or their agents; if such had been the
Admissions made in previous case. case, the testimony would have been admissible
without the laying of a foundation and without the
THE UNITED STATES, vs. CHING PO G.R. No. L- witnesses having testified in the case at bar. But the
7707, December 6, 1912. purpose of the offer of the testimony was evidently to
impeach the testimony of the same witnesses in the
The procedure in criminal cases in the Philippine present case and if so, a foundation should have
islands provides that a defendant in a criminal been laid by calling the attention of the witnesses to
proceeding may be a witness in his own behalf. the former statements so as to give them opportunity
When he avails himself of this right, he is subject to to explain before the statements were offered in
a rigid cross-examination and is bound by his evidence.
admissions, voluntarily given, in such examination.
His admissions are presumed to be given voluntarily
UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE I. BALUYOT G.R. No.
and when thus given on a previous trial, they may be L-14476, November 6, 1919
used against him in a subsequent cause.
It is almost universally accepted that unless a
In the Matter of the Estate of JOAQUINA ground is thus laid upon cross-examination,
MIJARES DE FARInAS. - ENRIQUE DE LA VEGA, evidence of contradictory statements are not
vs. VICENTE LAVIN G.R. No. L-4878February 27,
admissible to impeach a witness; though
1909
undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the
Later in the proceedings an answer was presented discretion of the court.
in her behalf. In this she stated that what she
ADMISSION BY OMISSION
declared when asked to recognize the authenticity of
the documents was that her deceased husband An admission may be implied from an omission.
owed Lavin 1,171 pesos and not 1,233 pesos. It
does not appear that she signed this answer. It may GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, vs. DE LA
have been signed by her solicitor. Under these RIVAJanuary 12, 1909, G.R. No. 4604
circumstances the contents of the answer can not
be considered as admissions made by her which
could be used as evidence against her in another The plaintiffs having been made it at a certain rate
proceeding entirely disconnected with the subject- and having notified the defendant thereof it was
matter of the proceeding in which the answer was clearly his duty to object to the rate if he was not
satisfied with it. As is seen, he made no objection
made. There is, therefore, nothing in the proceeding
whatever at the time, and as far as appears never
of 1894 which proves either the existence of a debt made any objection until he filed his answer herein.
from the husband Paulino Lavin or any recognition of The evidence is sufficient to show that he assented
such supposed indebtedness by the deceased. to the rate at which the change was made. The
judgment of the court below with reference to this
b) As impeaching evidence- if proof of the objection must be sustained.
admissions is sought for impeachment purposes, a
proper foundation must be laid for the impeaching People v. Belendrez, et al. 47 O.G. 5134
questions, by calling the attention of such party to
his former statement so as to give him an Delay in instituting a criminal prosecution unless
opportunity to explain before such admissions are satisfactorily explained, creates suspicion about the
motive of the supposed offended party and gives
offered in evidence.
rise to reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant.
Appellant's defense hinges on the jamming of the 3) when they are part of a confession offered by
deceased's pistol. His theory is that the deceased the prosecution;
failed to fire his pistol because it jammed when he
attempted to fire the first shot against appellant. It
4) where the credibility of a party has been
appears, however, upon expert testimony on record,
assailed on the ground that his testimony is a
that the jamming of the firearm was due not to any
recent fabrication, provided they were made at a
mechanical defect but to intentional insertion of a
time when a motive to misrepresent did not
bullet from the outside into the pistol's barrel. The
exist;
fact that the appellant had experience in handling
firearms and the fact that it took him more than the
necessary length of time from the moment he took 5) When they are offered by the opponent.
6) When they are offered without objection, the In criminal cases, an offer of compromise by
evidence cannot afterward be objected to as the accused may be received in evidence as an
incompetent. implied admission of guilt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DEMIARG.R. When offer of compromise in criminal cases not
No. L-15130, May 31, 1960 an implied admission of guilt
It is also contended for appellant that the trial court Jurisprudence: U.S vs. Torres (34 Phil. 994)
erred in admitting appellant's letter to his brother-in-
law Lope Mayol (Exh. A) and that there is nothing in In criminal cases where compromise is
the letter which would show that appellant admitted allowed by law, as in opium or usury cases, no
his guilt. Appellant argues that, instead of implied admission of guilt arises against the accused
considering said letter as evidence indicative of his who makes an offer to compromise. The Collector of
guilt, the trial court should have considered it in his Internal Revenue may compromise any civil or other
favor, because he disclaimed therein asked case arising under the Tax Code or other law or part
forgiveness from his sisters and begged them to of law administered by the Bureau of Internal
testify that their mother died of natural illness and Revenue.
not of strangulation, we fail to see why said
statements could not be taken as an admission of Similarly, in criminal cases involving quasi-
appellant's guilt. As to the argument that said letter offenses (criminal negligence) an offer of
should have been considered in appellant's favor, it compromise does not constitute an implied
may stated that self-serving statements made extra- admission of guilt.
judicially cannot be admitted as evidence in favor of
the person making them, although the incriminating
statement is evidence against him. Civil Code provisions on compromise
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital Payment of medical and similar expenses
or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal The traditional ground for this rule is that the
liability for the injury. payment or offer is usually made from the humane
impulses and not from an admission of liability.
Compromise defined
Section 28.Admission by third party. — The
Compromise is an agreement made rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
between two or more parties as a settlement of declaration, or omission of another, except as
matters in dispute. hereinafter provided.
The admissions of one partner are received There may be many legatees and devisees,
against another, not on the ground that they are but, although they derive their benefit from a
parties to the record, but on the ground that they are common source (testator) they clearly have no rights
identified in interest, and that each is agent for the based on the benefit of each other. They have
other, and that the acts or declarations of one during interest in common in that each derives his interest
the existence of the partnership, while transacting, form the same source; but plainly they have no joint
while transacting its business and within the scope interest through any relation inter se.
of the business are evidence against the other or
others. Section 30.Admission by conspirator. — The act
or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
Admission by agent conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
evidence against the co-conspirator after the
that the agency be previously conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such
proved by evidence other than the act of declaration.
admission itself
that the admission refers to a matter Requisites of the rule
within the scope of his authority
that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence
other than the admission itself
that the admission relates to the common object each is liable for the result of his act in the degree
and manner of participation.
it has been made while the declarant was
engaged in carrying out the conspiracy Section 31.Admission by privies. — Where one
derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding
the title, in relation to the property, is evidence
against the former.
If it is proved that two or more persons It is an established rule of evidence that the
aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of declarations of a person under whom title is claimed
the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that are receivable against the successor so claiming, on
their acts, though apparently independent, were in the theory that there is sufficient identity of interest to
fact connected and cooperative, indicating a render the statements of the former equally
closeness of personal association and a receivable with the admissions of the present owner,
concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be and that the rights of the latter are those, and only
inferred though no actual meeting among them to those, of the former.
concert means is proved.
- Where a confession has been obtained - The general rule that the confession of
from the accused by improper an accused may be given in evidence
inducement, any statement made by against him but that it is not competent
him while under that influence is evidence against his co-accused,
inadmissible. recognizes various exceptions:
31. Determination of admissibility of c. The words “did not” have been added in
confession the present provision.
Upon a criminal prosecution for injuries Section 36. Testimony generally confined to
caused by negligence, evidence of other acts, personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. – A witness
disconnected though similar, is irrelevant. However, can testify only to those facts which he knows of
when a party is charged with the negligent use of a his personal knowledge, that is, which are
dangerous agency, and the case against him is that derived from his own perception, except as
he did not use care proportionate to the danger, then otherwise provided in these rules
the question becomes material whether he knew, or
ought to have known, the extent of danger. 1. Source
12. Proof of subsequent offenses The word “own” in the Rules of Court has
been deleted in the present provision and the word
According to one of the authorities, evidence “personal” has been added.
of offenses committed subsequent to the act
charged is never admissible in evidence. Other 2. Generally
authorities favor the admissibility of such proof in
certain instances, as in the case of offenses arising The witness can testify only to those facts
out of sexual intercourse, upon the theory that which he knows from his personal knowledge, that
subsequent acts disclose the disposition of the is, which are derived from his own perception.
parties.
3. Hearsay evidence
• Hearsay evidence has been defined as • In other words, if the fact sought to be
evidence which derives its value, not solely established is, that certain words were
from the credit to be given to the witness upon spoken, without reference to the truth or
the stand, but in part from the veracity and falsity of the words, the testimony of any
competency of some other persons. person who heard the statement is original
evidence and not hearsay.
• Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony. A
writing may be hearsay. 7. Statements which are circumstantial evidence
of the facts in issue
• Evidence is hearsay when its probative value
depends in whole or in part, on the • The statements from which the facts in issue
competency and credibility of some persons may be inferred, may be testified to by
other that the witness. witnesses without violating the hearsay rule.
Of this kind are:
• Hearsay evidence is the evidence not of what
the witnesses knows himself but of what he a. Statements of a person showing his
has heard from others. state of mind, that is his mental
condition, knowledge, belief, intention
and other emotions;
4. Reason for excluding hearsay evidence b. Statements of a person which show his
physical condition, as illness and the
• One reason is the fact that hearsay like;
testimony is not subject to the tests which
can ordinarily be applied for the c. Statements of a person from which an
ascertainment of the truth of testimony, inference may be made as to the state
since the declarant is not present and of mind of another, that is, knowledge,
available for cross-examination. belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of
the latter;
• The court is without opportunity to test the
credibility of hearsay statements by d. Those which may identify the date,
observing the demeanor of the person who place, and person in question; and,
made them.
e. Those showing the lack of credibility of a
5. Independently relevant statements witness.
• The hearsay rule does not apply where, 8. Statements showing the speaker’s state of
regardless of the truth or the falsity of a mind
statement, the fact that it has been made is
A man’s state of mind or feeling can only be
relevant, the hearsay rule does not apply,
manifested to others by countenance, attitude or
but the statement may be shown.
gesture, or by sounds or words, spoken or written.
Groups
9. Statements showing the speaker’s physical
a. Those statements which are the very condition
facts in issue; and,
• Statements of a person which may fairly
b. Those statements which are show his bodily condition at the time he
circumstantial evidence of the facts in made the statements are admissible as
issue. circumstantial evidence of such condition.
6. Statements which are the very facts in issue • When the bodily or mental feelings of an
individual are material to be proved, the
• Where the statements, or utterances of usual expression of such feelings are
specific words, are the facts in issue, the original and competent evidence.
testimony of witnesses thereto is not
hearsay.
10. Statements of a person from which the state The failure of a party to object to the
of mind of another may be inferred admission of hearsay evidence constitutes a waiver
of his right to make such objection, and,
Pertains to knowledge, belief, motive, good consequently, the evidence offered may be
or bad faith, etc. of the latter may be testified to by a admitted. Objection to its admission made for the
witness without violating the hearsay rule. first time on appeal is too late.
11. Statements identifying the time, date, place, 17. Weight of hearsay evidence admitted without
or person in question objection
May be validly testified to by the witness. • The Supreme Court held that although the
question of admissibility of evidence cannot raised
12. Statements of a witness impeaching his
for the first time on appeal, yet if the evidence is
credibility
hearsay, it has no probative value and should be
• Statements made out of court are admitted disregarded whether objected or not.
for the purpose of contradicting or
18. Multiple hearsay
impeaching a witness.
There is no good reason why a hearsay
• A witness may be impeached by the party
declaration, which within itself contains a hearsay
against whom he was called . . . by evidence statement, should not be admissible to prove the
that he had made at other times statements, truth of the included statement, if both the statement
inconsistent with present testimony . . . and the included statement meet the tests of an
exception to the hearsay rule.
13. Evidence of acting upon a statement, not
hearsay EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
If the statement is introduced for the Section 37. Dying declaration. – The declaration
purpose of establishing the fact that a party relied of a dying person, made under the
and acted thereon, it is not objectionable on the consciousness of an impending death, may be
ground of hearsay. received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
14. Statements made through interpreter, not
surrounding circumstances of such death.
hearsay
1. Dying declaration defined
Reason: Both the original witness and the
interpreter are under oath and subject to cross- A dying declaration is a statement made by
examination. the victim of homicide, referring to the material facts
which concern the cause and circumstances of the
Exceptions:
killing and which is uttered under a belief of an
a. The interpreter had been selected by impending death.
common consent of the parties endeavoring
2. Reasons for admissibility
to converse; or,
a. Necessity – because the declarant’s
b. By the party against whom the statements of
death renders impossible his taking the witness
the interpreter were offered in evidence.
stand; and it happens often that there is o other
15. Presumption that testimony is not hearsay equally satisfactory proof of the crime.
c. An admission may be used only against Pertains to those which may bar in whole or
the admitter and those identified with him in legal in part the declarant’s money claim, or which may
interest while a declaration against interest give rise to a monetary claim against him, as for
admissible against third persons. instance, where he acknowledges that his credit is
already paid or that he is indebted to some person.
4. Declaration against interest distinguished
from self-serving declaration 8. Declarations against proprietary interest
e) Entrant must be deceased or unable to testify a) That the written statement was made by public
officer or by another person specially enjoined
- In order to qualify an entry, there must be by law to do so;
a necessity for its admission as evidence
and this is satisfied by proof of the death b) That it was made by the public officer in the
of the entrant. performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law; and
- When declarant is alive, entries may be
used as memorandum to refresh his c) That the public officer or the other person had
memory as witness. sufficient knowledge of the facts by him state,
which must have been acquired by him
Mode of Proving Entries personally or through official information
- It is required that the entries be properly Public Officer
identified or authenticated, and generally, their
completeness, and correctness, regularly, and - It is not necessary that the record, should be
fairly as well as the method of making them, kept by the chief public officer himself, it is
must be established sufficient if the entries are made under his
direction by person authorized by him.
Performance of Duty by Public Officer
Sec. 44
- It is essential that the official statement should
Entries in official records have been made by a public officer in the
performance of his duty, or by another person in
Entries in official records made in the
the performance of his duty, specially enjoined
performance of his duty by a public officer of
by law.
the Philippines, or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by Unavailability of Entrant Need not be Shown
- His absence is being excused from appearing in such evidence, as by showing that such publications
court in order that public business be not have been regularly prepared by a person in touch
deranged. with the market, and that they are generally
regarded as trustworthy and relied upon.
Proof of Official Entries
- Entries may be proved by the production of the SECTION 46, RULE 130
books or records themselves or by a copy
certified by the legal keeper thereof. Learned treaties.-- A published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art
Authentication is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a
- The extraordinary degree of confidence reposed matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice,
in documents of a public nature is founded or a witness expert in the subject testifies that the
principally upon the circumstance that they have writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or
been made by authorized and accredited agents pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as
appointed for the purpose. expert in the subject.
F (father) sold his property to his children A, * Generally. – The most common subjects of expert
B, C, and D (excluding E, the eldest) due to failing testimony are handwriting, including typewritten
health. Indeed, a deed of absolute sale was signed documents, ballistic, mental condition, cause of
by the former conveying the said property and was death or injury and value of real property including
witnessed by two persons and notarized by a notary market value.
public.
A. HANDWRITING
E learned of such sale when an ejectment
suit was filed against him. Upon the advice of his * Handwriting expert. – There is no test by which
counsel, he had the documents examined by the one can determine with precision how much
PNP. As a result, the PNP came up with the experience or knowledge of handwriting a witness
conclusion that the signatures were written by two must have in order to qualify as an expert for
different people. comparison.
Hence, E assailed the contract for being a It is not essential to qualify one as an expert
forgery. to testify to comparisons of handwritings that he has
professional knowledge or that he has made such
ISSUE:
work a specialty. It is enough that he has been
WHETHER OR NOT the court is bound to engaged in some business which called for frequent
give evidentiary value of the opinion of the PNP. comparisons of handwritings and that he has in fact
been in the habit for a length of time of making such
RULING: comparisons.
Under the Rules of Court, the following may *Function of handwriting expert. – No handwriting
prove the genuineness of handwriting: expert should wish for his testimony to be received
as unquestionable authority, the idea being rather
(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing that it is the function of the expert to place before the
the instrument; court data upon which the court can form its own
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who opinion.
can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being an
An expert on handwriting may give not only
exception to the opinion rule;
an opinion upon the authenticity of writing, but also,
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned in his examination in chief, the reasons for his
handwriting and admitted genuine specimen thereof; opinion.
and
* Court may order examination of questioned
(4) Expert evidence. (Sec. 49 Rule 130) - The document by National Bureau of Investigation. –
law makes no preference, much less distinction When a party is too poor to pay the fees of a
among and between the different means stated handwriting expert, the court, upon its own initiative,
above in proving the handwriting of a person. It is may, for the sake of justice, require the National
likewise clear from the foregoing that courts are not Bureau of Investigation to make an examination of
bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the signature in a questioned document.
* Two problems in handwriting identification. – * Use of writings other than those in issue. –
There are two main problems in handwriting There is a direct conflict of authority on the question
identification. of whether an expert handwriting witness may be
tested as to the accuracy of his knowledge by the
1) To determine whether a signature, a line use of writings others than those in issue. The
of writing, or a page or more of writing was majority rule is that submitting to him may not test
written by the one who is alleged to have such a witness, and eliciting his opinion as to the
written it. genuineness of other writings not admitted or proved
to be genuine. But in at least two jurisdictions it has
2) Determining whether a certain writer
been held that writings neither admitted nor proved
wrote an anonymous or other writing.
to be genuine, and even though otherwise irrelevant,
Both of these handwriting problems must be solved may be used to test an expert handwriting witness.
by a study of the inherent qualities in the writings
* Characteristics of handwriting; general
themselves and by a comparison of their elements,
principles.
qualities, and characteristics with other writing.
No set of infallible rules can be formulated but some
* General appearance or pictorial effect. – The
general principles can be stated that apply in most
first test applied to a disputed writing by nearly every
cases.
examiner is the test of general appearance or
pictorial effect as compared with the genuine 1) Identifying or differentiating
standard of writing. characteristics. – One of the principles by which the
force and significance of characteristics are
* Method of testing genuineness of disputed
measured is that those identifying or differentiating
handwriting by comparison. – One of the first
characteristics are of the most force which are most
steps in the investigation of a suspected or disputed
divergent from the regular system or national
writing should be the seeking out of suitable genuine
features of a particular handwriting under
handwriting with which it is to be compared.
examination.
The qualities and characteristics of any handwriting
2) Inconspicuous characteristics. –
as determined and classified in a thorough
Repeated characteristics which are inconspicuous
examination are;
should first be sought and should be given the most
1) Permanent and fixed weight, for these are likely to be so unconscious that
2) Usual or common they would not intentionally be omitted when an
3) Occasional and, attempt is made to disguise, and would not be
4) Exceptional or accidental successfully copied from the writing of another when
simulation is attempted.
It therefore follows that handwriting has a certain
field of possible and expected variation and without 3) General characteristics or national
a sufficient quantity of standard writing significant features and elements are not alone sufficient on
habits cannot be determined, and the value and which to have a judgment of identity of two writings,
force of characteristics cannot be definitely known. although these characteristics necessarily have as
evidence of identity, as stated above, if present in
* Proof of genuineness of standard handwriting. sufficient number and in combination with individual
– Generally, where writings are admitted to serve as qualities and characteristics.
a basis for comparison, the genuineness thereof
must be proved to the satisfaction of the judge as a * Exact coincidence between two signatures. – It
preliminary question. His decision on such is a first principle in writing that exact coincidence
preliminary question is conclusive, unless it appears between two signatures is absolute proof that one or
to have been based on some erroneous view of law, the other is a forgery. There must be some
or was clearly not justified by state of the evidence at difference before authentically can be admitted; and
that time. the general rule is that authenticity reposes upon a
general characteristics resemblance, coupled with
specific differences, such as naturally result from the
infinite variety of conditions controlling the muscles
of the writer at each separate effort in forming his (11) Basing opinion on undeveloped writing
signature. from school teachers or pupils or young writers
(12) The attempt to identify the actual writer
* Test for determining identity or non-identity. – of a forged signature that is a simulated or traced
In order to reach the conclusion that two writings are writing
by the same hand there must not only be present
general characteristics but also individual
* Osborn’s suggestion in presenting expert
characteristics or ‘dents and scratches,’ in sufficient
testimony. – There are certain preliminary details in
quantity to exclude the theory of accidental
connection with the presentation of testimony of a
coincidence; to reach the conclusion that writings
technical character that deserve some attention.
are by different hands we may find numerous
Before an expert or opinion witness is allowed to
likenesses in general characteristics but divergence
testify the law requires that he be “qualified” in a
in individual characteristics, or we may find
legal way to give expert testimony. This qualifying
divergences in both, but the divergence must be
process consists in showing that the witness has
something more than mere superficial differences.
had such preparation and experience as to legally
* A favorite defense of forgery. – One of the qualify him to give an opinion in court on the subject
favorite defenses of forgery is the argument that the in dispute.
numerous damaging divergences in a disputed
B. TYPEWRITTEN DOCUMENTS
signature, which in combination are highly significant
as evidence that it is not genuine, can each be found * Identification of typewritten documents. – The
separately in one signature out of a great number of principles applicable to handwriting apply equally to
signatures, and that this proves that the disputed typewritten documents.
signature is genuine. Even if they could be found,
this would not be proof of genuineness. The Expert testimony identifying typewriting, printing and
incompetent or the insincere witness, or the other mechanical impressions as prepared on a
advocate, who is defending forgery, will often particular machine is now considered an integral part
laboriously seek out these separated and only of the science of questioned documents. Two types
partially exemplified qualities, and then argue that of experts appear in this field, the examiner of
the disputed signature and the genuine writing are documents and the typewriter mechanic or engineer.
just alike. Qualifications are the same for both, that is anyone
may testify, as an expert whose training and
* Circumstances that may induce expert to give experience have developed knowledge above that of
erroneous opinion. – Identity is proved when two the average person in the features of a typewriter or
handwritings both contain a sufficient number of printing press, subject to the sound discretion of the
significant characteristics; qualities and elements so court.
that it is unreasonable to say that they would all
accidentally coincide in two different handwritings. * Typewriting questions. – Typewriting questions
are presented in a great variety of ways. In the first
* Errors are due to: place, if often is desirable simply to ascertain the
date of a typewritten document. It may also be a
(1) Basing opinion on inadequate amount of
matter of great importance to learn whether a
disputed writings
(2) Inadequate amount of standard writing document was all written continuously or written at
(3) Basing conclusion on common qualities different times on the same machine or at different
alone times on different machines.
(4) Basing conclusion on system or national
characteristics * Skilled typist. – Skilled typist may be permitted to
(5) Basing conclusion partly on outside facts state inference that two pages of minute book of
or statements of interested party corporation were written by different typists using
(6) Ignoring difference in the writings different machines.
(7) Interpreting all differences as disguises
(8) Allowing prejudice, sympathy or * Identification of operator. – The question of
antipathy to affect a conclusion
(9) Haste or superficial examination identification of the typewriter operator is primarily
(10) Inability to weigh and interpret predicated upon the physical arrangement, the
characteristics or qualities manner of punctuation, the length of line, the depth
of indentation, and the method of spelling, although introduced in evidence and compared with other
some authorities discuss the question from the point fingerprints, palm prints or footprints found at or near
of view that operators of typewriters have different the scene of the crime. This comparison is usually
touches. made by experts who may be permitted to use
projectoscopes and photographic enlargements for
* Habits of operator. – Different habits of touch, the purpose of displaying such photographic
spacing, speed, arrangement, punctuation, or impression to the court.
incorrect use of any letters, figures, or other
characters may also show that a document was not * Fingerprint experts. – He must have knowledge
all written by one operator, or may show that a of fingerprint from study, training, or experience as to
collection of documents was produced by several make him a specialist in the subject.
different operators.
* Admissibility of fingerprints expert testimony. –
* Typewriting characteristics. Expert testimony as to the identity of thumbmarks or
fingerprints is admissible. However, the court is
The first fact to be considered in justified in refusing to accept opinions of alleged
investigating the date of a typewriting is to find when experts where thumb impressions are blurred and
a certain kind of machine, the work of which is in many of the characteristic marks far from clear, thus
question, first came into use, and then it is important rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated
to learn, and to be able to prove, when any changes by experts as showing the identity or lack of identity
in the machine were made that affected the written of the impressions. The court may substitute the
record. opinion of experts by its own opinion that a distinct
similarity in some respects between the admittedly
* The most important typewriting inquiry. –
genuine thumbmark and the questioned thumbmarks
Perhaps the most important typewriting inquiry is the
is evident.
determination whether a typewritten document is the
work of a particular individual machine. There * Weight of fingerprint. – The weight to be given
usually are two steps in an inquiry of this kind; evidence of correspondence of fingerprints, where
offered to prove identity of the accused as the
1) The first being the determination of the
person committing the crime, is for the determination
fact that the document was written on a
of the court in the light of all surrounding facts and
certain particular kind of machine,
circumstances. To warrant a conviction, however,
2) And the second that it was written on a the fingerprints corresponding to those of the
certain individual machine of that particular kind accused must have been found in the place where
the crime was committed, under such circumstances
* Comparison of typewriting or printing. – The that they could only have been impressed at the time
authorities dealing with the question whether when the crime was committed. When it appears
typewritten instruments can be identified as to that there were fingerprints other than those
genuineness by the peculiarity of the writing in much identified as the defendant’s who are neither
the same manner as handwriting has been identified identified nor explained, the proof of the defendant’s
appear to agree that typewriting possesses such prints is not sufficient to support a conviction.
individuality that it can be identified in much the
same manner as handwriting, by comparison with D. BALLISTICS
other typewriting and by expert testimony. The
* Ballistics expert. – He is one who is qualified to
theory underlying this rule is that where an
give expert opinion on firearms and ammunition. No
impression is made on paper y an instrument, which
witness should be permitted to testify regarding the
possesses a defect or peculiarity, the identity of the
identification of firearms and bullets by the use of
instrument may be proved by the similarity of the
this science unless he has clearly shown that he is
defects, which it impresses on different papers.
qualified to give such testimony. In a trial, it is
C. FINGERPRINTS necessary that the instrument, such as a weapon
involved in a crime, be tested and demonstrated.
* Fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, tracks. –
Authenticated fingerprints, palm prints or footprints * The problem of determining whether or not a
or photographs thereof of any person may be given bullet was fired from a suspected firearm.
– This problem can be solved only if it is possible to
establish: (a) that the signature on the given bullet
was engraved by a firearm with the same class
characteristics as those if the suspected firearm; (b)
that the same combination of identifying elements
E. PARAFFIN OR NITRATE TEST
exists in the signature on all bullets (except those
undersize) fired from the suspected firearms at the * Method to determine whether a person has
time, and all variations found in these signatures can recently fired a gun. – It is usual in criminal
be reconciled; (c) that the same combination of investigations of cased of murder or homicide to
identifying elements exists in the signature on the apply nitrate test commonly known as paraffin test
given bullet; (d) that all variations existing in the on the hands of the suspected person to determine
signature on the given bullet and the signatures of whether or not such person has recently fired a gun.
the suspected firearm can be reconciled; and (e) that (People vs. Timbol, G.R. Nos. 47471, 47472 and
the identifying elements determined from a 47473).
combination the coexistence of which is highly
improbable in the signatures of other firearms with F. CAUSE OF DEATH – NATURE AND CAUSE OF
the same class characteristics. WOUNDS
* The problem of determining whether or not a * Cause of death. – Where a body had been found
fired cartridge case was fired in a suspected but the cause of death is unknown, opinions of
firearm. – The first step in the solution of this experts are generally indispensable to assist the
problem is to compare the signature on the given court in determining whether the death was caused
cartridge case with the signature on a test cartridge by accident, disease or violence. The cause of
case to determine whether or not the given cartridge death of a person is considered so within the range
case was fired in a firearm with the same class of scientific knowledge that medical expert testimony
characteristics as those of the suspected firearm. If is admissible as to such cause; or as to the different
the requisite agreement in class characteristics is ways in which the death might have been caused,
found to exist and the reference point is established that death did or did not result from a given wound or
on the given cartridge case, the next step is to injury, which of several bullet wounds was the most
compare the signature on two or more test cartridge fatal where a person died after being shot several
cases to determine the identities and to reconcile the times or how long a person had been dead. Such
diversities. testimony is not proper to contradict eyewitnesses.
* Admissibility of ballistics expert testimony. – A * Manner and cause of death. – In all cases where
witness skilled in ballistics may be permitted to cause of death is not one common observation or
testify to the effect that he identified the pistol from knowledge, physicians and surgeons – medical
which a bullet found at the scene of the homicide experts – may give opinion testimony, derived from
was fired, as a result of comparison of marking on their own observations of the body of the deceased
that bullet and on shells also found at the scene of or from scientific deductions from given facts, as to
the homicide, with those found on bullets and shells the probable causes of death, provided there are
fired by the witness through the pistol, the test upon sufficient facts in evidence upon which to base the
which he passed his observations and formed his conclusion.
opinion being minutely described to the court.
* Character of weapon inflicting wound. – A
* Weight of ballistics expert’s opinion. – A competent expert may testify from the nature of a
ballistics expert conclusion that bullets were fired wound as to the character of the weapon which
from a particular gun does not invade the province of caused it, and even non-expert testimony is
the court. Testimony that he was convinced, as a sometimes accepted in this connection.
result of the test made by him, that a bullet found at
the scene of the homicide was fired through the * Whether wound or other injuries were self-
pistol in evidence, which admittedly belonging to inflicted. – The general rule seems to be that
defendant, is an expression of an opinion based on opinions as to whether wounds and injuries were or
his observations, and not objectionable as stating a were not self inflicted and not admissible where the
fact, and thus invading the province of the court. facts are fully presentable to the court and are such
that special knowledge or skill is not an essential to
the formation of an intelligent opinion upon the
question; but where such knowledge or skill is blindly followed, but are to be weighed by the court
necessary or where the facts cannot be fully and judged in view of all testimony in the case and
represented, the opinions of witnesses having such the judge own personal knowledge of affairs.
knowledge or skill are admissible as an aid to the
court. * Market value. – The price fixed by the buyer and
the seller in the open market in the usual and
* Basis of opinion. – To be admissible, it must be ordinary course of legal trade and competition; the
based on facts observed by the physician in the price and value established or shown by sale, public
course of his attendance upon, or examination of, or private, in the ordinary course of business; the fair
the subject. Facts proved in the case by direct value of the property as between one who desires to
testimony overheard by the witness, or facts sell and one who desires to purchase; and the
hypothetically stated, mere guesses or speculative general or ordinary price at which property may be
opinions are inadmissible. bought and sold in a given locality.
* Expert evidence on the value of land taken by Section 50.Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The
eminent domain. – A person engaged in a business opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given,
of holding a public office, which required the may be received in evidence regarding —
knowledge of real estate values is a competent (a) the identity of a person about whom he
has adequate knowledge;
witness as to the value of land with which he is
(b) A handwriting with which he has
familiar. The opinions of experts as to value, sufficient familiarity; and
however, are not to be passively received and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom testify that in his judgment the defendant was
he is sufficiently acquainted. about the size of one of the robbers.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of 6. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the
the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a handwriting of a person. – An ordinary witness
person. (44a) may give his opinion regarding the handwriting
of a person, with which he has sufficient
1. Source. – This provision is a reproduction of familiarity. This subject is well covered by Rule
Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, which
provides that “The handwriting of a person may
2. In general. – Well-settled is the rule that a be proved by any witness who believes it to be
witness can testify to those facts only which he the handwriting of such person because he has
knows of his own knowledge; he should not be seen the person write, or has seen writing
allowed to state conclusions or inferences which purporting to be his upon which the witness has
are for the court to make. acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
3. Proper basis or predicate for witness’ Evidence respecting the handwriting may also
opinion. – Before an ordinary witness may be be given by a comparison, made by the witness
allowed to give his opinion on the identity, or the court, with writings admitted or treated as
handwriting, the mental sanity of a person, or to genuine by the party against whom the evidence
give his impressions of the emotion, behavior, is offered, or proved to be genuine to the
condition or appearance of a person, the proper satisfaction of the judge.”
basis or predicate upon which he bases his
opinion must first be laid. The evidence frequently offered on a question of
the authenticity of a disputed writing or signature
4. Opinion of ordinary witness as to identity of is that of persons who are familiar with the
a person. – An ordinary witness may give his handwriting of the alleged writer; the opinion of
opinion regarding the identity of a person when such a person is universally recognized to be
he has adequate knowledge of his identity. admissible, even though he is in no sense a
Because of the difficulty of describing the handwriting expert.
circumstances which established identity in
terms conveying the idea of identification, Non-expert witnesses may not express an
witnesses who are shown to be qualified by their opinion on the genuineness of a writing solely
opportunities for observation are permitted to from comparison, but they may express an
testify as to the identity of persons or things. The opinion based on the knowledge received from
rule applies to criminal prosecutions as well as the handwriting of the party whom they saw
to civil actions. There are, however, instances in write.
which opinions have been excluded – usually, it
seems, because of the facts of the particular “The testimony of the notary public, who was not
case. only an instrumental witness himself but also an
officer of the court, and whose act of notarization
Under the present rule, the statements of the impressed upon the disputed Deed of Absolute
witness as to identity are not to be rejected Sale, the full faith and credit which attaches to a
because he is unable to describe the features of public instrument, explicitly identifying the
the person in question, or the latter’s clothing or signatures of the parties to the instrument and
other particulars on which the witness’ expressly and forthrightly stating that both had
conclusion depends. Identification may be appeared before him and affixed their signatures
based upon voice alone; and it is obviously to the said document, must be held to control
impossible for a witness to describe tones of and prevail over the opinion or conclusion of
voice in such a manner that from the description petitioner’s expert witness.” – Alcos, et. al vs.
alone the court can arrive at any satisfactory Intermediate Appeallate Court.
conclusion.
7. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the mental
5. Physical condition – A witness need not be an sanity or insanity of a person. – An ordinary
expert in medical matters in order to be witness may give his opinion regarding the
competent to express an opinion as to the mental sanity of the person with whom he is
physical condition of another. And it is clear that sufficiently acquainted.
in describing such a condition the witness is not
required to state all the evidentiary facts on
which his opinion is based; his statement may An ordinary witness may give his opinion as to
partake largely of the nature of a summary of, or the sanity or insanity of an individual, if such
conclusion from, such facts. A witness may opinion is drawn from the conduct of the latter,
since there can be no doubt that persons of who attaches his name as a witness to a
common sense, conversant with mankind, and testamentary instrument impliedly certifies that
having a practical knowledge of the world, if the testator is of sound mind and competent to
brought into the presence of a lunatic would, in a make a will, he will be permitted to contradict the
short time, be enabled to form an accurate and attestation clause and testify as to the actual
reliable opinion, not, perhaps, of the specific and facts. That the witness may deserve censure for
precise character of the insanity as referable to having attested a will of a person whom he is
a particular class of the insane malady, but ready to declare of unsound mind when the
certainly, in a general way, of his mental validity of the instrument is later brought into
unsoundness. question is not a sufficient reason for refusing to
hear such testimony.
8. Reason for the rule. – Reasons for this rule are
found in the considerations that the facts 11. Impressions as to emotion, behavior,
showing insanity, in their entirety, frequently condition or appearance. – A witness may
elude accurate, complete and detailed statement testify on his impressions of the emotion,
and consequently render it difficult to afford a behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
satisfactory basis for the judgment of an expert;
that many witnesses can make a correct It is usually competent for a witness to state his
inference more readily than they can make a impression of another’s manner or appearance,
detailed statement; that as commonly presented such as that the latter was “nervous” or
to observation, insanity is really detected, if “excited”, that he was “mad”. But a witness
carried beyond a certain point; that an unskilled cannot testify to uncommunicated motive or
observer may be quite as able as an expert to intention of a party, such as he thought the
make a clear mental comparison between the deceased intended to kill someone or be killed,
acts and conduct of a sane person and those of that two people were “antagonistic”, that
one who is laboring under mental disability; and defendant laughed because she cut deceased,
that to reject the inference of an observer with whether defendant was “joking” in what he said,
suitable opportunities and faculty for observation that the accused “looked pretty vigorous” or that
is to refuse to consider evidence which is one was “jealous”, as an opinion or impression
frequently of the highest possible value. is a mere guess or speculation and inadmissible.
25. Character in mitigation of damages or in It will be readily observed that the above
excuse or defense to the action. – In some provision pertains only to criminal cases, not to
civil actions, the measure of compensation may administrative offenses. And even assuming that
be affected by the plaintiff’s character. this technical rule of evidence can be applied
here, still, we cannot sustain respondent’s
D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS posture.