Section 1 & 3, Rule 129 of RoC: The petitioner failed to produce the original copy of its SEC Registration

r failed to produce the original copy of its SEC Registration (Exh.A) for
Sec.1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. purposes of comparison with the photocopy that was originally presented. Evidently,
Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. said documents cannot be admitted in evidence by the court as the original copies were
neither offered nor presented for comparison and verification during the trial. Mere
identification of the documents and the markings thereof as exhibits do not confer any
1. SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. vs. CIR evidentiary weight on them as said documents have not been formally offered by
G.R. NO. 184398 petitioner and have been denied admission in evidence by the CTA.
February 25, 2010
Furthermore, the documents are not among the matters which the law mandatorily
FACTS: required the Court to take judicial notice of, without any introduction of evidence, as
petitioner would have the CTA do. Neither could it be said that petitioners SEC
Petitioner, a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Singapore with a Phil. Registration and operating permits from the CAB are documents which are of public
Representative office in Cebu City, is an online international carrier plying the knowledge, capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
Singapore-Cebu-Singapore and Singapore-Cebu-Davao-Singapore routes. Petitioner filed because of their judicial functions, in order to allow the CTA to take discretionary
with the BIR an administrative claim for the refund of P3,983,590.49 in excise taxes judicial notice of the said documents.
which it erroneously paid on its purchases of aviation jet fuel from Petron Corp. from
June-Dec 2000. Moreover, Section 3 of the same Rule provides that a hearing is necessary before judicial
notice of any matter may be taken by the court. This requirement of a hearing is needed
The CTA found out that petitioner was qualified for tax exemption. However, it ruled so that the parties can be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in
that petitioner was not entitled to the tax exemption for failure to present proof that it the case.
was authorized to operate in the Phils. during the period material to the case due to the
non-admission of some of its exhibits, which were merely photocopies, including Exh. SC affirmed the CTA Decision.
“A”, Certificate of Registration with SEC and Exhs. “P”, “Q”, R” which were its operating
permits issued by Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to fly the routes.

The case was elevated to CTA En Banc which uphold in toto the CTA Decision.

ISSUE:

WON petitioner has substantially proven its authority to operate in the Phils.

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners assertion that the CTA may take judicial notice of its SEC Registration,
previously offered and admitted in evidence in similar cases before the CTA, is
untenable.

Evidence Page 1
Admissions made for the purpose of dispensing with proof of some facts are in the A stipulation of facts entered into by the prosecution and defense counsel
nature of judicial admissions. during trial in open court is automatically reduced into writing and contained in
the official transcript of the proceedings had in court. The conformity of the
11. GREGORIO SILOT JR. VS. ESTRELLA DELA ROSA accused in the form of his signature affixed thereto is unnecessary in view of the
G.R. NO. 159240 fact that: an attorney who is employed to manage a partys conduct of a lawsuit
February 4, 2008 has prima facie authority to make relevant admissions by pleadings, by oral or
written stipulation, which unless allowed to be withdrawn are conclusive. In
Facts: fact, judicial admissions are frequently those of counsel or of the attorney of
record, who is, for the purpose of the trial, the agent of his client. When such
Petitioner Gregorio Silot Jr., and respondent Estrella dela Rosa entered into a contract admissions are made for the purpose of dispensing with proof of some fact,
for the construction of a dormitory-apartment building. They expressly agreed that Silot they bind the client, whether made during, or even after, the trial.
shall supply the labor and dela Rosa shall pay 33% of the total value of the materials
purchased for the project. Silot required dela Rosa to pay a total of P1,018,000.00 or
P191,525.02 more than the amount due. Through her son-in-law, dela Rosa confronted 2. YES.
Silot about the overpayment which fell on deaf ears.
SC affirmed the ruling of RTC and CA.
Dela Rosa filed a suit against Silot and in retaliation, Silot sued dela Rosa for insufficient
payment. The two cases were consolidated.

During trial, Atty. San Jose, counsel for Silot, dispensed with the testimony of Ariel
Goingo, a witness for dela Rosa. He admitted the following :
 In consideration of the 33%, all the material supplies were accounted for,
 Silot was paid for all works that were performed as well as all materials,
 33% of which is only 826,474.00 and dela Rosa paid P1,018,000.00, hence an
excess of P191,525.02

RTC ruled in favor of dela Rosa and ordered Silot to return the overpaid amount.
On appeal, CA affirmed RTC ruling.

ISSUES:
1. WON the admission by Atty. Jose, counsel of petitioner Silot, constituted judicial
admission of respondents evidence;
2. WON Silot should return the claimed amount of P191,525.02 to dela Rosa.

RULING:

1. YES.
Admissions made for the purpose of dispensing with proof of some facts are in
the nature of judicial admissions, to wit:

Evidence Page 2
Rule on DNA Evidence:

21. Pp. vs. RUFINO UMANITO

G.R. NO. 172607
October 26, 2007

FACTS:

AAA claimed that she was raped by Rufino Umanito in Home Economics Building of
Daramuangan Elementary School using a fan knife to threaten her. Six months after the
incident, the mother of AAA noticed the prominence on AAA’s stomach. It was only the
time that AAA divulged that she was raped. With that they filed a complaint against
Umanito. Umanito denied the accusation. The RTC ruled in favour of AAA which was
later affirmed by CA. Both courts gave credence to the testimony of AAA although there
are some inconsistencies.

ISSUE:

WON the prosecution has successfully met the level of proof needed to find Umanito
guilty of the crime of rape?

HELD:

The Court resolve the issue by directing Umanito, AAA and AAA’s child to submit
themselves to DBA testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence.

DNA print or identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means

to link a suspect to a crime or to absolve one erroneously accused, where biological
evidence is available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a
fertile source of both inculpatory or exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in
determining a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the
conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent and ensuring the proper
administration of justice in every case.

Evidence Page 3
Parol Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other evidence purportedly to show that different terms
were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purpose of the contract.
31. SPOUSES BONIFACIO AND LUCIA PARAS vs. KIMWA CONSTRUCTION &
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION This, however, is merely a general rule. Provided that a party puts in issue in its pleading
G.R. NO. 171601, April 18, 2015 any of the four items enumerated in the 2nd paragraph of Rule 130, Section 9, “a party
may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the agreement”. Raising
any of these items as an issue in a pleading such that it falls under the exception is not
FACTS: limited to the party initiating an action.

Lucia and Kimwa entered into a contract denominated as “Agreement for Supply of Petitioners spouses Paras pleaded in the complaint they filed before the trial court a
Aggregates” where 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates were allotted by Lucia as supplier mistake or imperfection in the Agreement, as well as the Agreement’s failure to express
to Kimwa. Kimwa was to pick up the allotted aggregates at Lucia’s permitted area at the true intent of the parties. Further, respondent Kimwa, through its Answer, also
P240.00 per truckload. responded to petitioner’s pleading of these issues. Thus, an exceptional case allowing
admission of parol evidence. Accordingly, the testimonial and documentary parol
Kimwa hauled 10,000 cubic meters of aggregates but after that, it stopped hauling evidence sought to be introduced by petitioners Spouses Paras, which attest to these
aggregates. Aggrieved, spouses Paras filed a complaint for breach of contract with supposed flaws and what they aver to have been the parties’ true intent, may be
damages. admitted and considered.

In their complaint, spouses Paras alleged that Kimwa expressed its interest to purchase
gravel and sand from Lucia. Kimwa allegedly asked that it be “assured” of 40,000 cubic
meters worth of aggregates. Lucia emphasized that she would be willing to enter into a
contract with Kimwa provided that the 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates will be
completely extracted and hauled before May 15, 1995 as her Special Permit will expire.

Kimwa asserted that the Agreement articulated the parties’ true intent that 40,000 cubic
meters was a maximum limit and that May 15, 1995 was never set as a deadline.
Invoking Parol Evidence Rule, it insisted that spouses Paras were barred from
introducing evidence which would show that the parties had agreed differently.

ISSUE:

WON Parol Evidence is violated in the present case

HELD:

NO.

Evidence Page 4