Evidence TSN - Manresa 2020

EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO

FIRST
EXAM 1
July 1 | Campaner For example, in a contract of sale, you are provided with
different sets of obligations on the part of the buyer and the
seller. So, what if the seller violates one of his obligations, like
RULE 128 the obligation to warrant the thing sold. Kintahay nag-breach
GENERAL PROVISIONS sya sa iyahang implied warranty against hidden defects, that is
actually provided by substantive law. Your cause of action is
provided by substantive law. How do you prove it? That is the
Evidence is defined by the rules of Court and is a technical term. question that is answered by referring to the Rules of
When it comes to technical terms, the principle that you need to Evidence, because the Rules of Evidence govern the manner of
remember is that it admits of no other definition than that which proving the said facts.
the law provides. Meaning, if you’re asked in the bar examinations
or in any of my examinations to define evidence, there’s no other Why is evidence required?
definition than that which the law provides which is Section 1, Rule It is required because of the presumption that the court is not
128. aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case. It is therefore
incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through the
Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, presentation of admissible evidence.
sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. EVIDENCE PRINCIPLES IN OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE RULES
Four components of the definition Rules 128 to 133 are not the sole repositories of evidentiary rules.
1. Means of ascertainment Some may be found elsewhere in the Rules of Court.
Includes not only the procedure or manner of ascertainment
but also the evidentiary fact from which the truth respecting a 1. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE A REPLY WHERE AN ANSWER
matter of fact may be ascertained. PLEADS AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT
2. Sanctioned by the rules There’s a case that states that the filing of a reply before the
The means of ascertainment must not be prohibited by the 1997 rules of court prior to the amendments is merely
Rules of Court. The methodology which you are supposed to optional. Why? Because all new matters alleged in the answer
prove a matter of fact in court in a manner that is actually are deemed automatically controverted. So, a civil action can
sanctioned by the Rules. actually end its pleading stage simply by the filing of the
answer, no reply is actually mandated to be filed.
3. In a judicial proceeding
Contemplates an action or proceeding filed in a court of law. But if the answer pleads an actionable document, as defined
From this component of the definition, we can actually imply under Rule 8, then case law would tell you that it is a situation
that when we talk about proceedings other than the court of where you need to file a reply because otherwise you are
law, the Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply. deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution
of the actionable document. So that effect is actually
4. The truth respecting a matter of fact evidentiary because it leads to an admission.
Refers to an issue of fact and is both substantive (determines
the facts needed to be established) and procedural (governs 2. EFFECTS OF AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
the manner of proving said facts). Admissions remove a fact from contention, meaning you no
longer have to prove it or present any evidence with respect
To explain that it is both an issue of fact that is both to the subject matter of the admission. But what happens now
substantive and procedural, on the substantive aspect, you if the admission is deemed abrogated because the party filed
can find that in laws that govern the prosecution of actions. an amendment to his pleading? Whether it is a matter of right
or a matter of judicial discretion, what would be the effect?
For example, what would be the elements of a cause of
action? In Civil Procedure, we learn that the elements of a According to case law, the pleading would turn the
cause of action are right, obligation, a violation of the right admissions made in the original pleading from being a judicial
and the fourth, which is normally not included in the different admission to a mere extrajudicial admission. And we will learn
textbooks, which is damage. Damage is important because later on that there is a big difference between a judicial
without damage, mahimo syang damnum absque injuria. admission and an extrajudicial admission in terms of proving
There might be some form of injury but the law does not give them in court.
you the right to sue upon it.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 2
3. FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO if it is based on the unwritten contract.

PARTIES
2. REQUIREMENT OF PROOF FOR CLASSES OF DAMAGES
Rule 25, Sec. 6. Effect of failure to serve written Like actual damages. In short, when you talk about actual
interrogatories – Unless thereafter allowed by the court damages, mao ni sya ang imong injury. For example, the
for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a amount you spent for hospitalization, or for repairing your
party not served with written interrogatories may not be damaged car, these are actual damages that would require
compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open proof of pecuniary loss. But with respect to other forms of
court, or to give a deposition pending appeal. damages (moral, exemplary, nominal and liquidated) there is
no need for proof of pecuniary loss.
Take note, that is an evidentiary rule in the guise of a Civil
Procedure provision. Why? Because it affects your ability to 3. TORTS AND DAMAGES PRESUMPTIONS
call witnesses. And the matter of calling of witnesses to prove Res Ipsa Loquitor (The thing speaks for itself)
your cause of action is actually one that is governed primarily This has an evidentiary effect. This doctrine actually
by the rules on evidence. places the burden of moving forward with the evidence
upon the defendant to prove that he is not negligent.
4. FULE DOCTRINE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Because ordinarily in a case based on Art 2176 of the Civil
This doctrine found in case law actually led to the amendment Code, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that the
to the rules on Criminal Procedure. defendant was negligent. If this doctrine actually applies,
it will reverse everything, in a sense that it is now that the
Sec. 4. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. – No defendant who should prove that he was not negligent.
agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-
trial conference shall be used in evidence against the Presumptions of negligence in vehicular accidents
accused unless reduced to writing and signed by him and
his counsel. EVIDENCE PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW
What happened in Fule was that they entered into stipulations 1. PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO DISCERNMENT AND
of fact, and in fact obtained a confession from the accused EXEMPTION FORM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
during the pre-trial conference and there was a pretrial A child below nine years of age is always exempt from criminal
agreement that now embodies these admissions. liability, it doesn’t matter whether he acted with or without
discernment. But if it is nine to fifteen, remember that to be
The problem was it was not signed by the accused and his exempt from criminal liability, he must have acted without
counsel. Fule was convicted before the Trial Court, but he discernment. Why is that? The law presumes that a child
appealed his conviction, eventually reaching the Supreme below nine years old is incapable of discernment.
Court. The SC overturned his conviction based on the
2. 2 WITNESS RULE IN TREASON
admission simply because his pre-trial agreement was not
In order to convict an accused for the crime of treason, there
signed.
should be testimony of at least two witnesses to the same
EVIDENCE PRINCIPLES IN CIVIL LAW overt act of treason. The law itself tells you the number of
evidence you must be able to produce.
1. STATUTE OF FRAUDS
Art. 1403 (2) Those that do not comply with the Statute
of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following To Atty. Espejo’s mind, there’s something weird about Section
cases an agreement hereafter made shall be 1. What’s weird about this is the word “TRUTH”
unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or
Is truth really important in the court of law? Is it really important
memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by
that what the court declares in the end by means of its judgement
the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of
is actually the truth?
the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or
a secondary evidence of its contents.
Truth has a different treatment under the law compared to its
treatment in morality. Why? Truth, of course, is absolute. But in a
This requires that an agreement must be in writing in order for
court of law, the word “truth” is actually relative.
you to enforce it, in order for you to file a case in court about
it. Remember that if there is no writing or note or
Let us suppose that there is a guy standing around the corner of
memorandum of the agreement between the parties, you
Bonifacio and Bolton Street. Two policemen happen to not like the
would have a hard time proving your cause of action in court
face of this fellow because he looks suspicious. So, without
FIRST
EXAM 3
warning, they went to him and immediately frisked him and found opportunity to be heard. Thus, the due process requirement can
a packet of shabu. By reason of the fact that he had a packet of already be satisfied, not by the presentation of evidence but
shabu found in his person, he was arrested. through the submission of position papers.
But was the search valid? Don’t you recall under the Constitution, Judicial proceedings can be Civil or Criminal
the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures
is actually inviolable. The law further provides that any evidence EVIDENCE
obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches Civil Cases Criminal Cases
and seizures would make the evidence inadmissible. In a court of The party having the The guilt of the accused
law, illegally obtained evidence will be inadmissible. burden of proof must prove has to be proved beyond
But is that the truth? his claim by a reasonable doubt.
preponderance of evidence.
The truth here is that he had shabu on his person, he was caught. An offer of compromise is An offer of compromise by
But the search was invalid. Will he be convicted? In all probability, a not an admission of any the accused may be
lawyer of adequate skill would be able to make sure that his client liability, and is not received in evidence as an
is acquitted on the basis of the illegal search conducted upon his admissible in evidence implied admission
person. Why? Because there was no probable cause to frisk him in against the offeror
the first place. But the truth was that he had shabu with him. But The concept of The accused enjoys the
would that prevail in the court of law, using the Rules of Evidence presumption of innocence presumption of innocence
itself that proclaims to ascertain the truth? does not apply. under the Constitution.
So, I would say the reverse. That actually, skillful use of the Rules of But there is a
Evidence might enable you to actually disregard the truth. Dura lex correlative
sed lex. presumption of
good faith (Rule
As Winston Churchill once said, “The truth is sacred, but you 131)
have to surround it with a bodyguard of lies.” Doctrine of equipoise or There is no equipoise.
equiponderance applies.
Section 4, Rule 1. In what case not applicable – These Rules The accused can
shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, Under this only be convicted
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not doctrine, if the by proof beyond
herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory evidence of the reasonable
character and whenever practicable and convenient. parties are of doubt. So, the
equal weight, the prosecution and
This provision is applicable to the entirety of the Rules of Court. Court will rule in the accused
Meaning, when you talk about election cases, the rules used are favor of the never start at an
different, not necessarily Rule 128 to 133. But they are applicable defendant. This is even scale in the
suppletorily. because if the first place.
evidence is
Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, equiponderant,
sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining IN A JUDICIAL the plaintiff has
PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact. failed to discharge
his burden of
This means the law on evidence are not strictly followed when the proof.
proceedings are administrative or quasi-judicial. Going back, what There is no such thing as a The concept of confession
happens when you prosecute a labor case? Is there presentation of confession in civil cases. is applicable.
evidence in a Labor Case?
However, there
Let’s go to the case of Ang Tibay v CIR. This case is actually a very are admissions.
doctrinal case inasmuch as it provides the 7 cardinal requirements The concept of
of due process in administrative cases. confessions are
exclusively
An opportunity to be heard does not necessarily mean the applicable to
presentation of evidence because in labor cases, there’s no criminal cases.
presentation of evidence, it simply affords the parties the
FIRST
EXAM 4
The Rules of Evidence is PROCEDURAL in character July 2 Part 1 | Acevedo

Evidentiary rules may therefore be given retroactive effect.
When the rule on Judicial Affidavits were promulgated by the Under the law on pleadings, only ultimate facts are to be required
Supreme Court. The Rule on Judicial Affidavits would already to be stated. They consist in propositions still to be established.
be applicable already to pending cases. Therefore, ultimate facts are necessarily hypothetical.
Q: Are there vested rights under the Rules of Evidence?

Q: What is now the treatment, under the amended rules, on
A: NO. Any evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force at
Evidentiary Facts? Because Rule 8, Sec. 1 of the 1997 Rules of
the time the action accrued, but admissible according to the laws Civil Procedure previously provided that:
in force at the time of the trial is receivable.
Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a
PROOF EVIDENCE
plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on
These terms are often used interchangeably which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the
The effect when the requisite The mode and manner of case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
quantum of evidence of a proving competent facts in It was by direct provision of the Rules that pleadings should
particular fact has been duly judicial proceedings. omit evidentiary facts or factum probandum.
admitted and given weight.
The probative effect of The means of proof. Note under the Amendment:
evidence. However, under A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, which amended the
Rules of Civil Procedure and which took effect on May 1, 2020,
Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means,
sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial “Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a
proceeding the truth respecting a MATTER OF FACT. plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts,
including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his
There are two kinds of fact under the law on pleadings: FACTUM or her claim or defense, as the case may be.” [Rule 8, Sec. 1, as
PROBANDUM AND FACTUM PROBANS. amended]
FACTUM PROBANDUM FACTUM PROBANS Under the law on pleadings right now, you also include your
Ultimate facts are the principal, Evidentiary or intermediate evidentiary facts. The statement that you should also include the
determinate and constitutive facts, on the other hand, ar evidence in which the party pleadings relies for his or her claim or
facts upon the existence of facts which are necessary for defense, that would already include judicial affidavits. That is one
which the plaintiff’s cause of the determination of the thing that is monumental under the Rules on Civil Procedure. Your
action rests. ultimate facts. They are right judicial affidavits should be included already in your pleading,
premises upon which in your complaint.
They do not refer to the details conclusions of ultimate facts
of probative matters or are based. They are brought It is quite a difficult matter when it comes to lawyering. We,
particulars of evidence by which forward as a reality to lawyers, when we file a case, we have to make sure that our judicial
these material elements are to convince the tribunal that affidavits are already prepared.
be established. Under the law on the factum probandum is
pleadings, only ultimate facts also real. Rules for defendant under the amendment
are required to be stated. They There is also a similar requirement that if you are the
consist in propositions still to be defendant, there is also this change with the reglementary
established and therefore, period within which you are supposed to file an answer.
ultimate facts are necessarily Before it used to be 15 days after receipt of the summons.
hypothetical. Now, the Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended, require
To put it simply, your ultimate already 30-days already because of the requirement that
facts in a civil case would be probably you are supposed to attach your judicial affidavits
1. the rights violated, already. So it is a little bit more difficult right now to file
2. the obligation of the pleadings.
defendant,
3. how the defendant
violated the rights of
the plaintiff
FIRST
EXAM 5
FACTUM PROBANDUM FACTUM PROBANS You do not care what the law says here. You simply
Ultimate Facts. Intermediate or evidentiary presenting facts as whether the accused is guilty.
facts.
Proposition still be Material evidencing the Jurisdictional Consequence
established. proposition. There is jurisdictional consequence to the determination of
Hypothetical. Existent. whether it is a question of fact or question of law this is because
Because they are not under:
proven yet.
The end to be achieved. The means to achieve such Sec. 5 (2) (e), Art. VIII, of the Constitution xxx the Supreme
Ultimate fact, that is end [the end is the ultimate Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over “all cases in which
where you want to facts]. only an error or question of law is involved.”
arrive at in litigation. Note: Every
You need to be able evidentiary question Only questions of law therefore may be raised before the Supreme
to prove your involves the Court.
ultimate facts, relationship between
otherwise, you lose the factum Example: You are going to file a petition for review of the decision
in litigation. probandum and of the Court of Appeals rendered in its appellate and not original
factum probans. The jurisdiction. Because if it is the Court of Appeals rendering a
Factum probandum relationship between judgment for example under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court referring
is described as facts the factum to Annulment of Judgment of the RTC. That is something that falls
in issue. probandum and on the original jurisdiction of the RTC. The mode of review should
factum probans is be appeal.
described as
RELEVANCY [to be But you can only raise questions of law can be raised before the
discussed in Sec. 3 Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
and Sec. 4].
The law on pleadings requires The law on pleadings requires That is why your mode of review is:
the parties to state only the that statements of mere 1. petition for review under Rule 45 or
ultimate facts. evidentiary facts should be 2. simply appeal by certiorari as distinguish from a Rule 65.
omitted.
Rule 65 petition consists of special civil action of:
Note: When you say “a matter of fact”, it can also mean reference (a) certiorari,
to whether one is a question of fact or a question of law. (b) prohibition and
(c) mandus.
QUESTION OF FACT V. QUESTION OF LAW
Recall that when a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
[Can v. Chief of PNP, et. Al. GR No. 139368, Nov. 21, 2002]. recall that it is only one that questions or raises a
Question of Fact Question of law jurisdictional error because it is to be lack or excess of
There is a question of fact There is a question of law jurisdiction or grave abuse of its discretion amount to
when doubt or difference where the doubt or difference lack or excess of jurisdiction there being no plain, speedy
arises as to the truth or arises as to what the law is on or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. That is
falsehood of the alleged facts. a certain state of facts. what Rule 65, Sec. 1 provides for us in relation to the
There is a question of law if we Special Civil Action of Certiorari.
are not in agreement as to
how the law is applicable. Only questions of law may be raised under a petition for review
under Rule 45 because the Court is not a trier of facts and the
Illustration: factual findings of lower courts are final, binding or conclusive on
Suppose there is a law which makes it a criminal act to be below 5 the parties and to the Court [G.R. No. 204039 January 10, 2018
feet 5 but above 120 pounds. That is a weird law.
United Coconut Planters Bank v. Spouses Walter Uy And Lily Uy]
While Jurisprudence is replete of examples where the Supreme

Q: What is the question of fact in that scenario?
Court entertained direct recourse to it if the case, through raising
A: Whether a person, the accused is below 5 feet 5 and
questions of fact, invokes compelling reasons, such as the
over 120pounds. That is a question of fact.
transcendental or paramount importance of the case, this
exception to the rule has recently been clarified in:
FIRST
EXAM 6
jurisdiction on the part of any instrumentality of the

GIOS-SAMAR, INC. V. DOTC government which includes city governments and local
G.R. NO. 217158, March 12, 2019 sanggunians. Even if, technically speaking, the proper recourse
should have been a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63,
The Supreme Court declared in this case that: the SC, you can question the Constitutionality of a law before
The 1987 Constitution and the Rules of Court promulgated, the Supreme Court because it is of transcendental importance.
pursuant to its provisions, granted us original jurisdiction over
certain cases. In some instances, this jurisdiction is shared with July 2 Part 2 | Amistad
Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and the Court of Appeals (CA).
However, litigants do not have unfettered discretion to invoke What else? Recent cases, Republic vs. Sereno, where the Supreme
the Court's original jurisdiction. The doctrine of hierarchy of Court entertained direct recourse to it in a quo warranto petition
courts dictates that, direct recourse to this Court is allowed only against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Maria Lourdes
to resolve questions of law, notwithstanding the invocation of Sereno.
paramount or transcendental importance of the action. This
doctrine is not mere policy, rather, it is a constitutional filtering The Supreme Court here said that this is an issue of
mechanism designed to enable the Court to focus on the more transcendental importance and therefore we should take
fundamental and essential tasks assigned to it by the highest cognizance of this petition for quo warranto despite the fact that
law of the land. there is supposed to be a doctrine of judicial hierarchy. Under the
doctrine of judicial hierarchy, when there is concurrence of
Accordingly, for the guidance of the bench and the bar, we jurisdiction among the several courts, like in a petition for quo
reiterate that when a question before the Court involves warranto, “diba na’ay concurrent jurisdiction ang RTC, CA and the
determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution SC” but the Solicitor General Jose Calida went directly and straight
of the legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the question to the Supreme Court. The SC entertained it and in fact it led to the
regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, ouster of CJ Sereno.
such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the
case. Such question must first be brought before the proper trial Now by way of review, because I believe that this is a case that
courts or the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try might come out again in the bar examinations, the Supreme Court
and resolve factual questions. in Republic vs. Sereno made a dichotomy.
The SC distinguished between qualifications for office of
Recall cases where the court took cognizance of a case because of impeachable officers AND the conduct of the officers
its transcendental importance or because there are constitutional while they are in office.
issues that the court will have to decide on first impression. So, if you want to remove an impeachable officer because of
his/her conduct in office that's the time that impeachment is
Examples are the cases of Spark v. Quezon City and Republic v. the proper proceeding. But if your questioning the
Sereno qualifications of the of the Justice or the impeachable officer
in the first place to hold that position, quo warranto is a viable
SPARK V. QUEZON CITY remedy.
The Supreme Court was confronted with the question of So that in short ended the tenure of CJ Sereno in the Supreme
whether or not it can entertain a petition to declare Court.
unconstitutional curfew ordinances in Metro Manila. Because of
the Anti-Drug War of President Rodrigo Duterte the Cities in It's a case of first impression before the Supreme Court, but
Metro Manila imposed very strict curfew ordinances. They ironically, in this case of Gios-Samar Inc. vs. DOTC (G.R. No.
began to strictly implementing them. 217158, March 12 2019), the SC said that the 1987 Constitution
and the Rules of Court promulgated, pursuant to its provisions,
Facts: Spark like a Samahan ng Mga Kabataan filed a petition granted us original jurisdiction over certain cases and in some
directly to the Supreme Court assailing the ordinances and instances, there would be concurrence of jurisdiction.
questioned their constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that, direct recourse to
Ruling: According to the Supreme Court that it can actually this Court is allowed only to resolve questions of law,
entertain this even if it is one that questions the constitutionality notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or transcendental
of the ordinance on the ground that under the expanded importance of the action. This doctrine is not mere policy, rather,
definition of judicial power under Article 8 of the 1987 it is a constitutional filtering mechanism designed to enable the
Constitution, it actually includes the question on whether there Court to focus on the more fundamental and essential tasks
is grave abuse of discretion amounting lack or excess of assigned to it by the highest law of the land.
FIRST
EXAM 7
And then, according to the SC, for the guidance of the bench at the Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible
bar, we reiterate that when a question before the Court involves when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution of Constitution, the law of these rules.
the legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the question
regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, Take note that the phrase “the Constitution” is underlined because
such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the case. that is one of the insertions/amendments to the rules of evidence
Such question must first be brought before the proper trial as introduced in May 2020. It simply includes the Constitution
courts or the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try because it is replete with evidentiary rules.
and resolve the factual questions.
Difference between Admissibility and Probative Value
Question (Situation): Admissibility Probative Value
The Solicitor General filed a case against ABS-CBN Admissibility answers the Weight or probative value
questioning its franchise directly before the Supreme question of whether certain answers the question of
Court. pieces of evidence are to be whether the admitted
considered at all. evidence proves an issue by
Comment (Application): the quantum of evidence
If we go by the ruling in Republic vs. Sereno, and invoke required by law.
that such issue is of transcendental importance then it is
allowed to be first filed with the Supreme Court. When you talk about admissibility, “dawaton ba sa Korte?” but
However, if we based it on the ruling of Gios-Samar Inc. when you talk about probative value or weight of evidence it's like
vs. DOTC, it has to be first filed before the RTC or CA saying “tuo-han ba sa Korte?” So, when you talk about probative
(and not the SC) because there are still some facts to be value, it's actually the believability of the evidence and not the
tried and discussed. admissibility thereof.
Because when you question, whether or not ABS-CBN Take note, that a particular item of evidence may be admissible but
violated the terms of its franchise, what type of question its evidentially weight depends on judicial evaluation within the
is that? That's a question of fact and that's not a question guidelines provided by the rules on evidence.
of law. Therefore, if it's a question of fact it would require
presentation of evidence which the Supreme Court said Requisites of Admissibility of Evidence
in the case of Gios-Samar Inc. vs. DOTC, we are not 1. Relevancy - such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
going to do that anymore, precisely because we are not a belief in its existence or non-existence; and
trier of facts. You are allowed to go to the Supreme Court 2. Competency - meaning the evidence that is to be presented
only if it is a question of law. is not excluded by the Constitution, by law or by the rules of
court.
So, in my opinion, Solicitor General Jose Callida made a
mistake when he directly filed a petition for quo warranto Now we always go back to the basic principles when it comes
before the Supreme Court against ABS-CBN given that to evidence and it happens to be that our Section 3 is
the SC already declared that it would not entertain cases patterned from the Axioms of Admissibility according to
of first impression if there are questions of fact involved. Wigmore.
So, if I were the Supreme Court, I will deny the petition of
the Solicitor General or maybe ask the latter to file it Two Axioms of Admissibility
before the CA. 1. Axiom of relevancy - none but facts have been rational
probative value are admissible.
So, based on everything that we have discussed so far, a. Components of relevancy:
about question of fact and question of law, “unsaon man i. Materiality - whether the evidence is offered
nato pag-relate ana karon sa subject nato?” A question of up on a matter properly in issue;
fact is something that would require presentation of ii. Probativeness - the tendency to establish a
evidence, but if it is a question of law then no need for proposition for which it is offered as evidence.
factual determination. If there's no need for factual
determination, there's no need for presentation of So if you really look at it, we will learn that
evidence. That's what I wanted you to take away from materiality is simply a component of relevancy,
that whole discussion. meaning relevancy is actually a broader term
compared to materiality.
FIRST
EXAM 8
July 2 Part 3 | Bahalla Q: So, if it is evidence that has been secured from the
accused, for example, in his violation of his right against
2. Axiom of Competency unreasonable searches and seizures. What would be the
Facts having rational probative value are admissible unless effect?
some specific rule forbids their admission. The rules of
exclusion are rules of exception to the general admissibility of A: You cannot use that evidence against the accused
all that is rational and probative. because that use of that evidence is considered fruit of
the poisonous tree.
Because the basic rules in evidence is that for as long as the
evidence presented is rationally probative of the issue or if it is Read the case in the book, Ejercito vs SB (2006). Because not a lot
relevant to the fact in issue in the case then it should be of professors would actually know what is the proper interpretation
admitted. But by way of exception, even if it is relevant but it on this “Fruit of the Poisonous tree.” Pag muingon man gud sila
is not competent, it will still not be admitted as evidence in “ah. Basta illegally seized, pag nay illegal element, then it is fruit of
any court of law. the poisonous tree.” But in Ejercito vs. SB, the Supreme Court had
the occasion to really tell us the nuances of the doctrine because it
Competency said that evidence would be excluded if it was gained through the
Take note that this means that the evidence should not be evidence uncovered in violation of a particular exclusionary law or
excluded by law, the Constitution, or the Rules of Court. rule. It is an offshoot of an exclusionary rule which applies to
primary evidence. Meaning, before you apply the doctrine dapat
Thus, if there is a provision of law or the Constitution, naay giviolate nga exclusionary rule. If there is no exclusionary rule
jurisprudence or the Rules of Court which declares certain evidence that is being violated, you cannot invoke the doctrine. And the
as inadmissible, then, no matter how material or relevant it may be, doctrine applies only to secondary or derivative evidence. That’s
it would still be excluded for not being competent. why I told you earlier, it’s the use of the illegally seized items that
would call for the application of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
ARTICLE III. BILL OF RIGHTS Doctrine. So, there must be primary evidence which is determined
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, to have been illegally obtained then secondary evidence is
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and obtained because of the primary evidence.
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue Q: For example, in an illegal search- shabu. Okay? that’s
except upon probable cause xxx the primary evidence illegally obtained. And then, what
possible secondary evidence can be obtained because of
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and the primary evidence?
correspondence shall be inviolable xxx
A: Testimonial evidence, for example, of the police
So, in these two provisions of law, you have Right against illegal officers that would identify the shabu or the testimony of
Searches and Seizures and then you have the Right to Privacy. the forensic chemist saying that it is really shabu that was
Now, what if in the course of criminal investigation or in the course confiscated from the accused. Okay? That’s the fruit of
of police work, either of these two rights have been violated. What the poisonous tree Doctrine. That’s the proper by which
would be the effect? The effect of violation is very simple: we should apply it. So, do not be misled.
Section 3. xxx (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or Republic Act 4200
the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in “AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND
any proceeding. OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF
COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”
So, that is the effect of violation. So, it is an evidentiary rule relating
to the competency of evidence. Q: What is the constitutional right that is being violated act to
prohibit and penalize wiretapping?
FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE A: It’s the constitutional Right to Privacy.
The doctrine provides that illegally seized documents, papers, and Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
effects are inadmissible in evidence. The exclusion of these authorized by all the parties to any private communication or
evidence is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record
such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone
FIRST
EXAM 9
or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of
described electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and
tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and
“xxx however otherwise described”- for as long as it used used means for that purpose, any communication, message,
to secretly overhear intercept, or record private communication or conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between
private persons. members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons or of any person
Because everything else here has been rendered obsolete. charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy
(referring to dictaphone or dictagraph or Dictaphone…) to commit terrorism.
Q: My question is this, is it not feasible for me to file a Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of
case for violation of my right to privacy- wiretapping for communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients,
example because you’re recording my communication journalists and their sources and confidential business
with you (referring to the online class). Can that be correspondence shall not be authorized.
considered as wiretapping?
Now, the Human Security Act, has somehow provided a loose
A: No, sir. Because according to Section 1- “other device exception to R.A. 4200.
or arrangement, to secretly overhear.” By reason of the
fact that I asked for your permission, I don’t think its Because now, upon written order of the CA, a police or law
unlawful to record the discussion. enforcement official and the members of his team, may listen to,
intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type
Very good. Not to mention that in addition of what was of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and
said, its supposed to apply to private communication. tracking devices, for as long as ang gina-try nilag intercept would
We’re not having a private communication (referring to be any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism
the online class), right? This is a lecture. A public or a conspiracy to commit terrorism.
intercourse between inviduals. We are having a
conversation publicly. So ingana ka-bugat, supposed to be, our Human Security Act. But
I’ve always given it the criticism that it’s one of the weirder anti-
Q: What would be the effect if you violate this Section 1 terrorism bills because it still uses/borrows the nomenclature of the
of Republic Act 4200? RPC. In other words, you do not commit terrorism unless the act of
terrorism is also a felony under the RPC. We need to remember
A: The effect would be not admissible in evidence in any right now that the anti-terrorism law is being reviewed by
judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative Congress.
hearing or investigation.
Navarro vs. CA
Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999)
existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of
the same or any part thereof, or any information therein The SC said that if the communication was not private, its tape
contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the recording is not prohibited. And therefore, you cannot sure the
preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in person who recorded for wiretapping, or violation against the
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or law on wiretapping.
administrative hearing or investigation.
Article III of the 1987 Constitution:
So, it is very clear in its effect. It is an Exclusionary Rule. Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission
of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
July 2 Part 4 | Du remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
Republic Act No. 9372 also known as the “Human Security Act services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
of 2007” cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Section 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording Okay, katong Miranda rights, that we know.
of Communications. — The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200
(Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept
FIRST
EXAM 10
detention places, solitary incommunicado, or other similar forms of GENERAL RULE:

detention are prohibited. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence.
And what would be the effect?
Meaning, ang evidence ba, that is presented in a court of law, naa
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or ba siya kalambigitan sa issue sa kaso, sa unsa atong ginalalisan
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. nato sa kaso, that it either advances of forestalls discussion on the
issue.
Again, that is an exclusionary rule that is provided by the 1987
Constitution. Sa ato pa, kanang piece of evidence ba na na, does that have a
relation/ship or kalambigitan to the fact in issue. Kung naa siya
What is this Section 17? It is the right against self-incrimination. relationship, then in all probability the fact in issue exists. If not,
then probably it’s not true as well. That’s the general rule.
Article III of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against RELEVANT EVIDENCE
himself. Evidence which has a tendency in reason to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue. Relevant
You cannot force him to be the source of his own condemnation. evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material
Dili pwede nimo gamiton iyang gi-ingon against him. fact.
Evidence having a tendency to make the existence of any fact
Republic Act No. 7438 that is of consequence to the determination of the action
(AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS
THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING TAKE NOTE: Relevancy is not the same as materiality.
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF) MATERIAL EVIDENCE
Evidence which tends to directly prove the fact in issue in the
case.
Section 2. Right of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
Or the so-called “smoking gun”. Like, you see the accused
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation
having shot the victim already, unya naa pa sa iyang kamot
shall at all times be assisted by counsel. x x x
and naga-aso pa nga pusil. That’s direct evidence, that’s
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested,
material evidence which tends to directly prove the fact in
detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and
issue in the case. So in that example, what’s the fact in issue in
signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the
that case? Gipatay ba sa akusado ang biktima? Unya nakita
latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of
man nimo. You are an eye-witness and then you see him
the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal
holding the gun. You saw him shoot the victim. That’s material
mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or
evidence, diba, without any need of inference or analysis, you
minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in come up with the conclusion that he shot the victim.
any proceeding. (Emphasis supplied in PPT)
Examples:
To prove the existence of a loan, the promissory note is
We are done already discussing competency, ngadto napud ta sa
material. The contract of loan or mutuum, diba.
relevancy; collateral matters:
To prove the cause of death, the death certificate is material.
There is no need to bring the cadaver inside the court room
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must have
so that it can be subjected to autoptic preference by the court.
such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not
Classic example of Dean Inigo:
be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
A was shot from a long distance right in between the eyes.
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
(Meaning, that is an accurate targeted shot, direct). B was the
main suspect and was prosecuted for the crime. During the
In fact, this is one of my favorite provisions of the Rules on
presentation of the evidence, the fiscal presented testimony
Evidence. Because if you look at it, mao gyud na siya ang relevancy.
trying to prove that B was a former Olympic Gold Medalist in
long distance shooting.
FIRST
EXAM 11
So kung ikaw and defense counsel, of course you will object Material evidence is direct Relevancy, on the other hand,
because it is immaterial. Why? proof of a fact without any can be directly or
inference whatsoever, it circumstantially relevant.
Ang fact in issue ba is whether or not naa siyay gold medal sa proves the fact in issue.
Olympics? No, definitely not. The fact in issue is, gipatay ba Material evidence is self- Relevant evidence may require
niya ang bikitima? So it is not material at all. evident. reasoning or inference.
Material evidence is always Relevant evidence is not always
Q: Is the evidence material? relevant. material. Broader na term ang
A: No. It does not tend to prove the fact in issue of whether or relevancy actually, compared to
not B killed the victim. The issue is not about his Olympic materiality.
Record.
KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY
Q: But if you were the judge, will you sustain or will you
overrule the objection? Does such evidence have a 1. Multiple admissibility
tendency to prove that B is the killer due to his ability as a Evidence that is plainly relevant and competent for two or
sharpshooter?
more purposes will be received if it satisfies all the
requirements prescribed by law in order that it may be
A: Yes. The evidence may not be material but it is (clearly)
admissible for the purpose for which it is presented. Even if it
relevant. It has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
does not satisfy the other requisites of admissibility for other
belief in its existence or non-existence.
purposes.
It may not be material pero kung ikaw ang judge, you will
Example:
overrule the objection on the ground that relevant man
You have a piece of paper. Ang nakabutang didto, “Pay to B or
gihapon sya. Because materiality is simply one minor or
to his order, the amount of P50,000. Signed by A.” what is that
maybe half element of relevancy.
evidence of? It’s evidence of a negotiable instrument, diba?
The obligation upon the holder of that negotiable instrument
July 2 Part 5 | Escritor
to pay B or his order, the amount of P50,000. That is clearly
documentary evidence. It’s a document that proves the
I want you to memorize Section 4 because you can use it all the existence of a contract, of the existence of an obligation. But
time – in practice, in the bar examinations, kung wala kay laing there are several requisites in order for the court to admit
matubag in realtion to the inadmissibility of evidence. Pwede na documentary evidence.
nimo itubag ang Section 3 and Section 4. Please try to memorize
Section 3 and Section 4 of the Rules on Evidence.
o It has to be the original - Original Document Rule
(after the amendment) or Best Evidence Rule
MATERIALITY RELEVANCY
(before the amendment)
Evidence is material if you Relevancy, on the other hand,
want to prove or disprove a relevant ang evidence if it has a
So dapat, original gyud na. Pero photocopy ra man
fact in issue. tendency in reason to establish
ang gidala nimo. Will you be able to prove?
the probability or improbability
of the fact in issue.
As a general rule, that obligation on the part of the
In other words, when holder of the negotiable instrument exists, you won’t
you talk about
be able to prove it. Why? Because it’s a mere
relevancy, you’re photocopy. It is not an original of the document.
talking about exercise
of common sense.
But, when you present it for another purpose, let’s
Tendency in reason
say, you are not going to prove what is written in the
lang man. So dapat, document. All that you’re trying to prove is that that
you exercise your document exists; that it is written on paper without
intelligence, your
reference to what it contains.
common sense to
determine kung naa Will that be admissible in that situation? The answer
bay relationship
is YES. Why? Because you’re not presenting it as a
between the evidence
documentary evidence; you’re presenting it as an
and the fact that you object evidence. Meaning, you are presenting the
want to prove. paper as an object addressed to the senses of the
FIRST
EXAM 12
court; particularly, the sense of sight. Makita sa korte supposed to be a hearsay answer. Kung tubagon man, the
na mao ni sya. question calls for a hearsay answer.
That’s what multiple admissibility is all about. It may What is hearsay? Evidence that someone merely told you
not be admissible as paper or document, but it is about. Wala kay personal knowledge. Dili ikaw ang nakabalo.
admissible as an object. That’s multiple admissibility. It’s not you who knows about that fact. It was simply relayed
to you by another person. It is secondhand information. And
Later on, when we go to Section 37 of Rule 130 and the other so, the adverse party objected. “Objection, Your Honor. The
exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, Makita nato ang concept of a question calls for a hearsay answer because the witness
dying declaration and the concept of Part of the Res Gestae or cannot testify as to what that person told her/him. It cannot
kanang ginatawag na excited utterances. be verified anymore inasmuch as the decedent or the testator
has already died.” Patay na man. Dili ma corroborate. Possible
Without explaining too much ahead of time, ang dying kaayo na iyahang testimony would be bakak. It could be a lie.
declaration is a declaration made by a dying person under the
consciousness of an impending death. But, what if the Court allows it? So, the Court says, “Objection
is overruled for now. It seems to be hearsay but I will allow the
A dying declaration might be admitted even if patay na witness to answer the question. And then if the witness
katong nagdeclare. Why? Because it is considered to be answers, “On that particular date, the testator said, that he is
necessary and trustworthy. Necessary because patay na man Gong Yoo.”
ang nag-utter. What if ang gi-utter niya kay, “Ang nagpatay sa
akoa kay si Cardo. Love, Hyun Bin.” Pero pagkahuman ata kay 3. Curative admissibility
napatay sya. He cannot testify anymore; but because
necessary sya, dili sya available to testify in court. And it is also CONDITIONAL What does he mean when he says he’s
trustworthy kay dili pud ka makahuna-huna na ang tao na ADMISSIBILITY Gong Yoo when clearly he’s not Gong
mamatay, mamakak pa gyud. So, that’s a dying declaration. Yoo. What does is say when the testator
believes that he is somebody else that he
But the question is, what if the declarant in a dying declaration is a Korean Movie Star, it means he is not
did not die? Meaning, nacomatose lang. What will happen of sound mind.
then? Remember, dying declaration sya. It requires the death
of the victim and he uttered something on the cause and That is conditional admissibility even if it
surroundings of his death. Pero wala man sya namatay? is inadmissible at first because it appears
Comatose lang man? What are we going to do? What’s going to be immaterial and it is admitted by the
to happen then? Dili sya pwede na dying declaration. But later court subject to the condition that ang
on we will learn, that even if it may not be admissible as a iyahang connection to another fact
dying declaration, it is admissible as part of the res gestae.
makes sense of it all. Kay ang pagtuo sa
It is an excited utterance.
testator he is somebody else he is not of
sound mind and therefore the will is not
2. Conditional admissibility
valid.
Evidence that appears to be immaterial, is admitted to the
CURATIVE Evidence that is otherwise improper is
court subject to the condition that its connection with another
ADMISSIBILITY admitted (despite objection from the
fact subsequent to be proved will be established. Otherwise,
other party) to contradict improper
such fact already received, will be stricken off the record at the
evidence presented or introduced by the
initiative of the adverse party.
other party, to cure, contradict, or
neutralize such improper evidence.
Example:
For a case for the probate of a will. Remember, when you
This is what you call fighting fire with fire.
make a will, dapat during probate, i-prove sa proponent that
The court made a mistake procedurally
the testator was of sound and disposing mind. Meaning,
by admitting inadmissible evidence. By
kasabot sya sa iyahang ginabuhat. Kasabot sya kung unsa ang
doing so, it has prejudiced the rights of
consequences sa pagbuhat sa usa ka will. That’s what you call
the adverse party. Now, what the court
the requisite that the testator must be of sound and disposing
should do is to allow the other party to
mind. So, namatay na karon ang testator. The oppositors to
present improper or supposed to be
the will calls a witness to the witness stand. And then,
inadmissible evidence.
nangutana sya karon. On a particular date, let’s say, August
15, 1995, what did the testator tell you? Take not that that is
FIRST
EXAM 13
Theories on Curative Admissibility

1. American Rule- the admission of such incompetent evidence, Competent evidence is evidence not excluded by the the law, the
without objection by the opponent does not justify such Rules of Court, and the Constitution.
opponent in rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence.
Inadmissible evidence is evidence that is excluded.
If walay objection from the adverse party, you cannot rebut
anymore kay gi waive na nimo. Dapat nag object ka in the first Irrelevant evidence is evidence has no relation to the fact and
place. And your objection was overruled by the court. issue as to induce belief in its existence and non-existence.
2. English Rule- if a party has presented inadmissible evidence, LET’S GO TO THE CLASSIFICATION AS TO WHETHER EVIDENCE
the adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence. AFFIRMS OR NEGATES A FACT:
Literally fighting fire with fire. 1. POSITIVE EVIDENCE is when a witness affirms that a fact
occurred or did not occur.
3. Massachusetts Rule- the adverse party may be permitted to
introduce similar incompetent evidence in order to avoid a 2. NEGATIVE EVIDENCE is when a witness avers that he did not
plain and unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the see or know the occurence of a fact.
other party’s evidence.
Example in book (Evidence Explained):
This is still fighting fire with fire but with qualification, that Question No. 1
there is plain and unfair prejudice. This is what is practiced in At the time of the collision, was the headlight of the
the Philippines. motorcycle turned on?
Discussion: Answer of the witness:

I handled a case and it involved a violation of the Rules on Yes, it was turned on.
Summary Procedure in an MTC in GenSan. I tried to present
evidence na wala na pre-mark and previously identified during pre- In other words, based on his personal knowledge, he affirms that
trial. The witness that was going to identify the said evidence did the headlight of the motorcycle was turned on.
not previously execute an affidavit.
Question No. 2
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, kung unsa lang na At the time of the collision, was the headlight of the
evidence ang na naidentify or kinsa lang naka execute ug affidavit motorcycle turned on?
mao lang na ang dawaton. But the court allowed me to present.
But clearly, that will prejudice the other party.So the lawyer of the Answer of the witness:
other party vehemently objected to it. No, it was not turned on.
But the court told him that in the interest of justice he is allowed to What is that? Is that positive evidence or negative evidence? That is
resort to similarly characterized evidence, under the principle of still positive evidence, because the witness affirming that a fact did
curative admissibility of evidence. not occur.
Q: What should determine the application of the rule of What is that fact? Whether or not the headlight of the motorcycle
curative admissibility? was turned on. So, when would it be negative evidence?
1. Whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably
objected to; and Question No. 3
2. Whether regardless of the objection, the admission of At the time of the collision, was the headlight of the
such evidence shall cause a plain and unfair prejudice to motorcycle turned on?
the party against whom it is admitted.
Answer of the witness:
July 2 Part 6 | Macacua I do not know. I did not notice it.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE: That is when it becomes negative evidence, because he did not
Material vs Immaterial know. He did not see. He did not know that a fact in fact occurred.
Competent vs Inadmissible Perfect example would be alibi.
Relevant vs Irrelevant
Positive vs Negative Alibi is a defense which tells you nga wala man ko ngadto.
Direct vs Circumstantial Kintahay naay gipatay somewhere, ikaw ang main suspect. Karon,
FIRST
EXAM 14
ang imohang defense in your counter-affidavit is wala man ko o In an eyewitness testimony there is no need to infer
ngadto, imposible man nga ako ang nagpatay niya kay ang or presume.
pagpatay nahitabo sa Davao. At that time, naa ko sa Cebu. At the
very date and time the incident occured, naa ko sa Cebu. Wala ko CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – evidence not being directly
sa Davao. That is alibi. That is a negative evidence. on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances
from which the judge might infer the occurrence of the fact in
Why? In effect, you are saying is, ikaw ba ang nangpatay or dili? dispute.
Ambot lang, wala mang ko ngadto. Mao na ang ginaingon nimo o Require inference or drawing presumption from
kung naga alibi ka lang. That’s why alibi is negative evidence. attendant facts.
o Not directly probative of a certain fact and needs
Denial is negative evidence, like alibi. It is considered by more analysis.
jurisprudence to be a very weak form of defense and can never
overcome an affirmative or positive testimony particularly when it DIRECT EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
comes from the mouth of a credible witness (People vs Mendoza). Establishes the existence of a Does not prove the existence of
fact in issue without the aid of a fact in issue directly, but
Informally, there is a third type: any inference or presumption merely provides for logical
inference that such fact really
3. NEGATIVE PREGNANT EVIDENCE is a form of negative exists
expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least The witness testifies directly of Each proof is given of facts and
an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse his own knowledge as to the circumstances from which the
party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the main facts to be proved. court may infer other connected
substantial facts. facts which reasonably follow,
according to the common
Example in book (Evidence Explained): experience of mankind.
Question: Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial

Have you ever smoked Marijuana? evidence is sufficient if:
a. There is more than one circumstance;
Answer of the witness: b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
I have never smoked Marijuana in school. c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
What does it mean? You never smoked Marijuana in school. But
maybe you smoked Marijuana at work, you smoked at home. This will be detailed in Rule 133.
That is a denial with an admission favourable to the adverse party. Case Study
I remember handing this case in 2005. Y is my client. X was
Negative pregnant is like talking to Donald Trump. I don’t know if murdered and the primary suspect was Y. They were neighbors and
your watching tv. But, there’s an intelligence report daw that the had a long-standing grudge. They were seen in public having
Russians gave the members of the Taliban in case makapatay sila altercations. Y was reputed to be a gun-for-hire in the community.
og United States Military stationed in Afghanistan. There were, however, no eyewitnesses to the fatal shooting. Y was
accused of the crime. The prosecutor’s evidence consisted in
At first, Donald Trump says I don’t think so. That’s a hoax. And then testimony offered to prove that the accused was at the vicinity
later on, being asked the same question, “Well the intelligence when the crime was committed, that a person wearing a helmet
report was not properly corroborated and therefore my with the accused’s same height and built was seeing fleeing in a
intelligence officers did not see the need to brief me about it. motorcycle away from the scene of the crime. There was also a
testimony offered to prove the history of animosity between the
At one time, he is affirming. At one time, he is denying. parties.
July 2 Part 6 | Maglinte Our defense

ALIBI (a negative defense). The accused said that he was
As to the need to infer or presume in a different municipality at the time of the shooting. We
DIRECT EVIDENCE – proof of the fact or point in issue, as presented witnesses placing him elsewhere attending a
distinguished from circumstantial proof; that if believed, barrio fiesta than at the place of the incident.
establishes the truth or falsity of a fact in issue and does not
arise from presumption.
FIRST
EXAM 15
Evidence for the prosecution evidence is produces from their testimony? Also negative because
What was the purpose of the testimony that the accused was at the they can neither confirm nor deny that specific fact in issue in the
vicinity and that a person matching the accused’s description was case.
seen feeling from the crime scene? Take note no one directly saw That was enough to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
the accused shooting the victim. judge that my client did not shoot the victim.
It was an attempt to prove OPPORTUNITY. The
prosecution wanted to place the accused at the scene of July 2 Part 7 | Flores and Cagas
the crime to prove that it was possible that he was the
one who shot the victim. COMPROMISE
Q: Remember the effect of a compromise? When affidavit of
What was the purpose of the testimony that the accused and the desistance in a criminal case. What will happen? Can the
victim has a history of animosity? prosecution continue to prosecute?
It was an attempt to prove MOTIVE. The prosecution
wanted to impress upon the judge that their long- A: Actually pwede man kung naa syay laing evidence but if ang
standing grudge may have been the reason why the imuhang affidavit of desistance comes from the complaining
accused shot the victim. witness, the main witness of the case, how will the prosecution win
the case with that situation? Manglisud na sila, so the prosecution
Would evidence on motive and opportunity be material? In other has no choice sometimes but to accept the compromise
words, did the testimonial evidence of the prosecution prove the agreement and my client was released from prison, out to the
fact in issue in the case which is whether the accused was the one world to kill again actually.
who shot the victim?
Of course not. Direct evidence of the shooting would CONSPIRACY
have been an eyewitness account that the accused shot Remember that conspiracy is not susceptible of direct proof. How
his brother-in-law or maybe a video or photograph of the do we define conspiracy? Conspiracy exists when two or more
shooting itself. So these are 2 circumstantial events, persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
motive and opportunity, to pin the blame upon the client. felony and decide to commit it.
Were the testimonies offered by the prosecution on motive and When this people come to that agreement, do they reduce their
opportunity admitted by the court considering that they were agreement to writing?
immaterial?
Yes. They may have been immaterial but they were still Like si A, si B og si C, conspired to kill D. niingun ba si A na ang
relevant. That the accused had opportunity and motive obligations ni A are as follows nya ang obligations ni B are as
were collateral matters on, in more familiar terms, follows, ang obligations ni C are as follows and then gipirmahan
circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue. Although they nila, gipanotaryuhan nila sa legal aid kang dean quibod. Di ba?
do not tend to prove the fact in issue directly, they have
the tendency in reason to establish the probability or That will not happen. Conspiracy therefore cannot be proven
improbability of the fact in use. That made them directly but it can be deduced from the acts of the
admissible. perpetrators before, during, and after the commission of the
crime which are indicative of common design, concerted
Did I win the case? action and concurrence of sentiments.
Of course.
We will discuss more of conspiracy later on when we go to rule
What about the negative defense of alibi? 133.
The evidence of the prosecution as purely circumstantial. No one
can directly identify that my client was the one who shot the victim. Other types of evidence:
Primary or best vs Secondary Evidence
The negative defense of alibi, although inherently weak as a Cumulative vs Corroborative Evidence
defense and frowned upon, but that was my only defense. Prima Facie vs Rebutting vs Conclusive Evidence
Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Evidence
Our defense was a negative one which is weak but one that
negative defense is defeated only by positive evidence. It was Kani tanan Makita ni sa akong libro. We will not spend too much
therefore very easy to cross-examine the witnesses by asking “did time to discuss this. Let’s go over them in passing.
any one of you see the accused shoot the victim?”. Because none
of them actually saw the accused actually shoot the victim and
none of them can also say that it was someone else, what type of
FIRST
EXAM 16
PRIMARY OR BEST EVIDENCE For example we’ll apply this characteristic to Statute of Frauds, di
It applies only to documents so the best evidence for example of ba for an agreement to be enforceable in court, dapat naay note or
the contents of the document is the original of the document itself. memorandum that would at the very least inform the court of the
Mao na sya ang evidence which the law regards effecting the intention of the parties, or the elements of the contract, di ba mao
greatest certainty of the fact in question. man na ang sa statute of fraud?
And then we normally refer to an agreement to be one that is

SECONDARY EVIDENCE reduced into writing, kay note or memorandum gud.
Inferior or substitutionary evidence which indicates na naa gyud
syay original. Q: Is it now possible to maintain an action in court for a
contract that is not written but is recorded by means of
Q: What is a photocopy indicative of? cellphone?
A: nga naay original diin sya gikan pag-photocopy. Ing-
ana ang secondary evidence. The definition is actually expanded with respect to
documentary evidence kay mag-include naman syag
Note that the Best Evidence Rule now called ORIGINAL non-papyric na type of evidence.
DOCUMENT RULE is already in Rule 130, Section 3 under the
amended rules. CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE
Additional evidence of the same kind & character as that already
SECTION 3. Original Document Must be Produced; given & tends to prove the same proposition.
Exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no Example naay nag-away na duha ka tao diha sa Bolton,
evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, then in this instance, it is possible nga naay several eye
except in the following cases: witnesses. If all the eye witnesses will be testifying on the
same incident, their testimonies will be cumulative
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be evidence, so cumulative of one another.
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of Additional evidence of a different kind & character, tending to
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter prove the same point.
fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures; It is deemed necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that
the witness did not tell the truth, or that his observation had been
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other inaccurate. [PEOPLE v. MANZANO]
documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them For example, naa kay eye witness account na si A og si B
is only the general result of the whole; nagsumbaganay, pero naa pod kay laing evidence nga
CCTV footage, nga nag-away jud si A og si B.
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office; and So lahi-lahi ang type of evidence, naay testimonial
evidence and naa poy object evidence which the video
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling nga nag-away ang duha.
issue.
NOTE: It is deemed necessary only when there are reasons to
suspect that the witness did not tell the truth, or that his
As the law now stands, ang document dili na lang limited to paper.
observation had been inaccurate.
RULE 130, SECTION 2. Documentary Evidence. — Documents as
It is quite possible that the witness testifies on an incident but his
evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any
testimony was not credible.
material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,
symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written expression
Q: What will the party or the lawyer do to corroborate the
offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still
testimony?
pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures
A: The corroboration here will not be upon the material
or videos.
points of his testimony but, the corroborative testimony
FIRST
EXAM 17
will be something that will try to rehabilitate the PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
reputation of the witness for truth. Meaning, standing alone, it already proves the fact. Without
rebuttal, it is sufficient to prove that fact.
Kay kung inconsistent iyang testimony, you need one
more witness to say or explain what that witness is REBUTTAL EVIDENCE
actually talking about. This would be considered as a This is your counter or what you call your countervailing evidence
corroborative evidence. to explain or repel the evidence given by the adverse party.
In PEOPLE v. AYUPAN, the SC held that the testimony of a lone CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
witness – if found by the trial court to be positive, categorical & Is not susceptible to countervailing evidence. It is not one that can
credible – is sufficient to support a conviction. This is so, especially be repelled or countered or disproved, because it is not susceptible
if the testimony bore the earmarks of truth & sincerity & was questions anymore. As it is said, that the thing is conclusively
delivered spontaneously, naturally & in a straightforward manner. proved, it means that it shows that such fact is the only one
Evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not quantity. It is to possible. You cannot do anything. You cannot produce evidence
be weighed, not counted. against it anymore because it is already conclusive.
In PEOPLE v. GUMAYAO, the testimony of a single prosecution INTRINSIC Information necessary for the determination of an
witness, as long as it is positive, clear and credible is sufficient on EVIDENCE issue that is gleaned from the provision of a
which to anchor a judgment of conviction. document itself.
EXTRINSIC Also called PAROL EVIDENCE or EVIDENCE
Corroborative or cumulative evidence is not a prerequisite to EVIDENCE ALIUNDE.
the conviction of the accused. Truth is established not by the
number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. Refers to evidence from a source outside the
subject document (aliunde means “from another
In PEOPLE v. LUMAYAG, the SC held that an accused is always a source”
competent witness for or against his co-accused, and the fact that
he had been discharged from the information does not affect the INTRINSIC EVIDENCE
quality of his testimony. The uncorroborated testimony of an Meaning, what has been written or placed in the document itself
accused, when satisfactory & convincing may be the basis for a which it is intrinsic in the document or the agreement, that is
judgment of conviction of his co-accused. intrinsic evidence. What is in the document, in the four corners of
the instrument.
July 2 Part 8 | Ugdang
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
So, we have prima facie evidence, rebutting evidence and Is evidence aliunde or evidence from another source. Ok, we’ll go
conclusive evidence to that when we discuss the parol evidence rule under Rule 130
sec. 10. Before that used to be sec. 9, now it is sec. 10. You also
PRIMA FACIE REBUTTING CONCLUSIVE encounter that in wills and succession and later on when we take
Evidence that is That which is given Evidence which is up parol evidence rule.
sufficient to by the party in the incontrovertible,
establish a fact, case to explain, that is to say TYPES OF EVIDENCE
and if not rebutted repel, counteract “either not open or 1. Object or real evidence
becomes or disprove facts not able to be 2. Documentary evidence
conclusive of that given in evidence questioned as 3. Testimonial evidence
fact on the other side. where it is said 4. Demonstrative evidence
The term rebutting that a thing is
evidence is more conclusively OBJECT Those addressed to the senses of the
particularly applied proved, it means EVIDENCE court and are exhibited to, examined or
to that evidence that such result viewed by the court (Rule 130, Sec.1)
given by the follows from the Proves the existence, appearance and
plaintiff, to explain fact shown as the condition of objects.
or repel the only one possible. DOCUMENTARY Writings, recordings, photographs or
evidence given. EVIDENCE any material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or
their equivalent, or other modes of
FIRST
EXAM 18
written expression offered as proof of to oral assertions cannot normally prevail. Greater credence is
their contents (Rule 130, Sec.2) given to physical evidence as evidence of the highest order
TESTIMONIAL Oral or written assertions offered as because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
EVIDENCE proof of the truth of what is being
stated if the witness can perceive and in The SC had the occasion to lay down what I term as the hierarchy
perceiving can make known his of evidence. Which has more weight? Object, documentary or
perception to others (Rule 130, Sec. testimonial?
[natabunan sa pop-up]
According to the case of People v. Lavapie, the object or physical
OBJECT EVIDENCE evidence is evidence of the highest order because it speaks more
These are evidence that prove the existence, appearance, and eloquently than a hundred witnesses. So, that is the highest form
condition of the objects. In the appreciation of object evidence, the of evidence.
court uses its senses. Its sense of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and
touch, that is object evidence. So, what follows after that?
GSIS v. CA (May 28, 1993)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
We’ll go to that when we reach rule 130. Testimonial evidence is easy of fabrication and there is very little
room for choice between testimonial evidence and
Tan v. Hosana (2016) documentary evidence.
The purpose of introducing documentary evidence is to
ascertain the truthfulness of a matter at issue, which can be the Generally, documentary evidence prevails over testimonial
entire content or a specific provision/term in the document. evidence.
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE

Is informally, the fourth type. It is not mentioned but, it is not 1. Object evidence
actually prohibited by the rules of court. This would be evidence in 2. Documentary evidence
the form of objects (like maps, diagrams or models) that has in 3. Testimonial evidence
itself no probative value but, is used to illustrate and clarify the
factual matter at issue broadly. Demonstrative evidence is evidence But, remember, there are different types of testimonial evidence,
is not prohibited, although not specifically mentioned in the Rules there is a possibility that written testimonial evidence like an
of Court. ordinary affidavit and there is also oral testimony.
Let’s take the case of a map, for example, you use the map, an Types of testimonial evidence
actual map or you drew it yourself and you ask the witness to 1. Written testimonial evidence
point, where did he see the car that was carnapped, and he will 2. Oral testimony
point.
People v. Balleno (2003)
Is the evidence that you are trying to present is the map? Or is it An affidavit is not a complete reproduction of what the
the testimony of the witness as aided by the map. So, that is declarant has in his mind because it is generally prepared by the
demonstrative evidence. administering officer and the affiant simply signs it after it has
been read to him. In any case, open court declarations take
It is the testimony as aided by the demonstrative object that is precedence over written affidavits in the hierarchy of evidence.
considered as the object that you are going to present. In Unlike written statements, there is flexibility on the part of the
appreciating demonstrative evidence, the court uses the same five questioner to adapt his questions to elicit the desired answer in
senses but, more importantly, applies intelligence to draw order to ferret out the truth.
conclusions or inferences from the objects presented. Thus, for
demonstrative evidence, what is important is not the object, but According to the SC in the case of People v. Balleno, an oral
the INFORMATION that the objects create. testimonial evidence made in an open court is more reliable
because there is an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and
People v. Lavapie (2001) not to mention the questioner has the flexibility to adapt the
If the physical evidence runs counter to the testimonial questions to elicit the desired answer in order to ferret out the
evidence, conclusions as to physical evidence should prevail. truth.
Physical evidence is that mute, but eloquent manifestation of
truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
In light of the physical evidence obtaining in the case, contrary
FIRST
EXAM 19
IMPORTANCE OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ORDINARY EVIDENCE

While testimonial evidence occupies the lowest wrung in the Consist in the testimony of a witness who testifies to those facts
hierarchy of evidence, it is conversely the most indispensable. which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception (Rule 130, sec. 22)
Neither object nor documentary evidence can be presented within
an accompanying testimony. It is through testimonial evidence that LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
objects and documents are identified, authenticated, and given The rules of evidence must be liberally construed (sec. 6, rule 1) the
relevance. Testimonial evidence therefore gives context to the Rules of Procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than
other types of evidence. Indeed, objects and documents, as to frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application
evidence must be sponsored by a witness. of the rules must always be eschewed if it would subvert their
primary objective of enhancing substantial justice.
Remember, while testimonial evidence is the lowest in the
hierarchy of competent evidence, it is still very important. Why? Because the rules of evidence, and the rules of procedure in
because there can never be another form of evidence like object general, are mere tools to facilitate rather than to frustrate the
evidence or documentary evidence if they cannot be presented if attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules
there is no testimonial evidence in the first place. In other words, must always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary
you have a smoking gun. objective of enhancing substantial justice.
You have a contract in your hands, but these contracts or these Quiambao v. CA (2005)
objects, they do not testify by themselves, so they need to be They must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to
sponsored by a competent witness who will deliver testimonial frustrate substantial justice.
evidence.
Barcenas v. Tomas (2005)
TYPES OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE However, to justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory
1. Oral explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements
2. Written testimony have always been required.
TENOR OF TESTIMONY July 8 Part 1 | Acevedo

1. Ordinary
2. Character or reputation
3. Opinion RULE 129
4. Expert WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
All of them you can see in my book, but we will discuss further
once we reach 130. Lets not explain it, lets just pass the same. Just RULE 129 COVERS
take note of where they can be found. A. JUDICIAL NOTICE, which can be:
1. Mandatory
CHARACTER OR REPUTATION EVIDENCE 2. Discretionary
Evidence attesting to one’s character and moral standing in the 3. When Hearing is Necessary.
community. Generally, the character of a party is regarded as
legally irrelevant in the determining [of] a controversy. When B. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
allowed, the character evidence must be limited to the traits and In the case of Mejia-Espinoza v. Carino, the Court discussed
characteristics involved in the type of offense charged (CSC v. those matters that courts would not require proof anymore.
Belagan, 2004)
Mejia-Espinoza v. Carino
OPINION EVIDENCE GR 193397 January 25, 2017
Evidence of what the witness thinks, believes or infers in regard to
facts in dispute, as distinguished from personal knowledge of the Ruling: The general rule is that courts must base their factual
facts themselves. The rules of evidence ordinarily do not permit findings on such relevant evidence formally offered during trial.
witnesses to testify as to opinions or conclusions. Recognized exceptions to this are matters which courts can take
judicial notice of, judicial admissions, and presumptions created
EXPERT EVIDENCE by law or by the Rules.
Consist in the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he [has] shown to WHEN CAN PROOF BE DISPENSED WITH
possess (Rule 130, sec. 52)
FIRST
EXAM 20
1. When conclusive presumption applies, no proof is

required (Conclusive Presumption) 2. When a fact is admitted by a party in court (Judicial
Admission)
Example:
A child below 9 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of Rule: Confessio facta in judicio omni probatione major est
discernment. Thus, if a child below 9 years of age commits a [Admission made during trial is stronger than all proof].
crime, no proof is required that he did not act with Therefore, if you have already admitted a matter of fact
discernment. He will be exempt from criminal liability. whether in your pleading or during trial, that fact can no
longer be disputed anymore. In other words. Proof is already
Try to compare that if the crime was committed by the child dispensed with because of the fact that you made a judicial
between the ages of 9 and 15. If the child is between 9-15, the admission].
only way that that child can be exempt from criminal liability
at least from the point of view of the Revised Penal Code, the Example: During pretrial[under Rule 1], the parties are
Pangilinan Law, you need to prove that the child acted allowed to propose and make stipulations of fact. If the
without discernment. existence of a debt, in a collection case, is admitted and
stipulated upon, the fact is withdraw from contention and it
Effects of the presence of a mere disputable presumption need not be proved anymore.
[Note: When you say disputable, it is susceptible to the proof
to the contrary. You can present countervailing evidence to 3. When a matter falls within the realm of judicial notice
defeat the presumption]
a. What is Judicial Notice
(1) It merely defers the presentation of proof, in the 1) Judicial notice is the cognizance [or pagtagad in
meantime. Bisaya] of certain facts that judges may properly take
and act on without proof because these facts are
Ex: The presumption under Article 131 that “an unlawful already known to them.
act was done with an unlawful intent.” This means that
the prosecution need not prove, in the meantime, that 2) Put differently, it is the assumption by a court of a
the accused committed an act with criminal intent fact without need of further traditional evidentiary
because criminal intent or mens rea is actually presumed. support. The principle is based on convenience and
However, if the accused proves that the act was done expediency in securing and introducing evidence on
without intent, the prosecution should now present proof matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute
to rebut what the accused was able to prove in the and are not bona fide disputed [Republic v.
meantime. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 152375 December 16,
2011].
(2) A disputable presumption shifts the burden of
evidence upon the party against whom the disputable Latin Maxim to remember: Manifesta probatione
presumption is applicable. non indigent [Manifest things require no proof.]
Example: Under torts and damages: b. Rationale for judicial notice

Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency
contrary, it is presumed that a person driving and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the
a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is
time of the mishap, he was violating any equivalent to proof [Degayo v. Dinglasan GR No. 173148
traffic regulation. (n) April 6, 2015].
Ex: You should wear a helmet every time you ride a It would be superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive
motor vehicle. If you don’t, that is a violation of any traffic both to parties and the court to require proof, in the
regulation. If you bump someone, but you were not ordinary way, of facts which are already known to them
negligent, but you were not wearing a motorcycle [People v. Rullepa, GR No. 131516, March 5, 2003].
helmet, you are going to be presumed negligent unless
you were able to prove that you were not negligent in Note: Insistence on not taking judicial notice might lead
the first place. to absurd results.
Ex: There is an American plaintiff. He filed a case against
Effect: The plaintiff need not prove negligence on the a Filipino.
part of the defendant. The burden shifts to the defendant
to prove that he was not negligent.
FIRST
EXAM 21
Would it be okay for the judge to require proof that the For the sake of unity and simplicity of discussion lets focus on
United States of America is actually a country, that it is a Judicial notice of "laws"
state that exists outside of the Philippines or should the
judge require proof that there is really USA? That is what What laws are subject of mandatory judicial notice?
is meant by absurd results resulting if for example you 1. The Law of nations
insist on not taking judicial notice on the simple matter 2. Laws as official acts of the legislative, executive and
such as the existence and territorial extent of states. judicial department of the National Government of the
Philippines
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE PRIOR TO AMENDMENT 3. Ordinances
[Under the 1997 Rules of Court] 4. Laws of nature
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the (as to the other items under Sec. 1 just read the discussions in
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, my book.)
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and LAW OF NATIONS
their seals, the political constitution and history of the The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that "the
Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a) part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Under the Amended Rules of Court [A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC] (Sec. 2, Article II 1987 Constitution)
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the We know from our studies in Constitutional Law that that is the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, incorporation clause of the 1987 Constitution, whereby generally
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of accepted principles of international law can be considered as part
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and of the law of the land. Remember that there are 2 modes by
their seals, the political constitution and history of the which international law can become part of the law of the
Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial land, first would be by way of incorporation and the second mode
departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the would be by way of transformation, meaning you have an
laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical international law which you have adopted into a local statute or if
divisions. (1a) an international law/agreement that requires concurrence by
congress then that would already be judicial notice of an official
Actually it is 99% similar, except that there is a change on the act of the legislative department of the Philippines.
qualification on what legislative, executive and judicial department
does this refer to. The Supreme Court. Notice “National With respect to international law to become generally accepted
Government of”. principles it requires 2 elements:
1. Widespread state practice among nations; and
Importance of Clarifying that it is the legislative, executive and 2. Physiological Element: Opinio juris (belief that the
judicial departments “National Government of” the Philippines international law is good)
It is the official government of the National government contrasted
with those of Local Governments only which are of mandatory The "law of nations" does not mean the "law of a particular
judicial notice. nation"
The existence of foreign law per se is not within the realm of
Example: mandatory judicial notice. Kay ngano? wala tay labot. Ang
While laws enacted by Congress fall within the purview of Philippine Courts walay silay pakialam anang law of a specific
mandatory judicial notice, the same cannot be said, as a general country.
rule, for ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of a
city. Foreign laws present a QUESTION OF FACT. Thus, as a general rule,
they may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proved.
July 8 Part 2 | Amistad They have to be pleaded and proven as any other fact. If your
defense is based on a foreign law then you have to properly state
Ang gi-clarify lang dire by the amendment is that dapat "National that in your pleading and proved it as in any other fact.
Government of the Philippines". This rule should be committed
to memory. HOW TO PROVE FOREIGN LAW?
For written foreign law:
FIRST
EXAM 22
We follow the process stated in Sections 24 - 25 of Rule 132. (This OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AS LAW
rule would not be discussed now to avoid confusion) Executive orders and presidential decrees have the full force of law
when they take authority from a legislative power directly granted
For unwritten foreign law: to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to a
We follow Section 48 of Rule 130 or the so-called learned treatises valid delegation of power to the President.
which is an exception to the rule on hearsay evidence.
Example,the Family Code of the Philippines.
Take note however of the following principles: The 1973 Constitution and the 1986 Provisional
A foreign law may be admitted without proof if it is subject of Constitution gave the President legislative powers. EO 09
a judicial admission. So, if it is admitted by the other party was issued by President Aquino in 1987 after the present
then no need to prove constitution was ratified. Under Article XVIII, Section 6,
In the absence of proof or admission, foreign law is presumed the incumbent President shall continue to exercise
to be the same as that in the Philippines. Under the doctrine legislative powers until the first Congress is convened.
of PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION.
Presently, the President does not have anymore such
CONDON v. COMELEC delegated legislative power by default, it was only under
G.R. No. 19874, August 10, 2012 the 1986 Provisional Constitution and the transitory
provision of the 1987 Constitution.
FACTS:
Maja was the winning vice-mayoralty candidate of Caba, La July 8 Part 3 | Bahalla
Union. A petition for quo warranto was filed against her on the
ground that she is a dual citizen, who under R.A. No. 9225, must Under the 1973 Constitution, the President, as prime
execute a sworn renunciation of her Australian citizenship. minister, had legislative powers. During those times, the
National Assembly, where laws are supposed to be made,
Maja answered that, when she executed a declaration of became a mere rubber stamp of President Marcos. So,
renunciation of Australian citizenship in Australia, she is deemed when President Marcos declares this and declares that,
to have lost her foreign citizenship. She wanted the Court to the Assembly will simply give it an imprimatur and pass it
take judicial notice of the laws of Australia regarding loss of on as their own law. But during that time, I would
citizenship. She also contended that the mere act of running for suppose that President Marcos simply had complete
public office is a clear abandonment of her foreign citizenship, control of the government- Executive, Legislative, and, to
citing Valles vs. COMELEC. a certain extent, Judiciary. That’s absolute power. And
remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
HELD:
Foreign laws are NOT a matter of judicial notice. Like any other OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
fact, they must be alleged and proven. To prove a foreign law, Pasei vs. Torres tells you about dichotomy. Kung dili bitaw siya
the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply result of a delegated power, di na siya gina-take judicial notice. So,
with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of to form part of the law of the land, the decree, order or LOI must
Court. be issued by the President in the exercise of his extraordinary
power of legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of the 1976
LAWS AS OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Amendments to the 1973 Constitution. So, dili tanan. Okay? Kadto
All judges are presumed to know ALL statutes and their status - lang result of a valid delegation of power.
whether the same are still effective or have already been repealed
or amended In the case of Sañado vs. CA, the action of an administrative
agency in granting or denying, or in suspending, or revoking a
LEGISLATIVE ACTS OTHER THAN LAW license, permit, franchise or certificate of public convenience is
In Chavez vs. PEA, a senate investigation report is deemed administrative or quasi-judicial. Decisions of the Office of the
covered by mandatory judicial notice. President are official acts of and are exercises of quasi-judicial
Congressional debates and other records that predicated the powers of the executive department. They, thus, squarely fall under
passage of the law are matters considered to be official acts of matters relative to the executive department which courts are
Congress and are therefore within the realm of mandatory mandatorily tasked to take judicial notice of under Section 1, Rule
judicial notice. 129 of the Rules of Court. Judicial notice must be taken of the
organization of the Executive Department, its principal officers,
Judges are supposed to take judicial notice of that also, so it elected or appointed, such as the President, his powers and duties.
helps that they watch those congressional hearings.
Now, let’s go to that phrase “Certificate of public Convenience.”
FIRST
EXAM 23
A certificate of public convenience allows you to operate a management contract as an official act of an executive department
franchise. as the PPA being under the DOTC.
As to ABS-CBN, when their franchise was not renewed, they were According to the Supreme Court, the Management Contract
issued Cease and Desist Order by the National Telecommunication entered into by Asian Terminals and PPA is NOT among the
Commission. And according to NTC, despite the fact that there are matters which the Court can take judicial notice of. It cannot be
plenty of precedents to the contrary that a tv station or radio considered an official act of the executive department. And
station cannot continue operating if their license has expired and it obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function
cannot give it provisional authority to continue broadcasting. when it entered into a Management Contract with Asian Terminals.
Definitely, if that is a decision, whether in administrative of quasi- As such, judicial notice cannot be applied.
judicial function of the NTC, diba ang dapat nga administrative
remedy diha is an Appeal to the Office of the President. But ABS-
CBN really never did that. Why? Because they are scared of With respect to the functions of the executive department of the
President Duterte. national government of the Philippines, you have to draw a
distinction:
Let’s go to the case of Republic vs. Southside Homeowners If it is a governmental function that is being performed by
Association, Inc. the government through any of its instrumentalities- courts
would take judicial notice on that.
What happened here? There’s this military reservation that was If it is only performing a proprietary function- the court will
used to house military officers together with their families. And NOT take judicial notice on that.
throughout the passage of time, they made a subdivision there.
They were treating it already as private property. They even made a So, that’s a very short principle that you can easily remember.
homeowners’ association, SHAI, not knowing that they cannot have
it titled because it is actually part of a military reservation. And, in POWER OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
resolving this case, the Court took judicial notice of Proclamation Now, let’s go to the Power of Executive Clemency.
423 which actually made the land, where they were living in, a part
of military reservation. Nuclear epic fail sila on their contention that It has several forms like Pardon, Amnesty, Commutation of
it can be considered as property of public dominion. Sentence, and so on and so forth.
Q: Are all the exercises by the President of his power of
Remember in Property, there is Property of the public domain or executive clemency subject to mandatory judicial notice?
public dominion and you also have Property of private ownership. A: No.
Remember that Property of Private ownership actually includes
Patrimonial Property of the State. Patrimonial Property is reserved To answer this, we have the case of People vs. Casido (March 7,
by the state for some commercial purposes. But that’s considered 1997). Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a
to be private property. And what would be the implication if you private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person
call it private property? It can be subject to Expropriation. Private pardoned because courts take no judicial notice thereof. That’s
property shall not be taken except for public use and payment of with respect to Pardon only. But when you talk about amnesty by
just compensation. Just a review. the proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of
Congress, that is a public act of which the court should take judicial
Take note, however, of the case of Asian Terminal vs. Malayan notice.
Insurance Corp.
Remember the event regarding Trillanes? Syempre, he was a very
So, what happened here? In a case for damages, Asian Terminals vocal opponent of President Duterte kuno. At one time, the
was adjudged liable by the RTC in the amount of P643,600.25 for Department of Justice is saying that “we have no proof that he has
losses due to the mishandling of cargo. But Asian Terminals says actually been amnestied.” But later on in one case, we will learn
that di man dapat ingana kadako amoang liability. Why? because that the Supreme Court actually took judicial notice of the fact that
under its management contract which was entered into between Trillanes and company have already been given Amnesty.
Asian Terminal and Philippine Ports Authority under the
Department of Transportation and Communiaction (DOTC), its 1. Pardon- no judicial notice
liability for losses due to mishandling of cargo is only P5,000 per 2. Amnesty- should be taken judicial notice of. (being a public
package. So, let’s assume that there were 3 packages. And then, act)
they mishandled it and the cargo was lost. And it’s worth 600,000
plus. But under their contract, since there are only 3 packages, OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
dapat 15,000 lang ang bayaran. Murag ingana ang contention. Now, official acts of Judicial Department. The best example for that
Asian Terminals urges the court to take judicial notice of the are the Rules of Court, other Supreme Court issuances, as well
FIRST
EXAM 24
as the cases decided by the Supreme Court. Courts should take

judicial notice of Supreme Court decisions but not blindly because Sometimes, it gets confusing because the parties are the same, and
whether or not to apply a ruling to a controversy is still subject to the causes of action of the subsequent cases are mere offshoots of
the judicial determination. Remember, cases decided by the the main case. Usahay malimtan nimo na just presented the
Supreme Court, the doctrine might be applicable but whether that evidence in the main case but not in the other case. Although I
doctrine is completely in all-fours of the issue in the case, dapat never really had the occasion to ask the court to take judicial
kinahanglan pa ug factual determination. notice of the records of the case that is pending before it together
with the main case, atleast we know that there is that exception.
Art 8, NCC – Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws That it can be considered as read and part of the record of the case
or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the pending before the court.
Philippines.
REGULUS DEV’T vs. DELA CRUZ
So, based on Article 8, they have the force and effect of laws. G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016
This court takes judicial notice that the validity of the RTC
DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS Orders has been upheld in a separate petition before this court,
What about kanang gi-decide sa RTC? Can MTC take judicial under GR SP NO. 171429 entitled Antonio Dela Cruz v Regulus
notice? Also, can RTC take judicial notice of cases pending on its Development, Inc.
own sala for a different case?
ORDINANCES
According to jurisprudence, Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, courts While courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws
are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the enacted by Congress, the rule with respect to local ordinances
records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or is different.
are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding that both Ordinances are not included in the enumeration of matters
cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same covered by mandatory judicial notice under Section 1, Rule
judge. This rule though admits of exceptions. 129 of the Rules of Court. (SJS v Atienza, GR No. 156052,
February 13, 2008).
So, let’s go to these exceptions or the so-called instances of Also take note of the amendment in Section 1 Rule 129 –
permissible judicial notice of records. “Legislative act of the National Government of the
Philippines”. So only laws enacted by Congress are subject of
July 8 Part 4 | Campaner mandatory judicial notice.
The rule with respect to local ordinances or laws enacted by
EXCEPTIONS (Permissible judicial notice of records) the Sangguians of the different cities and municipalities,
As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court may they’re not included in the enumeration of matters covered by
properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case mandatory judicial notice. However, there is a lot of doctrines
filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending that exist which actually allow judicial notice of ordinance.
before it, when, with the knowledge of, and absent an
objection from, the adverse party, reference is made to it for What are these doctrines? For the sake of simplicity, these are
that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner the Rules on Judicial Notice of Ordinances.
by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original MTC – required to take judicial notice of ordinances of the
record of the former case or any part of it, is actually municipality or city wherein they sit.
withdrawn from the archives at the court’s discretion, at the RTC – must take judicial notice only:
request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a o When required to do so by statute (example: charter
part of the record of the case then pending. of a city, just like SJS v Atienza)
Courts must also take judicial notice of the records of another o In a case of appeal before them wherein the inferior
case or cases, where sufficient basis exists in the records of the court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in
case before it, warranting the dismissal of the latter case. said case;
In other words, to shorten everything, pwede as a matter of Meaning, the MTC took judicial notice of the
convenience to all parties, provided that the act of taking judicial ordinance, the RTC cannot require the parties to
notice of the records of the case is absent any objection coming present proof of the ordinance on appeal
from the adverse parties. (remember the rule in Civil Procedure that when the
RTC takes a case on appeal, or determines a case
In my legal career, I have a lot of cases which are interconnected. under its appellate jurisdiction, it should not conduct
Meaning, one case may be an offshoot of another case which is a trial de novo).
filed before the same court and tried by the same judge.
FIRST
EXAM 25
o When capable of unquestionable demonstration nagbangga, pagduol niya, didto pa lang niya nakit-an nga
nagbangga ang sakyanan. So, unsa’y mauna ang kilat o ang
Meaning, of public knowledge gyud sya, nationally. dalugdog? Syempre, light travels faster than sound. Pero diri, unsa
The perfect example would be the anti-smoking ni? Nauna pa ang tingog sa bangga kaysa sa bangga mismo? So,
ordinance of davao city. It’s not only in the epic fail kayo.
Philippines that this is very notorious, but also
internationally. Gabriel v Court of Appeals
GR No. 128474, October 6, 2004
SJS v Atienza
GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008 Gonzales declared that he was on the shoulder of the road,
beside the truck, when the collision took place. From his
Even where there is a statute that requires a court to take vantage point, his view was obstructed by the truck. He claimed
judicial notice of municipal ordinances, a court is not required to have first heard the collision. He immediately took five big
to take judicial notice of ordinances that are not before it and to steps onto the highway, and then saw the Beetle and the
which it does not have access. The party asking the court to jeepney colliding. In short, the sound of the collision took place
take judicial notice is obligated to supply the court with the full before the actual collision itself. If true, this would rate as one of
text of the rules the party desires it to have notice of. Counsel the greatest scientific revelations of all time. But since the courts
should take the initiative in requesting that a trial court take are obliged to take judicial notice of the laws of nature, this
judicial notice of an ordinance even where a statue requires court prefers to side with prudence.
courts to take judicial notice of local ordinances.
Republic and UP vs Rosario
The intent of a statute requiring a court to take judicial notice of GR No. 186635, January 27, 2016
a local ordinance is to remove any discretion a court might have
in determining whether or not to take notice of an ordinance. Rosario filed an action for reconstitution of her alleged title to
Such a statute does not direct the court to act on its own in certain properties in Diliman. UP opposed on the ground that
obtaining evidence for the record and a party must make the the properties actually belong to UP and that ownership over
ordinance available to the court for it to take notice. the said lots have been settled by law and jurisprudence. For
Here, the SC said that if you want the court to take judicial notice instance, UP alleged that RA No. 9500 which provides that the
of a particular municipal ordinance, then give a copy to the trial absolute ownership of the national university over those
court, so that the trial court can take judicial notice of it. landholdings, including those covered by original and transfer
certificates of title in the name of the University of the
LAWS OF NATURE Philippines and their future derivatives, is hereby confirmed.
In my book I discuss about how Abraham Lincoln (Vampire Slayer
and Lawyer) used a Farmer's Almanac to prove that there was no July 9 Part 1 | Du
illumination from the moon at the time of the alleged commission
of the crime; here what was applied was the Law of Nature to Section 2. Judicial Notice, When Discretionary. — A court
which the Court took judicial notice of allowing Lincoln to secure may take judicial notice of matters which are of public
an acquittal for his client. knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or
ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
People vs. Meneses (2)
GR No. 111742, March 26, 1998
Let’s first try to distinguish between Section 1 and Section 2:
It was established that the crime took place in the wee hours of
the morning, before the crack of dawn, at around three o’clock. You can even make a case that if the court does not take judicial
The court can take judicial notice of the “laws of nature,” such as notice of a matter that is covered by Section 1, it would simply
in the instant case, that at around three in the morning during mean that that court is actually neglecting to perform a
the Christmas season, it is still quite dark and that daylight ministerial duty. To my mind, when it comes to Section 1, there
comes rather late in this time of year. Nowhere in the will always be the possibility that the judge or the court might be
description of the crime scene by witness SPO3 Mendoza in his liable in mandamus. Pwede i-compel because that is a ministerial
testimony was it established that there was light or illumination duty.
of any sort by which Christopher could see the attacker. Judicial
notice will overrule testimony. But with respect to Section 2, because of course there is exercise
of discretion and it is not mandatory as is meant by the word
One of my most favorite cases. Diri ingon sa witness, naay “may”. It is purely within the judgment or the discretion of the
nagbangga na mga sakyanan. Nadunggan niya nga naay court whether or not to take judicial notice.
FIRST
EXAM 26
It is termed discretionary because it depends on the judgment of ISSUE:

the court. No party can compel another to take judicial notice of a Was the COMELEC correct in taking judicial notice of those facts?
matter because it is not one of the mandatory objects of judicial
notice in Section 1. RULING: YES.
This Court has, in a string of cases, already taken judicial notice of
Requisites: the factual circumstances surrounding the Oakwood standoff. xxx
1. The matter must be one of common and general That the Oakwood incident was widely known and extensively
knowledge; covered by the media made it a proper subject of judicial notice.
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not Thus, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
doubtful or uncertain; and when it treated these facts as public knowledge, and took
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the cognizance thereof without requiring the introduction and
jurisdiction of the court. reception of evidence thereon.
What does “common knowledge” mean? So, it took judicial notice. Why? Because according to the
The concept of "facts of common knowledge" in the context of COMELEC, wala man tay makuha kung magrequire pa ta ug proof
judicial notice has been explained as those facts that are "so on this matter. Why do we need to require proof when in fact it
commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to was so commonly known to everybody that Magdalo was actually
require proof, and so certainly known x x x as to make it responsible for the Oakwood Mutiny.
indisputable among reasonable men." (Magdalo Para sa
Pagbabago vs. COMELEC) As publicly announced by the leaders of MAGDALO (prominently
Antonio Trillanes) during the siege, their objectives were to express
Take note of the phraseology of the SC there. their dissatisfaction with the administration of former President
“Unprofitable to require proof” - meaning, wala kay makuha Arroyo, and to divulge the alleged corruption in the military and
kung kintahay magrequire pa ka ug proof on this matter. the supposed sale of arms to enemies of the state. Ultimately, they
wanted the President, her cabinet members, and the top officials of
the AFP and the PNP to resign. To achieve these goals, MAGDALO
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago vs. COMELEC opted to seize a hotel occupied by civilians, march in the premises
G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012 in full battle gear with ammunitions, and plant explosives in the
building. These brash methods by which MAGDALO opted to
FACTS: Petitioner Magdalo sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO) filed its ventilate the grievances of its members and withdraw its support
Petition for Registration with the COMELEC, seeking its registration from the government constituted clear acts of violence.
and/or accreditation as a regional political party based in the
National Capital Region (NCR) for participation in the 10 May 2010 And practically everyone knows about it. That’s clearly constitutive
National and Local Elections. of violence as would deny Magdalo registration as a political party.
The SC, at the very least, upheld COMELEC’s taking judicial notice
Remember, if you are a political part, if you are duly registered, you of Magdalo and its participation in the Oakwood Mutiny.
are accorded certain rights under the Omnibus Election Code.
BUT…
The COMELEC denied their petition for registration as a political In the same manner that this Court takes cognizance of the facts
party. Why? It took judicial notice that (1) Magdalo was responsible surrounding the Oakwood incident, it also takes judicial notice of
for the Oakwood Mutiny; and (2) that it employed violence and the grant of amnesty in favor of the soldiers who figured in this
used unlawful means “to achieve their goals in the process defying standoff. xxx
the laws of organized societies.”
In view of the subsequent amnesty granted in favor of the
We know, that under Election Law, if you are such an organization, members of MAGDALO, the events that transpired during the
you employ violence and use unlawful means to achieve your Oakwood incident can no longer be interpreted as acts of violence
objectives, what will happen? You will be denied registration. in the context of the disqualifications from party registration.
Magdalo posited that the COMELEC cannot take judicial notice of SC took judicial notice of two relevant matters in the case:
those facts. Magdalo contended that it was grave abuse of 1. That Magdalo employed violence [Oakwood Mutiny]
discretion for the COMELEC to have denied the Petition for 2. It also took judicial notice of the grant of amnesty in favor of
Registration not on the basis of facts or evidence on record, but on the soldiers including their public spokesman Trillanes.
mere speculation and conjectures. Atik2 lang kuno na ang
Madgalo employed violence, etc. So, there is double judicial notice in this case.
FIRST
EXAM 27
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon

[Discussion about amnesty of Trillanes raised in another case when motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the
DOJ question if Trillanes was in fact given amnesty] parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in
In amnesty, the offense is completely obliterated. There is no more the case. (3a)
offense.
Changes and comments:
As opposed to pardon which is a private act by the President that 1. From “During trial” to “During the pre-trial and the trial”:
needs to be pleaded and proved, amnesty is subject to
mandatory judicial notice as an official act of the executive The amendment makes the propriety of taking judicial notice
branch of the National Government of the Philippines with the a discretionary, not a mandatory, object of pre-trial.
concurrence of the legislative branch. o Rule 18 does not mention the propriety of taking
judicial notice as a mandatory object of pre-trial.
What did the SC do here? It remanded the case to the RTC for
determination of facts as to whether or not there are really papers If you examine the new Rule on Pre-trial (still under Rule 18,
as to whetherr rillanes did or did not apply for amnesty. Section 1), the taking of judicial notice after hearing is not
included as one of the purposes of pre-trial.
In fact in the case of Magadalo, it already took judicial notice of the o Naay objects of pre-trial, naa pud kanang ginatawag
amnesty. Trillanes figures prominently in this case. What is the nato na purposes of pre-trial.
effect of taking judicial notice? No proof is already required. But
what did the SC do? The decision of the SC was really weird. However, take note that when judicial notice is taken of a
matter, it dispenses with proof. This coincides with the
State Prosecutors vs. Judge Manuel Muro purposes of pre-trial such as:
A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, September 19, 1994 1. The simplification of the issues;
2. The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of
FACTS: Judge dismissed 11 cases against Mrs. Marcos for violation facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
of CB Circular 960 or the CB Foreign Exchange Restrictions. The and
dismissal was based solely on newspaper reports concerning the 3. Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition
announcement of the president of the Philippines of the lifting of of the action.
all foreign exchange restrictions as embodied in the circular. Judge Because if a matter is already taken judicial notice of, giving the
said that the announcement had the effect of repealing CB 960. parties opportunity to be heard, in the taking of judicial notice, it
avoids unnecessary proof and such other matters as may aid in the
In other words, naghoard ug dollars si Imelda Marcos. The judge’s prompt disposition of the action.
dismissal was because of newspaper reports saying na ingon daw
ang president lifted na ang restrictions, not a law being enacted.
Meaning, Imelda could no longer be charged. Nagreklamo ang SP July 9 Part 2 | Escritor
against Judge Muro. Tama ba ang pagtake niya ug notice aning
newspaper reports? If judicial notice is taken of a matter during pre-trial, issues are
simplified, and facts are withdrawn from the necessity of proof
RULING: No. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the which in turn, leads to a prompt disposition of the action, which of
judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make course, is the object of a pre-trial.
his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally
known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of 2. From “announce its intention to take judicial notice”, to “hear
those matters which are "commonly" known. Jurisprudence the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice”.
dictates that judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it
becomes effective. The reason is simple. A law which is not yet in So, what is meant by this change? From “announce” to “hear”?
force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge Take note, judicial notice can be motu proprio or upon the
capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration, which is one court’s own initiative, or upon motion. If motu proprio, it
of the requirements before a court can take judicial notice of a fact. means that the court is mulling, taking judicial notice of a
matter which it believes might be beneficial for purposes of
Section 3. Judicial Notice, When Hearing Necessary. During expediting trial. Para di na kinahanglan i-prove gud. However,
the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon taking notice might prejudice a party. The party’s possession
motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial over the propriety of taking notice must be heard and
notice of any matter. therefore, put on record.
So, if upon motion of the party, it means the taking of
FIRST
EXAM 28
judicial notice of a matter might benefit him. Ngano man concept and purpose of judicial notice which is to dispense with
daw nimo ipa-take judicial notice if it does not give you a proof. The SC changed it. Oral arguments na lang ta. Dili
procedural advantage in the case? Diba? If kintahay the court kinahanglan ug presentation of evidence under the old Section 3
will take judicial notice upon your motion, what will be the and under the old dispensation on motions and hearing on
effect? You don’t have to prove it, right? So, just the same, the motions.
party heard will be allowed to oppose the motion. The same
reasoning applies to the taking of judicial notice before Let’s compare and contrast judicial notice with hearing during pre-
judgment or on appeal. trial, and trial, and judicial notice hearing during judgment and on
appeal.
3. From “allow the parties to be heard thereon”, to “shall hear
the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice”. JUDICIAL NOTICE JUDICIAL NOTICE HEARING
WITH HEARING BEFORE JUDGMENT AND ON
Unsa may significance ani? Before I used to really, really hark DURING TRIAL AND APPEAL
on this. Dili gyud ko ganahan aning Section 3 na ni. I think I PRE-TRIAL
made it clear in my book also. Can be motu proprio or upon motion
The subject can be any The subject of judicial notice must be
To my mind, Section 3, Judicial Notice when hearing is matter. a matter that is decisive of a material
necessary, is actually very repugnant to the concept of judicial issue in the case.
notice. Nganon sya repugnant? Because what is the purpose
of a hearing? Under the 1997 Rules? The purpose of a hearing On appeal, the appellate
is to receive the evidence. And diba, judicial notice court shall not conduct a
supposedly, dispenses with proof? But, with Section 3, prior to trial de novo. And the whole
the amendment, what happens is that, before the court takes process of appeal, as a
judicial notice, you have to prove to the court first that judicial general rule, is made thru
notice is proper. How do you do that? By presenting evidence. pleading work. Wala nay
presentation of evidence
That was Section 3 prior to the changes. To me, repugnant diha. What if the appellate
gyud sya to the concept of judicial notice itself. court now, deems it
necessary for the
But, the use of the phrase, “shall hear”, contemplates a situation determination of a material
where the taking of judicial notice will only require oral arguments. issue of the case to take
Why do I say that? Because of the change as well to Rule 15 on judicial notice na lang?
hearings of motion. Unsay nakabutang sa Section 2? Because again, it cannot
conduct a trial de novo. It
Section 2. Motions must be in writing. — All motions shall be in cannot accept new evidence
writing except those made in open court or in the course of a as a general rule.
hearing or trial. If motu proprio, the If motu proprio, the court may want
court believes that a to take notice of a matter that was
A motion made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial matter might benefit not proved during trial and consider
should immediately be resolved in open court, after the adverse from the effect judicial it for purposes of judgment.
party is given the opportunity to argue his or her opposition notice which is
thereto. expediency. Meaning, the court,
gikulangan. I cannot rule
When a motion is based on facts not appearing on record, the accordingly if there’s a
court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented certain matter of fact na
by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter wala gi-present sa mga
be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (2a) parties. And it cannot reset
itself na magbalik ta’g uno.
Argue lang. Meaning, oral arguments lang sya. Mao na ang buot Magpresentation na pud
pasabot ana. Because again, kintahay dili sya oral arguments lang, ta’g evidence. No.
what will happen? Diba mag present pa kag evidence. And right If upon motion by one If made upon the motion of the party,
now, the presentation of evidence will be by way of judicial of the parties, the party the party feels that he will benefit
affidavit. Don’t tell me mag JA pa ta on the matter of whether or feels that he may from the judicial notice of a matter he
not the court should take judicial notice of the matter that is benefit from judicial was not able to present during trial.
relevant to the litigation. That will be counter-productive to the notice because you feel
FIRST
EXAM 29
like you wouldn’t need Kumbaga, mutake kog allowed in Rule 67. In fact, when there is dispute as to the valuation
it anymore. judicial notice kay of the property, it is mandatory upon the Court to appoint not
kinahanglan nako ipahabol more than three commissioners to determine just compensation.
ning butanga nga ni. Last Meaning, there is a need to ascertain facts, but in this case of LBP
ditch effort. Mao ni sya ang v. Wycoco, what did they do?
purpose kung ikaw ang
magmotion kung before LAND BANK vs. FELICIANO F. WYCOCO
judgment or on appeal. G.R. Nos. 140160 & 146733, January 13, 2004
Judicial notice is repugnant to the concept of autoptic preference. In determining just compensation of agricultural lands, the
Courts cannot simply take judicial notice prevailing market
What is Autoptic Proference? value of agricultural lands. Instead, it should ask the parties to
Kana bitawng presentation or examination of objects. Autoptic present evidence under Rule 129, Section 3. The mere personal
meaning, pertaining to the eyes. Self-observation. For example, knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the
appearance or physical condition, is admissible to the court as court, and he is not authorized to make his individual
object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the
court under Rule 130, section 1. basis of his action.
In relation to that, can the court take judicial notice of age as It took judicial notice of the prevailing market value of the
evidence by looking at a person’s appearance? Naa bay instances property. According to the Supreme Court, that is not allowed.
under the law where importante ang age? Daghan kaayo. Age Instead, what the court should have done was to ask the party to
sometimes can be considered as a qualifying circumstance. Age present evidence under Rule 129, Section 3.
can be a mitigating or exempting circumstance. Specifically in rape
cases where age can sometimes qualify a simple rape into a Going back to what I was telling you a while ago, why are you
different form of rape. going to present evidence if your purpose is to take judicial
notice of something? You should have just let them present
evidence without necessarily resorting to take judicial notice, right?
Example: Prior to the amendment of the rules, Section 3 was really weird
The accused had sexual intercourse with a woman below because it required presentation of evidence. Now, it is made clear,
12 years of age with her consent. Rape gihapon sya, merely by oral arguments.
diba? That would be statutory rape. Consent is immaterial
in statutory rape. So, pag file sa case sa accused, nakita SINGSON vs. SINGSON
karon sa korte ang rape victim ay clearly below 12 years G.R. No. 210766, January 8, 2018
of age na sya. Statutory rape gyud ni. You don’t have to
prove her age. Why? Because I’m taking judicial notice Courts cannot take judicial notice that “personality disorders are
that clearly that kid is below 12 years of age. generally incurable” as this is not a matter that courts are
mandated to take judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of
Is that allowed? The answer is no. because when the the Rules of Court.
court observes the appearance of a person to ascertain
his or her age, the court will not be taking judicial notice If I remember it correctly, this case tackles Article 36 (Declaration of
of anything. The court is actually taking autoptic nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological capacity) –
preference. Meaning, it’s examining the evidence which is psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital
the appearance of the person. And such a process takes obligations of marriage.
upon the very object of judicial notice, which is to do
away with the presentation of evidence. Article 36 is really weird. Naa ba diay dili marital obligations
ang marriage? Mao gani marital obligations diba kay marriage
July 9 Part 3 | Estrosas siya. Wala ma’y essential marital obligations sa boyfriend and
girlfriend. Wala ma’y ing-ana, diba? So, weird ang phraseology
In Rule 67 (expropriation), the principle to remember there is that sa Article 36.
the fixing of just compensation is actually a judicial function. Fixing
of just compensation in expropriation cases is a judicial There are three elements for you to make a finding that a party is
function. It cannot be dictated. There is no law that needs to be psychologically incapacitated:
passed that would fix the just compensation of something, to a a) Gravity
certain price or an equivalent in another property. That’s not b) Juridical antecedence
FIRST
EXAM 30
c) Incurability Who is imputing the admission against you?

It will be the adverse party who will “impute” an
In this case, the parties wanted the court to take judicial notice that admission against the other party.
the personality disorder is incurable, and therefore, already proven
that the party is psychologically incapacitated. Assuming I Definition
remember the case wrongly, again, you may apply this to Article 36 Under the case law, judicial admission or an ADMISSION
– you should prove that the personality disorder is incurable. How IN JUDICIO is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement
do you do that? Usually by testimony of a psychiatrist or clinical by a party about a concrete fact within that party’s
psychologist (as mentioned in Republic v. Molina). knowledge.
Under the law on pleadings, a judicial admission is a
Take note: Case law is now to the effect that the testimony of a formal concession in the pleadings or stipulations by a
medical practitioner is not indispensable to prove psychological party or counsel that is binding on the party making
incapacity. them. Although a judicial admission is not itself evidence,
it has the effect of withdrawing a fact from contention.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
SPOUSES BINARAO vs. PLUS BUILDERS, INC.
Before Amendment G.R. No. 154430, June 16, 2006
Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or
written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in A party may make judicial admissions in
the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be (a) the pleadings,
contradicted only by showing that it was made through (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. manifestations or stipulations, or
(c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding.
After Amendment
Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, oral or written, NOTE also that admissions can be express or implied, verbal or
made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same written.
case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through You can trace it already that from verbal or written, it now
palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, becomes oral or written. The phraseology before is verbal or
made. (4a) written.
CHANGES and COMMENTS ADOLFO vs. ADOLFO

FIRST. From “verbal or written” to “oral or written” G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015
o With “verbal”, it means relating to or in the form of
words. “Verbal” can therefore be also “written.” It Judicial admissions may be made in
might also be interpreted to mean actions as the (a) the pleadings filed by the parties,
root word is “verb.” (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written
o With “oral”, it means “by word of mouth or spoken manifestations or stipulations, or
rather than written.” (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the
o Thus, with the amendment, admissions are now pre-trial of the case.
clearly either spoken (by testimonies or by open
court declarations) or written (by pleadings or other Admissions obtained through depositions, written
submissions in writing). interrogatories or requests for admission are also considered
judicial admissions.
SECOND. From “no such admission was made” to “the
imputed admission was not, in fact, made” The facts of this case are very interesting for it allow us to review
o This amendment takes into consideration applicable some concepts that we have previously learned in remedial law.
jurisprudence such as:
o Admission was taken out of context or not in the What happened in the case of Adolfo vs. Adolfo?
sense in which the admission is made to appear Note: the names of the parties are changed.
(Atillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119053,
January 23, 1997) ADOLFO vs. ADOLFO
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015
Remember, when you say imputed admission, you
will not impute something against yourself. FACTS:
FIRST
EXAM 31
Rrramon is married to Maja. In 2004, Rrramon filed a petition subsisting marriage which may thus be the subject of his
for judicial separation of property against his estranged wife. petition for judicial separation of property.
Maja answered that one of the properties is her exclusive
property and therefor should not be made part of any judicial The court a quo treated Maja’s failure to respond as an
separation. admission as to the nature of the property, took judicial notice
of its own judgment and records in the other case, treated the
Rrramon filed a Request for Admission asking Maja to admit prayer for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary
that, in another case decided by the same court, Maja alleged in judgment and rendered summary judgment in favor of
her answer that the same property is conjugal.1 Maja did not Rrramon.
respond to the Request. This other case was pending appeal
before the Court of Appeals. There was a mistake on the part of the lawyer because what he
asked was Judgment on the Pleadings, but in view of the Court, it
1
If there’s an admission that such is a conjugal property, then it will should be for Summary Judgment.
be included in the judicial separation. If it is a paraphernal
property, then it is really an exclusive property of Maja. Hence, not When is it permissible for the court to take judicial notice of its
included in the judicial separation. own judgment or records in a case that is pending before it?
What is the effect if you do not respond to the Request for Courts may take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing
Admission? in another case sitting in the same court if:
1) The parties present them in evidence, absent any
(Take note: This is one of the modes of discovery) opposition from the other party; or
2) The court, in its discretion, resolves to do so.
Under Section 2, Rule 26, each of the matter of which an admission
is requested shall be deemed admitted unless you deny it. ISSUE: Was the court a quo correct in rendering judgment in
favor of Rrramon on the basis of judicial notice and the judicial
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters admission attributable to Maja’s failure to respond to the
of which an admission is requested shall be deemed request for admission?
admitted unless, within a period designated in the
request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days RULING:
after service thereof, or within such further time as the The Supreme Court said in the matter of Judicial Notice that
court may allow on motion, the party to whom the while there is nothing irregular with the taking of judicial notice,
request is directed files and serves upon the party the trial court disregarded the fact that its decision was then the
requesting the admission a sworn statement either subject of a pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. It
denying specifically the matters of which an admission should have known that until the appeal is resolved by the
is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why appellate court, it would be premature to render judgment
he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. on petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; that
it would be presumptuous to assume that its own decision
What was the Request for Admission about? It’s about would be affirmed on appeal. One of the issues raised in the
whether you state in your pleadings in that other case that the appeal is precisely whether the subject property is conjugal, or a
property subject of this case is conjugal and not paraphernal. paraphernal asset of the respondent. Thus, instead of
resolving petitioner’s motion for judgment on the
Maja did not answer so there is now an implied admission pleadings, the trial court should have denied it or held it in
based on Rule 26. abeyance.
What did Rrramon do now? With that, nadungagan atong knowledge. First, what is the general
rule?
…continuation…
General Rule: A court cannot take judicial notice of the records of
Rrramon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, stating a different case even if it is pending before it, or even if the court
that since Maja failed to answer his request for admission, the has knowledge that it is one handling the case previously.
matters contained in the request are deemed admitted
pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 and that, as a consequence of Exception: In the absence of objection, the court may treat it as
the application of the rule, Maja is in effect considered to have read into the record of the present case
admitted that the subject property is a conjugal asset of their
July 9 Part 4 | Fernandez
FIRST
EXAM 32
1. Proper when an answer fails 1. Proper when there is no

The court may treat it as read into the records of the present case, to tender an issue or when an genuine issue as to any material
just like what we reviewed earlier. answer otherwise admits all the fact or the issue raised is a sham
material allegations of the issue.
But as an exception to the exception: If that case that the court adverse party’s pleadings.
wants to take judicial notice of, is still pending appeal, the court
should not take judicial notice of this.
Because it has no right to presume that it will be upheld on appeal. 2. The defendant did not make 2. The pleader actually pleaded
After the appeal you can still file a Petition for Review (MTC to RTC; any specific denial of the specific denials and affirmative
RTC to CA; CA to SC). It’s a long way to go if it’s initially cognizable allegations in the complaint defenses and therefore tendered
by the MTC. But here it’s the CA to SC and therefore failed to tender issues.
issues.
Summary judgment/ Judgment on the Pleadings
….continuation….. 3. It is the plaintiff, 3. Both the claimant or the
counterclaimant, cross- defending party can avail of this
Petitioner could not have validly resorted to a motion for judgment claimant, or third-party plaintiff remedy
on the pleadings or summary judgment. While it may appear that who avails of the remedy
under Rules 34 and 35 of the 1997 Rules, he may file a motion for
4. Based solely on the 4. Based not only on the
judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment as a result of the
pleadings pleadings but also on affidavits,
consequent admission by respondent that the subject property is
admissions, depositions and
conjugal, this is not the actually the case.
other documents
Quite the contrary, by invoking the proceedings and decision in
Both of them are considered litigious motions under Rule 15,
the other civil case, petitioner is precluded from obtaining
Section 15
judgment while the appeal in said case is pending, because the
result thereof determines whether the subject property is indeed As to the First Distinction
conjugal or paraphernal. He may not preempt the appeal in CA- Judgment on the Pleadings
G.R CV No. 78971. Q: When is there an issue?
A: In a civil complaint, there is an issue when the plaintiff and the
Whether its summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, the defendant do not agree.
Supreme Court said No, because we don’t know if the alleged
admission will be upheld on appeal. Be it again, ruling by the court
was premature.
Q: When can you say that there issues are already joined?
REVIEW ON JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND SUMMARY A: There is the complaint, defendant files answer and defendant
JUDGMENT (Amended Rules 34 and 35) takes issue. Meaning, does not agree to what the complaint states.
Here, the court is informed of the misunderstanding or lack of
JUDGMENT ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT agreement between the plaintiff and defendant.
PLEADINGS
They are similar in the following respects: Summary Judgment
1. They are both modes of accelerated judgment When plaintiff asks for Summary Judgment, it means he feels the
2. Judgment is accelerated because there is no need for trial or defendant is trying to raise an issue when in fact there is supposed
reception of evidence to be no issue. And it can be proven by affidavits and depositions.
3. In both, all the court has to do is to examine the pleadings
and other matters already on record. As to the Second Distinction
Judgment on the Pleadings
WHEN PROPER Q: What’s the effect of a general denial in civil procedure?
JUDGMENT ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT A: Effect is it’s an admission, because for you to make a denial, you
PLEADINGS have to make it specific. You have to tell the court what your
version of the facts is.
Summary Judgment
Defendant tendered issues but were sham (atik2 lang).
FIRST
EXAM 33
As to the Third Distinction 2) When an answer otherwise admits all the material allegations
Judgment on the Pleadings of the adverse party’s pleading.
You have to be a claiming party
First Ground: Fails to tender an issue
Summary Judgment a. When the answer neither admits nor denies the allegations on
Both the claimant or the defending party can avail the complaint (evasive);
Both Judgment on the pleadings and Summary Judgment are b. When all the denials in the answer are general denials and not
considered litigious motions specific. A denial is general if the pleader does not state the
Brought about by the change in the Amended Rules. facts relied upon in support of his denial. Such answer does
not tender an issue because all the denials are general, or “no
Remember in the Old Rules, in Rule 15, when you file a motion it knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief” with
should be 3 days prior to the intended date of hearing which respect to a veracity of the facts stated. (Capitol Motors v.
should not be less than 10 days from the date of filing of the Yabut)
motion.
July 9 Part 5 | Jamero
But under the New Rules, it is wholly dependent on the discretion
of the court whether to hear the motion. Rule 35 Summary Judgments
A motion for summary judgment may be filed by the claimant or
Section 1, Rule 34. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an defending party.
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may; on Section 1, Rule 35. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party
motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to
in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in
legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits,
always be proved. depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his or her
favor upon all or any part thereof.
In actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legal separation, the abovementioned is always the rule. What’s the situation here?
Something that would lead to the possibility of collusion or The plaintiff filed the complaint; the defendant filed the answer.
compromise, veracity of allegations should always be proved. And Then, at any time after the answer has been served and filed,
that there is contention between the parties. makita naman na karon sang plaintiff, uy burit ning issues sang
defendant! Naga imbento lang sya’g defense, therefore I will move
for summary judgment.
EXAMPLE: What will I do? I will move with supporting affidavits, meaning I
In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff would gather some evidence na written lang no—Affidavits,
alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the depositions or admissions—saying na ang kanang mga
plaintiff and there was a prior demand to pay and the contentions diha sa defendant, atik ra na. Walay tinuod diha, he’s
defendant did not pay. The defendant admitted all the lying!
allegations in the complaint and simply prayed to the Or if it’s for the defending party:
court for leniency. Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. — A party
against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a
In a case like this, the plaintiff may now apply Rule 34. declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his
He can file a motion in court for Judgment on the or her favor as to all or any part thereof.
Pleadings. He will ask the court to render judgment
based on what the complaint says and what the answer
Same philosophy applies, same thing that I told you about Section
says.
1, pareha lang gihapon. The defendant feels burit lang nang
complaint sang plaintiff! Imbento lang na sya. Maybe it could be
There is no more trial or presentation of evidence
an anticipatory filing, kay kabalo sya na file-an nako sya’g kaso, gi
because the court can render a decision based on what
unahan na lang ko niya. Pwede, what will he do? He will move with
the complaint says and what the answer says.
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for summary
judgment to be rendered in his favor.
GROUNDS:
1) When an answer fails to tender an issue; or
FIRST
EXAM 34
Review: What are the options available to the defendant after he has a cause of action. Mu-file ko ug
service of summons? Except motion for extensions. How many summary judgment.
options does he have (at least in the 1997 Rules)? There are 4.
The defendant, after service of summons, has the following Knowing this, the plaintiff can simply amend his
options: complaint to cure a non-existent cause of action. Note
1. File an answer; that if it appears to the court that the motion was made
2. File a motion for bill of particulars; with intent to delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or
3. File a motion to dismiss; or the pleading stated no cause of action from the
4. File a motion for summary Judgment beginning which could be amended, the amendment is
substantial and would thus require leave of court to be
Motion to dismiss (Rule 16) has already been removed made.(Mao nay nakabutang sa Sec. 3, Rule 10.) However,
entirely from the Rules of Court. The only time you can this does not change the fact that a motion for summary
file a motion to dismiss would be, what? When the judgment is not a responsive pleading in the context of
ground is lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter, res Rule 10, Sec. 2.
adjudicata, litis pendencia, and prescription. Mao nalang Motion ra sya, and because it’s a motion, it
to, kato bitaw 4 grounds that will not be barred even if does not affect the plaintiff’s right to amend his
you raise them for the first time on appeal. Di jud na sya complaint as a matter of right.
ma bar, kana na mga grounds for motion to dismiss. It’s
not barred by the omnibus motion rule, under Rule 9, Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. — The motion shall
Section 1 of the omnibus motion rule. So, mao ni sya ang cite the supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions, and the
imong 4 ka-options. specific law relied upon. The adverse party may file a comment and
serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions within a non-
The filing of a mere motion, either to dismiss or for bill of extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of the
particulars, instead of filing an answer, allows the plaintiff to: motion. Unless the court orders the conduct of a hearing,
(a) amend his complaint as a matter of right under Rule 10, judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
Section 2; and supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file, show
(b) dismiss his complaint upon mere notice under Rule 17, that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine
Section 1. issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.
When a motion for summary judgment is filed, the plaintiff can
no longer dismiss his complaint upon mere notice. There must Any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment shall
be a motion approved by the court, giving the defendant an not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
opportunity to be heard. mandamus. (3a)
Q: Can the plaintiff amend his complaint as a matter of
right if the defendant files a motion for summary 1st par: Mao ra to, no genuine issue, Sham issue ra sya.
judgment in lieu of an answer?
A: Technically, yes. Remember that a motion for summary 2nd par: That’s a new insertion under Rule 35. So, unsa ning action
judgment is not a pleading. The filing of a responsive na ni that shall not be subject to an appeal? Di nimo pwede i-
pleading is what converts amendment from one which is appeal, or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
a matter of right to one which is a matter of judicial
discretion. Q: What action is the rule talking about that is not
So, kung dili answer ang imo i-file sa complaint, appealable?
kung motion lang—whether a motion to
dismiss or a motion for summary judgment— A: The action of the court whether granting or denying
pwede gihapon mag amend ang plaintiff sa the motion for summary judgment, not the summary
iyang pleading as a matter of right. judgment itself. Because if it is the summary judgment
itself, meaning gi-dismiss ang complaint sa plaintiff, or
BUT… Why would a defendant move for summary the court granted summary judgment if favor of the
judgment instead of filing an answer? The defendant will plaintiff and decides in favor of the plaintiff, mao na ang
only do so because he believes that the plaintiff’s cause pwede nimo i-appeal, katong judgment mismo and not
of action against him is a sham. It is non-existent. the action. Dili gani pwede ang certiorari, prohibition or
Kana bitaw, ay binuang gyud ni, na dili pwede mandamus. Because otherwise, that would be giving an
na kwanon ko lang ni, kana bitaw mu file ko ug imprimatur to litigants not to delay the determination of
answer because otherwise I am recognizing that the main case.
FIRST
EXAM 35
As a general rule, based on jurisprudence, ang pagrender Do you notice something here? Do you notice something
of summary judgment—that the exception rather than about the specific denial of the defendant? What do you
the general rule. It’s extra-ordinary and rendering of notice from his defense?
summary judgment.
Answer:
Meaning of “genuine issue” The specific denial of the defendant is wholly
A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the inconsistent. You cannot deny a loan and at the same
presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is time allege that you have already paid it. Thus, the issue
fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue raised, even if there is a specific denial, is not genuine. At
for trial. (BASBAS vs. SAYSON, G.R. No. 172660, August 24, 2011) least one of them is clearly a sham issue.
NO GENUINE ISSUE In that sham issue, what would be the effect? Pwede ka
Question: What differentiates this from “fails to tender an issue”? mag-move for summary judgment. Kay sham jud nah,
When an answer fails to tender an issue, in effect, the plaintiff’s either one of them is sham.
allegations are all admitted. Because of the admissions, there is no
more need for evidence. (ngano pa man ta magpresent ug Example No. 3
evidence, gidawat nya man tanan) If there is no need for evidence, In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges
there is no need for trial, which under Rule 30, is set for the sole that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and the
purpose of receiving evidence (and no other). defendant did not pay. The defendant specifically denied all the
allegations in the complaint. How will he make a specific denial?
July 9 Part 6 | Macacua
Specific Denial
Example No. 1 Defendant specifically denies the allegations in the complaint
In an action for a collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges insofar as it alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the
that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and there was plaintiff, that there was a prior demand topay and that defendant
a prior demand to pay and the defendant did not pay. The has not paid yet. The truth of the matter is that, while defendant
defendant admitted all the allegations in the complaint and simply did indeed secure a loan from the plaintiff, defendant has already
prayed to the court for leniency. paid it.
Take note, because of the admissions, no need for evidence. No Very clear iyang denial, naa koy utang pero gibayran ko na na. It is
need for trial, because judicial admission require no proof under an Affirmative Defense, a defense of confession and avoidance.
Oo, I admit that I have a debt. But, I am avoiding payment because
I already paid it. Diba affirmative defense na under the rule on
pleadings.
Rule 129 Section 4: There are three (3) possible situations there:
Sec. 4 Judicial admissions. An admission, or or written, made by the
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not Possibility No. 1
require proof. Defendant has already paid the plaintiff
(payment)
Example No. 2
In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges If defendant has already paid the plaintiff, he will plead
that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and there was the existence of an actionable document, a receipt (or
a prior demand to pay and the defendant did not pay. The katong giuli na na promissory note). Thus, under Rule 8,
defendant specifically denied all the allegations in the complaint. Section 7, the substance of such document shall be set
How will he make a specific denial? forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof
shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which
Specific Denial shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said
Defendant specifically denies the allegations in the complaint copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. (at
insofar as it alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the least under the 1997 Rules).
plaintiff, that there was a prior demand to pay and that defendant
has not paid yet. The truth of the matter is that the defendant did In this situation, there is a need to proceed to trial
not secure a loan from the Plaintiff and, assuming that there was a because reception of evidence (receipt) must be had. The
loan, defendant has already paid it. plaintiff cannot move for judgment on the pleadings
because there is a specific denial. In fact, the plaintiff has
Question: to file a reply under oath. Otherwise, the existence and
FIRST
EXAM 36
due execution of the receipt would be deemed admitted Take note, the defendant has the option to oppose the
(Rule 8, Section 8). motion together with his affidavits, depositions or
admissions. But if he never really paid the plaintiff, he
In the same situation, the plaintiff cannot move for would not have any proof. Take not also na if wala gyud
summary judgment because the existence of a receipt for niya gibayran ang plaintiff, unsa may proof niya?
payment tenders a genuine issue. The only time that that
receipt will not tender a genuine issue is when, if that Example No. 4
receipt is forged. Forgery siya, gipeke lang. In order for Plaintiff filed an action to collect a loan based on a promissory
the plaintiff to properly argue na peke lang siya, and note, claiming that the defendant has not paid him yet. In his
therefore it’s a sham issue, he needs to move affidavits, answer, defendant admitted that the plaintiff’s pleading states no
depositions or admissions. So, if there really is a genuine cause of action as the promissory note is not yet due. That’s an
receipt, there is a need to go to trial to receive evidence affirmative defense, that’s allowed. Can the plaintiff move for
as to their respective claims and defense of the parties. summary judgment? Can the defendant, for that matter, move for
summary judgment also?
Possibility No. 2
Defendant has really paid the plaintiff but has no proof Analysis
(payment, no proof) Q: How will the court determine the maturity date of the
promissory note?
Defendant really paid the plaintiff but he was never A: By looking at the complaint. The promissory note and
issued a receipt or maybe he lost his receipt. What will its maturity date are there. The attachments, the
happen? promissory note being an actionable document should
be there.
Defendant will prove by testimony the circumstances that
show that he has already has paid. What is the ultimate Q: Would the court require reception of evidence to
effect? Reception of evidence is still required. Hence, the determine if the note is due or not?
plaintiff cannot move for summary judgment. A: No. Everything is stated in the pleadings.
IMPORTANT: Summary Judgment and Judgment of the Q: If the plaintiff moves for summary judgment, what will
Pleadings, none of them are viable if there is still a happen?
requirement to present evidence. A: If the court determines that the promissory note is
already due by examining the pleadings only, there is no
If there is anything that needs to be presented to the more need for trial. The Court will simply order the
court, to determine a particular issue, if naa pay evidence, defendant to pay. Anyway, the defendant already
dili ta mag-accelerated judgment. admitted the existence of the loan. In effect, the
Possibility No. 3 defendant did not raise a genuine issue.
Defendant never really paid the plaintiff
(no payment) That is when sometimes the Judgment on the Pleadings can
become confusing with Summary Judgment. Unsa may basis diri sa
In other words, he is inventing a defense. Nangatik ra. He korte? Tha pleadings, but it’s not summary judgment. Why?
is lying. Even if he specifically denied the allegations in Because the defendant tried to make issue, nag-deny siya. Except
the complaint and attempted to make an issue, that, hindi siya genuine issue. Kay pag mag ingon siyag dili pa man
everything is a SHAM. This time, the plaintiff can move maturity sa note pero klaro, makita nimo sa pleadings by pleading
for summary judgment on the ground that the answer an actionable document that it’s already matured.
fails to raise a genuine issue.
Q: Can the defendant move for summary judgment?
What will the plaintiff do? A: Yes. In effect, he is telling the court to simply look at
the attached promissory not and see that the debt is not
The plaintiff will move with supporting affidavits, yet due. If the debt is not yet due, the court will dismiss
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his the case on the ground of prematurity. Premature pa
favor. In other words, he will attach his proof that the man, wala pa man nag-ripen imong cause of action. The
defendant has never really paid. He will tell the Court that complaint did not raise a genuine issue. In fact, there is
the defendant is lying. That’s the simplest I can explain, still no cause of action yet because there is no violation.
Rule 35 for you.
FIRST
EXAM 37
I hope that clarifies Rule 34 in relation to Rule 35. Ang point lang Section 8, Rule 8. How to contest such documents. — When an
nako na gi-raise didto, ang point nga gusto nako mahinumduman action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in
ninyo: or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
You need to know the subtle differences between judgment on the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
pleadings and summary judgment (Rule 35). You need to under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims
remember that kay favourite na sa Bar Examinations. Not to to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply
mention the fact that Rule 34 and Rule 35 would be proper if the when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
resolution of the issue, whether it is not a genuine issue or whether instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of
giadmit tanan but would require still the presentation of evidence. the original instrument is refused.
Dili proper ang Rule 34 and Rule 35 if manginahanglan pa og
presentation of evidence. Casent Realty vs Philbanking
GR No. 150731, 14 Sept 2007
Why? Gipangutana nako na sa akong estudyante last year. Nobody Since respondent failed to file a Reply, in effect, respondent
got the question. admitted the genuineness and due execution of said
documents. This judicial admission should have been
ADMISSIONS ON THE PLEADINGS considered by the appellate court in resolving the demurrer to
Admissions can be made in both initatory and responsive evidence. This is pursuant to Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules of
pleadings. Court.
Pwede ba ka naay admissions in the complaint? Pwede. IMPORTANT: Under the Rules of Procedure (1997), filing of reply
is optional. If you do not file a reply, all matters alleged in the
Example No. 1 answer are deemed automatically controverted.
In a complaint, defendant Geronimo contracted a loan
with plaintiff Sarah. While defendant had paid the first 5 In Casent Realty vs Philbanking (2007), you need to file a reply. It is
installments, all succeeding installments remain unpaid. not optional to file a reply here, according to the Supreme Court.
Unsa ang admission diha sa complaint, ang first 5 Under the Amended Rules (2020), plaintiff may file a reply only if
installments nabayran na, ang remaining kay wala pa. The the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her
first part is an admission, the latter part is an allegation. answer.
In an answer, defendant admits the allegations contained NATURE OF REPLY UNDER THE AMENDED RULES
in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint inasmuch as they Section 10, Rule 6. Reply. – All new matters alleged in the answer
merely allege the personal circumstances and capacities are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any
of the parties. claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall
be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However,
Usually, ginaadmit na lang namo na. I deny that he is a a the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party
juridical being given civil personality by the law! Alangan attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.
muingon pag ing ana, admit na lang na oy. Diba civil
personality is determined by birth. What is this? This is Casent Realty vs Philbanking. It is a case where
jurisprudence becoming the Rule.
Example No. 2
July 9 Part 7 | Maglinte
Actionable Documents
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny,
It is a document which is the foundation of your cause of or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged
action or defense. And the law tells you how to plead an in, or relating to, said actionable document.
actionable document. In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply,
the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely
The requirement that, kung wala nimo gi-deny under on an actionable document.
oath ang actionable document, you are deemed to have
already admitted the genuineness and due execution of Under the 1997 rules, there are 7 pleadings allowed, but under the
that actionable document. amended rules, there are 8.
1. Complaint
2. Answer
FIRST
EXAM 38
3. Reply Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the
4. Counterclaim admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the instances
5. Crossclaim of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Section 7, Rule
6. Third-(fourth) party complaint 18 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the contents of the
7. Complaint-in-intervention pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of the action,
8. Rejoinder thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried.
The rejoinder is filed if an actionable document is attached to the Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the
reply. parties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties who
made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts
Rule 8, section 8 specifically applies to actions or defenses founded stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party
upon a written instrument and provides the manner of denying it. may not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it must assume
It is more controlling that Rule 6, Section 10 which merely provides the consequences of the disadvantage.
the effect of failure to file a Reply. Thus, where the defense in the
Answer is based on an actionable document, a Reply specifically A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge a fact
denying it under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness cannot later challenge the fact as judicial admissions are a waiver
and due execution will be deemed admitted. of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial
admission also removes an admitted fact from the filed of
EFFECTS OF AMENDMENT controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings
Sec. 9. Effect of amended pleadings. – An amended pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and
supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in are conclusive to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or
superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence against the inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is
pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or
incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the
pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or
EFFECT OF ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL PLEADING inconsistent with what was pleaded.
Admissions made in the original pleadings cease to be judicial
admissions (Ching v. CA, 331 SCRA 16). STATEMENT OF THE RULE AND EFFECTS
They are to be considered as extrajudicial admissions (Torres Well-settled is the rule that the judicial admissions are conclusive
v. CA, 131 SCRA 224). on the party making them (Konghun v. UCPB, G.R. NO. 154334)
However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be
received in evidence against the pleader (Sec. 8, Rule 10, Rules Conclusive – you cannot present countervailing proof.
of Court) and in order to be utilized as extrajudicial
admissions, they must be formally offered in evidence (Ching SANTIAGO VS DELOS SANTOS
v. CA, 331 SCRA 16). An admission cannot be controverted by the party making such
admission and are conclusive as to him and that all proofs
(b) Admissions during trial submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith shall
Admissions during trial can be verbal or written. be ignored whether objection is interposed by the party or not.
A verbal judicial admission can take in the form of a
manifestation or testimony in court. A written judicial MUST BE MADE IN THE SAME CASE
admission can be in motions, written manifestations,
REPUBLIC GLASS VS QUA
briefs, memoranda, affidavits and even in a submission in To constitute a judicial admission, it must be made in the same
answer to a request for admission.
case in which it is offered. If made in another case or court, the fact
of such admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact.
(c) Admission in other stages
Although, if made in a judicial proceeding, it is entitled to greater
There can also be admissions in other sages of a case
weight.
such as
o PRE-TRIAL (Admissions and stipulations of fact
EXCEPTIONS
are mandatory subjects of pre-trial)
The admissions may be contradicted only b showing
o THE AVAILMENT OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES
1. That the mistake was made through PALABLE MISTAKE;
before trial or pending appeal (ex. Depositions,
or
request of admission etc.)
2. That NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS IN FACT MADE.
CONSTANTINO v. HEIRS OF CONSTANTINO
PALPABLE MISTAKE
FIRST
EXAM 39
Palpable mistakes are mistakes that are obvious to all

sides. These are mistakes that are glaring that the judge KING v. PEOPLE
or the adverse party can see that there was really no True, a pretrial agreement not signed by a party is inadmissible.
admission made. However, the conviction of petitioner was based not on that
Under the old rules, this is the only exception to the rule agreement but on the documents submitted during the trial, all of
that a judicial admission binds the party making it. which were admitted without any objection from her counsel.
NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE In Fule, prosecutor merely relied on the confession made during
They have not been made at all (Palma Devt Corp v. the pre-trial, and no other evidence was presented. In King v.
Municipality of Malangas Zamboanga del Sur, GR People, the conviction was based not merely on the confession, but
152492) rather on the documents admitted without nay admission.
Admission was taken out of context or not in the sense in
which the admission is made to appear (Atillo v. CA, GR July 22 Part 1 | Rojo
119053)
ATILLO III VS CA RULE 130

If a party invokes an admission of an adverse party but cites the RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
admission out of context, then the one making the admission may
show that he made no show admission or that the admission was
taken out of context. This may be interpreted to mean not in the Section 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are those
sense in which the admission is made to appear that is the reason addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant
for the codifier “such”. to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed
by the court.
SILOT v. DEL ROSA
More importantly, Silot's counsel clearly made admissions of the OBJECT or REAL EVIDENCE
content of the testimony of witness Goingo, whose presentation
was dispensed with. In People v. Hernandez, we held that These are tangible evidence (as a weapon or visible injury)
admissions made for the purpose of dispensing with proof of some directly involved in the underlying events of the case. Matters
facts are in the nature of judicial admissions. of fact which object evidence tend to prove relate to
appearance, existence, condition and other matters related to
An admission made by counsel is binding upon the client. the physical characteristics of an object.
Thus, in the appreciation of object evidence, the court uses the
senses of sight, touch, taste and smell.
FULE v. CA
It is called Real Evidence because it has reference to the RES or
The omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as
thing and it is the thing or object that is addressed to the senses
mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the stipulation of facts
of the court.
inadmissible in evidence. The confirmation by the defense of the
said stipulation of facts by a memorandum does not cure the
When you talk about object evidence, the court is supposed to use
defect because the Rules require both the accused and his counsel
its senses. By its definition, objects as evidence addressed to the
to sign such stipulation of facts.
senses of the court. When they are relevant to the fact in issue, they
may be exhibited to be examined or viewed by the court.
What the prosecution should have done, upon discovering that the
accused did not sign the Stipulation of Facts, as required by Rule
Remember that it is also called as real evidence because it has
118, was to submit evidence to establish the elements of the crime,
reference to the res or the thing, and it is the thing or object
instead of relying solely on the supposed admission of the accused
addressed to the senses of the court.
in the Stipulation of Facts.
When we are talking about forms of evidence, there is such thing as

Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions hierarchy of evidence. Such that in the case of People v. Lavapie,
made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced
in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they PEOPLE v. LAVAPIE
cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the G.R. No. 130209 March 14, 2001
matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by
the court. Since the physical evidence as record runs counter to the
testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, conclusions as
Compare the ruling of Fule . CA and King v. People to physical evidence should prevail. It bears reiteration that
FIRST
EXAM 40
physical evidence is that mute but eloquent manifestations of represents or illustrates what it
truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In (example: In a murder case, the is alleged to be illustrated.
the light of the physical evidence obtaining in the case, contrary murder weapon)
oral assertions cannot normally prevail. Greater credence is To make the testimony of the
given to physical evidence as evidence of the highest order witness more coherent
because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
Autoptic Proference
Like for example, when you are talking about testimonial evidence, A very important term that you need to remember, in a sense that
it can be changed. A person can always at the witness stand. A when we are talking about object evidence, mugawas jud ni siya na
documentary evidence can be forged. But, when you talk about term.
object evidence, an object is still the object and it actually speaks for
itself. This means, in a legal parlance, as a tribunal’s self-perception, or
Take note of the case of People vs. Olarte. autopsy of the thing itself (Balingit v. COMELEC).
PEOPLE v. OLARTE
G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019 This comes from the Latin words:
auto = self
Object evidence is classified into: optic = pertaining to the eyes.
1. Actual, physical or “autoptic” evidence: Those which
have a direct relation or part in the fact or incident That’s why this autoptic preference is related to the term autopsy
sought to be proven and those brought to the court for being conducted.
personal examination by the presiding magistrate; and
Take note of this case,
2. Demonstrative evidence: those which represent the CALDE v. CA
actual or physical object (or event in the case of pictures G.R. No. 93980, June 17 1994
or videos) being offered to support or draw an
inference or to aid in comprehending the verbal In the making of a notarial will, there is a requirement that the
testimony of a witness. witnesses should sign in the presence of one another. In Calde,
two witnesses testified that only one pen was used in signing the
Demonstrative Evidence will. However, the court noted that there were two colors of pen
Or evidence in the form of objects (as maps, diagrams, or used: black and blue.
models) that have in themselves no probative value but is used
to illustrate and clarify the factual matter at issue. Held:
Demonstrative evidence as evidence is not prohibited, A review of the facts and circumstances fails to convince us that
although not specifically mentioned in the Rules of Court. the testamentary documents in question were subscribed and
attested by the instrumental witnesses during a single occasion.
In appreciating demonstrative evidence, the court does not only use
its 5 senses, but it also applies intelligence. Meaning, if the court is The signatures of some attesting witnesses were written in blue
intelligent enough, it will be able to draw conclusions or inferences ink, while the others were in black. This discrepancy was not
from the object presented. explained by petitioner. Nobody of his 6 witnesses testified that
two pens were used by the signatories on the two documents. In
Remember also, that the evidence offered there is not the fact, two of petitioner’s witnesses even testified that only one
demonstrative object, but rather the testimony that is aided by the ballpen was used in signing the two testamentary documents.
demonstrative object.
The Supreme Court further discussed – That a person is of small
Distinctions: height or is of dark complexion; as to such matters, the
REAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE perception by the tribunal that the person is small or large, or
Tangible object that played Tangible evidence that merely that he has a dark or light complexion, is a mode of acquiring
some actual role in the matter illustrates a matter of belief which is independent of inference from either testimonial
that gave rise to the litigation. importance in the litigation. or circumstantial evidence. It is the tribunal’s self-perception, or
autopsy, of the thing itself.
(example: gun, knife, drugs,
marked money) From the point of view of the litigant party furnishing this source
Intends to prove that the Intends to show that the of belief, it may be termed Autoptic Proference.
object is used in the underlying demonstrative object fairly
event.
FIRST
EXAM 41
In the case at bench, the autoptic preference contradicts the 2. That which consists in the INSPECTION of the object outside
testimonial evidence produced by petitioner. The will and its the courtroom – Examples: ocular inspection in a boundary
codicil, upon inspection by the respondent court, show in black dispute or ocular inspection of a crime scene;
and white—or more accurately, in black and blue – that more
than one pen was used by the signatories thereto. Thus, it was The usual example that I always give would be the criminal
not erroneous not baseless for respondent court to disbelieve case that I have handled previously. It is a criminal case for
petitioner’s claim that both testamentary documents in question theft. My client is the accused. My client is actually
were subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of Art. 805 harvesting mangoes from a farmland. The contention of
of the Civil Code. the private complainant was that the mangoes harvested
by my client kay kawat from the land of the complainant.
Discussion: My client’s defense was that, he harvested the mangoes
In making a notarial will, we all know that the witnesses should sign from their own land.
in the presence of the testator and of one another. In this case of
Calde, the witnesses testified that there is only 1 pen used in signing We now went to an ocular inspection; the judge went
of the will. However, the court noted here that there were actually 2 there. There was also an interpreter, you enter your
pens used in the signing of the will, black and blue. appearance just like in any other case in the land which
was subject of the dispute.
What did the Supreme Court say here?
According to the Supreme Court, murag dili tinuod that the Then, we found out by means of ocular inspection, that the
witnesses signed in the presence of the testator and of one another. trees were actually planted on the land of my client, pero
Also, it may lead into an inference that the witnesses did not sign naay isa ka sanga na ni intrude into the property of the
the will in one single occasion. There were signatures in blue, and private complainant. So, it was not true that the mangoes
also in black – which means that it is not true katong g’ingon sa harvested were from the private complainant’s land.
witnesses na isa lang daw ka pen ilang g’gamit in signing the will
and codicil of the testator. With that, we were able to tell the court, na kung naa may
na belong kay private complainant, was katong isa lang ka
The Court went further said, that a person is of small height or is of sanga na naa sa boundary line of my client and the private
dark complexion; as to such matters, the perception by the tribunal complainant.
that the person is small or large, or that he has a dark or light
complexion, is a mode of acquiring belief which is independent of Take note that an ocular inspection conducted by the
inference from either testimonial or circumstantial evidence. It is the judge or court without the presence of the parties or
tribunal’s self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself. From the without due notice is not valid, as an ocular inspection is
point of view of the litigant party furnishing this source of belief, it part of the trial.
may be termed Autoptic Proference.
At that time, we really entered our appearance in the
The case at bench, according to the Supreme Court clearly shown disputed property. It was as if the court was moved outside
black and white, or more accurately in black and blue. So, it was from the courtroom, when we talk about inspection.
clearly shown by autoptic proference that mali ang testimony sa
mga witnesses, that it is not true that they signed it in one occasion, 3. That which consists in EXPERIMENTATION
in the presence of the testator and of one another, and contrary to
the provisions of the Civil Code in wills and succession. Experimentation, in evidence, refers to autoptic
proference that requires manipulation of physical objects
CLASSIFICATION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE BY MORAN within or without the courtroom to determine a fact in
issue in the case.
1. That which consists in the EXHIBITION or PRODUCTION of
the object inside the courtroom – Example: objects of the crime, EXPERIMENTATION INSIDE THE COURTROOM
means to perpetrate the crime, murder weapon;
Example 1
This means that you are physically bringing object The accused, Tyrion (a dwarf), is charged with murdering
evidence inside the courtroom for the court’s observation Matteo by repeatedly bashing his head with a
and perusal. Like, object of the crime, mga nakawat na na sledgehammer. The defense can ask the accused to
recover. So, these are brought to the court and identified brandish the sledgehammer and demonstrate before the
by a witness. court the physical impossibility of him using it as a murder
weapon. The defense may also invite the court and the
prosecution to similarly manipulate the murder weapon.
FIRST
EXAM 42
case] and is therefore an ineffectual means of committing

An experimentation can be the defense, asking the the crime, the gun can be test-fired outside the courtroom.
accused to brandish the sledgehammer and illustrate
before the court the impossibility of a dwarf, for example REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
to hit Matteo, a normal size individual. Kaya ba na sa isa ka It must:
dwarf na mabuhat na. The defense can actually also invite 1) BE RELEVANT TO THE FACT IN ISSUE;
the court and the prosecution to similarly manipulate the It must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to its existence
murder weapon. or non-existence.
Also, in the case of People v. Yatar, pwede ang blood Object evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
sampling conducted in open court in the presence of as to induce belief in its existence or non- existence.
counsel.
Example 2
Here’s another experimentation inside the courtroom, the PEOPLE v. RULLEPA
case of O.J. Simpson, a case of double murder happened G.R. No. 131516 March 5, 2003
in the United States.
A persons appearance, where relevant, is admissible as
He is a popular and rich African-American athlete, played object evidence, the same being addressed to the
for the national league for football in the US. It just so senses of the court.
happened that he and his wife separated. The wife went
on with her life, had a boyfriend, Ron Goldman. Then, later According to Wigmore: Object evidence, like any other
on the crime happened, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown evidence, must pass the test of admissibility and relevancy.
were killed.
Example. There is an exclusionary rule that
Recovered from the scene of the crime was a pair of a would not have it admitted, the court will also
bloody gloves, which the prosecution contended not admit it.
belonged to OJ Simpson. In order to impress in the mind
of the jury, that OJ Simpson is the perpetrator, the Thus, if an object is excluded by the law or the rules, the
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Darden tried to pull object is inadmissible.
off a gambit. The prosecution wanted to leave an image sa
jury that it was actually Simpson committed the crime, if Autoptic preference must also be relevant and it is relevant
makita sa jury na nag suot siya ug pair of the gloves. only if it makes a fact of consequence more or less
Unfortunately for the prosecution, the gloves didn’t fit. In probable than in the absence of such autoptic preference.
other words, dili siguro siya ang owner of the bloody
Note:
gloves, and that was enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
Object evidence in itself does not establish the factum
probandum. There is no factum probandum provable solely by
July 22 Part 2 | Acevedo
object evidence.
If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit
This means that, there is a need for testimonial sponsorship. In
Because the gloves did not fit here, the jury actually
the case of People v. Olarte, the Supreme Court said that with
acquitted O.J. Simpson. He actually got away with murder
respect to object evidence, it has to be authenticated in the
if he really committed the murder of Nicole Brown
sense that there has to have testimonial sponsorship. Someone
Simpson and Ron Goldman.
should identify, authenticate the object in the courtroom.
EXPERIMENTATION OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM
Ex: 2) BE AUTHENTICATED;
1) A crime scene reenactment.
Meaning of Authentication
2) In a crime of murder, where the accused contends that the
Authentication simply means that the genuineness of the
alleged murder weapon retrieved from his person is
object must be proven.
defective [meaning, it is gun pero di siya nagabuto, it could
not be the murder used to kill the victim in the murder
FIRST
EXAM 43
It requires that the admission of an object be preceded by came into possession of the object and what he did
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the object in with the object.
question is what the proponent claims it to be.
When the object passed into the possession of a
Purposes of Authentication stranger, then there is doubt as to the integrity, if not
(1) To prevent the introduction of an object from the one identity of the object. This is because, there could be
testified about; and substitution for example.
(2) To ensure that there has been no significant changes in
the object’s condition. (c) Proof Integrity
By proving the Proper Preservation of the object was
Example. kept in a secure place as to make contamination or
When we talk about dangerous drugs where the alteration difficult, and it has not been brought out
quantity of the illegal drugs actually is important until its presentation in court. With respect to certain
to determine the penalty against the accused, object evidence, there are still required means of
then there should be no dag-dag-bawas. When authentication.
it comes to the dangerous drugs taken by virtue
of a buy-bust operation. Ex: Pictures or Photographs [discussed below]
Process of Authentication Authentication—Specific Objects

(a) Proof of Identity. As to pictures and photographs, maps, diagrams, the
Through the testimony of a witness as to objects authenticity refers to proving the accuracy of the things,
which are readily identifiable by sight provided there persons, things or places depicted in the photographs
is a bases for the identification by the witness which which may through the testimony of:
may either be: (1) The photographer; or
(2) Any one who is familiar with the persons, things,
(1) The markings placed by the witness upon the places, shown therein.
object, such as his initials, his pictures in the
digital camera; or Comment:
Before, when we were talking about photographs, like I
Ex: You will see like when you go have court visitation, was starting out in practice, of course there are really cases
you will see taped guns. There is masking tape all where you need to take a photograph of something and
around the gun, trigger and there is an initial of the present that in court. You cannot bring for example, the
police officer who takes it into custody, that is proving object inside the court room like illegal structures that
identity. were erected by illegal occupants over the property of
your client. You cannot bring those structures inside the
(2) By the peculiar characteristics of the object i.e. by court room. Rather, you can photograph them and the
certain physical features which sets it apart from photograph would now be the representation of the
others of the same kind or class by which it is object evidence that cannot be brought inside the
readily identified. courtroom. In that situation, the one who authenticates
Ex: the photographs would be the photographer. But in the
(1) A hole caused by burning in a sweater, case of Sison v People, the Supreme Court here expanded
(2) the broken hilt of a knife. the types of persons who can actually authenticate already
(3) Bolo that was used to hack or kill the victim photographs.
has a defect on its handle.
SISON v. PEOPLE
(b) Proof of Integrity GR No. 108280-23, Nov. 16, 1995
By proving that there was no break in the chain of
custody in the event the object passed into the Facts:
possession of different person. In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution offered as evidence
photographs showing the accused mauling the victim with
This means proving the chronological sequence several of the latter’s companions.
through which the object was handled only by
persons who, by reason of their function or office, can The person who took the photograph was not presented as a
reasonably be expected to have the right or duty to witness. Instead, the prosecution presented the companions of
possess or handle the object. This is done by calling
each of these persons to explain how and why he
FIRST
EXAM 44
the victim who testified that they were the ones in the The daughter was not presented as a witness, only the
photographs. complainant who testified that he was not familiar with the
process of making the recording.
The defense objected to the admissibility of the photographs
because the person who took the photographs was not Issue:
presented as witness. In other words, they objected on the Was the tape recording properly admitted considering that the
admissibility of the evidence on the ground that it was not adopted daughter was not presented by the complainant who
authenticated by the actual photographer. was the one who made the recording?
Issue: Ruling:
Is the contention of the defense, that it is only the photographer No. The person who actually recorded should have been
who can cause the authentication of the photograph when presented by the prosecution in order to lay the proper
presented in court, tenable? foundation for the admission of the purported tape recording.
Ruling: In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before

No, it is not needed. Generally, it should be identified by the a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative
photographer as to its production and testified under the value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit:
circumstances in which they were produce. (1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking
testimony;
Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent;
the photographer as to its production and testified as to the (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the
circumstances under which they were produced. recording;
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not
The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct been made;
representation or reproduction of the original, and its (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene recording;
at the time of the crime. (6) identification of the speakers [the Supreme Court considers
this as the most important]; and
The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made
identify the pictures he has taken. without any kind of inducement.
The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of The person who actually recorded should have been presented
the object portrayed can be proved prima facie [meaning, by the prosecution in order to lay the proper foundation for the
disputably proved], either by the testimony of the person who admission of the purported tape recording.
made it or by other competent witnesses who can testify to its
exactness and accuracy, after which the court can admit it subject Without the requisite authentication, there was no basis for the
to impeachment as to its accuracy. trail court to admit the tape recording in evidence.
Here, the photographs are admissible as evidence inasmuch as Comment: We need to remember that during this time, cellphones
the correctness thereof was testified to by the companions of the are not yet available or if there is a cellphone, only those analog
victim. cellphones. Now, everybody has a smart phone. You can take a
recording using your cellular phones instead of brining a tape
Comment: The photographs here were properly authenticated and recorder with you. Before, it was still separate. You have to buy a
therefore it was correct for the court to admit them in evidence. device, an MP3 Player and recorder [for us before]. For example, if
you have an Ipad shuffle before, you are already famous, you can
AS TO TAPE RECORDINGS record, you can play music. But during our time when were still in
TORRALBA v. PEOPLE law school, it was still Walkman [which plays a cassette tape]. Later,
G.R. No. 153699, Aug. 22, 2005 if you can afford, you buy deskman [a portable device that can play
CDs].
Facts:
The accused was convicted of libel. Presented in evidence was a July 22 Part 3 | Amistad
tape recording of the radio broadcast made by the adopted
daughter of the complainant. PEOPLE v. OLARTE
GR No. 233209 | March 11, 2019
FIRST
EXAM 45
Actual evidence is subdivided into three categories: Purposes of establishing a chain of custody
1. Unique objects or those that have readily identifiable 1. To guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence;
marks; and
2. Object made unique or those that are made readily 2. To prevent the introduction of evidence which is not
identifiable; and authentic.
3. Non-unique objects or those with no identifying marks.
3) NOT BE HEARSAY;
Non-unique objects such as narcotic substances, industrial
chemicals, and body fluids cannot be distinguished and are not The one who should testify about the object evidence is
readily identifiable; that is why they present an inherent problem somebody who has a personal knowledge of the object itself .
of fungibility or substitutability and contamination which
adversely affects their relevance or probative value. This is the 4) NOT BE PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE EXCLUDED; and
reason why non-unique objects have to be made unique by law
enforcers upon retrieval or confiscation in order for these articles Otherwise excluded—The Axiom of Competency. If it is not
to be authenticated by a sponsoring witness so that trial and excluded by the law or the rules, it can be admitted into
reviewing courts can determine their relevance or probative evidence.
value.
Examples:
Again take note, to avoid substitution or contamination, these non- Wiretapped recording proposed to be played in court,
unique objects should be made unique by the law enforcers (i.e. exhibition of a private video which might offend a person’s
there should be proper handling and marking in order for these right to privacy, fruit of the poisonous tree.
objects to be authenticated later on)
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

(For purposes of authentication)
PEOPLE v. YATAR
Unique objects – GR no 150224 | May 19, 2004
a. Already exhibit identifiable visual or physical peculiarities
such as particular paint job or an accidental scratch, dent, cut, Would the use of blood samples taken from the Accused violate
chip, disfigurement or stain (objects made unique). his right to remain silent and his right against self-incrimination?
b. Have a readily distinguishable mark such as a unit-specific
serial number in case of an industrially manufactured item HELD:
NO. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but
(unique objects per se).
against testimonial compulsion. (Meaning, it does not apply to
purely physical and mechanical acts.) The right against self-
When you compare objects made unique with unique objects
incrimination is simply, against the legal process of extracting
per se, the former became unique because of certain
from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not
peculiarities. apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an
incrimination but as part of object evidence.
Non-unique objects –
Those which have no identifying marks and cannot be marked Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting,
(e.g. footprints left at a crime scene) photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no
testimonial compulsion involved.
Chain of Custody
This case is very important since this is the case where the Supreme
It is necessary to establish chain of custody when the object Court held that compulsory DNA testing is allowed and in Herera vs.
evidence is non-unique as it is not readily identifiable, was not Alba, the SC also paved the way for compulsory DNA testing in civil
made identifiable or cannot be made identifiable, e.g. drops of cases.
blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber, grains of sand and
similar objects. Handwriting?
Q: Can a person be compelled to produce a sample of his
The onus is upon the officer who retrieved or confiscated this handwriting as basis for determining his criminal liability as the
author of a certain document?
non-unique object.
FIRST
EXAM 46
July 22 Part 4 | Bahalla

A: NO. Writing is not a mere mechanical act but involves the
application of the intellect. However, if the accused testifies in his PEOPLE v. BRECINIO
own behalf and denies authorship, he may be compelled to give a GR no 138534 | March 17, 2004
sample of his handwriting.
Held: Matteo is not correct.
PEOPLE v. WILLIAM
A negative paraffin result is not conclusive proof that a person
G.R. No. 93742 | June 15, 1992
has not fired a gun. It is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative
for nitrates as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his
Would object evidence be inadmissible on the ground that it is
hands afterwards. Here, since Matteo submitted himself for
“beyond the commerce of man”?
paraffin test only two days after the shooting, it was likely he had
already washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing all traces of
Brief background:
nitrates therefrom.
His client’s marijuana was confiscated. He says, “inadmissible
your honor because it is beyond the commerce of man”
Paraffin Test: When you discharge a gun, it will leave nitrates on
your hands because of the gun powder that is used.
HELD:
NO. The probative value of an object evidence is not affected by
5) MEET ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT SET BY LAW.
the fact that it is beyond the commerce of man. Appellants raise
the strange argument that Exhibit “C” has no probative value
Section 21, RA 9165 or the Special Chain of Custody
because the subject thereof – marijuana – is beyond the requirement in Drug Cases.
commerce of man. This is simple absurd.
Remember, we also included Chain of Custody in our earlier
The transfer of marijuana was incidental to the arrest of discussion. But when you talk about RA 9165, remember that
appellants and the confiscation of the subject matter of the crime. the chain of Custody requirement is unique to drugs cases only.
Exhibit “C” is in the same category as a death certificate and The procedures that are described here are uniquely applicable
autopsy report which are admissible evidence of the subject of only when you talk about confiscated drugs.
the crime – the human cadaver which is also beyond the
commerce of man. Transfer of goods as a consequence or by These witnesses would then describe the precaution taken to
virtue of police or state action such as forfeiture, seizure, ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the
condemnation, confiscation did not fall within the phrase item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
“commerce of man” even in its broadest meaning. possession of the same. (Lopez vs. People)
PEOPLE v. BRECINIO Now, let’s look at that Chain of Custody Requirement.

G.R. No. 138534 | March 1, 2004
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
Matteo was charged with murder for shooting Gerald. After trial, Seized,and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Matteo was found guilty as charged. On appeal, Matteo argued Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
that the trial court should have acquitted him as his guilt was not Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the paraffin Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have
test conducted on him 2 days after he was arrested yielded a custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
negative result. Hence, he could not have shot Gerald. Is Matteo drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
correct? instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
HELD: in the following manner:
NO. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not
ipso facto prove that Matteo is innocent. A negative paraffin 1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
result is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. It the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation
is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
the culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his hands afterwards. of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
Hence, since Matteo submitted himself for paraffin testing only confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
two days after the shooting it was likely he had already washed a representative from the media and the Department of Justice,
his hands thoroughly, thus removing all trace of nitrates and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
therefrom. copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
FIRST
EXAM 47
Remember, this requirement is for drugs cases only. For guns, for chain starting from the turnover by the accused to the investigator
example, there is no requirement that there should be a and from the latter to the forensic chemist. Acquitted ang accused
representative from media, and the Department of Justice, and because there was no explanation why they deviated from the usual
elected public official. chain of custody requirements.
And Section 21 was supposed to answer the call for more RA 9165 was amended by RA 10640. It simply legislates the saving
accountability on the part of the PDEA or police officers conducting clause stated by the Supreme Court.
buy-bust operations kay kuno, ingon nila, planted daw. Daghan
kaayo mga defense na planted lang ang drugs. Everybody will say “(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
that it is planted. Parehag defense tanan halos. control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
Q: What would be the effect now if this Chain of Custody in laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
Section 21 is not followed strictly? What’s the effect of lapses of confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
Chain of Custody? items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were
In People vs. Eugenio, its non-compliance will not render the arrest confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a representative
illegal or the item seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. So,
of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall
it does not affect admissibility of the seized drugs. What is of utmost
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and
value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
determination of guilt or innocence of the accused. search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or
at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
In People vs. Macatingag, the Supreme Court said here that if there whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
is non-compliance of Section 21, the problem is not admissibility but Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these
merely weight- the evidentiary merit or probative value- to be given requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case. properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over
So, the court has always been consistent here. Minor lapses basta said items.
ma-explain lang sya ngano nay ingana nga lapse, it does not affect
the admissibility of the evidence. Now, here’s an interesting case also- the case of People vs. Villarta.
So, what happened here? After a buy-bust operation, the arresting
So, in People vs. Almorfe, a different ruling was reached by the officer seized the illegal drugs from the accused at the locus crminis
Supreme Court. So here, after a buy-bust operation, the drugs in the or the scene of the crime and did not mark them immediately but
possession of the accused were seized. However, the drugs were not marked the same only after he got to the police station. He testified
physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the that he forgot to bring a marking pen at the place of arrest and
accused. The accused were later on convicted. The issue is whether seizure. Should he be acquitted?
the drugs are admissible. The Supreme Court said, anent the non-
compliance with the inventory and photographic requirement, the According to the Supreme Court, the accused should be acquitted.
same does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the Di lang ni siya basta gap in the chain of custody. It is a gap in the
dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to very first link of the chain. Marking after seizure is the starting point
warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and in the custodial link.
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. So,
according to the Supreme Court, for the saving clause to apply, it is Marking is important because:
important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind 1. Succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as
the procedural lapses and that the integrity and value of the seized reference.
evidence had been preserved. So, there must be explanation if 2. Marking serves to separate the marked evidence from the
there’s a deviation from the usual chain of custody procedure, dapat corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time
iexplain kaning mga lapses. And the Supreme Court took judicial they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at
notice of the fact that while a prefect chain of custody is impossible the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching,
to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential ‘planting,’ or contamination of evidence.
in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to
alteration, tampering, contamination, and even substitution and Q: Is it a procedural matter or a substantive matter (considering
exchange. Hence, every link of the chain must be accounted for. that the chain of custody requirements are provided by statute or
Here, since the prosecution failed to account for every link on the substantive law, RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640)?
FIRST
EXAM 48
A: According to the Supreme Court, while substantive law is that Q: What are the relevant objects in a buy bust operation?
which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment A: Drugs and marked money.
for committing them, as distinguished from the procedural law
which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a Q: When it comes to authentication, what is the main
crime is to be punished. Based on the above, it may be gleaned that distinguishing characteristic between marked money and the
the chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and a rule of dangerous drugs themselves?
Procedure. It is, therefore, the Court who has the last say regarding A: Drugs are amorphous, the marked money are objects made
the appreciation of evidence. (People vs. Teng) unique
When can presentation of objects be dispensed with and Q: Will the chain of custody requirements also apply to marked
replaced by mere testimony or documents? money?
IF: Sir: Only to the drugs and the drug paraphernalia because the
1. Its exhibition is contrary to public morals or decency amount of money that is simulatedly exchanged in a buy bust
operation is not relevant in determining the penalty of the accused.
2. To require being viewed in court or in ocular inspection
would result in delays, inconvenience, or unnecessary
expenses which is not in proportion to the evidentiary How is money marked?
value of such object. 1. By actually placing markings on the money; or
2. Recording their serial numbers
3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading as
when the purpose is to prove the former condition of the Q: In evidentiary terms, how is an object per se considered
object and there is no preliminary showing that there has evidence?
been no substantial change in the said condition; which is
applicable to ocular inspections; or A: An object is evidence if:
The object itself is relevant to the fact in issue;
4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already It is addressed to the senses of the court; and
presented clearly portrays the object in question as to Its presentation is made by exhibition of the object to and by
render the view thereof unnecessary. examination or viewing of the object, by the court.
5. Where the existence of the object is not very the fact in Just a review, because we’ll be discussing about documentary
issue but is merely a collateral fact or is merely used as evidence. Take note that prior to the amendment, the documentary
reference. evidence provision used to be quite simple. Now, there is a new
phraseology that is used under the amended rules.
6. Where the article cannot be recovered or outside the
coercive jurisdiction of the court. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Before amendment
7. In crimes the gist of which is the illegal possession of
article, a distinction must be made. If the article is common Section 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents as evidence
or familiar such that it can be readily identified by sight, its consist of writing or any material containing letters, words,
presentation is not necessary. Its presentation is not numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression
necessary as existence may be shown by the testimony of offered as proof of their contents.
the witnesses.
Q: For example, you have a check, is there any situation when a
blank check can be presented into evidence?
July 30 Part 1 | Campaner
A: It can be subject of theft.
Q: How can a human be considered object evidence?
Q: But in that situation, will you consider it as an object or a
A: Presenting the Cadaver before the court.
document?
A: As an object because you are not concerned about the writings
Q: Can a living human be considered object evidence?
on the check, but the check itself. In this instance, we are talking
A: Yes, where the individual can show his wounds before the court
about the check as an object and not as a mode of written
in a case for physical injuries.
expression offered as proof of its contents.
Sir: Pwede ang human body because it can be subject of autoptic
Q: What about a check that is filled up?
proferrence.
FIRST
EXAM 49
A: If you compare this with a blank check, the previous one is an DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
object, while this check is a document. After amendment
When you talk about documentary evidence, at least in the simplistic Section 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents as evidence
way that it was defined prior to the amendments in the Rules, ang consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material
mga importante nga concepts diri kay: containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or
their equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as
1. It is a mode of written expression proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures,
Meaning, it involves a deliberate intent to convey information. drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
2. It should be offered as proof of their contents The current definition of documentary evidence, by including
Because if the paper, for example the check, is offered not as photographs (which encompass still pictures, drawings, stored
proof of its contents but rather as proof that it simply exists, images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos) recordings and even
then dili sya documentary evidence, but should be properly sounds, has blurred the distinctions between objects and
appreciated as object evidence. documents as evidence.
Object Evidence Documentary Evidence WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, PHOTOGRAPHS

Addressed to the senses of the Addressed to the intelligence Note that under the current definition, in addition to writings,
court. of the court. recordings and photographs can now be considered as documents.
Offered as proof of its physical Offered as proof of its
characteristics. contents. Recording
Puti ba ang papel, If a debtor, for example, admits in a recording that he is
gisi-gisi na ba sya indebted to the creditor, the creditor may then use the
Exhibited to, examined or Read and construed by the material containing such admission as evidence to prove
viewed by, the court. court. his cause of action against the debtor. So, the recording
An object is not necessarily A document is not necessarily serves an evidentiary purpose.
non-papyric. A “document” can paper. An “object” can be
be treated as an object. treated as a document. But, in the context of Section 2, is this a “mode of
written expression”?
Example. Because at the simplest form, documentary evidence is
A ceramic tile is an object. However, if you look closely, simply a mode of written expression, offered as proof of
there are writings in this tile, “hey x, you sh*thead, for the its contents. So when you record something, Is it written?
crappy services you rendered, I promise to pay 500 pesos” That’s the question that I pose to all of you. Just think
and signed by the person who wrote it. Now, it becomes a about it for now.
source of rights and obligations.
Q: In the case of Torralba vs. People, do you recall if the tape
recording was offered as documentary evidence?
It doesn’t necessarily mean that if something is in paper, it
A: It was offered as an object evidence.
is necessarily documentary evidence or if something is
non-papyric, it is necessarily object evidence.
Q: To what sense of court was it presented?
A: Sense of hearing. Gipapaminaw sa Korte ang tape recording.
Q: Why is it important to distinguish documents from objects?
A: It is important because different rules apply.
If you recall the case of Torralba vs. People, very clearly it was offered
as an object evidence although the Supreme Court did not make a
Examples of such rules are:
categorical announcement as to the type of evidence that was
BEST EVIDENCE RULE which applies to documents only
presented.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIREMENT, which apply to
objects
Q: Would you agree with me that the tape recording was not a
MANNER OF AUTHENTICATION, which are different for
written expression?
objects and documents. For documents, we apply Rule
A: Not by its nature. This was an oral expression which was recorded
132. For objects, we apply jurisprudence.
by means of a recording device.
Now let’s go to this very weird rule. Weird because somehow, it Photographs
expands the definition of what consists documentary evidence. Now, let’s go to photographs. Originally, when we talked
about object evidence, that there is a manner of
FIRST
EXAM 50
authentication of photographs. We mentioned that the

manner of authenticating photographs, in the context of If you’re going to prosecute, you’re going to need both songs so
object evidence, na dili lang ang photographer ang pwede that the court can determine whether or not the song was really
mag-authenticate sa photograph. It can also be someone plagiarized.
who is familiar with the scene or situation depicted in the
photograph. So, if he has personal knowledge or he is a Q: How would you treat the copies of both songs? Both are
participant in that photograph, he can authenticate the coherent sounds, masabtan nato ilang ginaingon. Would that
photograph. be object evidence or documentary evidence?
A: Object evidence because what you’re asking the court to do is to
But right now, PHOTOGRAPHS include listen and compare kung naa ba gyuy similarity.
Still pictures
Drawings Q: Is there plagiarism here?
Stored images A: Yes, they are the same. They have the same musical sequence and
X-ray films arrangement.
Motion pictures or videos
Q: What if it is a plagiarism of lyrics of the songs?
Q: What do you understand of “still pictures”? A: It can be offered as documentary evidence. Now, we are talking
A: An ordinary photograph, non-moving pictures here not of musical expression but of written expression. We are not
talking about the melody anymore, but of the lyrics.
Q: How about a drawing of a person’s face, is that documentary
or object? July 30 Part 2 | Du
A: By nature, it is object evidence, because we are talking about the
physical characteristics of the drawing. And yet, photographs, by My last question to you is this, sounds man siya, right? Organized
themselves, are also subsumed under documentary evidence. sound actually, you can hear what it is.
Q: How about stored images? Q: Ang music ba, per se, without looking at the lyrics, it is non-
A: However stored, an image can still be considered a document. For lyrical, ang melody or tema lang imong paminawon, can that be
example, screenshots of a word or pdf file. considered as document? Is it document by nature?
Definitely not. Ginapalibog ta ug ayo aning bagong Section 2. To my
Q: Are X-Ray films a mode of written expression? mind, there really is a confusion that might go on because of all of
It is a photographical representation. So, it’s properly under the term these things.
photograph. But, as a mode of written expression, I don’t think so.
Comments on the amendment:
MOTION PICTURES OR VIDEOS I want you to pay particular attention to this. Take note that the
Recall the example that I gave you last meeting about the source of writings, recordings and photographs being considered as
prosecution for concubinage where the husband recorded a documentary evidence in the Philippine context is Rule 1001 of
VHS tape of him having carnal knowledge of another woman Article X of the Federal Rules of Evidence, where it defines what
on the marital bed. writings, recordings and photographs are:
Remember that I offered the tape as object evidence addressed
to the senses of the court. Rule 1001. Definitions That Apply to This Article
How can motion picture or video be considered as a document? (a) A “writing” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent
Is it a mode of written expression? set down in any form.
(b) A “recording” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their
Example. equivalent recorded in any manner.
Let’s go to a footage of a CCTV camera. You can see that in the (c) A “photograph” means a photographic image or its equivalent
video, there’s a time and date. So, the time stamp and the date stored in any form.
under the time stamp, what is that? That can be considered as xxx xxx xxx
a document because it is a mode of written expression tending
to prove that an event happened at a particular time and date. Now, let me just comment:
The Federal Rules, from where we patterned our amendments, does
*Sir plays the Pinoy Ako and Chandeliers song not actually have provisions which define either documentary
evidence or object evidence. If you look at the entirety of the Federal
What if the band who composed the Chandeliers song noticed that Rules of Evidence, wala kay makita ngadto na object evidence or
Orange and Lemons was trying to copy their song and try to enforce documentary evidence and their definitions.
their intellectual property rights over the song?
FIRST
EXAM 51
Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules, under the heading “Article X. recordings, and photographs, including virtually all methods of data
Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs,” does not storage.
categorize writings, recordings, and photographs as “documents.”
Take note of that. Take note as well that the old incarnations of the Rule prior to
simplification and the current versions of the Federal Rules do not
What is the purpose of Rule 1001? define objects and documents as evidence. But our rules do…
Rule 1001 lumps writings, recordings and photographs together,
under one Article, for one purpose only: [Here is where the problem lies. We blindly copy what is stated in
That is, the application of the succeeding rules on requiring the the Federal Rules and trying to keep in step and yet the committee
presentation of originals, the admissibility of duplicates and so which drafted the Rules of Court did not take into consideration the
on and so forth. fact na walay definition ang documentary evidence under the
Federal Rules. So what did we do? We lumped writings, recordings
So, there is a very particular reason why they lumped these together. and photographs under the definition of documentary evidence,
What Philippine law does in the current incarnation of the Rules of which to my mind, is counterproductive. We are confusing laymen.
Court is to lump them together or to subsume them under the It confuses us because we blindly follow and blindly adapt.]
definition of documentary evidence, which the Federal Rules do not EFFECT
do. To the layman at least, our amended Rules create a lot of
confusion.
In other words, under Article X of the Federal Rules on the “Contents How can a motion picture or video be considered a document?
of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs”, it does not matter How can a material containing sound for that matter be
whether such writings, recordings and photographs are considered considered a document which should, simplistically speaking,
as objects or documents. If they are writings, recordings and just be a “mode of written expression”?
photographs, it does not matter whether you present them as object
or documents, the succeeding rules (on presentation of originals SOLUTION
and admissibility of duplicates) would apply. We should not look at the nature of evidence as either
document or object. Let us deconstruct our understanding of
What it does provide is, if the proponent is presenting a writing, what documents and objects are.
recording or photograph, he must follow the rules on originality (or For the purpose of Sections 3 to 9, if the evidence consists in
our very own counterpart of the Original Document Rule). writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing
letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their
Take note as well that under previous incarnations of the Federal equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as
Rules (sometime in the late 1990s), this provision can be seen: proof of their contents, we should not care if the evidence is
not a document by nature.
(1) Writings and recordings. “Writing” and “recordings” consist of
letters, words, or number, or their equivalent, set down by Again, ang importante lang gyud na requirement is that it is offered
handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, as proof of its contents. That’s all we need to remember. Because
magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form otherwise, if we try to reconcile the nature of the objects or the
of data compilation. documents, and try to make it as a trigger for the application of
(2) Photographs. “Photographs” include still photographs, X-ray certain rules, then magkaproblema ta. We cannot reconcile it.
films, video tapes, and motion pictures.
If the pieces of evidence are enumerated in Section 2 and are offered
The context in which we understand writings and recordings would “as proof of their contents,” we blindly apply Sections 3 to 9
be that they are compilations of data for purposes of intelligent accordingly.
analysis or to construe them.
A very important limitation
If evidence is offered as proof of its appearance, existence, condition
Under the old incarnation of the Federal Rules, writings, recordings
and other physical characteristics, regardless of whether it is in
and photographs – they are not classified as documents, nor are
writing, a recording or a photograph, do not apply Sections 3 to 9.
they classified as objects. What really matters simple is that if it is a
In that situation, clearly the intention is to offer that evidence not as
writing, recording or photograph, this evidence will follow the rule
document but as object.
on originality. Mao lang na ang requirement.
We do not look at it according to the nature but we look at it

The Federal Rules have since been simplified precisely because,
according to how or why it is being offered as evidence.
according to the American Bar Association, the breath of the
definitions contained in Rule 1001 seemingly expanded the
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
coverage of the Rule beyond simple documents to all writings,
FIRST
EXAM 52
After amendment: If it is not the subject of inquiry, it means that it is not relevant or
SECTION 2. Documentary Evidence. — Documents as evidence material and would therefore (under Section 3 and 4) be
consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material inadmissible (axiom of relevancy).
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or
their equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as If it is not the subject of inquiry, why present it in the first place. Wala
proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, man siyay kalambigitan sa issue.
drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
videos. (2a) Section 4 provides a new definition for the term “original” as
applied to documentary evidence.
What is the underlying theme of these matters enumerated? As amended, an “original” of a document is now:
They are offered as proof of their contents. Never mind that phrase 1. The document itself; or
“modes of written expression” because clearly some of them are not 2. Any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
modes of written expression. But they are, by themselves, modes of executing or issuing it.
expression, not necessarily written.
The attribute of originality may be bestowed upon a document by
Purpose of Section 2: intention of its makers. That is the new addition to the Rules now.
Regardless of the nature or physical attributes of evidence termed Again, this is taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence.
documentary under Section 2, the underlying purpose of the Example.
provision is the most important consideration. The description of A person may separately write a couple of provisional
what constitutes documentary evidence serves as a trigger to the receipts with identical contents without using a carbon
application of the Original Document Rule and its related provisions paper. The receipts, of course, cannot be expected to be
(Sections 3 to 9 of Rule 130). Thus, the original of a writing, recording perfectly identical in form as there would be differences in
or photograph must, as a general rule, be presented in court. writing. If the maker intends both receipts to be originals,
then they are so.
SECTION 4. Original of Document. —
(a) An "original" of a document is the document itself or any July 30 Part 3 | Escritor
counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the SECTION 4. Original of Document. —
negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original
similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original." original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to
admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. (4a)
(b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means What’s the significance of this?
of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by Again, the duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical as a general rule. Pareha sya sa duplicate despite the fact that the
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately duplicate is merely a copy. It’s not an original. It is secondary
reproduce the original. evidence.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original However, it can be admitted to the same extent as the original, if
unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the there is no objection; either based on the lack of genuineness or
original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to unfairness of the situation under the circumstances presenting into
admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. (4a) evidence mere duplicates. So, if there is no objection, there is no
need to apply the general rule requiring that the contents of a
DEFINITION OF ORIGINAL document or the subject of an inquiry, the original must be
Prior to amendment, the original of the document was defined presented.
simply as “one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.”
How do we now construe this?
While the previous definition no longer appears, it is submitted that It is a “filtering mechanism” before you apply the Best Evidence Rule
the principle has not been totally abandoned. The document itself (Original Document Rule) in Section 3. Diba, remember, under the
or the counterpart intended to have the same effect must still be the Original Document Rule, when the subject of the inquiry or the
subject of inquiry. contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself; provided, a duplicate is not admissible.
Why is it not admissible? Because there is an objection.
FIRST
EXAM 53
Before you apply Section 3, the Original Document Rule, you apply Take note that the Original Document Rule would be applicable only
first 4(c). So, it is only after there is an objection or if it falls under where the subject of the inquiry would be the contents of the
4(b) exceptions to foresee that you apply the Original Document document. If the subject of the inquiry is not the contents of the
Rule. That’s the way you should understand the relationship document, you have no business in applying Section 3. The rule
between the Original Document Rule and Section 4 (c). It’s an added applies only when the purpose is to establish the terms of the
“trigger” or “filtering mechanism” before you apply Section 3 which writing. When evidence introduced concerns some external fact
is the Original Document Rule. about a writing, like its existence, execution, or delivery, without
reference to its terms, the rule therefore cannot be invoked because
Best evidence rule to Original Document Rule in that situation, you’re actually not presenting documentary
Remember that prior to the amendments, ang tawag nato ana kay evidence. What you are presenting, you are presenting object
Best Evidence Rule but now there’s a change in the title. From “Best evidence.
Evidence Rule” to “Original Document Rule”. If you read my book,
prior to reading the updated chapter, I commented that the Best In the case of Marquez v. Espejo, the Best Evidence Rule states that,
Evidence Rule is a source of misconception? It is given a meaning when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the best
that it does not deserve because despite the term “best”, the rule evidence is the original document itself and no other document.
does not proclaim itself as the best of the highest type of evidence Such as a reproduction, photocopy, or other evidence is admissible
in the hierarchy of evidence. as a general rule. The original is preferred because it reduces the
chance of undetected tampering with the document. There is no
The term “best” has nothing to do with the degree of probativeness room for the application of the Best Evidence Rule if there is no
of the document in relation to the other forms of evidence. And dispute regarding the contents of the documents.
more accurately, it is the Original Document Rule or the Primary
Evidence Rule. According to Riano, source gyud sya sa Take note, in any other exclusionary rule or rule of preference, the
misconception and he calls it the Original Document Rule. For all Original Document Rule can be waived. And it can be waived (1) if
intents and purposes, the Best Evidence Rule and the Original not raised at trial or (2) for failure of the other party to object.
Document Rule are one and the same. Only the official
nomenclature of the rule has been changed. What’s the effect?
The secondary evidence becomes a primary evidence if the
SECTION 3. Original document must be produced; secondary evidence is not objected to. Dapat mag-object ka gyud.
exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a But even if admitted as primary evidence, its probative value must
document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no still meet the various tests by which its reliability must be
evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, determined. Its admissibility must not be confused with its probative
except in the following cases: value.
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be When exactly must a party make an objection?
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the We have to jump to Rule 132, Section 35.
offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of SECTION 35. When to make offer. – All evidence must be
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the offered orally.
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the
original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be made
procedures; at the time the witness is called to testify.
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made
great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.
them is only the general result of the whole;
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a When you should object depends on when the evidence is offered.
public officer or is recorded in a public office; and All evidence must be offered orally. And then when you talk about
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling documentary evidence, the offer shall be made after the
issue. presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.
When you talk about the Original Document Rule itself, you stop Imagine litigation right now where testimony is in the form of
there, “No evidence is admissible other than the original document Judicial Affidavits (JA). After presenting all of your witnesses through
itself”. the medium of JA, subjected to cross-examination and all, take note
that while presenting the testimony of a witness, you also identify
and authenticate documents and objects.
FIRST
EXAM 54
testimonial evidence. But when it comes to documents, there’s a

Remember that documents and objects cannot present themselves. proper time to object. Dili ka magpataka ug object.
They have to be subjected to testimonial sponsorship. They have to
be sponsored at the witness stand by a competent witness. This is the general rule, the Best Evidence Rule. And the problem
there is, you are required to present the original because the subject
When do you formally offer your documentary evidence? of the inquiry is the contents of the document; but your problem is,
Pag nahuman na tanang testimonies sa imohang witnesses. When wala kay original, unavailable ang imohan original. So, take note, the
you rest already meaning, you are not going to present any proponent or party must present the original document or the clear
additional witnesses. That’s the time that you formally offer your copy thereof. So long as the original is available, no other evidence
documentary and object evidence for that matter also. So, when can be substituted for the original.
should you object? Diba ana ta, after offer? So, objections to offer
of evidence must me made orally, immediately after the offer is July 30 Part 4 | Estrosas
made.
What should be done if the original cannot be presented? In
So we now know the gist of the Original Document Rule. Meaning, other words, when should the exceptions apply?
kung dili sya original, objectionable sya. Ang gibuhat nimo kay
Atenista man gud ka, nisulod ka sa korte. Pagkahuman, ni-present If the original cannot be presented, the party must find a legal
karon imong adversary ug document. Pagkakita nimo, clearly justification for the failure to present the original and then present
photocopy kay naa pay mga linya-linya. Clearly it’s not original. secondary evidence. The Original Document Rule can thus be
Pagkakita nimo sa document na dili diay sya original, niingon ka, restated as follows:
“Objection, Your Honor! That is a photocopy and therefore violative
of the Original Document Rule.” Dili pa panahon para mag-object.
The original must be presented except when the proponent can
You object only when evidence is formally offered. And when is it justify its unavailability or non-presentation of the original in the
formally offered again? At the end. After all the testimonial evidence manner provided by the rules. If the proponent has a legal
has been presented. That’s the time that the documentary evidence justification, the presentation of the original can be dispensed
is offered orally. That’s the time that you object. with by the presentation of a copy.
What would be particularly wrong in making a premature

objection? In other words, the proponent has to lay the basis for the
1. You do not know the rules. admission of the copy in lieu of the original.
You were only taught that this rule exists; but you do not know
how to use it. You have a weapon but you do not know how to What are these allowed justifications? These are now the exceptions.
fire.
2. You are giving your opponent the opportunity to correct JUSTIFICATIONS FOR NON-PRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL
himself. DOCUMENT
What if wala gyud diay syay laing evidence? Nalimtan niya in
the end na i-present iyahang original unya nagrest na sya. a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
Meaning, he waives presentation of additional evidence. So, in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
ngadto na time pa ka mag-object because that is the proper
time to object. b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
In the case of Spouses Tapayan v. Martinez, January 31, 2017, the to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be
Best Evidence Rule requires that the original document be produced obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
whenever its contents are subject of the inquiry. However, to set this Take Note: There is only one exception in Letter B unlike
rule in motion, a proper and timely objection is necessary. So, unsa in Letter A when there actually three types of exceptions
ning proper and timely objection? According to the case of subsumed in one paragraph.
Spouses Tapayan, the proper time to object would be at the time
when they were offered in evidence. Otherwise, such objection shall c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
be considered as waived. documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
Okay man nang mag-object dayon ka. Kana bitawng pagsulod pa only the general result of the whole;
lang nimo sa court, naa na kay objection daan, gamay na lang na
push. That’s a vigilant approach. But, only when it comes to d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office; and
FIRST
EXAM 55
the gravestone because that will be

e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. theft. Take a picture of it and that will
Note: Letter E is taken from the Federal Rules but it has be your documentary evidence.
been mentioned in previous jurisprudence so it seems like
nothing new. Legal unavailability, on the other hand, may
refer to instances where the document is
So, let’s go to the first three exceptions (in Letter A): beyond the territorial or coercive
jurisdiction of the court (e.g. cannot be
FIRST EXCEPTION: subpoenaed).
LOSS, DESTRUCTION AND UNAVAILABILITY
How do we define loss? Loss actually is a technical term. When it is ONG CHING PO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
a technical term, it admits of no other definition than that which the G.R. Nos. 113472-73, December 20, 1994
law provides.
Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents
Where can we find that? If it is provided by the statute, if it is were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of
provided by the rules, then that becomes a technical term. It admits such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the
of no other definition than that which the law provides. former existence of the document. The correct order of proof is
as follows:
If there is no statutory definition, then apply the doctrinal definition. Existence (you prove the existence first)
Execution (then you prove its execution)
Dili man gud enough nga mutubag ka in your own words. Forgive Loss (then you prove why and how it was lost)
me, pero naa ko’y nakita kana bitaw’ng mga pamphlet before nga Contents (you prove its contents)
nakabutang ‘how to survive law school?’, ‘how to answer questions
in law school?’. Nakabutang ngadto kintahay it’s a definition This order may be changed if necessary, in the discretion of the
question, diba, you endeavor as much as possible to use your own court. (De Vera v. Aguilar, 218 SCRA 602 [1993]) XXX
words. No, I don’t believe in that. You don’t survive law school in
that way especially under my class. Why? Because in my class, you Note: The procedure laid down in Ong Ching Po is known as the
are taught to memorize these statutory definitions like loss which is process of laying the basis or laying the foundation.
a technical term.
Remember the term “laying the basis” or “laying the foundation”
LOSS Article 1189 – A thing is lost when it because when we go to Rule 132, when we talk of evidence of prior
perishes, or goes out of commerce, or and consistent statements, naa pud ta’y ginatawag nga laying the
disappears in such a way that its existence predicate. Just totally different from laying the basis or laying the
is unknown or cannot be recovered. (Note: foundation.
Memorize)
DESTRUCTION It means obliteration of a document such as Now, what will you do if you have laid the basis already? – Apply
by tearing, shredding, or burning. It Section 5.
includes acts of alteration that would
render the contents of a document Section 5. When original document is unavailable. – When the
unintelligible for the purpose it is offered in original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
evidence. (This is a doctrinal definition.) produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
UNAVAILABILITY It may be physical or legal. Physical existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
unavailability may refer to cases where the his or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital
original consists of inscriptions on of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony
immovable objects or monuments and of witnesses in the order stated.
even gravestones.
Pursuant to Section 5, the offeror may now be allowed to prove the
Let’s say you want to prove that contents of the document by secondary evidence, in the following
someone has lived and died, and the order:
records of that person could not be 1. By a copy of the original; or
found because of the World War II, and 2. By a recital of its contents in some authentic document; or
you know the person is buried 3. By the testimony of witnesses.
somewhere. What will you do? Take a
photo of the gravestone. Do not bring CITIBANK v. TEODORO
FIRST
EXAM 56
G.R. No. 150905, September 23, 2003 present secondary evidence. So, the original cannot be obtained
by local judicial processes or procedures is not a separate
Production of secondary evidence requires compliance with the exception because that exception is already covered in the first
following: paragraph (unavailability).
1. The offeror must prove the execution or existence of
the original; After compliance, what will you do? – Apply Section 6.
2. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability;
and Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s
3. The offeror must show that the unavailability was custody or control. – If the document is in the custody or under
without bad faith on his part. the control of the adverse party, he or she must have reasonable
notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory
DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the document,
G.R. No. 117384, October 21, 1998 secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
It is a well-settled principle that before secondary evidence can “Secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss”
be presented, all duplicates and/or counterparts must be – what does it mean?
accounted for, and no excuse for the non-production of the
original document itself can be regarded as established until all It means you apply Section 5 which provides that the document may
its parts are unavailable. be proved by:
1) A copy of the original; or
Comment: All duplicates and counterparts, i-explain pud na nimo. 2) A recital of its contents in some authentic document; or
Let’s say it was made quadruplicate, and all quadruplicates were lost. 3) The testimony of the witnesses.
So, you have to individually account for the loss of each of this
duplicates or counterparts. THIRD EXCEPTION:
WHEN THE ORIGINAL CONSISTS OF NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS
SECOND EXCEPTION:
THE ORIGINAL IS IN THE CUSTODY OR UNDER THE CONTROL Under Section 3(c), secondary evidence may be presented if:
OF THE ADVERSE PARTY
1. The original consists of numerous accounts or other
It means you do not have the original, you only have a copy. documents.
The mere fact that the original is in the custody or under the control An example of this would be book of accounts, receipts
of the adverse party does not ipso facto authorize the introduction and similar documents.
of secondary evidence. The party who seeks to present secondary
evidence must lay the basis or foundation for its introduction, I remember a case that was finally decided with finality
subject to the following requisites: by the Supreme Court where my evidence was how many
1) That the original exists; boxes of receipts and invoices from three years of
2) That said document is under the custody or control of the transactions between my client and the defendant, na
adverse party; nagreach ug about 23 Million ang claim namo. Nadaog
3) That the proponent of the secondary evidence has given nami sa RTC but wala jud nako giisa2x ug identify ang
the adverse party reasonable notice to produce the mga receipt ug invoice because this is an exception –
original document; and when the original consists of numerous accounts.
4) That the adverse party failed to produce the original
document despite the reasonable notice, or the original 2. These documents cannot be examined in court without great
cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or loss of time.
procedures.
Imagine, I’ll go to Makati for the hearing, and duha ka
Mao lang na siya, requisites na siya. It doesn’t mean that the kahon akong mga receipts and invoice. Isa-isahon nako
original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or na? It will result to great loss of time.
procedures is a separate exception. That’s just a requisite of this
exception. Why? You give notice to the adverse party first to 3. The fact sought to be established from them is only the general
produce the original document. If he cannot produce it, what’s your result of the whole.
next remedy? Ask the court to subpoena it, ask the court for
compulsory process so that the original document will be produced In other words, the purpose for the introduction of such
in court. Kung dili pa jud, that’s the time that you will be allowed to evidence is not to examine all the documents or pages of
FIRST
EXAM 57
documents but merely to give the judge a summary from which July 30 Part 5 | Fernandez
he may draw a logical inference as to the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. You cannot insist it to be examined at unreasonable hours or
during midnight. You also cannot demand that the examination or
When the original consists of numerous accounts, our copying be at a 5-Star Hotel. Also, the court may order that it be
jurisprudential basis as what you should do would be Atlas produced in court.
Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No.
141104 and 148763, June 8, 2007. In fact, this was the case I cited in If you doubt the components of the summary, ask the court to
the Makati case that I was talking to you about. Our claim was 23 have it produced in court. Although I don’t think the court will
Million and actual damages almost 24 Million not to mention moral individually examine all these voluminous records.
and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. In the end, the
Supreme Court awarded us more than 30 Million…36 Million WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS A PUBLIC RECORD HOW PROVED
including legal interest. That was awarded by the Supreme Court It is proved by certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
with finality. So, our opponent, nagbayad nalang. Nakig settle thereof.
nalang and, you know, my fee there was contingent. But I’m not
going to tell you how much my contingency fee is…it’s contingent, You want to get a copy of your marriage contract- the Certificate
so I’m going to be a one-day millionaire. of Marriage. When you go to the Civil Registrar, you only get the
certified copy say for example in cases of Petition under Article 36
ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT to prove the marriage.
CORPORATION v. CIR, G.R. Nos. 141104 and 148763, June
8, 2007 You cannot get the original because of:
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. - Any public record,
The party who desires to introduce as evidence such voluminous an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be
documents must, after motion and approval by the Court, removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a
present: court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just
a) A SUMMARY containing, among others, a chronological determination of a pending case.
listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by the
invoices or receipts and the amount/s of tax paid; and THE ORIGINAL IS NOT RELATED TO A CONTROLLING ISSUE
b) A CERTIFICATION of an independent Certified Public The description of this under several rules would be merely a
Accountant attesting to the correctness of the contents of collateral matter which is proved by the original- which is not the
the summary after making an examination, evaluation and fact in issue.
audit of the voluminous receipts and invoices. The name of
the accountant or partner of the firm in charge must be Therefore, the Federal Rules similar to ours dispenses with the
stated in the motion so that he/she can be commissioned presentation of the original document.
by the Court to conduct the audit and, thereafter, testify in
Court relative to such summary and certification pursuant to LEE v. PEOPLE
Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. GR 159288 October 19, 1994
The rule does not apply: (these are only collateral to the
Comment: Take note that the procedure laid down in Atlas document. This is not the foundation of your cause of action or
Consolidated seems to be incorporated under the new Section 7 of defense- hence, no need to present the original)
Rule 130 (Summaries) because Atlas itself was taken from American
jurisprudence. Then this new Section 7 was taken from Federal Rules 1. Proof of facts collateral to the issues such as the nature,
of Evidence. appearance, or condition of physical objects; or
2. Evidence relating to a matter which does not come from the
Section 7. Summaries. – When the contents of documents, foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
records, photographs, or numerous accounts are voluminous and 3. When a party uses a document to prove the existence of an
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the independent fact, as to which the writing is merely collated or
fact sought to be established is only the general result of the incidental.
whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in the
form of a chart, summary, or calculation. This is what we call the Collateral Facts Rule.
The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or No need to present the original in these situations.
both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The
court may order that they be produced in court. Another Example:
FIRST
EXAM 58
When the contract or document is one that merely substantiates Angara diary violated the Best Evidence Rule or the Original
the testimony. Document Rule as the original or the diary itself was not
presented. It was merely newspaper accounts of the diary- a
PEOPLE v. ABELLA secondary evidence not the original.
GR 195666 January 20, 2016
It is merely corroborative it is not your main evidence HELD:
It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only the
Based from the book of Sir JZE: copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily
The non-presentation of the original copy of the handwritten Inquirer. In doing so, the Court did not, however, violate the Best
agreement is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Miguel Evidence Rule or the Original Document Rule.
personally testified before the RTC as to the circumstances of
her recruitment by Abella. The decision was based on Wigmore, in his book on evidence,
which states that:
Abella made verbal, and not written, promises to Miguel of Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the
employment abroad. The handwritten agreement merely trial court’s discretion, whenever in the case in hand the
substantiates Miguel’s testimony at best. . opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the
document and no other useful purpose will be served by
requiring production.
ESTRADA v. DESIERTO
GR 146710-15 April 3, 2001 The Supreme Court said it was perfectly admissible despite the
This case shows that the Supreme Court does not really look at fact that it was not an original
the law but on fairness- which is actually a good thing. It’s just
sometimes the Supreme Court overstretches itself- and it no DISCUSSION
longer legal or pursuant to the accepted principles of law. Isn’t it a fact that by raising Best Evidence Rule or making an
objection based on the Best Evidence Rule that Estrada bona fide
FACTS: disputes the contents of the document. Estrada here was asking
President Estrada was constrained to leave the Malacanang. In where that Angara Diary was.
his stead, Vice- President Arroyo took her oath as the next
president. Estrada alleged that he did not resign but only was But the Supreme Court (to my mind) was stretching too much-
constrained to leave in order to calm the situation at that time. even if this not found in our statutes or in the Rules of Procedure
even quoting Wigmore in its decision. Because it would lead to a
Part of the evidence considered by the Supreme Court in constitutional crisis- imagine having 2 Presidents having control in
declaring President Estrada as having resigned were the the Malacanang.
newspaper accounts of the diary of then Executive Secretary
Edgardo Angara. These newspaper accounts of said diary were For me, the ruling was correct- even if it was not proper
never presented to evidence, procedurally.
According to the reports of the Angara Diary as appearing in the Section 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.
Philippine Daily Inquirer: – A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects
the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
Angara asked Sen. Pimenetel to advise Estrada to
consider the option of dignified exit or resignation. Estrada did August 5 Part 1 | Jamero
not disagree but listened intently. At 9:30 p.m, Sen. Pimentel
repeated to Estrada the urgency of making a graceful and
dignified exit. He gave the proposal a sweetener by saying that RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS
petitioner would be allowed to go abroad with enough funds to PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE
support him and his family. Estrada expressed no objection to (Sec. 10, Rule 130)
the suggestion for a graceful and dignified exit but said he
would never leave the country.
While it is subsumed under the rules of admissibility of documents,
From that, Supreme Court declared in the first case that Estrada we’re not really talking about the admissibility of documents, but
have resigned as President. talking about the prohibition on testimony or other evidence that
tends to modify or add to the terms of a written agreement.
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Estrada points out that the
admission into evidence of mere newspaper accounts of the
FIRST
EXAM 59
Sec. 10. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an ORAL EVIDENCE (Layman’s term; or testimonial evidence
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as that tends to vary or modify the terms and conditions of a
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between written agreement)
the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement. However, a IT IS A RULE OF EXCLUSION
party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms When parties have already reduced their agreement into writing, the
of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: written agreement becomes supreme. It supersedes everything they
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written have discussed prior to the perfection of the contract.
agreement;
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent A party therefore cannot say something different from what the
and agreement of the parties thereto; contract says. He cannot modify or add to its terms.
(c)The validity of the written agreement; or
(d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their Because mawala ang importance sa written agreement kung i-allow
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. lang nimo ang isa ka party to add to its terms, to change its
The term "agreement" includes wills. interpretation to suit its condition better simply by introducing
evidence to the contrary.
General Rule:
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, EFFECT OF PER AS A RULE OF EXCLUSION
it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and If not in the contract (as to terms and conditions), it is
there can be, as between the parties and their successors in INADMISSIBLE.
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of The stipulations may be valid but you cannot prove it in court.
the written agreement. xxx
RATIONALE
Imagine an ordinary contractual situation: there’s the creditor, the 1. Hierarchy of Evidence
debtor, or contracting party A, B. If you recall the case of San Miguel Recall that there are hierarchy of evidence; that documentary
Properties vs. Wang, the SC laid down the stages in the life of a evidence prevails over testimonial evidence (GSIS vs. CA)
contract: Preparation; Perfection; Execution or the Death of the
contract. I want to take particular attention to the 1st phase in the 2. Principle of Waiver After Integration
life of the contract: Preparation Stage. It is the period of haggling or When the parties have already integrated into a written
soliciting conditions, where the 1st party will say, “I want to buy your agreement, the terms and conditions that are to govern their
property for this amount xxx” and the other party would make a contractual relationship, tanan nga wala nasulat, deemed
counter-offer that he will buy the property for a lower amount, and waived. Because if it is important to the parties, they should
then the other party would then again haggle. So, there’s a series of have included that into their contract. The fact that they did
offers and counter-offers. When the parties’ minds have already met not include that into the contract, the law presumes that it is
with respect to the terms and conditions that are to govern their already waived.
contractual relationship, it is now of accepted practice that contracts
will be reduce into writing. Everything that they have discussed, 3. Comparative Accuracy of Written Evidence Over
Everything Else that Rest Merely on the Fleeting Memory
everything that they have met their minds on will be reduced into
of Man
writing.
Ginatagaan ug primacy ang written evidence over everything
na pwede bitaw ma-mali or ma-misinterpret based on the
What happens to everything else that took place prior to the
drafting of the contract, or prior to reducing the contract into memory of man. Malay nimo mali ang pagkahinumdom, so we
writing? better rely on the written evidence.
Everything is already deemed integrated into the written agreement
and that written agreement is the one given primacy by the PER. The most simplistic example when it comes to PER: Moses
coming down from Mt. Sinai, and he’s bringing down
Kung sa ato pa, kung ang mga Partido gisulat na ang ilahang supposedly the 10 commandments as written by the fingers of
contrata, dili na pwede pagabaguhon pa. Dili na pwede by means of God himself in those tablets of stones. (talks about different
testimony or other evidence utruhon ang contracta because that commands) So, for example, diba 10 commandments, naay
would be violative of the PER. proof si Moses na 10 commandments lang jud sya. Can Moses
say later, “By the way, naa diay nakalimtan gibutang si God sa
Other Names for PER: Commandments?” So nag dungag-dungag si Moses, dili na
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE-evidence that can be seen outside sya pwede. Whatever is written, mao lang na ang mag govern
of the contact of the parties. sa relationship sa parties.
EVIDENCE ALIUNDE (Latin term)
FIRST
EXAM 60
4. The Belief that Parol Evidence is Prone to Fabrication

(HERBON vs. PALAD, GR NO 149542, July 20, 2006) If you recall in your succession, you cannot subject the making of a
Thus, the purpose of the parole evidence rule is to give stability will to a contract. For example, ako (Sir) ang testator, I will intstitute
to written agreements, and to remove the temptation and B as my heir provided that B also institutes me as his heir. Dili na sya
possibility of perjury, which would be afforded if parol pwede, this is what we call disposition captatoria.
evidence were admissible (CONDE vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
119 SCRA 245) Why is the Rule Applied to Wills?
The dangers (perjury) sought to be avoided by the requirement of
Art. 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may the Rule is present in the making of the wills and are deemed to be
have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their more prevalent inasmuch as the maker of a will, the decendent, can
validity are present. However, when the law requires that a contract no longer objects to attempts to vary his testamentary intent as his
be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that voice is already silenced by death.
a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute
and indispensable. In such cases, the right of the parties stated in REQUISITE 2:
the following article cannot be exercised. (1278a) REDUCED TO WRITING
Is it required that the agreement should be in a public instrument

Again, it could be valid between the contracting parties because a
for the applicability of the PER? NO.
contract is not usually formal. Contracts are ordinarily consensual—
perfected by consent, manifested by the meeting of the offer and
INCIONG vs. CA
the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute
GR NO 96405 | June 26, 1996
the contract. Enough na nay consent. But we’re talking about the
Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a
provability of certain terms and conditions that are not included in
public document. xxx. Thus, for the parol evidence rule to apply,
the contract.
a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed
While PER does not proclaim itself to be limitation on the validity of
by both parties.
a contract, it is a requirement that must be taken into consideration
as a condition precedent to a party's ability to prove the same. (So,
August 5 Part 2 | Macacua
kung wala sa kontrata, you cannot prove it.)
Even if the contract is valid in its oral form, contracts being in REQUISITE 3:
generally and essentially consensual, it is virtually futile if you cannot DISPUTE IS BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR THEIR SUCCESSOR-IN-
therefore sue upon it or you are barred by conclusive presence of INTEREST
the written document relative the same agreement.
LECHUGAS v COURT OF APPEALS
REQUISITES
1. There must be an agreement; The rule may not properly be invoked where at least one party to
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing; the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the agreement. Thus,
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in- if one of the parties to the case is a complete stranger to the
interest; and contract involved therein, he is not bound by this rule and can
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement. introduce extrinsic evidence against the efficacy of the writing.
REQUISITE 1: MARQUEZ v ESPEJO

AGREEMENT
If you recall, mao ni to siyang voluntary land transfers. Ang nag-
In order for the rule to apply, there must be an agreement. As
object on the ground na wala sa agreement, which property ba
understood, an agreement is a contract. Thus, where there is
gyud daw ang gibaligya, is not a party to the agreement at all. It’s
meeting of the minds between the parties and the same is reduced
the bank. Therefore, dili mag-apply ang Parol Evidence Rule. Not
into writing (regardless whether notarized or not), the resulting
a party to the agreement ang nag-object.
physical contract is therefore already covered by the Rule.
REQUISITE 4:
This general understanding is not applicable to the last part of the THERE IS DISPUTE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
Rule which provides that "(t)he term 'agreement' includes wills."
Thus, if the dispute between parties who are contractually bound
Verily, a will is not an agreement. It is strictly personal and unilateral refers to matters extraneous to the agreement or with respect to
act. However, by force of the Rules and in an apparent legal fiction, rights and obligations that do not emanate from it, the Parole
a will is an agreement as well although there is clearly no meeting Evidence Rule does not apply.
of the minds.
FIRST
EXAM 61
Take note of the exceptions. Chances are, if it is going to be asked

in the Bar Examinations, the examiner will not ask you about the 1. Extrinsic Ambiguity
general rule. Ang ipangutana sa inyoha, what exceptions are
applicable. Commit to memory the general rule and exceptions. Extrinsic cannot be proved by parol evidence because, by
nature, it is incurable. It is a glaring mistake.
EXCEPTIONS Example.
This is when the second paragraph of Section 10 comes in: A will provides “I give to B something”. There is really no
description here. What is that something? In the case
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to where there is no description, it cannot be proved by parol
the terms of the written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a evidence.
verified pleading:
a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written BORILLO v COURT OF APPEALS
agreement;
b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent In order to admit parol evidence to aid in the description of the
and agreement of the parties thereto; subject matter of a deed or other writing, there must be a
c) The validity of the written agreement; or description that will serve as a foundation for such evidence; the
d) The existence of other terms agree to by the parties or their writing must at least give some data from which the description
successors in interest after the execution of the written may be found and made certain.
agreement.
Parol evidence is not admissible to identify the property where
Comments to Amendment: the description thereof is so vague as to amount to no
description at all. In other words, parol evidence is not permitted
1. He/She to supply a description, but only to apply it.
It is virtually unchanged, except for the fact that the Rule
committees decide to be equal opportunists here. Naay “she”. “Imperfect Description”
Dili lang man ang lalaki ang pwede mahimong criminal, (Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet)
contracting party, apil ang babae. He or she. Para dili siya
sexist, in a way. The situation is different where there is a mere imperfect
description. The principle of FALSA DEMONSTRATIO NON
2. Verified Pleading NOCET -- a false or mistaken description does not vitiate
The requirement that ang imong objection, in other words, -- would then apply.
invocation to the exception of the Parol Evidence Rule should
be in a verified pleading. If, on consideration the language of a will with the aid of
any admissible extrinsic evidence, the court comes to the
Example. conclusion that the testator intended to pass something
Plaintiff filed against defendant for breach of contract. The and can determine what that something is, then the fact
defense is that, the contract is not breached because it did that the testator gave it the wrong description in his will
not express the true intent of the parties. That’s one of the does not prevent the will taking effect in regard to the
exceptions. Ang imong answer, not verified. Now, that is subject matter intended by the testator. The principle may
an added requirement. It has to be by way of a verified be applied in whatever part of the description the error
pleading. (Note: how a pleading is verified). occurred.
Comment to Exceptions: For example, shares of stocks. In his will, X makes a specific
gift of shares of stock in ABZ Corporation, and X at the
In (a), there are three exceptions. In (c), you are questioning the date of his will possessed no such stock but possessed
validity of the contract. You are saying that the contract is void from other stock oin ABC Corporation which the court decides
inception or that naay impediment as to giving it perfect validity. In was meant, the latter stock passes under the gift despite
(d), mao na ang ginatwag nato na “subsequent agreement”. the false description.
INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY, MISTAKE OR IMPERFECTION 2. Intrinsic Ambiguity
KINDS OF AMBIGUITY Intrinsic Ambiguity, on the other hand, can be proved by

1. Extrinsic (Patent): or parol evidence.
2. Intrinsic (Latent)
3. Intermediate Ambiguity (jurisprudence)
FIRST
EXAM 62
Example. In a will, it is provided that the testator gives to The Fred Wilson & Company contended that the capacity
Ramon (his nephew), P200,000. However, the testator has means receptive capacity. So, they have different
two nephews named Ramon. Here, by way of exception, a interpretations of the term capacity so there is intermediate
latent ambiguity may be explained by parol evidence, for, ambiguity because the term capacity is susceptible in more
as the ambiguity has been brought about by than one interpretation.
circumstances extraneous to the instrument, the
explanation must necessarily be sought from such The SC held that extrinsic evidence or parol evidence must be
circumstances outside the instrument. looked into by looking at price listing or quotations about
distilling apparatus that can actually produce 6, 000 liters a
Rationale day. SC found that for the price that Song Fo paid could not
The cause of the ambiguity here is something outside of have been one that would produce 6, 000 liters per day. Hence,
the written instrument. Therefore, the explanation by way the SC, by using extrinsic evidence, construed the term
of Parol Evidence can be sought outside of the instrument capacity to mean receptive capacity and not producing
as well. capacity.
Ambiguity is susceptible of different interpretations. Naay Parol evidence is admissible to show which of the two
ginakalibugan. interpretations was meant by the parties
3. Intermediate Ambiguity MISTAKE

BPI v. Fidelity
This arises by the use of equivocal word/s which is G.R. No. L- 26743, Oct. 19, 1927)
susceptible of more than one interpretation. Evidence
aliunde may be admitted by the court to explain or add to First, that the mistake should be a fact; second, that the mistake
its meaning. should be proved by clear and convincing evidence; and, third, that
the mistake should be common to both parties to the instrument.
Wala ni siya sa Rules of Court or Civil Code. But, naa siya The rule is, as has been above states, that the mistake must be
sa jurisprudence.
mutual.
In the case of Palanca vs Fred Wilson & Co., A Chinese

immigrant, Tan Quin Lay, as manager of Song Fo Company, Magellan v. CA
entered into a contract with Fred Wilson & Co. for the G.R. No. 95526, August 23 1991
purchase of a distilling apparatus for P10,000. He purchased
the apparatus with the specification that it should have a The mistake contemplated as an exception to the parol evidence
capacity of 6,000 liters a day. rule is one which is a mistake of fact mutual to the parties.
Furthermore, the rules on evidence, as amended, require that in
We are talking about an equipment making distilling spirits, order that parol evidence may be admitted, said mistake must be
alcohol. They are going to make liquor here. put in issue by the pleadings, such that if not raised inceptively in
the complaint or in the answer, as the case may be, a party can not
After using the distilling apparatus for some time, Song Fo
later on be permitted to introduce parol evidence therefrom.
complained that it only produced 480 liters of alcohol per day,
not 6,000 liters, and filed a case for breach of contract. Fred
Wilson & Co. contended that it did not breach its contract You will be estopped. The earliest opportunity to raise the exception
which stated that the apparatus was of ‘de capacidad de 6,000 of mistake or any other exception must be in the complaint or
litros cada 24 horas de trabajo’. It said that, since the apparatus answer to begin with.
was able to process 6,000 liters of raw material per day, there
was no breach of the agreement. IMPERFECTION
This simply means that the writing is incomplete and does not
Ngano naay ambiguity? Because of the word “capacity”. What express the whole agreement of the parties. Here, there is a failure
does capacity mean? If you are Song Fo, mas pabor sa imoha of the parties to lay down all the terms and conditions which are to
na producing capacity. constitute the agreement.
August 5 Part 3 | Maglinte FAILURE OF THE AGREEMENT TO REFLECT THE TRUE

INTENTION OF THE PARTIES
FIRST
EXAM 63
The exception obtains where the written contract is so ambiguous manager’s cheques as 1 Million is too large an amount to
or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties be paid in cash. A agrees to wait for B, while B rings with
cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In him the deed of sale and the title of the land. But B never
such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter may be received came back, as he went straight to the Registry of Deeds to
to enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the have the title of the property transferred over to him.
instrument (Heirs of del Rosario v. de los Santos)
In the case for an annulment of sale, how will A prove that
Example B never paid him the agreed consideration when the deed
There is a contract which looks like a contract of sale, but the real of sale has been duly acknowledged and the sale duly
intention of the parties was to sell the property or use the property registered?
as security for the fulfillment of an obligation (like a contract of
loan). A will prove through his testimony, that he never received
the consideration.
The agreement is different compared to the actual intention. In such
a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract of the BUT, based on the general rule, A cannot really prove that
relation of the parties to each other and of the facts and he did not receive the money, because the document will
circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the show otherwise. Any attempt on the part of A to do so will
contract may be received in order for the court to make a proper be objectionable under the PER.
interpretation of the instrument.
However, since he filed the case to nullify the deed of sale
The validity of a written agreement – in effect, he is raising the issue on the validity of the said
Here, a party seeks to present extrinsic evidence to prove that the document. So in this case, parol evidence is allowed to
contract is not valid. As in all the other exceptions, he must raise the prove lack of consideration, with the exception that the
invalidity of the contract in his verified pleading at the inception pleading or complaint should be verified. Hence parol
whether in the complaint or answer. evidence is allowed to prove lack of consideration.
Recall the contracts that are void ab initio including those whose What else may be raised under “validity of a written
cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction. There is agreement”?
no contract.
1. Forgery (Aloria v. Celemente)
Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from 2. Fraud & illegality (Bought v. CAntiveros)
the beginning: 3. False representation (Woodhouse v. Halili)
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals,
Woodhouse v. Halili
good customs, public order or public policy;
G.R. L-4811, July 31, 1953
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
(3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the
The statement of the plaintiff was not sought to be introduced to
transaction;
change or alter the terms of the agreement, but to prove how he
(4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
induced the defendant to enter into it – to prove the representations
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service;
and inducements, or fraud, with which he secured the other party’s
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal
consent thereto. These are expressly excluded from the parol
object of the contract cannot be ascertained;
evidence rule. Fraud and false representation are an incident to the
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
creation of a jural act, not to its integration, and are not governed
by the rules of integration.
I am using this Art. 1409 because I want to use that as an example
of Dean Inigo himself.
Subsequent Agreements
This is the exception which states:
Example:
The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
A sells to B his land for 1M. They sign a deed of sale. So:
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
“In consideration of ONE MILLION PESOS receipt of which
hereby acknowledged in full, I hereby sell this property to
Rationale
B xxx”. But B says that he has to go to the bank to secure
FIRST
EXAM 64
Why is this an exception? evidenced by the writing (Rule

130, sec. 10 (d))
When the parties executed the written agreement, they have yet to Prior – what was agreed before COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS
enter into the subsequent agreement, meaning it came after, that is the contract was written which, although oral and
why you can prove it. The parties cannot incorporate in the contract contemporaneous with the
or instrument something that they will still agree on in the future. Contemporaneous – what was writing, are separate and
agreed while the contract was distinct agreements. These are
written also known as :
Hypothetical Case
CONTEMPORANEOUS ORAL
Maja borrowed money from JZE. For this, Maja signed a promissory
The moment you put your AGREEMENTS, or in layman’s
note in favor of JZE which fixed the maturity date on August 15, terms, SIDE AGREEMENTS.
agreement in writing,
2019. When August 15, 2019 came, Maja did not pay. Thud, JZE sues everything that is not stated
Maja for payment of the due account. Maja’s defense in her answer there are deemed waived.
is that the amount is not yet due because after the execution of the
promissory note, for “unwritten considerations (i.e. she’s so cute),
JZE agreed to extend the period of payment until January 14, 2020.
What is Maja’s evidence? August 5 Part 4 | Ugdang

Her testimony that they entered into a subsequent oral agreement
which happened after the execution of the promissory note. The SIDE AGREEMENTS
subject of the subsequent oral agreement is the extension of the
maturity date of the promissory note MCIAA v CA
GR 121506 Oct. 30, 1996
Is it admissible that they entered into an extension?
Yes, because that is precisely what the exception is. Sometime in 1949, the National Airport Corporation informed the
owners of the various lots surrounding the Lahug Airport that the
This is the exception: “the existence of other terms agreed to by the government will purchase their lands for the expansion of the
airport. The landowners were convinced to sell their properties
parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the
otherwise, the government will be forced to institute
written agreement.”
expropriation proceedings in courts. They were also assured that
their properties will be returned to them when these are no
Ultimately, Maja can testify in court on the subsequent oral longer being used by the airport.
agreement she had with JZE. The extension on the fact resulted in
the novation of their previously agreed-upon maturity date. There is what we call “buy-back” you were allowed to buy back the
property if the Lahug area will no longer be used.
Pay attention to the fact that while it would be admissible, Maja
properly invoked the exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule, there is The landowner Ouano did not want to sell at first. However,
still difference in admissibility and believability. It would still depend because she was reassured by the promise that the land will be
upon the court to believe the testimony on parol matters. returned to her when it is no longer in use, she was persuaded to
enter into a contract of sale.
Principle to remember
The parties cannot incorporate in the contract or agreement So, she had to had to sell the property because otherwise, they
had to enter into an eminent domain (case). I would just sell the
something that they will still agree on in the future.
property, anyway, they would sell it back if they did not use it.
SUMMARY
Vercide, another landowner testified, that in a meeting called by
COVERED NOT COVERED
the NAC, the landowners were given documents to sign and be
Only PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS, asked for a rider or certification which would indicate that the
CONTEMPORANEOUS despite the fact that such
land will be returned to him should it not be used by the airport.
AGREEMENTS which are agreements may have effect of
He testified that it was only after the rider was given to him that
deemed to have been merged adding to, modifying, or even
he signed the document of sale.
in writing conformably to the altogether abrogating the
“integration of the agreement contract of the parties as
rule.” (Woodhouse v. Halili)
FIRST
EXAM 65
So, he had made an additional provision, specifying that if they of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties
no longer used the property as an airport, they would sell back thereto.
the property to the landowner.
The fact in which private respondents seek to establish by parol
So, what does that tell you? In the case of Ouano, there was no rider, evidence consist of the agreement or representation made by NAC
there was no provision. But the fact that for another landowner, it that induced Ouano to execute the deed of sale; that the vendors
has that rider or certification, it proves to you that, really, there could and their heirs are given the right of repurchase should the
have then be this inducement. “its ok if we would no longer use the government no longer need the property.
property, we would sell it back to you”
Now, here comes the exception. Where a parol contemporaneous
Now, years later President Aquino ordered that the airport be agreement was the moving cause of the written contract, or where
transferred to Mactan. So, now it was transferred there. The the parol agreement forms part of the consideration of the written
grandchildren of Ouano tried to repurchase the properties contract, and it appears that the written contract was executed on
originally owned by the grandmother. On Oct. 2, 1991, they wrote the faith of the parol contract or representation, such evidence is
to Capt. Antonio Oppus, the manager of MCIAA, signifying their admissible.
intention to repurchase the properties originally owned by their
grandmother. Capt. Oppus denied their request because the So, it was allowed by the SC to present evidence on such promise to
deed of sale covering the properties did not contain any resell the property or the right to repurchase over the property.
condition relating to the right to repurchase. These properties, it That is what we were talking about. The side agreement. It is not
was explained, had become the absolute properties of National necessarily one which co-exists with the contract. That its like, we
Airport Corp. have a contract, but we have this agreement. No. it can also be
INDUCEMENT to the written contract itself.
Imagine, you are the landowner, you sold the property that is
adjacent or near the airport. Clearly, the property had now been So, the SC allowed parol evidence to be presented in this case
flattened and cleared. The airport before was in Lahug, in the middle of MCIAA.
of Cebu, before Cebu became this very very developed city. Right
now, the Lahug area of the previous airport, its actually being owned
by Ayala it is prime real estate, that explained why they would want It is recognized that proof is admissible of any collateral agreements
the property. that is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract though
it may relate to the same subject matter. The rule excluding parole
The grandchildren filed a case for reconveyance with the RTC. What evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far as to
is their allegation? The promise to resell the property. But, what preclude the admission of existing evidence to show prior or
MCIAA did was to refuse the repurchase. What is the contention of contemporaneous collateral parole agreements between the parties,
MCIAA? They have no evidence. Its not in the contract and not in but such evidence may be received, regardless of whether or not the
the deed of sale. written agreement contain any reference to such collateral
agreement and whether the action is at law or in equity.
Since it is not in the deed of sale, such right to repurchase does not
exist. Otherwise, if you accept evidence to that effect, it will violate Compare MCIAA with the following cases:
the parol evidence rule. Isn’t that correct? 1. Republic v. Roque (203610 Oct. 10, 2016)
2. Republic v. Diaz Heirs Association Inc. (218732 Nov. 12, 2018)
HELD:
Under the parol evidence rule, when the terms of an agreement There are two cases here where the facts are somewhat similar to
have been reduced into writing, it is considered as containing all MCIAA. Roque – the DPWH, they are the ones who took the property
the terms agreed upon, and there can be, between the parties for a construction President Marcos, but the case was decided in
and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other 2016. The case of Jose Gamir-Consuelo Diaz Heirs Association Inc. –
than the contents of the written agreement. However, a party it’s a Davao city case, why was the ruling of the SC different with
may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of Roque and Republic compared to MCIAA, that’s for you to read.
the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, the Roque is already in my book, the Diaz is in my updates.
failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the
parties thereto. August 5 Part 5| Rojo
How did the SC rule? ABELLA v. ABELLA

It stated what the parol evidence rule is, and then the exception – a G.R. No. 195166, July 8, 2015
party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms
of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, the failure
FIRST
EXAM 66
In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to incidental to the execution and not to the integration.
be admitted: (Woodhouse vs. Halili, G.R. No. L481, July 31, 1953).
First, that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been 2. ALL OTHER AGREEMENTS, whether prior and
put in issue in a party’s pleading or has not been objected to by contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral, when third parties,
the adverse party; and who are not privy thereto, are involved. (Lechugas vs. CA, G.R.
No. L-39972, August 6, 1986).
Second, that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to
form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting
Random notes on the Parol Evidence Rule
party.
Can you for example introduce or object to the presentation of
evidence on the ground that it is a violation of parol evidence rule
SPOUSES PARAS v. KIMWA
G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015 before the labor arbiter or DOLE?
Provided that a party puts in issue in its pleading any of the four ILEU-FFE vs. INTERPHIL LABS
(4) items enumerated, a party may present evidence to modify, G.R. No. 142824, December 19, 2001
explain or add to the terms of the agreement. Raising any of
those items as an issue in a pleading such that it falls under the The parol evidence rule cannot be invoked in tribunals not strictly
exception is not limited to the party initiating an action. If the bound by the rules of evidence. In labor cases pending before the
defendant set up the affirmative defense that the contract Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing
mentioned in the complaint does not express the true agreement in courts of law or equity are not controlling. Rules of procedure
of the parties. Moreover, as with all possible objections to the and evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense
admission of evidence, a party’s failure to timely object is deemed in labor cases. Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not precluded from
a waiver, and parol evidence may then be entertained. accepting and evaluating evidence other than, and even contrary
to, what is stated in the CBA.
Relevancy Element
Now, take note that we still have a relevancy element. The answer in the question is NO. You cannot invoke that. They are
Apart from pleading, these exceptions, it is equally imperative that not strictly bound by the rules on evidence.
the parol evidence sought to be introduced points to the conclusion
proposed by the party presenting it. That is, it must be relevant, How to contradict written agreement
Q: What is the quantum of proof required?
tending to induce belief in the existence of the flaw, true intent, or
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CUA
subsequent extraneous terms averred by the party seeking to
G.R. No. 199161, April 18, 2018
introduce parol evidence.
To overcome the presumption that the written agreement

Other permitted collateral agreements
contains all the terms of the agreement, the parol evidence must
Inducements and representations which led to the execution of be clear and convincing and of such sufficient credibility as to
an agreement may be proven by parol evidence because they overturn the written agreement.
do not vary the terms of the agreement. (Woodhouse vs. Halili,
93 Phil. 526; Bough vs. Cantiveros, 40 Phil 209). CITIBANK v. SABANIANO
G.R. No. 156132, October 12, 2006
So, inducements and representations similar to MCIAA
Parol evidence is admissible to prove an independent and When a document is presented to prove its existence or
collateral agreement which constitutes an inducement to the condition it is offered not as documentary, but as real evidence.
making of the sale or part of the consideration thereof. (Robles Parol evidence of the fact of execution of the documents is
vs. Lizarraga, 50 Phil. 387). allowed.
This is also touched upon by MCIAA.
Kay dili man siya written agreement kung tan’awon nimo. Its’ object
or real evidence.
Not covered by Parol Evidence Rule
1. ALL OTHER AGREEMENTS, whether prior and Distinctions
contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral, if the issue You may not be asked about the distinctions directly. But you will be
revolves around fraud and false representation since they are given a set of facts, where it seems that applicable either, let’s say
FIRST
EXAM 67
the parol evidence rule and best evidence rule. So, what rule should Objection should be interposed when the document is offered
be applied? That is why you need to know the distinctions. (i.e. after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence).
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE So, when the document is offered, just before the party rests
Presupposes that the original The original document is not formally.
document is available in court. available or there is a dispute
Q: When is a party deemed to have rested its case?
as to whether said writing is
A: From the moment he submits his formal offer. Dira pa ka mu
original
object sa document pag offer na sa iyaha, if your objection is based
Prohibits the varying of the Prohibits the introduction of
on Best Evidence Rule.
terms of a written agreement secondary evidence regardless
of whether or not it varies the
For the Parol Evidence Rule:
content of the original
Q: Is the rule the same for the parol evidence rule?
Applies only to documents Applies to all kind of writing,
A: NO. the objection under the Best Evidence Rule is against the
which are contractual in nature contract or not
document. You object because it is not original.
except wills
Can be invoked only when the Can be invoked by any party to Q: What about the Parol Evidence Rule? What type of evidence
contrary is between the parties an action whether he has is objectionable here?
to the written agreement and participated or not in the A: Parol Evidence or evidence that is extrinsic or outside the terms
their privies writing, no limitation of the agreement.
When exactly should a party object?

Cross-reference with Rule 132. Q: How is it usually manifested?
A:
Section 35. When to make offer. — All evidence must be
Written or in the form of another document;
offered orally.
Testimonial
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be made
at the witness is called to testify.
Pwede siya written or in the form of another document. Pwede man
The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made
ka mag introduce ug another piece of paper to contradict the terms
presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. (35a)
of the agreement. In this case, objection should be interposed after
Section 36. Objections. – Objection to offer of evidence must be formal offer, which happens after the presentation of a party’s
made orally immediately after the offer is made. testimonial evidence. Then, that’s the time na similar siya sa Best
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer Evidence Rule.
must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. Objection
to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination The objectionable evidence here, more often than not, in my
of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefor experience is testimonial. Meaning, kana bitaw naa nay written
become reasonably apparent. agreement pero nag testify ang pikas Partido nan aa silay sabot na
The grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a) wala sa written agreement.
Q: When do you object?

Q: When do you make an offer?
A: It depends in the following.
A: It depends on what you are objecting to. If it is to offer the
If the objectionable testimony is in the course of
evidence, you have to object immediately after the offer is made.
examination:
Objection to the testimony of the witness, or objection to the
The objection should be interposed as soon as
question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a
the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become
apparent.
reasonably apparent.
So, pagka dungog nimo, well, mag object na ka.
FOR THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE:

If the objectionable nature of the testimony is apparent
Q: What did we discuss in best evidence rule? When should we
from the offer prior to testimony:
object? Pagkakita ba nimo na photocopy lang siya, do you object
Objection to evidence offered orally must be
immediately?
made immediately after the offer is made.
A: NO, after pa na i’offer siya. Which is done after the presentation
of a party’s testimonial evidence. Example of “in the course of examination of the witness”:
FIRST
EXAM 68
Lawyer: You mentioned that you did not pay the debt because you It applies to any type of Its object is to prevent perjured
had a subsequent agreement to extend the period of payment. What contract, and its purpose is to testimony in proof of certain
is this agreement all about? make sure that the parties’ final contracts and the statute
understanding, deliberately applies only to those
We know for a fact that ng plaintiff nag present ug promissory note expressed in writing shall not enumerated types.
na nag due na, like in the Maja example I gave earlier. be changed.
Applies to wills. Does not apply to wills.
JZE: Objection your honor. Haha. The question calls for an answer Rule of integration which Rule of enforceability which
that is outside the terms of the written agreement. It violates the applies where there is a written applies in the absence of an
Parol Evidence Rule. agreement. agreement in writing.
You cannot enforce, meaning
That is how you object. Because as soon as the objectionable nature you cannot sue upon it.
becomes apparent, that is the time you object. You should not wait Bars evidence of terms that Bars proof of an agreement
for the witness to answer kay klaro sa question na objectionable siya. exists outside the agreement. altogether.
Example of “from the offer prior to testimony”: If it is one of those listed and there is no writing and memoranda,
Lawyer: The testimony of the defendant is offered to proceed that dili pwede. Ang grounds sa imong objection would be statute of
(1) sometime after the executed the Loan Agreement on January 1, frauds.
2020, defendant was verbally granted an extension to pay the debt
and (2) for other purposes material in his defenses, your honor. August 13 Part 1 | Acevedo
Objectionable na ba siya? Naa nay g’admit nila by the offer that
there was a loan agreement, and that he was verbally granted
extension to pay the debt. RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
Q: Is it in the agreement? MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION AND PRIVILEGE
A: NO. It is not found in the agreement. So, by the offer pa lang you
object.
Note: Prior to amendment, this used to be Section 22. Section 23
JZE: We object to the testimony, your Honor. As offered, the used to be the survivorship disqualification rule which the Supreme
testimony seeks to modify the terms of the written agreement by Court in its amendment to the Rules of Court, transferred as an
means of parol evidence. exception to the hearsay rule.
That’s how you object. If you look at it, from the point of view of Why is disqualification by reason of marriage under the Rules?
objection, lahi ang Best Evidence Rule and Parol Evidence Rule. Recall that we are already in the topic ‘testimonial evidence’. The first
Because if the proper time to object is always after the presentation couple of provisions are talking about the qualifications of
of the party’s testimonial evidence, under the best evidence rule, the witnesses.
timing of the objection based on the Parol Evidence Rule depends
on the form taken by evidence aliunde. (a) Section 21 would tell us that a witness must be able to perceive
and in perceiving can make known his perception to others.
So, depende. Pwede siya testimonial, pwede pud documentary. If That is the basic qualification. There are factors in the 2nd par.
testimonial man siya, depende kung kanus’a nimo na matikdan na of such rule which tells us what will not affect the qualifications
objectionable d ay and testimony. of the witnesses.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE (b) Section 22 tells us that a witness may only testify based on his
The timing of the objection The proper time to object is personal knowledge, that is which is derived from his
based on the Parol Evidence always after the presentation perception. This used to be the foundational provision on the
Rule depends on the form of a party’s testimonial rule on hearsay because anything that the witness testifies to
taken by evidence aliunde. evidence. that is not based on his personal knowledge or not derived
from his own perception is supposed to be inadmissible in
You should also know the distinctions between the Parol Evidence court. Thus, the witness cannot testify as to matters that are not
Rule and Statute of Frauds. Naa silay commonality, both affect your based on his personal knowledge. That is actually a
ability to present testimony. disqualification—that if you are testifying on matters not based
on your personal knowledge, a witness becomes incompetent.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE STATUTE OF FRAUDS He cannot be competent to testify.
FIRST
EXAM 69
(c) Section 23 is of the same vein because when you talk about
disqualification by reason of marriage, it is a limitation on a a. Reasons/Bases for the rule
party’s ability to present a witness in court. Thus, it is now like In jurisprudence, there are several.
a continuation of the basic provisions which are Sections 21 and
22. Riano, for example, cites that the rule is based on
society’s intent to preserve the marriage relations and
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During promote domestic peace. A spouse testifying against
their marriage, the husband or the wife cannot testify against the the other creates an ugly sight inimical to society’s
other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil interests. The rule prohibiting a testimony in favor of
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime the spouse is intended to discourage the commission
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct of perjury. But even, the opinion of Riano is based on
descendants or ascendants. (22a) Jurisprudence.
A. MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE [a.k.a. Spousal The basis of the rule is said to be the
Immunity Rule] “considerations of public policy growing out of
the marital relations.
(a) The marital disqualification rule under Sec. 23 of Rule
130, forbids the husband or the wife to testify for or To allow one to testify for or against the other would
against the other without the consent of the affected be to subject him or her to great temptation to
spouse except in those cases authorized by the rule. commit perjury and to endanger the harmony and
confidence of the marital relation. The cases
Except in those authorized by the rule—refer to the supporting the rule are innumerable. (US v.
exceptions under the provision itself. Concepcion)
(b) The prohibition extends not only to a testimony 1. There is identity of interests between husband and
adverse to the spouse but also to a testimony in favor
wife;
of the spouse.
Remember that when a man marries a woman,
they become one person under the law.
In other words, it cuts both ways. It is one that constitute
as a privilege not to testify and disqualification from
2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is
testifying.
a consequent danger of perjury;
(c) It also applies in both criminal and civil cases.
Remember why you married your husband or
B. ADVERSE OR IN FAVOR wife, because you love him or her. Because you
love him or her, there is a possibility that you will
Thus, the martial disqualification rule consists of two parts: lie in the witness stand in order to protect
somebody who you chose, somebody who you
(1) The Incapacity to testify for the other love.
A disqualification to obviate perjury; and
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and
(2) The Privilege not to testify against the other
confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
A right designated to prevent domestic disunion and
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic
unhappiness. The rule precludes the husband or the wife
disunion and unhappiness; and
from becoming the means of the other’s condemnation
Even if as a spouse is the only witness to a crime
(U.S. v. Concepcion, 31 Phil. 182, Lezama v. Rodriguez, G.R.
but his or her spouse is an accused for example,
No. L-25643, June 27, 1968].
then we will just leave that first otherwise, there
will be disharmony in the domestic life in the
Comment:
spouses.
Among the relatives, the only relative that you have a
choice on is your spouse. You cannot choose who will be
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility exists,
your parents. You do not have also a choice who will be
there is danger of punishing one spouse through the
your biological children because they are blessings from
hostile testimony of the other.
God. But as to your spouse, he or she is the only relative
(People v. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694 and Alvarez v.
who you can choose. Dapat pangatawanan nimo ang
Ramirez 473 SCRA 72)
imong asawa or ang imong bana.
FIRST
EXAM 70
Comment:
I can relate to this not because there is domestic tranquility in C. REQUISITES OF SECTION 23
my home but because of the number of cases that I have
handled in the past that relates to the relationship between the (1) Marriage must be valid and existing when then one
husband and wife, those strained relations. spouse’s testimony is offered.
Example: Note: Cohabitation or live in is not allowed. It must be a valid

Petition for nullity under Article 36, Custody battles, VAWC and existing marriage, which means that when the testimony of
cases, which I have encountered before. the witness spouse was offered after the marriage was
dissolved [in other words, it is possible that it was annulled or
What I realized is that, what they are saying which is declared null and void under Article 36, then the marital
“hell hath no fury than a woman scorned” is true, disqualification rule will not apply anymore.
because it is difficult to handle cases involving
(a) The spouse must be legally married to each other to
spouses because you do not know if there is some
invoke the benefit of the rule; it does not cover an illicit
feeling left over there. I realized that estranged
relationship. (People v. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694).
husbands and wives make for the bitterest of
enemies. That is true based on my experience in A relationship that exists outside of wedlock like a live-in
practice. It is very difficult to put them back together. relationship or boyfriend-girlfriend relationship,
adulterous relationship, those are not covered.
b. Opinion of Atty. JZE: The basis is constitutional.
This is because, no less than the 1987 Constitution (b) When the marriage is dissolved on the grounds
declares that: provided by law like annulment or declaration of
nullity, the rule can no longer be invoked.
Art. XV, Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social
institution, is the foundation of the family and shall (c) If the testimony for or against the other spouse is
be protected by the State. offered during the existence of the marriage, it does
not matter if the facts subject of the testimony
A witness testifying against his own spouse is not one occurred before the marriage. It only matters that the
that is made pursuant to a protection that is affected spouse objects to the offer of testimony.
guaranteed by the state upon marriage.
Situation:
That is why when wife argued before the Supreme It could be possible that when they were still in boyfriend-girlfriend
Court where a case involves an issue on legitimate or relationship, he said something to his future wife. Maybe he
illegitimate children, one of the arguments that I confessed to a crime but they got married anyway. But later on, it
crafted for my wife was the fact that when you could be possible also that the crime was discovered and the spouse
equalize legitimate and illegitimate children, you are was being hailed to court to answer for the crime.
actually not promoting the policy of the state which
Q: Will the marital disqualification rule apply despite the fact
is protect marriage as an inviolable social institution,
that the facts subject of the testimony occurred before the
because it turns out that marriage is not necessary
marriage?
anymore.
A: Yes, the martial disqualification rule would still apply thus
prohibiting the testimony of the spouse.
Note:
The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or
Illustration:
against the other is based on principles which are
Before they got married, wife Sarah witnessed the murder of Divine
deemed important to preserve the marriage relation
by husband Matteo but she never reported what she witnesses to
as one of full confidence and affection, and that this
the authorities. Barely six months after the marriage, Sarah became
is regarded as more important to the public welfare
a battered wife and to get even with Matteo, she decided to report
than that the exigencies of the lawsuits should
the murder to the police.
authorize domestic peace to be disregarded for the
sale of ferreting out facts within the knowledge of
August 13 Part 2 | Amistad
strangers.
Q: May Sarah testify against Matteo for the prosecution?
Exigencies of public lawsuits should take a back seat A: No. She cannot testify over the objection of Matteo. The situation
in the meantime because the harmony in the is covered by the marital disqualification rule.
marriage needs to be preserved.
FIRST
EXAM 71
Q: If the marriage is annulled, may Sarah now testify despite the testimony is objectionable from the very
objection of Matteo? beginning and yet the court allowed the witness
A: Yes. She can now testify. The prohibition no longer applies since to testify –the rule of thumb seems to be, you
the testimony is to be offered after the marriage. should not cross-examine. Why? Because the act
of cross-examining amounts to a waiver of your
Q: If the murder of Divine by Matteo took place during the objection.
marriage, may Matteo successfully object to the testimony on
the ground that the facts subject of the testimony occurred Waiver
during the existence of the marriage? The testimony is prohibited only over the objection of the
A: No. Matteo cannot successfully object if the testimony is offered affected spouse. It is the latter spouse who has the right to
after the dissolution of the marriage. object to the competency of the witness-spouse. It goes
without saying that the testimony is admissible where no
Principle to Remember objection is interposed by the spouse who has the right to
Under the Marital Disqualification Rule, the time of occurrence of invoke the prohibition. In other words, the benefit of the
the facts subject of the testimony does not matter. Thus, it is not rule may be waived. It may be waived impliedly or
consequential that the testimony of the spouse-witness is based on expressly.
facts that occurred before or during the marriage.
Objections to the competency of a husband and wife to testify in a
Why? Because the only “timing” that matters is that the testimony is criminal prosecution against the other may be waived as in the case
offered DURING THE MARRIAGE. If the marriage is already dissolved of other witnesses generally. The objection to the competency of the
(or after the marriage), you can already testify. spouse must be made when he or she is first offered as a witness.
(People vs. Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002)
(2) The other spouse is a party to the action, whether civil or
criminal.
So, the moment na i-patawag sa witness stand, that is
already the time you should object. Pag offer pa lang,
We are now introduced into two characters of the story:
“Your Honor, we call to the witness stand Mrs. A, the
(1) We have the witness spouse; and
testimony of the witness Your Honor is offered to prove
(2) The litigant spouse [the one who owns the privilege to
the following matters: #1, 2, 3. Object na dayun ka,
object to the testimony of the witness spouse].
because the testimony of the spouse-witness is already
offered into evidence, that’s the time when you need to
One spouse must be a party to the action
object and NOT when nakasugod na siya og sturya. You
This means that one spouse must have initiated an action
object immediately at the first opportunity to do so.
in court as plaintiff, complainant or petitioner; or have
been hailed to court as defendant, respondent or accused.
People vs. Francisco
Thus, if one spouse is a mere witness for a party, and the
78 Phil 694 (1947)
other spouse’s testimony is offered either to corroborate
or rebut the testimony of one spouse, the rule does not
Where the accused husband in his testimony imputed the
apply.
commission of the crime to his wife, he is deemed to have waived
Why? Because even if he is a witness, he is not a
his objection to the latter’s testimony in rebuttal.
party. So dapat he/she must be a party, whether
as plaintiff/complainant, or defendant/accused.
Comment:
The litigant-spouse has not given consent to the
This is an interesting case, where the husband was accused of killing
testimony.
his own child. The husband imputed the commission of the crime to
(3) The litigant spouse has not given his or her consent to the his wife, during his direct examination ang tubag niya kay “dili ako
testimony. ang ning patay sakong anak, ang ning patay sakong anak kay akong
asawa”, and then they rested. The prosecution wanted to rebut the
Consent can be express or implied testimony of the accused, because otherwise it would remain
1. Express, if the litigant-spouse manifests in open court that unrebutted. When the prosecution called the wife to rebut the
he is not objecting to the testimony of the witness-spouse. testimony of the husband, the latter objected on the ground that it
2. Implied, if the litigant-spouse does not object when the is covered under the Marital Disqualification Rule.
testimony is offered or if he cross-examines the witness-
spouse. The Supreme Court, however, said that the husband has already
Take note, the act of cross-examination is deemed to have waived the objection, otherwise it would be
implied consent. You have to remember when completely unfair to the prosecution and to the wife to whom he
you become lawyers already, that if the imputed the commission of the crime.
FIRST
EXAM 72
Principle to Remember
Take Note: Under the civil case exception, the case should be between the
If the litigant-spouse already waived the rule by himself employing spouses themselves. Direct ascendants or descendants does not
his spouse as his own witness, he cannot object later on if his matter.
opponent cross-examines his spouse.
CODAL EXCEPTION: 2.
It is only the litigant-spouse who possesses the right to object. IN A CRIMINAL CASE FOR A CRIME COMMITTED BY ONE
AGAINST THE OTHER OR THE LATTER’S DIRECT
EXCEPTIONS (CODAL) DESCENDANTS OR ASCENDANTS
1. In a civil case by one against the other; or
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against The rule is different in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the
the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. privilege of one to testify against the other is not confined to
crimes committed by one against the other, but covers crimes
committed by one against the direct descendants or ascendants of
the latter like the latter’s children or parents. However, crimes
committed against a spouse’s collateral relatives like uncles,
aunties, cousins or nephews and nieces are not covered by the
EXCEPTIONS (DOCTRINAL) exception
1. When the testimony was made outside the marriage;
Meaning, the marriage is no longer valid and subsisting. If the wife sues the husband for fraudulently embezzling the
It’s not really an exception but more of an application of paraphernal funds of the former, the reason for the rule ceases. The
the requisites. wife can now testify against the husband.
2. When the marital relations are so strained, there is no Also, if the wife is sued for adultery, the husband cannot be barred
more consideration for applying the said rule. To apply from testifying against the wife.
the exception there must be an offense that directly
attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal Reason for the first two exceptions
relations. (Ordoño vs. Daquigan) In these cases, the identity of interest disappears and the
Later on, we will know this to be the so-called, consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
Strained Relations Doctrine. Just in case lang In such a situation, the security and confidence of private life which
ipangutana sa Bar Exam, What is the strained relations the law aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which, through
doctrine? mao ni sya. their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. (Alvarez vs.
Ramirez)
CODAL EXCEPTION: 1.
IN A CIVIL CASE BY ONE AGAINST THE OTHER Direct Descendants or Ascendants
The phrase “or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants” did not
In order for a spouse to be allowed to testify against the other
appear in the older incarnation of the rule (1964 Rules). Hence, in
in a civil case, the case must be a “civil case by one against the
People vs. Natividad (70 Phil 315), it was held that a wife cannot
other”.
testify against her husband without his consent if the husband is
This contemplates a situation where one spouse is a
accused of killing her child.
plaintiff or petitioner and the other spouse is a
defendant or respondent.
But now, the present rule (1989, 2020 Rules) has been harmonized
In a suit for annulment of marriage, each spouse can testify
with the ruling in Ordoño vs. Daquigan, allowing the wife to testify
against each other.
against her husband for raping her daughter.
Where the civil case is between a spouse and the direct
descendants or ascendants of the other, the marital
In this case, the act of the husband raping the daughter of
disqualification rule still applies.
his wife is actually an offense committed by the husband
The direct ascendants or descendants requirement
against the wife and such offense directly and vitally
only applies to criminal cases, such will not apply in
impairs the conjugal relations.
a civil case exception.
Thus, if the wife sues the father of her husband for collection August 13 Part 3 | Bahalla
of a loan, the husband may be barred from testifying against
the wife upon the objection of the latter. This is because the What types of Crimes are covered?
civil case is not by one against the other but between a spouse When an offense directly attacks, directly and vitally impairs the
and the parent of the other. conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that
one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal
FIRST
EXAM 73
prosecution for a crime committed by one against the other. So, di nato ifollow ang rule blindly. Otherwise, it would lead to unfair
(People vs. Castañeda) results.
Mao na sya karun ang gi-harmonize because now, based atleast in THE STRAINED RELATION DOCTRINE
the case of Castaneda- When an offense directly attacks, directly
and vitally impairs the conjugal relation, again, its like a crime To my mind, this is the most important section. Why? Kapila na ni
committed by one against the other. Now, it’s codally provided gipangutana sa Bar Examination. And if you have a copy of my book,
included in the 2020 Amended Rules. I listed down all of those cases that applied the Marital
Disqualification Rule, including the Strained Relations Doctrine.
People vs. Castaneda
In this case, the wife can testify against the husband in a case for Strained Relations Doctrine
falsification of the wife’s signature in public documents to sell When the marital relations are so strained, there is no more
share of wife in conjugal property because it is a crime committed consideration for applying the said rule.
by the husband against the wife. To apply the exception, there must be an offense that directly
Q: Unsa gani mahinumdoman nato sa Sales or PFR? What would attacks or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relations.
be the effect of a sale of either a conjugal property of
community property where the consent of the other spouse is To that, we have the case of Alvarez vs. Ramirez (2005)
not obtained? What is the effect? (twice asked in the Bar already. So we have to be careful of these
A: Void ab Initio repeating Bar examination questions because basic kayo na siya. It
has to be known by the students)
Q: Do you also remember in the Family Code what would be the
procedure if, for example, the spouses’ consent cannot be Alvarez vs. Ramirez
obtained? Let’s say nag-abandon siya sa conjugal dwelling or if In this case, Susan Ramirez was the complaining witness in a
strained najud ilang relationship nga ang isa kay nilayas na. criminal case of Arson pending before the RTC. The accused was
What would be the remedy of the spouse who wants to sell the
Maximo Alvarez, estranged husband of Esperanza, her sister.
conjugal or community property. Unsay remedy niya?
Esperanza was called to the witness stand as the first witness
A: All you have to do is to secure judicial authorization from the
against Maximo. Maximo filed a Motion to Disqualify Esperanza
court. Mag-apply ka for judicial authorization attaching the
from testifying against him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised
proposed contract in saying nga “di man nako ma-locate
Rules of Court on Marital Disqualification Rule. During the
akongbana/asawa.”
marriage, the husband and the wife cannot testify against the
other if the other objects.
What happened here was that he did not secure judicial
authorization, gi-forge nalang niya ang signature sa iyang asawa.
Let’s try to analyze these facts:
That is an offense that directly attacks and vitally impairs the
This is not a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
conjugal relations. So, pwedeng mag-testify ang wife against the
the other.
husband.
it is a crime committed by one spouses against his sister-in-
law.
Again, kato bitaw ingon nako sa inyoha nga gi-Plan B niya ang
iyahang defense. “di ako ang nipatay, kadto siya ang nipatay-akong
This is also not a criminal case for a crime committed by one
asawa. Plan A is you put it on the merit.s You put a credible defense.
against the latter’s direct ascendants or descendants.
Plan B is blame it on somebody else. It just so happens that in this
Dili man direct ascendants or descendants ang sister. They
case, ang iya gi-blame kay ang iyang asawa.
are merely collateral relatives because you go up before you
gondown and reach your sister in the family tree.
So, according to the Supreme Court, by said act, the husband must
be taken to have waived all objection to the latter’s testimony upon
Note that this is a case for Arson of the ouse belonging to the
rebuttal, even considering that such objection would have been
wife’s sister.
available at the outset. Because, otherwise, it would be unfair, diba?
Meaning, Arson case. Destruction of property ra ni. Its not
even crime against person.
The State must have the right to offer the rebutting testimony in
question, even against the objection of the accused, because it was
BUT, Maximo, when he set fire to the house, knew that his wife
the latter himself who gave rise to the necessity. It may be said that
was there.
the accused husband thought that he would have more chances of
convincing the court of his pretended innocence if he pointed to his
The Supreme Court said here that the act of private respondent in
wife as having cause the death of their child, instead of simply
setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law, Susan Ramirez, knowing
denying that he was the author of the fatal act.
fully well that his wife was there, and in fact with the alleged intent
FIRST
EXAM 74
of injuring the latter, is an act totally alien to the harmony and husband or son-in-law, na-strain najud ang relation sa
confidences of marital relation which the disqualification primarily iyang asawa.
seeks to protect. The criminal act complained of had the effect of
directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. AMERICAN RULE
Now, let’s go to a different point here.
It underscored the fact that the marital and domestic relations
between her and the accused-husband have become so strained Under American Rules of Procedure, the rule extends to testimony
that there is no more harmony, peace, or tranquillity to be preserved. and objects. So, the testimony covered by the marital
The Supreme Court has held that in such a case, identity is non- disqualification rule not only consists of utterances but also the
existent. In such a situation, the security and confidences of the production of documents and, conceivably also, objects. (State vs.
private life which the law aims to protect are nothing but ideals Bramlet, 114 S. C. 89, 2013 S. E. 755)
which through their absence, merely have a void in the unhappy
home. Thus, there is no longer any reason to apply the Marital Q: Is this rule followed also in the Philippines?
Disqualification Rule. A: In the Philippines, there is a way by which you can compel the
witness to testify a case. What is that? It is by applying for an
So, when the Strained relations Doctrine is applicable, there is no issuance of a Subpoena ad testificandum under Rule 21. That’s the
longer any reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule. Okay? way you can compel production of a witness to testify, diba.
That is a very important exception.
Q: And, under Philippine law as well, how can a person be
STRAINED RELATIONS DOCTRINE IN A CIVIL CASE compelled to produce documents for use in a case? A: You apply
So, going back to the Strained Relations Doctrine, if you look at for Subpoena duces tecum which is also under Rule 21.
jurisprudence, it is particularly applicable to criminal cases. But the
question is applicable ba siya sa civil case? Example:
Nag-issue ug subpoena duces tecum ang court upon the
Example: wife to bring documents against the husband. Pwede sya?
Jeric and Kim are married. Kim’s family has money and Is there a law to that effect that di niya dapat na buhaton
property. Through the intercession of Kim, Jeric was able na magdala ug documents against the husband? Think
to persuade his parents-in-law to lend him money and about it.
authorize him to mortgage their properties so that he can
use them t raise capital for his business. Unbeknownst to Analysis
Kim and her family, Jeric squandered the money on Q: What happens when a person is compelled to bring
luxuries instead of propagating the business. He was documents in court by a subpoena duces tecum? Does it end
there?
unable to pay the loans he owed his creditors, including
A: No. Let’s examine the law. When you talk about Subpoena duces
his wife’s family. And now ang properties sa pamilya are
tecum, it may also require him or her to bring with him or her any
now to be foreclosed because of non-payment of debts.
books, documents, or other things under his or her control, in which
case it is called a subpoena duces tecum.
In civil case filed by Kim’s parents against Jeric to recover
the squandered amounts, can Kim testify against her own
But, take note of the word “also”. It means, in addition to directing
husband? Remember, this is a civil case. Can this lead to
a person requiring him to attend and testify, he can also be asked to
an application of Strained Relations Doctrine? Is it an
bring documents. And, as what we have learned before, Documents
offense that directly affects of vitally impairs the conjugal
do not testify by themselves. They have to be sponsored by a
relations.
witness.
Sa civil case, applicable lang ang exception if it is a case by
Even if in the hierarchy of competent evidence kay pinaka-ubos ang
one spouse against the other. Here, dili man. It is the family
testimonial. But it is the most important because no object or
of the wife filing the case to recover money from the
document could ever be presented or authenticated without
husband.
testimonial sponsorship.
A: There is no ruling to that effect.
August 13 Part 4 | Du
However, take note that the case should be between the
spouses themselves. Direct ascendants or descendants do
PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER:
not matter if you are making use of the civil case exception.
A subpoena duces tecum necessarily includes a subpoena ad
testificandum.
But in Atty. Espejo’s opinion, yes. Ngano gud dili.
Especially so because of the actions pf the prodigal
FIRST
EXAM 75
You cannot just apply for a subpoena ad testificandum, [and A. MARITAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
then] to compel somebody to bring a document. [A subpoena
duces tecum] includes an order for whoever brings the (a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be
document, the custodian of the document, to testify about examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
these documents as well. received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage
except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case
But a subpoena ad testificandum does not necessarily include for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
a subpoena duces tecum. It has to be clearly specified in the descendants or ascendants.
writ that the witness should also bring with him documents (in
which case it is now called a subpoena duces tecum). This remains virtually unchanged under the new Rules.
So, even if there is no rule specifically saying that the Marital

Disqualification Rule extends to documents or the bringing of “The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage”
objects against the litigant spouse, it is still covered. It is still diha pa lang nakakita na ta ug difference between the
covered despite the fact that there is no rule directly providing Marital Disqualification Rule and the Marital Privileged
that. Communication Rule. While the parties are the same– the
husband or the wife, here it is during or after the marriage
Take note: while in Marital Disqualification Rule it is only during the
Rule 130, Section 23 in relation to Section 24(a)is a favorite marriage.
source of bar questions (1989, 2000, 2004, 2006, etc.).
You need to impress upon the mind of the bar examiner that So what does it tell you? This Marital Privileged Communication Rule
you have what it takes to practice as a lawyer. If your language has a longer duration because it exists even after the marriage.
is approximately the same as the language of the SC, then in all
likelihood you will get better ratings. Ex. “unprofitable to Take note of the phraseology, save for perhaps, the middle,
require proof,” “hemorrhaging of the assets of the debtor” pareho siya sa Marital Disqualification Rule.
Unsa lay nakalahi? “any communication received in confidence”
Cases you must read: – kana na part ang nakalahi.
Alvarez vs. Ramirez (GR No. 143439, October 14, 2005) “except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
Ordoño vs. Daquigan, et al. (GR No. L-39012, January 31, 1975) case for a crime committed by one against the other or the
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants” – even the exceptions
are the same
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
REQUISITES
1. There was a VALID MARRIAGE (similar to the Marital
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged Disqualification Rule);
communications. – The following persons cannot testify as to
matters learned in confidence in the following cases: Dili applicable kung kintahay live-in relationship lang siya
or cohabitation, whether licit or illicit. Because we have to
There are 5 cases. Let’s first talk about the type of disqualification admit, naa man pud licit na cohabitation – cohabitation
under Section 24. between a man and a woman who are not incapacitated
to marry each other. They are both single pero dili lang
It is a disqualification for one reason and one reason only: that gyud sila ganahan mag-asawa. Licit na na cohabitation, dili
reason is the nature of the information. It is not a disqualification na illicit. But here, again, it only applies if there is a valid
at all times. It is a disqualification only under certain situations given marriage.
the nature of the information sought to be elicited from the mouth
of the witness. 2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between the spouses DURING the said
marriage; and
Briefly, they are:
a) Marital Privileged Communication Rule
Q: Recall under the Marital Disqualification Rule, naa ba
b) Attorney-Client Privileged Communication Rule
word na “during”?
c) Physician-Patient Privileged Communication Rule
A: “During their marriage, the husband or the wife cannot… ”
d) Priest-Penitent Privileged Communication Rule
The rule applies while they are married.
e) Public Offices Privileged Communication Rule or the of
State Secrets
FIRST
EXAM 76
But here, the word “during” applies to the time when the about that “unless Rrrramon consents.” Why? Because the
confidential information was stated or communicated to the marriage is already annulled. Diba, only during the
other spouse. So it is the timing that matters. When was the marriage mag-apply ang Marital Disqualification Rule?
information obtained? Was it before, after, or during the
marriage? Under the Marital Privileged Communication Rule, dili pwede. Why?
Because the rule applies during or after the marriage, unless
3. The spouse against whom such evidence is being offered Rrrramon waives the privilege. Take note. That is a very important
HAS NOT GIVEN HIS OR HER CONSENT to such testimony. distinction. Why? Because even if the marriage is already dissolved,
but the confidential information was communicated to one spouse
EXCEPTIONS: during the marriage, the Marital Privileged Communication Rule
1. In a civil case by one against the other; would still apply even if dili na sila minyo. That’s the biggest
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the difference between the two.
other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
MARITAL MARITAL PRIVILEGED
Take note that these are the same codal exceptions under the DISQUALIFICATION RULE COMMUNICATION RULE
Marital Disqualification Rule. Both rules apply only when the spouses are legally married.
Presumption: Common law relationships and other cohabitations, not covered.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, any communication Both rules do not apply in a civil case by one against the other or
given by one spouse to the other is presumed confidential. in a criminal case committed by one against the other or the
other’s direct descendant or ascendant.
There is that presumption of confidentiality when we talk about the
Marital Privileged Communication Rule. So, in both rules, the codal exceptions are the same.
Both rules are inapplicable where the affected spouses consent
Hypothetical problem: to the testimony.
Spouses Maja and Rramon were deep in conversation
when Rramon confessed to Maja that he, before they got Gi-allow diay na pwede magtestify. So, okay lang na magtestify,
married, killed Maja’s ex-boyfriend, Gerald. diba?
Can be invoked only if one of An be claimed whether or not
Q: Can Maja be called to testify against Rrramon?
the spouses is a party to the the spouse is a party to the
(Are they still married? Yes they are, wala man nakabutang
action. action.
na the marriage has already been dissolved.)
A: No. The Marital Privileged Communication Rule applies.
Diba naa tay duh aka
Why? The privileged or confidential information was made
personality ngadto? Witness-
or communicated while they are still married.
spouse and litigant spouse.
Applies only if the marriage is Can be claimed even after the
In fact, the Marital Disqualification Rule applies as well. Why?
existing at the time the marriage has been dissolved.
Because they are still married.
testimony is offered.
Why? Because the law says,
So both rules apply in that situation.
“during or after the marriage”.
Constitutes a total prohibition Applies only to confidential
Q: But the crime was committed before their marriage?
Does it matter? against the spouse. communications between the
A: It does not really matter. What matters is that the spouses.
communication was made during their marriage. So, the In other words, the spouse can
Marital Privileged Communication Rule applies. actually refuse to take the Only when ang ginapangutana
Conversely, the Marital Disqualification Rule applies also witness stand altogether. He sa witness-spouse is one that
because they are still married. cannot be compelled . relates to confidential
communication or privileged
Q: What if their marriage was annulled? Can Maja communication.
testify then? Ceases upon the death of one Continues even after the
either spouse. termination of the marriage of
August 13 Part 5 | Escritor whatever cause, including the
death of the spouse.
A: The rules are different because under the Marital The prohibition bars testimony Bars the examination of a
Disqualification Rule, pwede na sya magtestify. Forget for or against the other. spouse as to matters related in
FIRST
EXAM 77
confidence to the other When should you raise your objection?

spouse. Mubalik na pud ta sa atong cross-reference to Rule 132. Depende
kung kanus-a gi-offer. The offer of the testimony of the witness as
So, very specific ang object sa evidence, must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
Marital Privileged So, gitawag nimo karon tong spouse as a witness.
Communication Rule.
When do you object? It depends gihapon, diba? Depende kung unsa
PRINCIPLES TO REMEMBER imong objectionan.
Under the Marital Disqualification Rule, the litigant-spouse Objection to the offer of evidence must be made orally
may object to the fact that the witness-spouse is called as immediately after the offer is made.
a witness because it is a disqualification on the part of the Objection to a question propounded in the course of oral
witness-spouse to testify. So, the moment na gitawag as examination of the witness must be made as soon as the
witness, object na dayon dapat ang litigant-spouse. grounds therefore become reasonably apparent.
The witness-spouse may refuse to take the witness stand
altogether because it is a privilege not to testify. So, Let me illustrate.
gitawag sya as witness against the husband. “Uy dili ko. Di For marital disqualification, objection should be interposed when
ko musugot kay akoa nang bana. Bawal na under the the testimony of the witness-spouse is offered – when the witness-
Marital Disqualification Rule.” spouse is called to testify. And you have to make the objection
immediately. What’s the case there? People v. Pansensoy. The
SUMMARY moment the witness-spouse is called to testify.
In sum, therefore, the witness-spouse may refuse or be prevented Q: Is the rule the same in Marital Privilege? When do you object
from taking the witness stand sa sugod pa lang at the onset. The under the Rule on Marital Privilege?
mere offer of the witness-spouse as a witness is already A: Of course, the rule is not the same. The objection under the
objectionable under the Rules on Evidence. Pwede na ka mag-object Marital Privileged Communication Rule is against the privileged in
pag offer dayon sa witness-spouse as a witness. formation and not to the mere fact that the spouse is called to
testify. We’re not talking about the qualification here of the spouse
Where the testimony of the witness-spouse is not allowed either to testify. We’re talking about the nature of the information sought
because the other spouse did not object, or the marriage is already to be elicited from the witness-spouse. So, unsaon nato pagkabalo
dissolved, and thus, the Marital Disqualification Rule does not apply ana karon?
anymore, under the Marital Privileged Communication Rule, the
witness-spouse cannot generally be barred from taking the witness Q: When exactly should the witness-spouse object?
stand altogether. Why? There’s no more Marital Disqualification. So, A: Again, the answer is: it depends. If the objectionable testimony
pagtawag sa iyaha as witness, the Marital Disqualification Rule does is made in the course of examination, the objection should be
not apply anymore. Meaning, the spouse may testify, as a general interposed as soon as the grounds therefore shall become
rule. reasonably apparent. But, it is also quite possible that the
objectionable nature of the testimony is already apparent from the
So, why is that? Unsay explanation ana? Clearly because the offer prior the testimony. In that situation, objection to evidence
testimony of the witness-spouse ill only be disallowed if it is offered offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.
to elicit privileged information. So, the mere calling of a spouse to
the witness stand does not necessarily mean na ma-bar na sya from Let’s illustrate. We’re going to talk here about the Marital Privileged
testifying because we do not know kung unsay iyahang i-testify Communication Rule only.
about, right? So, you cannot object immediately as a general rule.
Lawyer: You mentioned that your husband told you
The privileged nature of the information sought can be determined something about the killing of Gerald when you were in
only when a specific question is asked. “What did your husband tell bed on February 25, 2020. What exactly did he tell you?
you?” That’s the time. “Objection, Your Honor. It calls for an answer
that reveals privileged information or privileged communication.” Q: Maka object ba ka? Is the objectionable nature apparent
already?
In sum, where the Marital Disqualification Rule is not applicable. A: Of course it’s apparent.
When will it be not applicable? When the marriage is already
dissolved or waiver, lack of objection. The witness-spouse cannot So, when you object:
altogether refuse to take the witness stand under the Marital “Objection, Your Honor! That question calls for an answer that
Privileged Communication Rule, as a general rule. violate the Marital Privileged Communication Rule.”
FIRST
EXAM 78
Diba? That’s the only time that you knew na objectionable o Under the Marital Privileged Communication Rule,
diay ang information sought to be elicited from the NO, because Majess is still a minor.
witness. So, that’s the time that you object in the course of Why? A minor, according to American
the examination – when it became reasonably apparent Jurisprudence, is considered a mere
that it is objectionable. extension of the personality of his parents.
What about in the offer prior to the testimony? Possible na ing-ani What about Bangs, the nosy neighbor (the eavesdropper)?
ang i-offer: o GENERAL RULE: She can testify. Third persons who,
without the knowledge of the spouses, overhear the
Lawyer: The testimony of the witness is offered to prove communication are not disqualified to testify.
that UP is the top performing law school with at least 63 Meaning she is not an extension of the
examinees and on February 25, 2020, accused told his wife personality of the spouses.
that he shot Gerald, her former boyfriend, and for other o EXCEPTION: When there is collusion and voluntary
purposes material to the case, Your Honor. disclosure to a third party, that third party becomes
an agent of the spouses and cannot testify.
Let’s pretend na Manila lawyer na sya. Niana dayon si JZE: Meaning the spouses voluntarily mentioned
“We object to the testimony, Your Honor. First, Ateneo de Davao to the supposedly eavesdropper that they
University is the top performing law school in the country regardless talked on this or that matter (nga mao ni
of the number of examinees and as offered, the testimony seeks to among gisturyahan). If you are imaginative
elicit information that violates the Marital Privileged Communication about, an example will be “uy mag away mi
Rule.” unya, paminaw ah.” There’s collusion there.
Sa offer pa lang, kabalo na ka na boret. Sa offer pa lang But there are limitations or qualifications
kabalo na ka na it would be violative of the Marital with that under the new rules.
Privileged Communication Rule. So, you object
immediately after the offer is made. By way of exception Under the example previously, while Majess, the minor child, cannot
under the Marital Privileged Communication Rule, while be compelled to testify. She can voluntarily testify because of
you cannot bar a spouse from testifying altogether, or Section 25.
from altogether taking the witness stand, if it is apparent
in the offer that the witness will testify on privileged Majess can voluntarily testify. Under Section 25:
matters, pwede na nimo na mapa-exclude pa alng daan. No person may be compelled to testify against his
You can already object. parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
direct descendants.
Klaro baa ng distinctions sa duha? Again, dili pareha ang timing sa
offer. When you talk about the Marital Disqualification Rule, the What is prohibited under Section 25 is testimony by
proper time to object should always be when the spouse is first compulsion. It does not forestall testimony by volition.
offered as witness. As I told you earlier, that’s People v. Pansensoy Meaning kanang personal nga mag-volunteer
in relation to Rule 132, Sections 35 and 36. nga magtestify ko. This is only the general rule
because there is an exception in Section 25.
Marital privilege, the proper time to object on the basis of the
Marital Privileged Communication Rule depends whether the Exception: when the testimony is indispensable
privileged nature of the communication sought to be elicited in a crime against that person or his parents
becomes apparent during the offer or in the course of the against the other.
examination.
DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER
1. Every communication between spouses is presumed to be
August 13 Part 6 | Estrosas
confidential.
2. The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM
of a third person who may have obtained the information,
Suppose that, in the foregoing problem, Rrramon’s confession to
provided that the original parties to the communication took
Maja was overhead by their minor daughter, Majess, and their nosy
reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality (last
housemate, Bangs.
paragraph of Section 24).
Questions: In other words, the third person who obtained the
Can Majess be called to testify? information took the pains to really listen despite the
FIRST
EXAM 79
fact that the spouses took reasonable precaution. Allan and Narita were married on August 1, 1989. After two
Nuclear iyang pagkachismosa. months, Narita told Allan in confidence that the 10-year old Liza
whom she claimed to be her niece was actually her daughter by
If you recall my example with respect to the a certain Basilio, a married man.
eavesdropper – in the absence of collusion or voluntary It was an admission that she had an affair with a married
disclosure, she may be called to testify. Now, the man. It was an admission on her part that she was
minimum requirement under the amended rules, is complicit in a crime of concubinage.
simply the spouses took reasonable precaution pero
nadunggan gihapon, that will remain privileged, even in In 1992, Narita obtained a judicial decree of nullity of her
the hands of the third person. marriage with Allan on the latter’s psychological incapacity to
fulfil his marital obligations.
Take note of this very important change under the If you are the one taking the bar examinations,
amended rules. pagkabasa na pagkabasa nimo ana nga nag obtain siya
3. However, where the communication is knowingly made in the ug judicial decree of nullity of marriage, what are you
presence of third persons, such communication is not immediately thinking about? You have to think on the
considered confidential if the spouses did not take reasonable fly during the bar examinations. Time is short. Uy,
precaution to protect its confidentiality. In addition, it can be you’re being led into thinking that the marital
said that the spouses have intended the transmission of the disqualification rule does not apply anymore because it
communication to such third persons. Indeed, communications is already after the marriage. So, dapat you think of out
intended for transmission to third persons are not confidential, of the box already when you analyzed.
unless the third person may be considered as an agent of the
spouses. When the decree became final, Liza assisted by Narita, filed 10
4. If the third person acquired knowledge of the communication cases of rape against Allan purportedly committed in 1991.
by collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of either of Right? Kinsa ang gi-rape ni Allan? Si Liza. What does it
the spouses, he thereby becomes an agent of such spouses so tell you? Crime by one against the other or the latter’s
that the privilege is claimable against him. direct ascendants or descendants.
5. Communications overheard by third persons, whether legally or
illegally, remain confidential as between the spouses, but the Ana dapat mudagan atong huna-huna pag mag bar
third person who overheard may be called upon to testify if the examinations ta, under time pressure. Every sentence
spouses did not take reasonable precaution to protect the would mean something.
confidentiality of the information.
During the trial, Narita was called to the witness stand to testify
Sir JZE’s advice: For me, I want you to remember the last as a witness against Allan who objected thereto on the ground of
paragraph of Section 24 because that is applicable to ALL marital disqualification.
Privileged Communication Rule. Remember the language that
is used in the rule with respect to the last paragraph of Section QUESTIONS:
24. As a public prosecutor, how would you meet the objection?
Remember, marital disqualification rule atong ginahisgutan.
LACUROM vs. JACOBA
A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would ask the court to overrule the objection. Under the marital
The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived disqualification rule, the objection to the testimony of one
by failure of the claimant to object timely to its presentation of spouse against the other may be invoked only during the
by any conduct that may be construed as implied consent. marriage. At the time the testimony of Narita was offered, the
marriage was already dissolved (Section 22, Rule 130, Rules of
To any other rule, that is still the similar principle to remember – it Court).
is waived by failure to object or there is an implied consent to the
testimony. Note: Section 22 pa na siya sa una by the time it was asked.
Sir JZE’s advice: As I have said, there are a lot of Bar Questions Suppose Narita’s testimony was offered while the decision
here, and they are stated in my book. Kindly read them. I will just nullifying her marriage to Allan was pending appeal, would
focus to the more important. your answer be different?
Applicable ba ang marital disqualification rule if dili pa
BAR QUESTION 1995 final and executory ang decision nullifying her marriage?
FIRST
EXAM 80
If not yet final and executory, it means the marriage is still

subsisting, right? Would that change your answer? B. ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILIGED COMMUNICATION
ANSWER: PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT

NO, the answer would not be different, and a valid objection may (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
still be interposed. The marital disqualification rule may not be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or
invoked in a criminal case for a crime committed against the his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
direct descendant of the other spouse. Here, Liza is the daughter professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary,
of Narita. stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
Sir JZE’s advice: In the process of elimination, in the process of which has been acquired in such capacity;
analyzing the problem, nakita na natoh na, nga mugawas na.
What I illustrated to you is called issue spotting. Mao na ang We are to treat Attorney-Client communication similarly with the
lisod sa bar, how will you spot the issue? There is no easy way of Marital-Privilege Communication Rule. In this particular instance, the
doing it, it’s just that you are actually required to think on the fly. witness is disqualified from testifying in relation to communication
Every sentence should have a meaning, unless it’s a filler. or advice given to the client in the course of Attorney-Client
relationships.
Dapat paspas ka mubasa, and paspas ka muspot kung unsa ang
important sa problem and you can only do that easily if you really It’s a Privileged Communication Rule and not a Disqualification
studied. Kung wala ka nagstudy, dili jud nimo na makita.
AMENDED RULE
Suppose Narita died during the pendency of the appeal, and
soon after, the legal wife of Basilio sued for legal separation on (b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be
sexual infidelity in view of Basilio’s love affair with Narita. At licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the
the trial, Allan was called by Basilio’s wife to testify that Narita consent of the client, be examined as to any communication
confided to him (Allan) during their marriage that Liza was her made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given
love child by Basilio. As counsel for Basilio, can you validly thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
object to the presentation of Allan as witness for the plaintiff? employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or
Explain. clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney be examined
Take note of the word: confided to him. Are we still talking without the consent of the client and his or her employer.
about marital disqualification rule or not? Dili na. We are Concerning any fact that the knowledge of which has been
now talking about marital privileged communication rule. acquired in such capacity, except in the following case:
SUGGESTED ANSWER (UP): (i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or

YES, I could validly object to the presentation of Allan as a advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to
witness on the ground that the communication of Narita was a enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit
privileged communication which could be invoked during or after what the client knew or reasonably should have
the marriage. Moreover, the testimony of Allan would be hearsay. known to be a crime or fraud;
Comments: Remember Narita already died, so the marriage is (ii) Claimants through some deceased client. As to a
already dissolved. So, the problem is calling for the fact that communication relevant to an issue between
privileged communication rule is applicable even after the marriage. parties who claim through the same deceased
client, regardless of whether the claims are by
The answer makes sense but Riano makes a further analysis: testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
However, Riano posits that: (iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a

The testimony could not be validly objected upon by Basilio’s communication relevant to a issue of breach of
counsel on the basis of the marital privileged communication duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the
rule. Basilio does not own the privilege. The prerogative to object
client to his or her lawyer;
to a confidential communication between spouses is vested upon
the spouses themselves, particularly the communicating spouse, (iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a
not a third person. This is clear from the provision: “…cannot be communication relevant to an issue concerning an
examined without the consent of the other…” (Section 24, Rule
attested document to which the lawyer is an
130, Rules of Court). attesting witness; or
August 27 Part 1 | Fernandez
FIRST
EXAM 81
(v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a

matter of common interest between two or more (d) The client has not given his consent to the attorney’s testimony
clients if the communication between two or more (NOTE: This is the Attorney- Client Privilege Communication
clients if the communication was made by any of Rule per se) ; or if the attorney’s secretary, stenographer, clerk
them to a lawyer retained or consulted n common, or other person assisting the attorney is sought to be examined
when offered in an action between any of the (NOTE: Derivative Attorney- Client Privileged Communication)
clients, unless they have expressly agree otherwise. , that both the client and the attorney have not given their
consent.
RATIONALE OF THE PRIVILEGE DERIVATIVE ATTORNEY - CLIENT

The policy underlying this privilege is that of encouraging open and PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
honest communication between clients and attorneys, which is If it is the attorney’:
thought to promote obedience to law and reduce the chance of a. secretary,
illegal behavior, whether intentional or inadvertent. As such, the b. stenographer,
attorney-client privilege is considered as one of the strongest c. clerk or
privileges available under the law. d. other person assisting the attorney
e. is sought to be examined or be a witness in court then
Comment: f. BOTH the client and the lawyer has to give consent to
You go to a lawyer you need to be able to confidently tell the testimony.
your lawyer about the facts of the case. Because if you are
hesitant in telling your lawyer everything, the lawyer will Hence, there are 2 Kinds of Attorney-Client Privileged
not be able properly prepare the prosecution of your Communication Rule:
cause of action or for your defense. 1. Attorney- Client Privilege Communication Rule per se and
2. Derivative Attorney- Client Privileged Communication
Ideally, there should be open and honest communication
between the lawyer and his client. Q: Is an actual perfected contract between a lawyer and a client
required for the privilege to attach?
REQUISITES FOR THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE RULE A: No.
(reflective of the changes brought about by the amendment)
The present rules do not require a perfected attorney-client
(a) There must be a communication made by the client to the relationship for the privilege to exist; whether it is for a fee or for
attorney or an advice given by the attorney to his client. An free, the Attorney- Client Privileged Communication Rule is already
“attorney” includes a person reasonably believed by the client applicable.
to be licensed to engage in the practice of law;
The communications between the attorney and the client no longer
Situation: need be in the course of an actual professional employment. And
The client has revealed something to the lawyer. Or the when we say actual professional employment, the lawyer and client
lawyer has given an advice to the client. has already come to an agreement the fees to be paid by the client.
TAKE NOTE: It is enough that the communication or advice be “with a view to”
The term “attorney” includes a person reasonably believed professional employment.
by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of
law. Situation
A lot of clients would go to a lawyer and consult for a legal
Hence, this privilege is not limited to an attorney or problem. Then tells the lawyer that he wants to file a case
someone who has signed the Roll of Attorneys- it already against his neighbor. The lawyer tells the client to go for
includes that qualification that the person is an attorney Barangay Conciliation first as they are only neighbors.
per se.
The lawyer then says he accepts the case and lays down
(b) The communication or advice must have been given in the professional fees in accordance with the IBP standards.
confidence; and
The client then tells the lawyer that he’ll just be back so
(c) The communication or advice must have been given either in he can first prepare as well; but in reality we know that
the course of professional employment, with view to client will not go back to the lawyer anymore.
professional employment ; and
In the above situation:
FIRST
EXAM 82
a. There is no contract but August 27 Part 2 | Jamero

b. Communication has been made by client to the lawyer
c. The lawyer gives advice even without getting consultation fees. NOTABLE CHANGES
*Sir narrates how new lawyers are somewhat abused by some Attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be
who come to them seeking for legal advice without paying licensed to engage in the practice of law
consultation fees. Tells the class that after how many years of
being victimized by said situation, now charges P500 for the This means that even non-lawyers who are ostensibly practicing law
first 30 minutes of consultation.* and who the client engages as such under the belief that he is
licensed to practice law are covered by the privilege.
Otherwise, a problem will arise. There is already an Attorney-Client
Privilege that applies. The fact that you already spoke to a particular Examples could be legal researchers or even those who are not
prospective client would mean that the lawyer can no longer have authorized to practice law who hold themselves out to the public as
the adverse party as a client because there is already a conflict of lawyers. The privilege therefore applies even if there is only a
interest. reasonable belief on the part of the client that the person he is
consulting is a lawyer.
DOCTRINE OF IMMEDIATE BENEFIT
from Sir’s friend one Atty. Leo De Los Santos: Comment:
Even in law school nagatabang-tabang sa free legal aid,
Q: When you go to a doctor for medical consultation, are you attorney napud jud ang tawag sa akoa kanang mga
immediately healed when the doctor tells you that you have indigent clients So, ang pagtuo nila abogado ko pero dili
coughs and cold? ko abogado. Am I covered by attorney-client privilege
A: No. The doctor still has to prescribe some medicines before you communication rule? Of course.
are healed.
Kanang mga tao nga dili abodago who hold themselves
BUT, a lawyer, the moment you go to a lawyer and ask for some legal out to the public as lawyers. Kanang ginatawag nato na
advice and the lawyer gives you one- the client is immediately MA [Murag Abogado].
benefited from the lawyer’s knowledge. Therefore, because the In Metro Manila, muadto ka’g Recto, or even near the SC,
client has already benefited from the knowledge of the lawyer, this nay mga gagmay na mga stalls, pagtuo nimo mga lawyer
triggers the right of the lawyer to bill his client accordingly naa diha pero dili diay. Nag imbento lang na sila ug
notarial seal nila pero dili diay licensed na notary public.
LAWYER MUST BE CONSULTED IN HIS PROFESSIONAL
CAPACITY Sir talks about helping his community—his
Where a person consults an attorney not as a lawyer but merely as neighbors(settlers) regarding a property owned by a
a friend, or a participant in a business transaction, the consultation private individual. Nagpatabang sila kay naa daw meeting
would not be one made in the course of a professional employment na pagabuhaton between them and the lawyer of the
or with a view to professional employment as required by Sec 24 (b) owner of the land. Ningabot and abogado kuno sa owner,
Rule 130, Rules of Court, and if proven to be so, would not be within sige na sya’g sturya. We were thinking why is this guy
the ambit of the privilege. talking about the purchase price of the property when the
owner wanted to help the settlers, anyway dili niya
*Sir tells a story about a friend from high school whom he kinanglan ang property. The guy keeps talking about price,
met with in a coffee shop. After hours of talking not fair market value of the property, but sir, with talent of
involving any legal problem at all, the friend asks sir how spotting bullsh*t a mile away, asked him “what’s your roll
much he owes him for taking so much of his time. Sir tells number pañero?” “What gives you the authority to
the friend that the conversation did not involve any legal transact on behalf of the owner of the property?” Ana siya
problem or any aspect of it all. Sir tells the friend to just na, “I have a General Power of Attorney coming from the
pay for the coffee then they’re quits.* owner of the land allowing me to transact with the
haha
In the above situation, the friend was not consulting Sir JZE as a
purchase and sale of this land.” Recall that it has to be a
SPA. So, sir told everybody that “this guy is not a lawyer.”
lawyer but as a friend.
So, this are the people who hold themselves out to the
Q: What if a case was filed against this friend, can I be made a public as lawyers. If you make a confession or give
witness as to those matters he told me about? information to the person holding himself as a lawyer
A: Yes, because I was not acting in my professional capacity as a despite the fact that he is not, that is covered under the
lawyer but rather as a confidante. privilege under the amended rules.
FIRST
EXAM 83
bring them out from customs without paying any taxes or

Hence, privilege applies when there’s reasonable belief on dues.
the part of the client that the person he is consulting is a
lawyer. Sir: There’s this guy, pariente sakong pariente, who called
me up. He went on and on, rambling for about an hour
Attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons and a half, and asked about my professional opinion, in
assisting the attorney. the end [daghan na siya giingon, daghan na sya
Persons "assisting an attorney" can include both under pangutana], ang pangutana niya diay is “naa ba kay kaila
employment (legal researchers) and without employment (law sa customs para makakuha ko’g shipment na di na ko
school apprenticeship programs or legal aid clinics). mubayad ug customs dues?” Meaning, “Naa ba kay kaila
Under the Federal Rules, it also covers "facilitators" or those na fixer sa customs? What is that? You’re smuggling,
who facilitate or make possible the rendition of legal services you’re not paying any taxes or custom dues.
by the attorney. Q1: Assume that KA was caught smuggling goods, Can Sakee be
called to testify as to what KA asked him?
Q: What form does facilitator take in the PH context? A: YES. Sakee can be called to testify. The privilege does not extend
Naay kay amiga, “uy mare, naa koy problema gusto ko to communications where the client's purpose is the furtherance of
magpa-annul ug kasal sakong bana. Naa kay kaila na a future intended crime or fraud, or for the purpose of committing
abogado?” “Ay oo, naa koy kaila na abogado na hawud, a crime or a tort.
kanang si Atty. LYCE.” “Ay sige adtuon nato pero ubani ko
kay wala ko kaila niya.” So giubanan atong nakaila kay Atty. Q2: Suppose that KA, after being arrested, sought Sakee's
LYCE katong prospective client. Nagsturya na karon services as lawyer to defend him in the criminal case. KA then
katong client kag Atty. LYCE na gwapa, during the 1st discussed facts that can be used in his defense. Can Sakee be
interview usually nagpaminaw tung ni-refer sa abogado sa called to testify?
cliyente; naminaw pud sya. So mao na sya ang “facilitator,” A: NO. The discussion of the communications in confidence with the
tung mga naga uban ba. They make possible the rendition lawyer after the crime has been committed will be privileged even
of legal services by the lawyer to the client. though the earlier communications were not.
So, in that situation, can the attorney-client privilege communication SUMMARY

be claimable? Yes, derivative attorney-client privilege The privilege does not extend to communications where the
communication. client's purpose is the furtherance of a future intended crime or
fraud or for the purpose of committing a crime or tort.
EMPLOYESS OF THE LAWYER ARE COVERED
[this is a derivative form of the attorney-client privilege Although communications made when used to further crimes
communication rule] are not privileged, the discussion of the communications in
confidence with the lawyer after the crime has been committed
The statements of the client need not have been made to the may still be privileged even though the earlier ones were not.
attorney in person. Those made to the attorney's secretary, clerk or
stenographer for transmission to the attorney for the purpose of the However, where the lawyer himself is a co-
professional relationship or with a view to such relationship or the conspirator…
knowledge acquired by such employees in such capacity are covered The privilege does not apply where the lawyer was
by the privilege. Like the attorney, their employer, these persons himself a conspirator in the commission of that crime of
cannot be examined as to the communication made by the client or falsification which he and his client concocted and foisted
the advice given by the attorney without the client's consent. The upon the authorities. It is well settled that in order that a
privilege is also claimable against the attorney's partners and communication between a lawyer and his client may be
associates. privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance
of a lawful end. The existence of an unlawful purpose
THE RULE NOW INCORPORATES CODAL EXCEPTIONS prevents the privilege from attaching. (People v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41, July 16, 1997)
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of the
lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to August 27 Part 3 | Macacua
commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably
should have known to be a crime or fraud; Federal rules are simpler compared to Rules of Court. But they are
similar.
Hypothetical Problem:
KA consulted Sakee, a lawyer. He asked about Sakee's (ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to a
"professional" opinion as to how to import goods and communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim
FIRST
EXAM 84
through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the

claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction; Notarial Acts
A notary public is authorized to perform these notarial acts:
This is taken directly and almost verbatim from rules of evidence a. Acknowledgements;
adopted by certain states (i.e. 2010 Nevada Code or Nevada Revised b. Oaths and affirmations;
Statute) c. Signature witnessings;
d. Copy certifications; and
According to the Federal Rules e. Other acts authorized under the Rules
A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a
This exception to the privileged communication rule basically signature by a thumb mark or other mark on a document
applies to family members, heirs, and beneficiaries. This law presented for notarization.
though does not apply to creditors, usually only family A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who
members and those involved in the decedent’s estate. is physically unable to sign or make a mark on a document.
In the Philippines, do we know how this is applied? We don’t know Why this is an exception?
yet. Wala pa may kaso, where the Supreme Court had the occassion The client went to the lawyer, nagpabuhat og instrument. The lawyer
to interpret this exception. Now, codal lang sah ta. attests to the veracity of the instrument. Why is it not considered
privilege communication?
(iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a communication
relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her THREE (3) REASONS:
client, or by the client to his or her lawyer;
1. The attorney is performing a function as a notary public.
Situation:
Abogado and kliyente, naa nay sumpake. In all probability, Not really as a lawyer giving advice or consulted by the client.
there’s going to be a case between the client and the He merely takes facts and reduces facts into writing. And then,
lawyer. Who breached the duty here? Pwede ang lawyer, ginotaryohan niya.
pwede ang client.
2. Notarization converts a private document into a public one. As
Example where lawyer breached his duty, wala niya such, it would then belong to the public domain and may
gitarong og dala ang kaso. As to client’s breach of duty, therefore be inquired into.
wala nagbayad sa attorney’s fees. The lawyer sues the
client for attorney’s fees, the privileged communication Example, sa isa ka case, whether or not authenticate ba ang
rule does not apply. deed of sale na ginotaryohan sa abogado. It’s already a public
instrument and therefore may be inquired into already. It
A lawyer cannot be damned by the privilege belongs to the public domain. So the lawyer cannot attest to
A lawyer may circumvent the privilege if revealing that anymore?
information would relieve him of accusations of
wrongdoing. 3. When the lawyer testifies as an attesting witness, he is not
When the client and attorney become embroiled in a called in his capacity as a lawyer but as an ordinary witness.
controversy between themselves, as an action filed for
payment of attorney’s fees or for damages against (v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of
negligence of the attorney, the privilege is removed from common interest between two or more clients if the
the attorney’s lips. (Attorney can now testify against the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained
client) or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any
Remember that this rule however, should be made to of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.
apply only where the suit is between the attorney and his
client. The communication would still be privileged Requisites:
where the suit is by or against a third party. 1) The communication must be relevant to a matter of
common interest between two or more clients;
(iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a communication 2) A communication was made by any one of them to a
relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which lawyer who was retained or consulted by all of such
the lawyer is an attesting witness; clients in common;
This is taken directly from rules of evidence of the 2010 3) The lawyer’s testimony is offered in an action between
Nevada Code or Nevada Revised Statute. any of such clients;
This exception covers a situation where the lawyer attests
to a document under the Rules on Notarial Practice.
FIRST
EXAM 85
4) One or more of such joint clients makes a separate The communication between the attorney and his client shall
communication to the commonly retained or consulted remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who may
lawyer; have obtained the information, provided that the attorney and
5) The client or clients who made the separate his client, who are the original parties to the communication,
communication meant the same to be privileged from took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality.
disclosure to the others.
Privilege is owned by the client and survives his death
The privilege is personal and belongs to the client. If the client
waives the privilege, no one else including the attorney can
invoke it.
Communications covered For example, if the client is asked on cross examination of
The privilege is not confined to communications regarding his communications to his lawyer and reveals the same,
actual pending cases. The communications may refer to an there would be a waiver of the confidentiality of the
anticipated litigations or may not refer to any litigation at all. communication.
The communication may be oral or written. It is deemed to Q: Can the lawyer object?
extend to other forms of conduct like physical demonstration A: No. Ning storya na man ang client. The privilege
as long as they are intended to be confidential. communication rules does not apply. The client who has the
right to waive it, not the lawyer.
Example, muingon ang abogado. Unsa diay imong gibuhat,
gi-filan man kag grave threats. Nyah, ning signal siya sa imoha, There would also be a waiver if the client does not object to
kanang cutting the throat fashion, mao na siya. That is also his attorney’s testimony on the communication.
privileged. The protection of the privilege will generally survive the death
of the client.
The communication between a client and his lawyer is not
deemed lacking in confidentiality solely because the SAURA vs ATTY. AGDEPPA
communication is transmitted by facsimile, cellular telephone, AC No. 4426, 17 February 2000
or other electronic means.
The request for information regarding the sale of the property
Take note, in any form it may take, the communication is and to account for the proceeds is not a violation of the attorney-
deemed covered by the Rule. client privilege.
PEOPLE vs SANDIGANBAYAN The information requested by the petitioners is not privileged.

GR No. 115439-41. 16 July 1997 The petitioners are only asking for the disclosure of the amount
of the sale or account for the proceeds. They have the right to
The privilege is not confined to verbal or written communications ask for such information since they own the property as co-heirs.
made by the client to his attorney but extends as well to Hence, yhe lawyer cannot refuse to divulge such information to
information communicated by the client to the attorney by other them and hide the cloak of the attoryney-client relationship.
means.
Q: Does the privilege preclude inquiries into the fact that the
The form is not important. It’s the information that is important. lawyer was consulted?
Element of Confidentiality In other words, can the lawyer be asked if a person is his client? Is
Before the statements of the client and the advice of the the identity of the client privileged?
attorney be deemed as privileged, the same should have been
intended to be confidential. General Rule:
The matters communicated to the attorney are evidently not An inquiry into the fact of consultation or employment is not
intended to be confidential when they were made to the privileged. Even the identity of the client or the lawyer is not
lawyer but in the presence of third persons who neither stand privileged.
in a position of peculiar confidence to the client or are not
agents of the attorney. If the communications made by the August 27 Part 4 | Maglinte
client to his attorney were also made to third persons, the
intention of secrecy does not appear. As a matter of public policy a client’s identity should not be
shrouded in mystery. Under this premise the general rule in our
Privileged communication in the hands of third persons jurisdiction, as well as in the United States, is that the lawyer may
FIRST
EXAM 86
not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity
of his client. So, is the identity of clients of ACCRA considered privileged?
REASONS HELD:
First, the court has the right to know that the client whose
privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh GENERAL RULE
and blood. (Meaning this is a real person. This person is The attorney-client privilege may not be invoked to refuse to divulge
not invented by the lawyer so he can evade any questions). the identity of the client
Second, the privilege begins to exist only after the EXCEPTIONS

attorney-client relationship has been established. The (1)When a strong probability exists that revealing the name would
attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a implicate that person in the very same activity, for which he sought
client. the lawyer’s advice;
(2) When disclosure would open the client to liability;
Third, the privilege, generally pertains to the subject (3) When the name would furnish the only link that would form the
matter of the relationship and not to the parties to the chain of testimony necessary to convict.
relationship.
If you compare for example, marital privilege In other words appear, the government, the prosecution knows
communication, you know who is the wife and everything and has evidence already except who the client is that
the husband. So similarly, under the attorney- they will prosecute.
client privilege, you also know who is the lawyer
and client). LAST-LINK DOCTRINE
And finally, due process considerations require that the According to the Supreme Court, by compelling the petitioners, not
opposing party should, as a gentleman rule, know his only to reveal the identity of their clients, but worse, to submit to
adversary. PCGG documents substantiating the client-lawyer relationship, as
“A party suing, or sued is entitled to know who well as the deeds of assignment petitioners executed in favor of its
his opponent is.” He cannot be obliged to grope clients covering the respective shareholdings, the PCGG would exact
in the dark against unknown forces. (Regala vs. from petitioners a link that would inevitably form the chain of
Sandiganbayan) testimony necessary to convict the client of a crime.
REGALA v. SANDIGANBAYAN So according to the Supreme Court, the identity of the client, under
G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1997 the Last Link Doctrine is covered by privilege.
FACTS: This is a very important case that you need to read because it can
Allegedly Cojuangco, et al., with the assistance of ACCRA law firm, actually can be asked in corporation law, evidence, remedial law and
through the use of the coconut levy funds, the financial and legal ethics.
corporate framework and structures that led to the establishment,
of UPCB, UNICOM, COCOLIFE, COCOMARK, CIC, and more than Non-privileged information such as the identity of the client is
twenty other coconut levy funded corporations, including the protected if the revelation of such information would necessarily
acquisition of San Miguel Corporation. Said corporations are subject reveal the privileged information.
to investigation by the PCGG involving ill-gotten wealth. ACCRA
refuses to provide information on fear that it may implicate them in Let’s say there's this unknown person. Assume that the government
the very activity from which legal advice was sought from them and already knows that Atty. JC, JZE was already consulted by an
it may breach the fiduciary relationship of the petitioner with their unknown client because she committed murder.
client.
The only thing that the government does not know is the identity of
So ACCRA contends that our fingerprints can be seen practically the client herself.
everywhere, doing all of these things, the corporate framework, the
papers that led to the creation of these corporations. Note that, if the identity of the client can be compelled from the
lawyer, it will constitute the last link for the government to
Yes, that is correct. But for whose benefit? Was it really for commence the prosecution of charges against client.
Cojuangco? Was it really taken from Nicola levy funds? The
contention of ACCRA is that, if we provide you with an answer to C. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE
whether or not Cojuangco are our clients, then you can zero in on
these people, and prosecute them. PRIOR TO AMENDMENT
FIRST
EXAM 87
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics Psychotherapist is added because it is the most confidential
cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be and most intimate practice of medicine since you are dealing
examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any with the mental health of the patient.
information which he may have acquired in attending such patient
in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to Note as well that similar to the attorney-client privilege, even
enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the non-physicians who ostensibly are practicing medicine or
reputation of the patient; psychotherapy in the belief of the client are covered by the
privilege. Even those who are not authorized to practice
Take note of the change in this provision. medicine or psychotherapy who hold themselves out to the
AMENDED PROVISION public as such are covered.
(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by
the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy “made for the purpose of diagnosis, or treatment”
cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be Remember, prior to the changes, I already commented that it
examined as to any confidential communication made for the has to be treatment.
purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental
or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, Treatment
between the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapists. It is necessary for the operation of the privilege that the
This privilege also applies to persons, including members of the physician is acting in his “professional capacity” and that the
patient's family, who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment advice or treatment given or acquired in such capacity. The
of the patient under the direction of the physician or physician may be said to be acting in the professional capacity
psychotherapist. when he attends to the patient for either curative or
preventive treatment.
Results of autopsies may not be deemed covered by the
Notice they removed surgery and obstetrics since they are both
privilege because autopsies are not intended for treatment. The
physicians or authorized to practice medicine. They added
patient therefore must be alive.
psychotherapist. They also added for the purposes of diagnosis and
treatment. NEW REQUISITES
1. The action in which the advice or treatment is to be used in a
We also have derivative patient privilege communication under the CIVIL CASE;
second sentence, such as members of the patient's family. 2. The proposed witness is a physician, psychotherapist or person
reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice
A “psychotherapist” is:
medicine or psychotherapy;
a. A person's a person licensed to practice medicine engaged in
3. The testimony relates to any advice, diagnosis, or treatment
the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition,
given by the proposed witness to the patient while
or
professionally attending to such patient; and
b. A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while
4. The advice, diagnosis, or treatment was obtained in the course
similarly engaged.
of the performance of the witnesses’ professional duty.
So whether public or private, the psychotherapist is covered.

The phraseology of the rule implies that the privilege
cannot be claimed in a criminal case presumably because
CHANGES AND COMMENTS
the interest of the public in criminal prosecution should be
From “person authorized to practice medicine surgeon or obstetrics”
deemed more important than the secrecy of the
to a “physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by
communication.
the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy”
The requirement that the information sought to be elicited

This includes a person who you think is a doctor but he is not a
from the physician should tend to blacken the reputation
doctor and only happens to be a medical transcriptionist, hence
of the patient is no longer included.
he is familiar with the medical terms. If you think he is a doctor
and your proceeded upon the belief that he is the doctor, the
It doesn't really matter anymore if it will blacken or
effect would. Be it will be covered by the privilege.
diminish the reputation of the patient For so long as it is
medical information obtained through diagnosis or
Also note, Surgery and obstetrics are now subsumed under
treatment, that is covered by the privileged
practice of medicine.
communication rule.
August 27 Part 5 | Ugdang
FIRST
EXAM 88
Although I prefer to retain this in the new book, but now it is NOT
DERIVATIVE PRIVILEGE APPLICABLE. The discussion of the SC here in relation to blacken the
There is this derivative privilege that I told you about under the reputation of the patient even if he is dead, does not apply anymore.
second sentence of this paragraph. The only thing applicable here is that IT SURVIVES the death of
the patient. But, blackening the reputation? It is not application
Take note, this privilege, again, similar to attorney-client privilege under the current reiteration of the rules.
communication where it’s the client who has the privilege, the same
thing with respect to physician-patient. It is the physician who owns PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY
the privilege, so he can waive it, he can waive it expressly or Kinahanglan ba na adunay contrata? Na ning fill up gyud kag patient
impliedly. information card because that is the way how they become doctor
and patient if nag fill up naka atong patient information card. Diba?
So, since the object of the privilege is to protect the patient. It may Take note, the professional capacity can be without a contract.
be waived if no timely objection is made to the physicians, similar to Maybe there’s a quasi-contractual relationship. Such as when the
the attorney-client privileged communication. patient does NOT GIVE CONSENT, like article 2167 of the Civil Code,
patient in extremis.
RATIONALE
To encourage the patient to disclose matters which may aid in the So, when a person or through an accident or other cause a person
diagnosis for the treatment of a disease or an injury. For this is injured or becomes seriously ill, and he is treated or helped while
purpose, it is necessary to shield the patient from embarrassing he is not in a condition to give consent to a contract, he shall be
details concerning his condition. liable to pay of the services of the physician or other person aiding
him, unless the service has been rendered out of pure generosity.
Accordingly, this privilege protects the interest of the patient. It is
designed to promote health and not truth. It encourages free Mo bayad gihapon siya, doctor-patient relationship gihapon even if
disclosure in the sickroom by preventing disclosure in the wala ka nag give ug consent. Otherwise there will be what? Unjust
courtroom. enrichment.
EXAMPLE So, take note of these miscellaneous concepts in relation to this

My wife goes with me to the doctor, my wife cannot also privilege
reveal the information that we gained from the doctor. 1. Communication is not given confidence;
That is the derivative privilege. Because she went with me 2. Communication is irrelevant to the professional employment;
to the doctor, she went with me to the consultation, sa 3. Communication was made for an unlawful purpose, as when it
diagnosis. So, that’s the derivative privilege. is intended for the commission or concealment of a crime;
4. Information was intended to be made public;
So, take note, in Chan v. Chan, this rule was intended to encourage 5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of
the patient to open up to the physician and give him access to his contract or law.
body. Enabling the physician to make the correct diagnosis and
provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician could be Doc, unsay pinaka maau nga hilo? Naa man gud koy hiloan.
compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all that had Kinsa man? Si kapitan ako hilo-an, is that covered by privilege?
transpired between him and the patient might prompt the latter to NO. because it is for the commission of a crime.
clam up, this putting his own health at great risk.
Or mangutana ka doc, what chemical ba ang pwede gamiton
Take note again, it survives the death of the patient. Death does na kanang di maklaro ang patay nga lawas? NO. Concealment
not permit the living to impair the deceased’s name by disclosing of a crime pud na siya
communication held confidential by law.
Or information intended to be made public and if there is
Gonzales v. CA waiver to the privilege, it is either by provisions of a contract or
Abad died, leaving a sizeable estate. His siblings, including Gonzales, by law. Like a life insurance contract, there’s that waiver.
filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Abad and
allegedly that they were sole heirs. This was opposed by Honoria When the patient answers questions on cross-examination
Empaynado, claiming that the siblings deliberately concealed the there is also a waiver. kung ning tubag siya on questions
existence of their children with Ricardo as well as another child with relating to privileged matters, relating to confidential
another woman. information then waived ang katong privilege.
Just read this case.
Under Rule 28, the court may order a physical or mental
examination, so long as the mental or physical condition is in
FIRST
EXAM 89
dispute. The party examined may request a report of the or her, in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline
examination. By doing so, he waives any privilege he may have enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
in that action regarding the testimony of every other person
who has examined him in respect of the same examination. August 27 Part 6 | Rojo
That’s another form of waiver under the rules.
*Sir was asking about religion, in relation with penitence.
Lim v. CA
This is the point I am trying to make, that it is only the Catholic
The privilege does not apply when the doctor is presented as an church, a religion having a course of discipline, meaning naay
expert witness and only hypothetical problems were presented doktrina or sakramento na makig sturya ka sa imong pari as a
to him. representative of God on earth nan aa siyay katungod para
pasayluon ka. He has the power to absolve you of your sins by
The privilege does not cover expert opinion as long as the witness making you pray hail marry, our father and “amens.”
does not testify to matters SPECIFICALLY referring to the patient. So, this is only applicable to Catholicism. This is one designed for
Catholics.
In Chan v. Chan, only Feb. 6 2006, Josielene field a petition for the
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Johnny. She claimed that *Sir talks about his religious views.
Johnny failed to care for and support his family and that a
psychiatrist diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to incessant Only the Catholics benefit with this Priest-Penitent Privilege. I have
drinking and excessive use of prohibited drugs. been teaching this subject for 12 years and none of those years can
my student tell me na ang iyang religion has a course of discipline
It is still ok. What is the issue here? Is the privilege only applicable similar to pag kumpisal or confession sa Catholic church.
to testimony? The testimony of the doctor or does it also cover
medical records. Because diri, when the patient was admitted to the Take note of the new requisites:
doctor, naay gi sulat ang doctor sa iyahang record na probably drug 1. The proposed witness is a minister, priest or a person
addict ni sya or alcoholic. Mao ni gib utang niya, karon kay mao ni reasonably believed to be so by the confessant;
gi gamit sa iya asawa that her husband suffered from 2. The proposed testimony relates to any communication or
methamphetamine and alcohol abuse. confession made to, or any advice given by, the witness, in his
or her professional character;
Q: Can this be covered by the privilege? Pwede ba siya ma 3. The communication, confession or advice must have been
subpoena? made in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to
A: According to the SC, NO. because to allow the disclosure during which the minister or priest belongs; and
the discovery procedure of the hospital records – the results of the 4. The confessant neither gave his consent to the testimony,
test that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness, expressly or impliedly, nor waived the benefit of the privilege,
and the advice or treatment he gave him – would be to allow access expressly or impliedly.
to evidence that is inadmissible without the patient’s consent.
The important here is “in the course discipline enjoined by the
So, the memorializes all this information in the patient’s records. church to which the minister or priest belongs.”
Disclosure them would be equivalent of compelling the physician to
testify on privileged matters he gained while dealing with the AKA Clergy Privilege
patient, without the latter’s prior consent. Communications made by a person to a priest, rabbi,
cleric, or minister in the course of confession, or similar
So, this is still a good law. course of discipline by other religious bodies, are
privileged from disclosure. The communications to clergy
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION IN THE HANDS OF A THIRD members must be made while clergy members are acting
PERSON in the professional capacity of a spiritual adviser and with
This is still the same, refer to the last paragraph. That the physician the purpose of dispensing religious counsel, advice,
and his patient, who are the original parties to the communication, solace, or absolution.
took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality.
According to Wigmore, communications given to members of the
D. PRIEST-PENITENT PRIVILEGE (as amended) clergy must be one that made for the purpose of dispensing
religious counsel, advice, solace or absolution.
A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so cannot,
without the consent of the affected person, be examined as to any “Professional Capacity”
communication or confession made to or any advice given by him
FIRST
EXAM 90
The person making the confession holds the privilege and (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office
the priest or minister hearing the confession in his or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official
professional capacity is prohibited from making a confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would
disclosure of the confession without consent of the person suffer by the disclosure.
confessing. The privilege also extends to any advice given
by the minister or priests. The confession and the advice AFTER AMENDMENT
must have been made or given pursuant to the course of (e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her
discipline of the denomination or sect to which the tenure as to communications made to him or her in official
minister or priest belongs. Thus, the minister or priest must confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would
be duly ordained or consecrated by his sect. suffer by the disclosure.
In confession of sins, dapat katong imong g’kumpisalan must be From “term” to “tenure”
ordained or consecrated by his sect. But now, it has been expanded The term of an office must be distinguished from the
to “a person reasonably believed to be a minister or priest by the tenure incumbent. The term means the time during which
penitent.” the officer may claim to hold office as of right and fixes the
interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed
Person reasonably believed to be a minister or priest one another. The tenure represents the term during which
As currently phrased, the privilege is now claimable against a person the incumbent actually holds office. The term of office is
who may not actually be an ordained minister or priest. It is thus not affected by the hold-over. The tenure may be shorter
possible that: that the term for reasons within or beyond the power of
the incumbent. (Nueno vs. Angeles, 76 Phil. 12)
1. Such person is mistakenly believed by the penitent to be a
priest or minister duly qualified to take his confession; Q: What’s the change?
A: It is just him or her, and from term to tenure.
What is the possible instance there?
Example, lay person lang d ay na siya. Nag sulod ka sa Q: Is it consequential?
confessional box ang janitor d ay sa simbahan imong naka A: Yes, of course because term is different from tenure.
sturya unya nangumpisal na ka.
An example of a term is, like in the US. Their president is entitled if
2. The person holds himself out to the public as a priest or he is elected, he has a four-year term and he is eligible for re-
minister without actually ordained being so. election for another 4 years.
Daghan ug ana, daghan man ug stages sa priesthood. Pag Let’s say he is impeached or removed from office after 3 years. What
ordained ka, that is the only time you are allowed to perform is his term? 3 years or 4 years?
the sacraments.
4 years. But what is his actual tenure? 3 years.
*Sir talks about his catholic education., then him being
transferred to UM, a non-sectarian institution. So, it reflects the reality that while you may have a term, it is possible
that you may resign or removed from office. But the effect is still the
Diri naay Christian Ethics, Ngano ang ethics applicable lang sa same. Because during or after man term or tenure, it does not really
Christians? Unfair, similar to this priest-penitent privilege. The matter.
privilege therefore applies if there is a reasonable belief on the
part of the penitent that the person, he is confessing to is a But the difference is as held in the case of Nueno and repeated in
minister or priest. the case of Evangilista vs. Alba.
Privileged communication in the hands of third persons REQUISITES:

The communication between the priest or confessor and the 1. The communication must have been made to a public officer;
penitent or confessant shall remain privileged, even in the hands of 2. The communication was given to the public officer in official
a third person who may have obtained the information, provided confidence; and
that the priest and the penitent, who are the original parties to the 3. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication, took reasonable precaution to protect its communication. (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 752, 2008 ed.)
confidentiality.
Q: Who will determine whether or not the information is of
E. PRIVILEGE OF STATE SECRETS public interest?
PRIOR AMENDMENT
FIRST
EXAM 91
A: It is the court. The court should know the nature, so that the court
can judge whether or not there is a public interest that would suffer OTHER PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
if the communication is disclosed. If the courts want to, the court Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence
can demand to know whether it is privileged that the public interest Privileged communications apply even to electronic
would suffer of the disclosure. So, the court can ask without evidence. Under Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic
informing the other party. Evidence, the confidential character of a privileged
communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in
Q: What is this privilege intended for? the form of an electronic document.
BANCO FILIPINO vs. MONETARY BOARD Newsman’s Privilege

G.R. No. 70054, July 8, 1986 Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of
published news.
This privilege is intended not for the protection of public officers Section 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil
bit for the protection of public interest that where there is no and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist or duly
public interest that would be prejudiced, this invoked rule will not accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or
be applicable. periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any news-report or information
The rule that a public officer cannot be examined as to appearing in said publication which was related in
communications made to him in official confidence does not confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter XXX
apply where there is nothing to show that the public interest (Republic Act No. 53, as amended by RA No. 1477).
would suffer by the disclosure question. The government must
establish that public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the August 27 Part 7 | Campaner
papers and documents for the privilege to be invoked.
But my problem here is gina-take advantage sa mga unscrupulous
When inapplicable: news organizations. E.g. when news reporters say“According to
If what is asked: anonymous sources”, you cannot compel them to reveal their
1. is useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an accused; sources.
2. lessens the risk of false testimony;
3. is essential to the proper disposition of the litigation; Political vote privilege
4. the benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the litigation Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted,
was greater than any injury which could inure to the relation by which is a constitutional privilege to a degree inasmuch as the 1987
a disclosure of the information. (Francisco, p. 171, 1992 ed.) Constitution itself mandates the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.
Q: Is the privilege applicable to all pubic officers in general? Bank Deposits

A: NO. The privilege only applies to communications to such officers
who have a responsibility or duty to investigate or to prevent public RA No. 1405. Sec 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks
wrongs, and not to officials in general (Francisco, p. 139, 1992 ed.). or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in
The court, not the witness, will determine the necessity of regarding bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
the communication as privileged in nature. subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as
Take note that executive privilege is different. of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
Concept of Executive Privilege bureau of office, except upon written permission of the
Certain types of information like military, diplomatic and other depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a
national security matters may be withheld from the public. competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or
But a personal life for example, of the president, that is not invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
privileged.
But little by little, medyo nawala na ang secrecy of bank deposits
That is being debated in US. Because there are people who are
writing books about Donald Trump, that he wants to be silenced The privileged nature of bank deposits have been diluted by:
because it might damage his re-election efforts. 1. RA No 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007) Sec. 27. Judicial
Authorization Required to Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts
There is that debate. But, if you would ask me, that is not a privilege and Records. – xxx The justices of the Court of Appeals
information because that is his personal life. As long as it does not designated as a special court to handle anti-terrorism cases
involve national security, it may be disclosed to the public. xxx may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement
FIRST
EXAM 92
officer and the members of his/her duly authorized in writing Data Privacy Act of 2012
by the anti-terrorism council to: (a) examine, or cause the RA 10173, Sec 13 and 15
examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts,
assets and records in a bank or financial institution; and PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
2. RA No 10168 (An act defining the crime of financing of
terrorism). The AMLC is hereby authorized to inquire into or PRIOR TO AMENDMENT
examine deposits and investments with any banking Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. – No person may be
institution or non-bank financial institution and their compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants,
subsidiaries and affiliates without a court order. children or other direct descendants.
Now, in the most recent iteration of the anti terrorism act
3. RA No 11479 or the Anti Terrorism Act of 2020. Sec. 35. AFTER AMENDMENT
Anti Money Laundering Council Authority to Investigate, Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. – No person shall be
Inquire into and Examine Bank Deposits. xxx For the purposes compelled to testify against his or her parents, other direct
of this section and notwithstanding the provisions of RA 1405, ascendants, children or other direct descendants, except when
otherwise known as the “Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits,” such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or
xxx, the AMLC is hereby authorized to inquire into or examine by oner parent against the other.
deposits and investments with any banking institution or non-
bank financial institution and their subsidiaries and affiliates This privilege does not disqualify a person from testifying against his
without a court order. parents or children or other direct ascendants and descendants. A
person may testify against his parents or children voluntarily but if
Again, wala’y court order, so the AMLC is authorized to inquire into he refuses to do so, the rule protects him from any compulsion. He
your bank deposits. cannot be compelled to testify against any of the relatives
mentioned in the rules.
Article 233 of the Labor Code
All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings Take note that there is a similar rule under the Family Code
shall be treated as privileged communications and shall not be used Art 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to
as evidence in the NLRC, and the conciliators and similar officials testify against his parents and grandparents, except when such
shall not testify in any court or body regarding the matter taken up testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or
at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them. by one parent against the other.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA 9285), Sec 9(a) Take note that under the old iteration sa rule and Art 215, mura sya’g
Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and gicombine. Such that the current iteration sa Rule, naa nay similar
confidential. Sec. 23 also provides for the confidentiality of na mga exceptions.
arbitration proceedings.
Take note of those who are not covered:
Arbitration record in the CIAC are also confidential. 1. Relatives by affinitiy
2. Brothers and sisiters
Guardian ad litem privileged communication rule 3. Aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces
The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding concerning 4. Cousines of whatever degree
any information, statement, or opinion received from the child in the 5. Other collateral relatives
course of serving as a guardian ad litem, unless in the course of
serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary to Q: Will this be applicable to adopted children?
promote the best interests of the child. [Sec 5(e), Rule on A: It is believed that adopted and adopter are covered by the
Examination of a Child Witness]; parental and filial testimonial privilege rule but only insofar as the
parent and child is concerned. It does not extend to the direct
Informer’s privilege ascendants of the adopter because the adoptive relation is between
Informers, for the protection of their identity, cannot be compelled the adopter and the adopted only. The reason for this opinion is the
to testify by the prosecutor when their testimony would merely be rationale behind the privilege, which is to preserve the harmonious
cumulative and corroborative. It is the privilege of the Government relations between the parent and child which could be ruptured
not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information of through testifying in court. Furthermore, perjury may result because
violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of that the parent or the child may give false testimony to protect the other.
law.
EXCEPTIONS:
FIRST
EXAM 93
A person can be compelled to testify against his or her parents, other Sec. 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets – A person cannot
direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants if: be compelled to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-
1. Such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When
person; disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective
2. Such testimony is indispensable in a crime by one parent measures as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of
against the other. the parties and the furtherance of justice may require.
Lee v Court of Appeals TRADE SECRETS

GR No. 177861, July 13, 2010 Under this new provision, no person can be compelled to testify
FACTS: about any trade secret, as a general rule.
Spouses Lee and Keh entered the Philippines in the 1930s as
immigrants from China. They had 11 children. In 1948, Lee By way of exception, however, testimony on any trade secret may be
brought from China a young woman named Tiu, supposedly to compelled if the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work
serve as housemaid. Tiu left the Lee-Keh household, moved into injustice.
another property of Lee nearby, and had a relation with him.
Shortly after Keh died in 1989, the Lee-Keh children learned that Take note of this case, because in my mind, this is the jurisprudential
Tiu’s children with Lee claimed that they, too, were children of source of this new provision.
Lee and Keh. This prompted the Lee-Keh children to request the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate the matter. Airphil vs. Penswell, Inc
GR no 172835, December 13, 2007
The NBI found, for example, that in the hospital records, the
eldest of the Lee’s other children, Marcelo Lee (who was recorded The chemical composition, formulation, and ingredients of
as the 12th child of Lee and Keh), was born of a 17 year old respondent’s special lubricants are trade secrets within the
mother, when Keh was already 38 years old at the time. Another contemplation of the law.
of the Lee’s other children, Mariano Lee, was born of a 23 year
old mother, when Keh was then already 40 years old, and so forth. The manufacture and production of respondent’s products
In other words, by the hospital records of Lee’s other children, proceeds from a formulation of a secret list of ingredients. In the
Keh’s declared age did not coincide with her actual age when she creation of its lubricants, respondent expanded efforts, skills,
supposedly gave birth to such other children, numbering eight. research, and resources. What it had achieved by virtue of its
investments may not be wrested from respondent on mere
On the basis of this report, the respondent Lee-Keh children filed pretext that it is necessary for petitioner’s defense against a
to separate petitions, one of them before the RTC of Caloocan collection for a sum of money. To compel its disclosure is to
City in Special Proceeding C-1674 for the deletion from the cripple respondent’s business, and to place it at an undue
certificate of live birth of the petitioner Emma Lee, one of Lee’s disadvantage.
other children, the name Keh and replace the same with the name
Tiu to indicate her true mother’s name. Rule 27 cannot justify production of the information as the same is
limited to documents or things that are not privileged in nature.
In April 2005 the Lee-Keh children filed with the RTC an ex parte
request for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum to September 2 Part 1 | Acevedo
compel Tiu, Emma Lee’s presumed mother, to testify in the case.
The RTC granted the motion but Tiu moved to quash the
subpoena, claiming that it violated Section 25, Rule 130 of the ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Rules of Court, the rule on parental privilege, she being Emma
Lee’s stepmother.
A. THE CONCEPT OF ADMISSIONS
HELD: Admissions can be:
Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the 1. Judicial; or
stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The privilege cannot apply 2. Extrajudicial
to them because the rule applies only to “direct” ascendants and
descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A B. JUDICIAL ADMISSION
stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother. Note: This was already discussed under Rule 129, Sec. 4.
Consequently, Tiu can be compelled to testify against petitioner A judicial admission (admission in judicio) is a deliberate, clear,
Emma Lee. unequivocal statement by a party about a concrete fact within
that party’s knowledge (Rule 129, Sec. 4).
FIRST
EXAM 94
(3) However, under Sec. 27, the declaration of a party as

C. EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against
Section 27. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration him.
or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him or her. (26a) Note that, in the present case, the declaration of A to
This was Section 26 in the old rules. C is relevant to the fact in issue which is the existence
of the debt. It is relevant to the matter, that is in the
1) ACT litigation for collection of a loan.
Example: When the accused offers a compromise to the
private complainant or to the offended party. That offer of 3) OMISSION
compromise may be received in evidence as an implied This means a failure to act or to make a declaration when
admission of guilt. one ought to.
Section 28. Offer of compromise not admissible. — Example:

xxx Section 33. Admission by silence. — An act or
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses declaration made in the presence and within the
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be hearing or observation of a party who does or says
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally
may be received in evidence as an implied admission of to call for action or comment if not true, and when
guilt. proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be
given in evidence against him or her. (23a)
Note: When we are talking about Section 27 and the This means that you have made a reaction, but you did not
accompanying provisions is that everything is made out of do so. That can be taken as an admission by silence.
court. The rules that we are going to discuss will not apply
anymore if they are made in open court when there is an Latin Maxim: Qui tacet Consentire Videtur (He who is
opportunity for the adverse to cross-examine. silent is deemed to consent).
2) DECLARATION D. ARE ALL TYPES OF ADMISSIONS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST

Situation: A was sued by B for collection of a debt. In his THE PARTY WHO MADE IT OUT OF COURT?
answer, A categorically denied having contracted any loan No. Admission that is made out of court can either be:
from B. However, prior to the case being filed, A spoke to
C and told him that he borrowed money from B to buy a According to whether or not an admission is favorable to
car. the party making it, an admission can either be:
There is a case between A and B. Can C testify as to (1) Admission per se (under Section 27); and
what A told him that it is true that he borrowed money
from B because he used it to buy a car? Section 27. Admission of a party. — The act,
declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant
Answer: Yes. fact may be given in evidence against him or her.
(1) Note that the witness to be presented, C, is one who (26a)
has no personal knowledge about whether there was
really a contract of loan between A and B. What he
knows is what A told him. A told him that he (2) Self-serving Admission
borrowed money because he bought a car. But, in this It is an admission made by a party out of court at one time
case, he opposed and he denied that he borrowed and which is favorable to the party making it.
money from him.
It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay
(2) Under the law, when a witness testifies on something evidence—that is:
not based on his personal knowledge, meaning it was (a) the lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the
only relayed to him by other persons, that is adverse party, and
considered as hearsay which is normally inadmissible (b) on the consideration that its admission would open
under Sec. 22 and Sec. 37, as a general rule. the door to fraud and to fabrication of testimony
(National Development Company v. WCC, GR. No. L-
21724, April 27, 1967).
FIRST
EXAM 95
Remember: It is simply an admission favorable to the (1) If he really has not paid his loan with B bank, his only
party making it (Lichauco v. Atlantic Guld and Pacific Co., evidence during trial would consist in his own
84 Phil. 342). This means that what Section 27 seems to testimony. He will deny that he has a debt or he will
imply is that, the admission (the act, declaration or testify that he already paid.
omission) that can be taken against a party is one that
prejudices him. It is not favorable to him. (2) In effect, by telling C, D, and E, that he already paid
the loan, he can use their testimony to corroborate
Notes: his defense of payment, thus he is not the only who
1. The concept of self-serving admission does not will say that he already paid. C, D, and E are also
include a party’s testimony as a witness in court. This included to whom he communicated that he already
is because even if a party makes a self-serving paid to the Bank.
admissions in court, there is an opportunity for the
adverse party to cross-examine him. A party’s (3) However, under the Rules, such “planted” evidence is
testimony in court is sworn and affords the other not admissible. Sorry, A this is self-serving admissions
party the opportunity for cross-examination. which are not admissible in court.
2. What is covered therefore is when a third-party Take note of the effect if the admission was not self-
witness testifies in court about the self-serving serving
admission made by the party. This means that we go to a situation covered by Section 27.
Requisites of Self-Serving Evidence Situation:

Note: Must be remembered because these are doctrinal A was sued by B for collection of a debt. In his answer, A
requisites not under the provisions. categorically denied having contracted any loan from B.
However, prior to the fling of the case, A spoke to C, D,
1. The testimony is favorable to the defendant; and E and told them that he actually borrowed money
This means that instead of saying that he is indebted, he from B to pay or to buy a car.
said he has no debt. That favors him, it promotes his
interest rather than it being a declaration against his Instead of saying that he already paid to the bank, he
interest. actually admitted that he had a debt to the bank but he
did not yet pay. Clearly, that is adverse to his interest, and
2. It is made extrajudicially; and thus because of that, C, D, and E can all testify.
These provisions that we are talking about do not apply if
it is made in open court. In this case, C, D, and E can all testify because the
admission by A is one that is against his interest instead of
3. It is made in anticipation of litigation being favorable to his cause.
This is the requisites that we need to understand.
INADMISSIBLITY OF SELF-SERVING ADMISSION
This requisite covers evidence that is seemingly “planted” Why are self-serving admissions not admitted in court?
or manufactured, for lack of a better term.
(1) A man may be safely believed if he declares against his own
Situation: interest, but not if he advocates his interest (Lichauco v. Atlantic
A has been in default of his loan obligations to B Gulf and Pacific Co.).
Bank. Sensing that B bank is about to sue him to
collect the debt, A goes around and tells C, D, (2) It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence,
and E that he had actually paid B Bank. He has a that, the lack of opportunity for cross examination by the
thought in mind that the Bank might file a case adverse party (National Development Co. v. WCC).
against him and he really has not paid yet, thus
he was thinking of a defense if a case might be September 2 Part 2 | Amistad
filed against him for the collection of a deb. What
he did was, he talked to C, D, and E and will told WHEN WOULD SELF-SERVING ADMISSIONS BE ADMISSIBLE?
them that he already paid his debt to the bank. 1. If made in open court;
When he says that he actually paid the bank, it is 2. Giving full opportunity to the adverse party to exercise his
actually favorable to his interest. right of cross-examination.
Why did A do this? What is A’s Evidence in case he is When we are talking about self-serving admissions we’re
sued for collection by the bank? talking about extra-judicial admission.
FIRST
EXAM 96
party’s testimony favorable to his cause. That, it seems, is the

This is not really an exception to the rules but rather something sense in which petitioners are using it now. This is a grave error.
that changes the nature of the admission. Why? Because if it is “Self-serving evidence” is not to be taken literally to mean any
made in open court and giving full opportunity to the adverse evidence that serves its proponent’s interest.
party to cross-examine the declarant then it is no longer an
extra-judicial admission but becomes a judicial admission. The term, if used with any legal sense, refers only to acts or
declarations made by a party in his own interest at some place
Hence, it wouldn’t matter anymore whether it is self-serving or and time out of court, and it does not include testimony that he
an admission per se. gives as a witness in court. XXX In contrast, a party’s testimony in
court is sworn and subject to cross-examination by the other
Example 1: party, and therefore, not susceptible to an objection on the
(Actual JZE Case) – Land Case ground that it is self-serving.
JZE: You mentioned in your answer, Mr. Witness, that it was not the Many lawyers would still make an objection that the testimony of a
Plaintiff who planted the crops in the subject land. If it was not the witness is self-serving in open court. Meaning, they do not really
plaintiff, who was it then? understand what self-serving evidence really means.
Defendant: I was the one who planted it together with my father. Example 2:
My client filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage on the
Remember under your Land Registration laws, there are ground of mutual psychological incapacity of both my client and his
different ways of acquiring ownership or title to lands that wife. His wife opposed the petition. During trial, I presented my
have not yet been subjected to the operations of the client as a witness to testify on what constitutes his own
Torrens System (e.g. acquisitive prescription, OCENPO psychological incapacity.
etc.). In this case, someone came into the land cultivated
by my client and demanded that they vacate the same JZE: What sexual disorder are you referring to, Mr. Witness?
alleging that they have a certificate of title on the subject
agricultural land. So, I was thinking why does he have a Husband: I am a sex maniac, sir.
certificate of title on such land even though he was not in
personal cultivation, how did he managed to JZE: Would you care to elaborate, Mr. Witness?
acquire/register such property?
Husband: Sure! I crave sex constantly. My wife cannot satisfy me in
Atty. X: Objection, your honor! Self-serving! this aspect. Sometimes, I call her to go home just so we can do it. If
she refuses, I can’t help but look for it from someone else or I just
Why was is self-serving? According to Atty. X, it was my play with myself.
client who planted on such land, meaning it was my client
who allegedly owned the land thus if such would be Opposing Counsel: Objection, your honor! (after some hesitation)
admitted it would be favorable to my client. That is self-serving!
Q: Was it a proper way to object? Court: Atty. Espejo, would you care to comment?
A: No. Because that is a misconception borne out of ignorance.
JZE: Your honor, please, this is not self-serving, Counsel can cross-
examine. Besides, testimony is self-serving only when it is favorable
to the witness. Here, your honor, he is actually advocating against
MISCONCEPTION BORNE OUT OF IGNORANCE his own interest. Testimony is self-deprecating, your honor.
Not every testimony that is favorable to the party is considered self-
serving. If the rule were otherwise, all testimonies of party-litigants Court: Objection is overruled. It is self-deprecating. You may
would be self-serving and therefore inadmissible because it is very continue.
rare for a party to advocate against his own cause.
Was the Court or JZE correct?
Clemeña vs. Bien Yes. The court was correct in overruling the objection but the ground
G.R. no. 155508, September 11, 2006 was wrong. I was therefore also wrong.
“Self-serving evidence,” perhaps owing to its descriptive The only ground there should have been the ability of the adverse
formulation, is a concept much misunderstood. Not infrequently, counsel to cross-examine, it was made in open court so it was a
the term is employed as a weapon to devalue and discredit a judicial testimony. The fact that the testimony was self-deprecating
FIRST
EXAM 97
is not a proper ground. It was destructive of his personality but it Flight- That is actually an admission, diba? You admit your guilt
was favorable to his cause (i.e. proving his own psychological kung mu-eskapo ka, okay? If you try to evade prosecution, you are
incapacity). deemed to be guilty. That is an admission.
Please do not forget, there is no self-serving admission if it is Q: What about the fact na wala ka ni-eskapo. Nagpa-press
made in open court since the adverse party can cross-examine. conference ka saying nga “ako ning atubangon because the
truth will set me free.” Will that be considered as admission of
Admissions per se under Section 27 your innocence?
An admission is any statement made by a party to a lawsuit (either A: No. Non-flight cannot be used as evidence to prove his innocence
before a court action or during it) which tends to support the because that will be considered as an act that is favourable to the
position of the other side or diminish his own position. interest of the accused.
adverse
For example, if a husband sues his wife for divorce (annulment or
-
Take note: that can JAS be
implied
?? ?
declaration of nullity of marriage) on the grounds for adultery, and Admissions can be:
she states out in court that she has had affairs, her statement is an 1. Express- those made in a definite and unequivocal language.
admission. Any admission made by a party is admissible evidence in Ex. “oo. Akoa ang nangutang. Ako ang nangawat.”
a court proceeding, even though it is technically considered hearsay 2. Implied- those which may be inferred from the act, conduct,
(which is normally inadmissible). declaration, omission, or silence of a party.
Cross-reference
L -
when zrdpoison testifies EXAMPLES OF IMPLIED EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
The so-called Miranda rights:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can 1) Laches
and will be used against you in a court of law. It is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due
The moment that you are investigated or arrested you should keep diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is
quiet because otherwise when you say something you might be considered in equity to be an implied admission of lack of merit
saying something that can be used against you. of one’s cause of action.
September 2 Part 3 | Bahalla The fact that you filed a case after a very long time after your
cause of action accrues. Unsa mahitabo? Unsa usually ang
REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSION objection ana sa pikas party? Laches.
The admission:
1. must involve matters of fact and not of law When you talk about Laches (Civil Procedure before), ang
Ngano walay apil ang law? Why? Because that is not Laches is not a ground for a Motion to Dismiss or atleast not a
supposed to be covered by an admission. Its covered by direct ground before. Rather, it is Prescription that is a ground
judicial notice. for a Motion to Dismiss.
2. must be categorical and definite
Meaning, there is no question as to what the declarant is So, remember that Laches does not take place if you are still
admitting to. within the prescriptive period to file, for example a complaint
3. must be knowingly and voluntarily made for your cause of action. Depending on the source of
wala siya gi-trick. Wala siya gi-bitik sa pikas to make an obligation, if it’s a written contract, you have a prescriptive
admission period there.
4. must be adverse to the admitter's interest
Now, what is an example of one that is adverse to the

admitter’s interest? 2) Flight and Concealment
Flight is considered as disserving act, since it is prejudicial to the Flight strongly indicates a guilty mind and betrays the existence
interest of the accused. Flight is considered as circumstantial of a guilty conscience. It is an implied admission of guilt.
evidence of his guilt. (People vs. Herrera, G.R. 140557-58, 2001)
FATETUR FACINUS IS QUI JUDICUM FUGIT 3) Admission by Silence

“He who flees from prosecution confesses his guilt.”
4) Offer of Compromise
Under Sec 28, an offer of compromise by the accused may be
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
FIRST
EXAM 98
The repeated offer of one conspirator constitutes a strong 8) Influence

indication and an implied admission of guilt of said An attempt to influence witnesses, whether the influence
conspirator and the two accused and appellants in this case. tended to bring forth false testimony or to suppress evidence,
(U.S. vs. Torres, 34 Phil 994) is an implied admission of the weakness of a party’s case.
This is considered as an extrajudicial admission of guilt by Ngano mag-supress man ka ug evidence og ngano influence
direct provision of the Rules of Court. man kas witnesses if naa kay strong na defense or a strong
cause of action?
5) Plea of Forgiveness
9) Sudden Affluence
People vs. Abadies (2002) A change for the better in the financial condition of a person
This is a case of a father raping his own daughter. He was accused of a crime involving money, immediately or shortly
already convicted and gi-appeal niya. During his appeal, after the date of the crime, may be shown upon the theory that
nagpadala syag sulat sa iyahang anak “I made this letter to sudden and unexplained possession of funds has a tendency to
ask for yoiuu ‘forgiveness’ xxx Alam mo bang sobra-sobra na connect said person to the said crime.
ang pagsisisi ko sa ginawa kong iyon. Parang awa mo na, Ne.
Hirap na hirap na ako at ang lahat ay buong puso ko nang Murag naa siyay implied extrajudicial admission na ikaw ang
pinagsisihan. Patawarin mo na ako anak…” nangawat kay ngano kalit lang man ka ni-dato?
Can that be considered as an Implied extrajudicial

Admission of guilt? Now, let’s go to Section 28. This is one of the provisions relating to
According to the Supreme Court, yes. Asking for forgiveness compromises that had quite a facelift under the amended rules.
is considered as an offer of compromise and therefore can
be treated as an implied admission of guilt. No one would Section 28. Offer of compromise not admissible. – In civil
ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability,
and a plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. Neither is
to an attempt to compromise. Ngano man ka mangayog evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise
pasaylo kung wa kay gibuhat na mali. Diba? negotiations admissible, except evidence otherwise discoverable
or offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice
For my clients, I am very guarded ana bitawng mangayo of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving
ug apology or public apology. I always tell my clients nga an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
dili magbasta-basta anang apology because even if the
prospective complainant is saying that he will not file a In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
case provided you give a public apology, what if he negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer
changes his mind and we have nothing on paper saying of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
that he will already waive any cause of action against you? implied admission of guilt.
We have to be careful.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea
People vs. Español (2009), appellant’s act of pleading for of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against
his sister-in-law’s forgiveness may be considered as the accused who made the plea or offer. Neither is any statement
analogous to an attempt to compromise, which in turn can made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution,
be received as an implied admission of guilt under Section which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea
27, Rule 130 (old rule). of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.
An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or other

6) Offer of Marriage expenses occasioned by an injury, is not admissible in evidence
This can also be considered as admission of guilt. as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. (27a)
People vs. Oliquino (2007), an offer of marriage by the “In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of
accused during the investigation of the rape case is also an any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the
admission of guilt. Ngano man taraw pakaslan nimo kung offeror.”
wala nimo gi-rape?
Q: Why do you think na in civil cases nga if makig-
7) Withdrawal of Appeal and acceptance of lowered penalty settle ka or mag-offer kag settlement, it will not be
(People vs. Arsenio, G.R. No. L-57025, 1990) taken against you? And it is not considered as an
admission of any liability?
FIRST
EXAM 99
A: Because it’s civil case. ok

For civil cases, what I would like you to remember is the definition
September 2 Part 4 | Du of compromise under the Civil Code:
Like in labor cases, ang gusto lang sa complainant kay Article 2028. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by
magfile siya ug constructive or illegal dismissal for making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to
example, pagkahuman ang money claim niya kay let’s say one already commenced. (1809a)
10,000 lang. Naay mga muduol nako na muingon attorney
di nako gusto na makakuha na siya maski piso. Ok so for a Article 2034. There may be a compromise upon the civil liability
labor case minimum kog 50,000. So asa daw mas maayo? arising from an offense; but such compromise shall not extinguish
the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty. (1813)
For example, kung kintahay civil case ba na siya or
administrative labor case, asa man ka mas makatipid? Q: What happens diay na pag in a criminal case ang private
Mubayad kag abogado or makigsettle nalang ka? Malay complainant nakigsettle ang accused sa iyaha so nay compromise
nimo mudawat lang diay na siya 5,000. agreement. Why is it that the criminal case also and not only the civil
aspect is extinguished? Ngano madismiss man apil ang criminal
I always tell my clients na let’s exhaust every possibility na case? When article 2034 clearly states that it will not extinguish the
masettle lang mo sa imong kalaban. Why? Because hassle public action for the imposition of the legal penalty?
ang litigation. For a civil case to be finished right now, an
ordinary RTC case for example for breach of contract, it A: Actually, it is not because of the effect of settlement is that it
takes anywhere up to 7 to 10 years. 7 years paspas na na. extinguishes criminal liability but rather, by executing a settlement,
Just imagine. if you are a self-respecting lawyer, you will always include in your
compromise agreement a provisoion where the private complainant
So? Sige musettle nalang ko. Muoffer nalang kog will no longer testify in any court of law against your client.
settlement. The law recognizes that. Naa nay mga tao na
dili na gusto mahassle sa litigation. And that cannot be So what is the effect kung dili na makatestify and private
considered as an admission for any liability. complainant? How will the prosecution proceed? What will be the
evidence for the prosecution? And so the prosecution will be
But take note that the rule is different for criminal cases: constrained to agree with the motion to dismiss. Wala naman siay
evidence. Wala naman siyay witness. That is the reason why they
Section 28 (2). In criminal cases, except those involving quasi- become dismissed, kani na mga kaso.
offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be Article 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
Baliktad ang presumption sa balaod karon sa criminal (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
cases. General rule in criminal cases is that if you offer a (3) Any ground for legal separation;
compromise to the complainant, mura kag nag admit na (4) Future support;
gibuhat gyud nimo because otherwise, why would you (5) The jurisdiction of courts;
offer compromise? (6) Future legitime. (1814a)
Section 28 (3). A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted IN WHAT QUESTIONS SHALL THERE BE NO COMPROMISE?
offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in
evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. Neither is (1) The civil status of persons
any statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the I cannot execute a compromise agreement with my wife saying
prosecution, which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results we are now both single. You can’t do that.
in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation
An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or other Meaning, bawal ang collusion.
expenses occasioned by an injury, is not admissible in evidence as
proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. (27a) (3) Any ground for legal separation
(4) Future support

Let’s go to these paragraphs one by one.
FIRST
EXAM 100
Remember that ang support is always mutable. Kana bitaw magkasinabot tungod lang sa 1,000. Naay mga ana. Kanang mga
support pendente lite and a main action for support Diba that ginaingon nga prinsipyo gyud akong ginapaglaban ana attorney.
will always change, walay fixed amount na support. You can
always have the adjusted because it will always depend upon Wala gud sila nagkadayon ug settle, whether sa barangay or sa
the needs of the recipient and the capacity of the giver of mediation or sa JDR. Wala gyud.
support. It can always be changed.
So the rule now says that any conduct or statements made during
(5) The jurisdiction of courts those negotiations should not be admissible but there are
exceptions to this.
But it can be subject to waiver. Can you recall there the case in
civil procedure where there is waiver or estoppel of the GENERAL RULE:
jurisdiction of the court? The case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise
Filed before the MTC when in fact RTC diay siya. It has been negotiations are not admissible.
pending for years then for the first time before the SC you say
that the court did not have jurisdiction after so many years. SC And deservedly so. Dili dapat because we are not talking
says you are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of of the merits of the case there.
courts.
EXCEPTIONS:
(6) Future legitime Such conduct or statements are admissible if they are:
Why? Against public policy. Wala pa gani namatay 1. Otherwise discoverable

nakipagcompromise naka sa imong mana.
Meaning, what if the party who made such a conduct or
POINTS TO REMEMBER (SECTION 28 ON CIVIL CASES): statement also said it elsewhere to another person? In which
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is: case it becomes an extrajudicial admission. Don’t tell me
1. Not an admission of any liability; because it was also discussed during compromise negotiations
2. Not admissible in evidence against the offeror. it becomes inadmissible already? That is wrong. So, if it
otherwise admissible, it would be admissible.
Nothing much there. Codal na siya. But here is where it gets kinda
tricky: 2. Offered for another purpose, such as:
a. Proving bias or prejudice of a witness;
B
Section 28 (3). Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made b. Negativing a contention of undue delay; or
in compromise negotiations admissible except evidence otherwise c. Proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation
discoverable or offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or or prosecution.
prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or
proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. Timanan lang nato na. Unsa ning mga purposes na ni.
POINTS TO REMEMBER (SECTION 28 ON CRIMINAL CASES):

So it is quite natural that in a case, the law would always suppose
that the parties should first exert earnest efforts at compromise. That
GENERAL RULE: An offer of compromise by the accused may be
is the purpose of the Katarungang Pambaranagay Law, barangay
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt except:
conciliation.
1. In cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence)

Then pagabot karon sa court, if it is subject to court annex
Under Article 365 of the RPC such as reckless imprudence,
mediation, dalhon mo sa Philippine Mediation Center. There is a
criminal negligence, etc.
mediator there who will try to bring the parties together, especially
kapag ordinary civil cases lang siya. Sige try nato ug compriomise
2. Those allowed by law to be compromised;
and then wala gihapon sila nag come up ug compromise. So there
3. Godoy doctrine (People vs. Godoy).
are statement made during that mediation.
September 2 Part 5 | Escritor

What follows that? Naa pa gyud JDR or Judicial Dispute Resolution.
Where the officer will attempt to bring the parties to a settlement.
The so-called, Godoy Doctrine. What are examples of
A judge, naay mag JDR. So naay mga maingon ngadto na sige
cases allowed by law to be compromised?
magoffer ko ani 50,000 para lang mahilom ka. Muingon pud siya dili
ko mudawat ana kay ang gusto nako kay 51,000. Unya di gyud sila
1. Tax liability. Pwede gyud na i-compromise.
FIRST
EXAM 101
2. Under the Philippine Cooperative Code, all unpaid ni Sir about him being deputized by the court to assist an
assessments, pwede pud na sya i-settle. accused during arraignment)
Now, what is this People v. Godoy? Let’s go to a PAO-assisted accused. I’m not saying this is
Diba the general rule is, mag-offer kag compromise in a still true. But when I was starting out as a lawyer, ang PAO,
criminal case, that is considered as an admission of mura bitaw’g, “Unsa man ni? Mao ning Infromation? Pag-
liability? But in People v. Godoy, the SC recognized that in plead guilty na lang para wala nay samok.” Ing-ana ba.
a long line of cases of public crimes, the accused is “Pag plead guilty na lang. Wala tay laban ana.” Ing-ana ba.
permitted to show that the offer was not made under a Ing-ana na mga PAO lawyers ba. And I have encountered
consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the a lot. And I have also encountered clients, after being
inconvenience of imprisonment, or for some other reason, advised by the PAO to plead guilty, now wants to change
would justify a claim by the accused that the offer was not their mind because the PAO lawyer did not actually explain
in truth, an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the consequences of pleading guilty. So ang family
the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue members karon, muduol sa akoa, “Attorney, kinahanglan
therefrom. nato i-withdraw ang plea of guilty aning amaong paryente
kay nagpataka lang gyud ang PAO ani.” So, will that plea
Unsa gani ang rule? of guilty that was alter withdrawn, should that be taken
against the accused? Of course no. kay basig wala sya
GR: When you offer a compromise in a criminal case, that is an kasabot ngano sya nag plea ug guilty.
implied admission of guilt.
Or, an unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
XCPN: The doctrine in Godoy which says that you are allowed to
rebut that implied admission of guilt by showing na naay laing So for example, ang crime na gi-file against you is murder.
motivation for you to offer compromise. You can plead guilty to a lesser offense of homicide, diba?
You can imagine how it happens, diba? How you can plead
Pwede man gud nimo ingon na, “Inosente man ko. Dili guilty to a lesser offense para mas ubos ang imohang
lang pud ko mu-risk na basig makulong ko.” You can say penalty.
that, eh. Anything can happen. You can justify your offer
of compromise other than the fact na you recognize that I usually do that kung kintahay probationable. I always
you are guilty of the offense as charged. Mao na sya ang advise that. Kung pwede gani magprobation unya wala
Godoy. So the effect is, admissible ang imohang offer of man pud ginadeny sa akong kliyente na guilty sya sa crime,
compromise in the criminal case as an implied admission why won’t we try to plead guilty to a lesser offense, anyway
of guilt, but you are allowed to rebut it. That is People v. pwede man gihapon ka magprobation? So, i-discuss namo
Godoy. 1995 case. Karaan na, pero it’s still good law. na sya.
Section 28 (3). A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted

offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in Q: But what if wala sya gidawat sa fiscal kay di pud
evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. gyud ganahan ang fiscal. Should that be taken as
evidence of the accused’s guilt?
A: The answer of course is no. Diba unfair? Because you
GUILTY PLEAS AND PLEA BARGAINING are allowed to explore those possibilities during plea
You’ve learned this in Criminal Procedure na naa tay plea bargaining. bargaining.
For example, plea of guilty. Now, ang innovation sa law is in the second part here.
Nether
Sugod ta sa plea of guilty. When do you do that? During Section 28 (3). A Any statement made in the course of plea
arraignment. Basahan ka sa information and then you bargaining with the prosecution, which does not result in a plea of
answer whether you are guilty or not guilty of the offense. guilty, or which results in a plea of guilty withdrawn, is admissible.
What you do not know is that in practice, daghan kaayong Nothing much there, noh? Napalpak lang ang plea of guilty. Or,
mga akusado na walay private lawyers. So what will the napalpak lang ang plea of guilty to a lesser offense during plea
court do? Kung magqualify sya for assistance by the PAO, bargaining. It did not turn out the way your client wanted it.
then i-refer sya sa PAO lawyer. Or the court may deputize
a lawyer who is present in the courtroom to assist the Q: Should that be taken against your client?
accused; but only for the purposes of arraignment. (Story A: The answer again is no. So, the addition of this provision with
respect to criminal cases, stands to reason. Anything you say during
FIRST
EXAM 102
plea bargaining or negotiations, dili na sya dapat i-take against the Section 29. Admission by third party. – The rights of a party
accused. cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
another, except as hereinafter provided.
The last paragraph is the GOOD SAMARITAN RULE which applies
both in civil and criminal cases. Latin Maxim
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI NOCERE NON DEBET
Section 28 (3). An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital,
or other expenses occasioned by an injury, is not admissible in In English:
evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. Things done between strangers ought not to injure another.
Because you’re just being a good Samaritan. Atoang hinumdumon So, we go back to the basic premise of our discussion: extrajudicial
kaning ABS-CBN. Ang ABS-CBN before, if you recall, it had this show admissions. So, anything you say can be used against you. Anything
called Wowowee. And then during the first Anniversary of you say out of court, somebody else can testify and tell the court
Wowowee, they went to Ultra in Pasig where there’s a promise of what you told him if that prejudices you. Because again, self-serving
winning a lot of money just by being there because you can be called admissions should not be admitted in court.
anytime. Pwede ka mahimong contestant.
What about if you say something out of court that actually
What happened? Tungod sa kadaghan sa tao na nangadto, nagka prejudices another person? Like muingon ka, si B naa’y utang kay
stampede. Daghang tao na namatay. So what did ABS-CBN do? C. You’re saying si B naa’y liability kay C.
Ningtuyok na sya sa Manila. Tanang mga punerarya, tanang mga
hospital na naay mga biktima ngadto sa stampede, and then offered Can you be taken as a witness against B? There are two parts to the
payment of medical, hospital or other expenses, including funeral rule.
expenses. Kay kuwan man, “occasioned” by an injury.
TWO PARTS TO THE RULE
Q: Will that be taken against ABS-CBN? FIRST PART. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
A: The answer is, no. It shall not be taken against them. In fact, we declaration, or omission of another. This means that statements
will learn later on in Torts and Damages that that will actually serve made or matters accomplished between two parties cannot
to mitigate the damages to be awarded – if you made an effort to prejudice a third party. (Blanza v. Arcangel, 21 SCRA 4)
lessen the injury or damage. So that’s the Good Samaritan Rule.
Being a good Samaritan should not be taken against you. SECOND PART. Under Section 34, evidence that one did or did not
do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did
or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may
People v. Yparraguire be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
An offer to compromise does not require that the criminal
complaint be first filed before the offer can be received as FIRST PART
evidence against the offeror. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another.
Kana bitawng, tagaan taka’g kwarta pero ayaw na ko file-ig kaso.
REASON FOR THE RULE: Simple. Bawal ang pandamay. A person’s
Murag ing-ana ba. So, dili sya required na naa nay criminal
admission is binding upon himself but his admission cannot bind
complaint nan a-file. Pwede na kanag bitawng, naga anticipate lang
another. Otherwise, it would be unfair and inequitable.
ang possible accused na ma-filean syag kaso.
Example
Let’s go to Rule 130. We’re in that part already where we’re going to
Remember the case of Malabanan? It’s about the 10-year and 30-
talk about the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule and its exceptions.
year acquisitive prescription. In this example, we will take the 30-
year acquisitive prescription.
September 2 Part 5 | Estrosas
A filed a case against B and C for ejectment. B and C are 30-year

occupants of the land which was previously unregistered under the
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
RULE 130 Torrens system. Suddenly, in 2015, A came to the land and showed
The Res Inter Alios Acta Rule and its Exceptions B and C his Certificate of Title and demanded that they vacate the
property.
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE part of a longer Latin Maxim
FIRST
EXAM 103
So, matingala nalang ka nga ‘uy giunsa nimo pagkakuha ug

Certificate of Title nga dili man ka in open, continuous, September 2 Part 6 | Fernandez
exclusive, notorious, possession, and occupation kay kami
man ang naa’y occupation sa land’. Chinabank reported to the company that it cleared several checks
made payable to several suppliers “OR CASH”. This prompted the
In 2016, during trial, B settled with A and executed a quitclaim company to investigate.
stating that B has no right whatsoever over the land.
What is the effect if the check is paid to cash?
Can A claim that, since B and C are similarly situated and Anybody in possession of the check paid to cash can easily
with similar defenses, B’s quitclaim should apply also to C? encashed it.
o NO. The rights of C cannot be prejudiced by
the act or declaration of B. Human Resource Manager Liela Nee confronted Maja on the
questioned checks. Maja readily confessed that upon David’s
Suppose B, in his quitclaim, also stated categorically that instruction, she inserted the words “OR CASH” after the name of
C’s defenses are false and that B and C did not really the payees when the same had been signed by all the authorized
possess the land for 30 years. Can that bind C? signatories. She also implicated the Purchase Officer, who was
o NO, because of the res inter alios acta rule. under David’s direct supervision, for preparing spurious purchase
The rights of C cannot be prejudiced by the orders that were used as basis in issuing the subject checks, as
act or declaration of B. However, take note well as Sarah, who was directed to encash some of the checks,
that A can call B as a witness and ask him to with both persons also gaining from the scheme. Her confession
testify. His testimony is admissible, subject to was put into writing in to (2) separate letters.
cross-examination by C.
So, who is the whistleblower? It’s Maja that there is modus
Diba ingon nako sa inyuha, beginning from
operandi between David and another employee who would
Section 27, the rest of the rules will not
encash the check.
actually apply if you are talking about
testimony made in open court and there is
David and his alleged cohorts were preventively suspended and
cross-examination.
eventually dismissed from employment. They filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter who ruled that they
BUENAFLOR CAR SERVICES vs. DAVID
were illegally dismissed. The LA observed that the employer
G.R. No. 222730, November 07, 2016
failed to establish the existence of conspiracy among the
employees in altering the checks and that Maja’s extrajudicial
David was a Service Manager of “Pronto! Auto Services.” In such
confession was informally made and not supported by evidence.
capacity, he was in charge of the overall day-to-day operations
of the shop, including the authority to sign checks, check
On appeal, the NLRC found Maja’s extrajudicial confession
vouchers, and purchase orders.
against David insufficient, holding that the records failed to show
that the latter had a hand in the preparation and encashment of
Company Policy on Purchases and Issuance of Checks
the checks; hence, his dismissal was without cause and therefore,
The Purchasing Officer prepares the purchase order
which is then submitted to David for his review and illegal. The CA affirmed this and ruled that Maja’s extrajudicial
approval. confession not only bound her as the confessant but constitutes
Once approved, the duplicate copy of the purchase hearsay with respect to David under the res inter alios acta rule.
order is given to the supplier who would deliver the
goods/supplies. The CA was saying that Maja can implicate herself, but by
It is only after the delivery of the goods/supplies that virtue of res inter alios acta rule, she cannot implicate
anybody else.
the Finance Officer prepares a request for payment.
After the approval of the request for payment, the
HELD:
check voucher and corresponding check will be
The NLRC should not have bound itself by the technical rules of
prepared by Maja (accounting assistant) to be signed
procedure as it is allowed to be liberal in the application of its
by corporate officers, which included David.
rules in deciding labor cases. The res inter alios acta rule does not
All checks should be issued in the name of the specific
apply in administrative cases.
supplier and not paid to “cash” and should be picked
up at Maja’s office.
Why res inter alios acta rule does not apply? Because a labor
The problem is, nagka-break ug protocol
case is not a judicial proceeding.
including that which states nga ang check tanan
dapat issued in the name of the specific supplier.
FIRST
EXAM 104
Even if it is assumed that the rule on res inter alios acta were to claim that they contributed money and industry in the cultivation
apply, the treatment of the extrajudicial confession as hearsay is of the land for 30 years. Suddenly, in 2015, A came to the land and
bound by the exception on independently relevant statements. showed B and C his Certificate of Title and demanded that they
Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but vacate the property. In 2016, during trial, B settled with A and
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or executed a quitclaim stating that B has no right whatsoever over
be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. the land.
We’re talking here of hearsay. Why are we talking about Unsa gani tubag nato sa previous example? Pwede ba ma-bound si
hearsay which is a few provisions away pa? Hearsay rule C sa quitclaim nga gibuhat ni B? We know as a general rule res inter
forbids testimony not based on personal knowledge. alios acta alteri non nocet na dili pwde ma-prejudice si C sa act or
That is not admissible if it is not based on your personal declaration ni B. But there is an additional factual component I
knowledge. And there is no opportunity for cross- added here – there is co-partnership or co-ownership between
examination because that is precisely what an them.
extrajudicial admission is. It is something that somebody
else said which will now be repeated by the witness in Analysis
open court as the truth of what the other person said.
Can A claim that B’s quitclaim can be admitted against C?
Verily, Maja’s extrajudicial confession is independently relevant This time, YES. They are co-owners or partners in the
to prove the participation of David in the instant controversy land. Thus, the rights of C can now be prejudiced by the
considering his vital role in petitioner’s procurement process. The declaration of B. The quitclaim is admissible against C.
fact that such statement was made by Maja, who was the actual
author of the alterations, should have been given consideration Why can the rights of C be now prejudiced?
by the NLRC as it is directly, if not circumstantially, relevant to the Rationale: The co-partner or agent, is in legal
issue at hand. contemplation, a mere extension of the personality of
the partner or principal and unless he acts in his own
Take note: name, the partner or principal must comply with all the
Under the res inter alios acta rule, the rights of a party cannot be obligations which the co-partner or agent may have
prejudiced by the act or declaration of another. contracted within the scope of his authority. Hence,
whatever is said by a co-partner or agent to a third
But there are exceptions, the so-called vicarious admissions. person, during the course of the partnership or agency
and within the scope of his actual or apparent authority,
Exceptions: Vicarious Admissions relative to the business contemplated by the
The rights of a party may be prejudiced by the act, declaration or partnership or agency, is for legal purposes also the
omission of another when between the party making the admission statement of the co-partner or principal and is
and against whom it is offered there exists a relation of: therefore, admissible against him.
a) Partnership;
b) Agency; REQUISITES:
c) Joint interest; 1. There is an act or declaration of a partner or agent that is
d) Conspiracy; or prejudicial to the other co-partner or principal;
e) Privity. 2. The act or declaration must have been made by a partner
or agent authorized by the party to make a statement
Section 30. Admission by co-partner or agent. – The act or concerning the subject, or within the scope of his or her
declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party to make authority;
a statement concerning the subject, or within the scope of his or 3. The act or declaration must have been made during the
her authority, and during the existence of the partnership or existence of the partnership or agency;
agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the 4. The existence of the partnership or agency must be shown
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act by evidence other than such act or declaration.
or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of
a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with ‘Other than such act or declaration’ refers to something that is
the party. extrinsic to the act or declaration. In legal parlance, it is called
evidence aliunde.
Example
A filed a case against B and C for ejectment. B and C who claim to Shown by evidence other than such act or declaration
be co-partners or co-owners and 30-year occupants of the land
which was previously unregistered under the Torrens system. They
FIRST
EXAM 105
A secured a loan from C. A claimed that he is obtaining the loan in anomalies in IBC-13 during his tenure which led to the dismissal
behalf of his partnership with B. If A defaults, can C use the of an operations executive for selling forged certificates of
declaration in order to hold B liable? performance.
NO. The rights of B cannot be prejudiced by the act or
declaration of C. If you were Villanueva, diba derogatory na sa imuha? Unya dili pa
baya established ang guilt nimo cause you’re still contesting your
When and how can you bind the co-partner or agent? termination.
What should C do? On September 25, 1992, petitioner filed before the RTC of
He must establish by testimonial or documentary evidence the Quezon City a complaint for damages against Balaguer, which
existence of the partnership independent of the act or was later amended by impleading IBC-13 as additional
declaration of A that he and B are partners. defendant. Petitioner claimed that respondents caused the
For instance, C can present documentary evidence such as an publication of the subject new articles which defamed him by
Articles of Co-Partnership or contracts jointly entered by A and falsely and maliciously referring to him as the IBC-13 operations
B as partners. Testimony of a witness other than the declarant executive who sold forged certificates of performance.
which establishes the partnership may be introduced.
If he succeeds, he can now introduce into evidence the IBC-13 also denied participation in the publication, claiming that
declaration of A. the press statements were done solely by Balaguer without its
authority or sanction. IBC-13 also filed a counterclaim against
Remember: By the contract of partnership two or more persons petitioner and a cross-claim against Balaguer. In its cross-claim
bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a against Balaguer, IBC stated that “The acts complained of by the
common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among plaintiff were done solely by co-defendant Balaguer. Balaguer
themselves (Article 1767, NCC). It is a preparatory contract. You do resorted to these things in his attempt to stave off his
not enter into a contract of partnership for its own sake. You enter impending removal from IBC.
partnership for the purpose of entering into further juridical
relations because the partnership has a purpose – to divide the IBC claimed nga tung mga press statements wala man nila gi-
profits among the partners. authorize, so they filed counterclaim against Villanueva and a cross
claim against Balaguer. Diba ang cross claim is a claim which an
VILLANUEVA vs. BALAGUER original defending party might have against a fellow defending
G.R. No. 180197, June 23, 2009
party. Giingon ni IBC na si Balaguer lang ang gahimo anang
malicious or defamatory imputations nga na.
FACTS:
On March 31, 1992, petitioner Villanueva, then Assistant Manager
Villanueva therefore points to this as an admission that can be
for Operations of IBC-13 was dismissed from employment on the
taken against Balaguer inasmuch as this is an admission of IBC
ground of loss of confidence for purportedly selling forged
that its own agent, Balaguer, committed libelous acts.
certificates of performance1, which are official reports certifying
the airing of ads for the entities that placed the ads. These reflect
the dates and times when the ads were broadcast as required by Ginaclaim karon ni Villanueva na exception na sya sa res inter alios
the COMELEC. Contesting his termination, petitioner filed a acta rule.
complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC.
ISSUE:
1 Whether or not the exception applies.
Under the election code, there are limits to spending as to the
amount of airtime and the amount you pay for airtime. You must
not overspend or exceed the allocation. What if you exceeded?
RULING:
That’s an offense, and you might be disqualified because of it.
It does not apply, Rule 130, Section 29 (now section 30) does
not apply. IBC-13’s cross-claim against Balaguer effectively
September 2 Part 6 | Campaner
created an adverse interest between them. Hence, the
admission of one defendant is not admissible against his co-
Gi-forge daw niya ang certificate of performance. Gi-contest niya
defendant.
ang karon iyang termination before the NLRC.
Kani ang doctrine nga gusto nako timan-an ninyo. The filing of a
During the pendency of the labor case, news articles about
cross claim between co-defendants ends a partnership or agency
irregularities in IBC-13 were published in several newspapers. In
and it will no longer call for the application of the admission of co-
these news articles, respondent Balaguer, then President of IBC-
partner or agent. Taas ang facts, simple ra kayo ang ruling. This is
13, was quoted to have said that he uncovered various
because I wanted you to know unsay effect sa filing sa cross claim.
FIRST
EXAM 106
Narra Nickel Mining vs. RedMont Mining the legal prohibition against corporations entering into
GR No. 195580, April 21, 2014 partnerships, then the relationship created should be deemed
as “partnerships,” and the laws on partnership should be
FACTS: applied. Thus, a joint venture agreement between and among
Narra Mining, Tesoro Mining and Mcarthur Mining filed Mineral corporations may be seen as similar to partnerships since the
Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications before the elements of partnership are present.
DENR over an area in Palawan. Redmont also filed an
application for the same area and opposed the other Since the SC held that the laws on partnership should apply, the
applications on the ground that the other applicants are exception to the res inter alios acta rule should also apply.
disqualified as they are controlled by MBMI Resources, Inc.
(MBMI), a 100% Canadian corporation. The DENR granted Considering that the relationships found between petitioners
Redmont’s application and disqualified the others. and MBMI are considered to be partnerships, then the CA is
justified in applying Sec 29, Rule 130 (now Sec 30) of the Rules
On appeal, the CA justified upholding Redmont’s contention by stating that “by entering into a joint venture, MBMI have a
using the exception to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule (Sections 29 joint interest” with Narra, Tesoro and McArthur.
and 31) on the ground that corporate documents of MBMI
Resources, Inc. furnished its stockholders in their head office in DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER
Canada suggest that they are conducting operations through The fact that a cross-claim was filed against the putative co-
local counterparts. partner or agent makes Section 30 inapplicable (see
Villanueva v Balaguer, GR No. 180197, June 23, 2009)
So its an admission by MBMI that actually kami ang tag-iya anang Section 30 is applicable to joint ventures between
Narra ug Tesoro. So, dili sila Filipino corporations, they are just corporations, foreign and domestic (see Narra vs. Redmont,
being made dummies of a Canadian Corporation. GR No. 195580, April 21, 2014)
o Because they are akin to partnerships and it will be
Petitioners question the CA’s use of the exception of the res inequitable not to apply the rules on partnerships to
inter alios acta or the “admission by co-partner or agent” rule these joint ventures.
and “admission by privies” under the Rules of Court in the
instant case, by pointing out that statements made by MBMI These are the two prominent cases here.
should not be admitted in this case since it is not a party to the
case and that it is not a “partner” of petitioners. September 3 Part 1 | Jamero
Ngano nila ginaingon na dili partner? It’s because they are not ADMISSION BY CONSPPIRATOR
natural persons, they are juridical persons. I don’t know about the
new corporation code right now, but under the Civil Code, only Section 31. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration
natural persons can form partnerships, corporations cannot form of a conspirator in furtherance of conspiracy and during its
partnerships. existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of
HELD: declaration. (30a)
A partnership is defined as two or more persons who bind
themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a How does the concept of a conspiracy fit into the exceptions to the
common fund with the intention of dividing profits among res inter alios acta rule (the rights of a party cannot be prejudice
themselves. On the other hand, joint ventures have been by the act declaration or omission of another)?
deemed to be “akin” to partnerships.
Example:
Accordingly, culled from the incidents and records of this case, The Rape of JZE
it can be assumed that the relationships entered between and
among petitioners and MBMI are no simple “joint venture The month after JZE was kidnaped, rendered unconscious, and
agreements.” As a rule, corporations are prohibited from molested, Bangs was suspected as the culprit of the crime. When she
entering into partnership agreements; consequently, was interviewed on TV, she admitted her participation in the crime
corporations enter into joint venture agreements with other and implicated Maja and Sarah as her fellow culprits in planning and
corporations or partnerships for certain transactions in order to executing the crime. Is her statement admissible?
form “pseudo partnerships.”
As to Bangs herself As to Maja and Sarah
Obviously, as the intricate web of “ventures” entered into by YES, admissible As a general rule, NO [res inter
and among petitioners and MBMI was executed to circumvent alios acta rule]
FIRST
EXAM 107
The act, declaration or The rights of a party cannot be It’s no longer an extrajudicial admission, it becomes a
omission of a party as to a prejudiced by an act, statement made in open court where the parties have
relevant fact may be given in declaration, or omission of the ability to ferret out the truth by the mechanisms
evidence against him. (Section another. (Section 29) of cross-examination.
27)
Q: Are extrajudicial admissions made by a conspirator after the
How do we now turn this type of hypothetical example into one that conspiracy has terminated and even before the trial admissible
fits into the exception under Section 31? against the co-conspirator?
Requisites: A: NO, except in the following cases:

1. The act or declaration of a conspirator must be in furtherance 1. If made in the presence of the co-conspirator who expressly or
of the conspiracy and made during its existence; impliedly agreed therein; (He adopted the admission by his
2. The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy; and failure to rebut it, thus, becomes his own admission).
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than the act 2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed in the
or declaration (by evidence aliunde). individual extrajudicial confessions made by the co- conspirator
after their apprehension;
To implicate Maja and Sarah: (apply the requisites) They are confirmatory of each of the others own
1. Did the declaration here relate to the conspiracy? confessions. In that situation, the confessions are
Yes. deemed to interlock with one another (interlocking
2. Was the declaration made during the existence of the confessions)
conspiracy? 3. As a circumstance, to determine the credibility of the witness;
NO. The declaration of Bangs was made long after the or
conspiracy was over. Human na ug kidnap, rendered 4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-
unconscious and molested si JZE. conspirators’ participation in the offense. (Regalado, Vol. II, p.
3. Can the prosecutors prove the conspiracy other than the 761, 2008 ed)
declaration of Bangs?
MAYBE, but how? By evidence aliunde. INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS
Why evidence aliunde? They are extrajudicial confessions identical in their material
Conspiracy cannot be proved by direct evidence. Necessarily, it has respects.
to be proven by circumstantial evidence in the form of testimonies.
Conspirators do not reduce their agreement into writing. Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion and
So if prosecutors can present testimonies that tend to establish the are identical with each other in their material respects and
existence of conspiracy by clear and convincing evidence, the confirmatory of the others are admissible as circumstantial evidence
declaration may be admissible. against co-accused implicated therein to show the probability of the
latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime. (People
DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER: vs. Encipido, 146 SCRA 492)
o Incriminating declarations of a co-conspirator made in the
absence or without the knowledge of the others after the ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
conspiracy has come to an end is inadmissible.
o The arrest of the declarant results in the termination of the Section 32. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to
conspiracy. Anything said by the declarant out-of-court after property from another, the latter’s act, declaration, or omission, in
that would not anymore be made “during its existence.” relation to the property, is evidence against the former if done while
o If the declarant takes the witness stand and repeats the the latter was holding the title. (31a)
extrajudicial admission about his co-conspirators in court, the
same is admissible. Requisites:
Note: Rules beginning from Section 27 and then 1. There must be privity between the party and the declarant;
Section 29 (the res inter alios acta rule) and then at 2. The declarant as predecessor-in-interest made the
the rest of these provisions would only be applicable declaration while holding the title to the property; and
if it is made extrajudicially. The moment that you 3. The admission relates to the property.
testify in court it already is taken out of the purview
of the general rule and its applicable exceptions. Who are Privies?
o Where the statement of the co-conspirator is made as witness Those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same rights
in court, there is no need for the conspiracy to be shown by of property or subject matter such as personal representatives, heirs,
independent evidence. (People vs. Serrano, April 27, 1959) devisees, legatees, assigns, voluntary grantees, or judgment
creditors or purchasers from them with notice to the facts.
FIRST
EXAM 108
AKA “Causahabientes” – successor, assignee, or heir. The rule prohibits the admission of the so-called “propensity
Take note there can be privity by contract, by representation or even evidence” which is evidence that tends to show that what a
privity by blood. person has done at one time is probative of the contention that
he has done a similar act another time.
Examples:
1. A lessor and his lessee, a grantor and a grantee, an Example No. 1
assignor and an assignee (by contract) In 2016, Gerald was accused of raping his maid. The case was settled.
2. An executor or an administrator and the estate of the In 2017, a case for acts of lasciviousness was filed by another
deceased (by representation) kasambahay against Gerald. This case was also settled. In 2018,
3. An heir and his ascendant (by blood) Gerald was charged with raping his female cook. This case is still
pending. In 2019, he is sued once again for rape by his labandera.
September 3 Part 2 | Macacua
Can the prosecution present as proof his prior cases as evidence
Example of Dean Riano of his guilt for the 2019 charge?
X, father of Z, while the former was alive, openly told his No. Inadmissible as evidence.
acquaintances, that the land where his house stood had already
been sold to Y. Why inadmissble?
Will that be admissible against Z? ISSUE OF RELEVANCY. What a person did in the past is
Here, the declaration by X is not a admissible against Z, the sole irrelevant to the issue of whether he did what he is charged at
heir of Y, because the statement was made after X held title to the present.
land.
ISSUE OF PROPRIETY. Evidence of similar acts or occurrences
DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not
When the former owner of the property made the declaration mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises
after he ceased to be the owner of the property, the rule on a variety of relevant issues, and diverts the attention of the
admission by privies does not apply and what applies is the court from the issues immediately before it. (Cruz vs Court of
general rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by Appeals)
the act, declaration or omission of another. (Gevero vs IAC)
Read:
“Privies” denotes the idea of succession, not only by right of Cruz vs CA (27 July 1998, GR No. 126713)
heirship and testamentary legacy, but also that of succession People vs Pineda
by singular title, derived from acts inter vivos, and for special People vs Marcelino
purposes; hence, an assignee of a credit, and one subrogated People vs Lozano
to it, etc., will be privies; in short, he, who by succession is
placed in the position of one of those who contacted the Example No. 2
juridical relation and executed the private document and When Julia was in college, she had an affair with her married biology
appears to be substituting him in his personal rights and professor. Two years later, she had an affair with her self-defense
obligations, is a privy. (Alpuerto vs Pastor) instructor. A year later, she had another illicit relationship with her
math tutor who was engaged to be married. When Julia was in law
JZE: Nothing much there. Just know the codal provision and the school, she also had a relationship with her married criminal law
requisites in order for you to know how to apply. professor. These incidents were brought as evidence in a case for
intentional infliction of emotional distress filed against her by Bea,
Second Part: Res Inter Alios Acta Rule the wife of her current flame, her driver Gerald.
Are these past incidents admissible as evidence against Julia?

Section 35. Similar acts as evidence. Evidence that one did or did
not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another No. Inadmissible as evidence.
time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or Exceptions: Modus Operandi
usage, and the like. Evidence of similar acts may be received to prove a specific intent or
(transcriber’s note: General rule, underlined. Exception, in bold) knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage,
and the like.
FIRST
EXAM 109
REQUISITES OF HABIT You have to prove that he understood the statement,

The following guidelines must be observed by the court in admitting unlike in the case of Estrada v. Desierto. We don't know if
similar acts as evidence of habit: he really understood the statement (we go to that later
on).
1. The offering party must allege and prove specific, repetitive
conduct that might constitute evidence of habit; 4. He must have an interest object, such that he would naturally
2. The examples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of have done so, if the statement was not true;
evidence must be numerous enough to base on inference of 5. The facts were within his knowledge; and
systematic conduct. 6. The fact admitted, or the inference to be thrown from his
silence is material to the issue (see People v. Paragsa, GR No. L-
In Example No 1, the prosecution can present the cases not as 44060, July 20 1978).
proof of guilt but as proof of a certain propensity, habit or
scheme on the part of Gerald of sexually molesting his DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER
househelp. The rule does not apply when a person is under an official
investigation. A person under official investigation, or even
SUMMARY OF EXCEPTIONS under a custodial investigation for the commission of an
Evidence of similar acts may be received to prove a specific offense has the right to remain silent and to be informed that
intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
right (Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Riano, Evidence: A
custom or usage, and the like.
Restatement for the Bar, p. 126, 2009 ed.)
Silence is by reason of this or upon the advice of counsel,
When there is a rational similarity or resemblance between the
then the doctrine, does not apply.
conditions giving rise to the fact offered and the circumstances
surrounding the issue or fact to be proved. (Cruz vs CA)
o Another example of Modus Operandi. There’s a The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny
series of robberies. The victims are in statements by another implicating him in a crime, cannot be
convenience stores. Robbers wear masks, as considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the
seen on CCTV. If that happens more than once, commission of the crime (People v. Alegre, 1979)
that becomes a pattern of behaviour. It becomes
modus operandi. Where no good reason exists for the party to comment on the
act or declaration, as when the act or declaration was not
In actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on specifically directed to the party who remained silent, the rule
the state of mind or knowledge of a person; it provides insight does not apply.
into such person’s motive or intent; it uncovers a scheme, Meaning, dili siya pikon. So why the need to deny it, when
design or plan; or it reveals a mistake. in fact, it doesn't really mention me. It cannot be taken
against me if I remain silent.
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
The rule also does not apply when the party had no opportunity
to comment on the act of declaration (People v. Ranario, 49
Section 33. Admission by silence. An act or declaration made
Phil. 220).
in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party
Meaning I did not commit yet because it's not the proper
who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as
time or forum to comment. During the congressional
naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when
hearings or senate investigation of Philhealth, those who
proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be given in
testified are those who have no direct knowledge. Also,
evidence against him or her.
Duterte did not comment on Maria Ressa’s comments on
SPMC because it was not the proper time and forum.
JZE: Section 33 is virtually unchanged, except before it is section 32.
When the act or declaration was made in the course of an
September 3 Part 3 | Maglinte official investigation (People v. Tia Fong, 98 Phil. 609) or when
his silence is upon the advice of counsel, the rule does not
REQUISITES apply.
1. The party must have heard, or observed the act or declaration
of the other person; Just remember this miscellany of doctrines in relation to admission
2. He must have had an opportunity to deny it;
by silence.
3. He must have understood the statement;
FIRST
EXAM 110
DOCTRINE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION objected. It's not the original that is being presented but SC said,
It's states that a party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily but he does not bona fide need to present it, despite Erap’s
adopt or ratify another’s statement, where it appears that a objection.
party clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted the
statements of another, evidence of those statements is So when you talk about admission by silence or maybe even the
admissible against him.
doctrine of adoptive admission that the party, who is the seem to
Adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to statement or action
have adopted the ambition, or have made an admission by silence,
by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party's
should be one who understood it. I wonder if Estrada really
reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the
understood the option of dignified exit or resignation. He only
other person.
EFFECT: replied, “I will not leave the country”, not responsive to the question.
A third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party How could that be an adoptive admission when he is talking about
embracing or espousing it. an entirely different thing. Read the case.
It becomes the the adoptive admission of the other party's The Supreme Court had to rule this way because otherwise there
declarations. It may not be clear right now, but take note that: would be a constitutional crisis. We would have two presidents, you
will have to rescind the oath taking as president of then Vice
ADOPTIVE ADMISSION MAY OCCUR WHEN A PARTY: President Gloria Arroyo but the Supreme Court had to react, setting
a. Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made aside procedural rules and technical objections, with respect to the
by another; evidence. The Supreme Court had to adapt to the exigency of the
b. Hears the statement and later on, essentially repeats it; moment.
c. Utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of
another; September 3 Part 4 | Ugdang
d. Replies by way of a rebuttal to some specific points raised
by another but ignores further points which he or she has CONFESSIONS
heard the other make; or
e. Reads and signs a written statement made by another Sec. 34. Confession – the declaration of an accused
(Republic v. Kendrick Development Corp., G.R. No. 149575, acknowledging his or her guilt of the offense charged, or of any
Aug. 8, 2006). offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence
him or her.
But if there's a case that we need to remember, in relation to
wpatj.FM
an adoptive admission, it is: Again, recognition of the SC that a woman can be an accused, that
it why it is him or her.
Estrada vs. Desierto
One thing you have to remember under confession is that it is
Our good example of adoptive admission is the alleged admission actually unique in a sense that you cannot apply the term confession
made by President Estrada. His options had dwindled when, in a civil or administrative case. You can only apply it in a criminal
according to the Angara Diary, the Armed Forces withdrew support case.
from him as President and Commander-in-Chief. Thus, Angara had
allegedly ask Senate President Pimentel to advise Estrada to WHAT IS A CONFESSION?
consider the option of “dignified exit or resignation.” Estrada did not It is a categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an
object to the suggested option but simply said he could never leave accused of the offense charged or of any offense necessarily
the country. included therein, without any exculpatory statement or
explanation.
SC: His silence on this and other related such as suggestion can be
taken as adoptive admissions by him. An adoptive admission is a Thus, even if he admits the offense but alleges a justification
party's reaction to a statement or action by another person when it therefor, the same is merely an admission.
is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of
something stated or implied by the other person. When we say “necessarily included therein” it means that when you
confess to murder, it includes a confession to homicide, to a lesser
We discussed this for the first time when we were talking about the offense of similar nature.
original document rule or the best evidence rule. The evidence was
the Angara diary which was in the newspaper account, which Estrada
FIRST
EXAM 111
So, even if a party admits an offense but alleges a justification the confession is nullified by evidence of duress, the same is
therefor. The same is merely an admission. Ug sa civil procedure pa, admissible as an evidence of guilt of a high quality. (People v. Garcia)
that, is an affirmative defense. A defense of confession and
avoidance. Mo-tuo man gyud ta dapat anang conscience. It is part
and parcel of who you are. Ana pud na sya sa criminal case.
Oo, tinuod nga naa koy utang pero dili ko dapat pabayron, ngano? It is evidence of the highest order, why? it is the outward
Prescribed naman ang utang. It is the same here. manifestation of a man. He is compelled by his conscience
to the commission of an offense.
But, when we talk about criminal cases, when the accused made a
confession, it should be WITHOUT any qualification. When you If a confession be true and voluntary, the deliberate act of the
confess “I killed him” you confess, period. I confess, but I did it in self accused with a full comprehension of its significance, there is not
defense, that is NOT a confession, it is merely an admission. impediment to its admission as evidence and it then becomes
evidence of a high order, since it is supported by the presumption
CLASSIFICATIONS OF CONFESSION (a strong one), a very strong one, that no person of normal mind will
1. Judicial confession deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of
2. Extrajudicial confession a crime, especially if it be a serious crime, unless prompted by truth
and conscience (People v. Zea)
JUDICIAL CONFESSION
It is made by the accused before a court in which the case is pending So, that is the explanation why confession should be
and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can admissible and why it is sufficient to convict.
sustain a conviction.
Q. May the extra-judicial confession of an accused be admitted
That is enough, no need for further evidence, that confession by in evidence against his co-accused?
itself is already enough to convict. As a general rule, NO. because it is a violation of the res inter alios
acta rule. An extrajudicial confession is not admissible against the
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION confessor’s co-accused. Said confession is hearsay evidence and
Is one made in any other place (not in the same case ha, it may be violative of the res inter alios acta rule.
made in court, but not in the same case for which you were
prosecuted) or occasion and take note, cannot sustain a conviction, But, there are exceptions which we have to be familiar with. No need
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. to memorize, all we have to do is to be familiar with them.
REQUISITES FOR CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE EXCEPTIONS

1. It must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of 1. In case of implied acquiescence of the co-accused to the
guilt; extrajudicial confession;
2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense; (not 2. In case of including confessions;
merely a tort or a civil wrong, it must be a criminal offense) 3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant
3. It must have been voluntary; after being apprised of such confession;
4. It must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing the 4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was
importance or legal significance of his act; and confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used
5. There must have been no violation of Sec. 12 (miranda rights), only as corroborating evidence;
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. 5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to
show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator;
So, if all of those requisites are present, confession may be 6. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant and;
admissible of evidence against the accused. 7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is
corroborated by other evidence of record.
Now, take note that confession is evidence of a high order.
So, just be familiar, no need to memorize. Di man ko tipo nga
CONFESSION IS EVIDENCE OF A HIGH ORDER teacher nga magpa enumerate. I am the type of teacher that
would ask something that would require analysis. Kanang wala
Because there is no evidence of a higher quality than confession. It nako gi lista sa imoha.
represents the outwards manifestations of a man. Unless, therefore,
FIRST
EXAM 112
For example, in what specific rules where the law or the rule
itself requires evidence aliunde? Mao na tong under other such Rule re: Extrajudicial Confessions
act or declaration. Rule 133, Section 3. An extrajudicial confession made by an
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
There are instances where you can present evidence aliunde
other than the document itself.
Corpus Delicti
Unsa man ng corpus? Diba naan a siyay partner? Corpus Anima.
DISTINGUISH ADMISSION AND CONFESSION
Anima: soul.
ADMISSION CONFESSION
Corpus/Corpura: body
Definition Statement of fact which Declaration
does not involve an acknowledging If literally translated, corpus delicti means body of the crime, body
acknowledgement of one’s guilt of the of the wrong.
guilt or liability offense charged
Corpus delicti (body of the crime) means the actual commission of
Form Express or implied Must be express the crime charged (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil 1), or the specific fact
Made by rd
Party or 3 person The party himself of loss or injury (People v. Garcia, 99 Phil. 381).
(accused) If you would take corpus delicti literally, it would mean the actual
Type of case Any case Criminal case body of the deceased person in a crime of homicide or murder. Dili
man na mao ang gna mean sa balaod.
BAR QUESTION 2014 Examples of Corpus Delicti

In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the fact of death
Rene, bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities (People v. Garcia, 99 Phil. 38), which may be proved even
with his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over the circumstantially.
media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press which
goes: Q: How can the fact of death be proved?
A: Pwede na ang death certificate. You do not need to bring
“I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until the cadaver inside the court room, it can even be proved
my guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although, I admit circumstantially.
that I performed acts that may take one’s own life away. I hope
and pray that justice will be served the right way. God bless us In robbery or theft, the fact of loss (People v. Nicm, 75 Phil. 668).
all” In arson, the fact of burning (People v. Marquez, 77 Phil 83).
Love, So, it is the actual commission of an offense, that’s corpus delicti.
Rene
Question:
September 3 Part 5 | Rojo Rule 133, Section 3 in effect requires that, for a conviction to be
made based on an extrajudicial confession, there must be
Is this a confession? You can go by the requisites evidence of corpus delicti. Thus, the law absolutely requires
more that one type of evidence to convict (EJ confession +
Q: Is it unexpressed acknowledgement or admission of guilt? Or corpus delicti).
does it offer a justification or a qualification? Is this admission
constitutive of a criminal offense? Unsa man ng “I performed acts Unlike when you talk about a judicial confession, it is sufficient
that may take one’s life away?” Is that murder? Homicide? Parricide? in itself to convict. So singularity of evidence would be
Infanticide? Is that homicide with reckless imprudence? acceptable. Katong confession lang, that would be enough.
We do not know. So, is it a confession? But, when you talk about extrajudicial confession the law
requires plurality of evidence. Meaning, naa kay I’dungag dapat
A: Of course, NO, it is not a confession. Rene’s statement is not a – so, EJ confession + corpus delict = conviction.
confession but an admission. A confession is one wherein a person What are other instances where the law absolutely mandates
acknowledges his guilt of a crime, which Rene did not do. the presentation of more than one type or piece of evidence in
He did not acknowledge the guilt of his crime, not to mention the order to prove a matter of fact?
fact that he offered an explanation or a qualification – “I hope and I
pray that justice will be served the right way…” Q: When does the law require plurality of evidence?
FIRST
EXAM 113
A:
Not required in the following: Then, later on you have to go back to one of the Rules that we skipped.
if you have my book, nothing is skipped. Go to page 339, Survivorship
Conviction for rape can be made even from the sole testimony
disqualification Rule or the Deadman’s Statute which follows
of the victim. immediately after marital disqualification rule. I want you to read the
Not required na daghan ang witness. Because usually, it is comments that I made under that rule because that rule has been
just the rapist and the victim. transposed. It is no longer in rule on disqualification of the witness, now
Conviction for murder can be made even from just the it has been transposed into an exception to the hearsay rule, kaning
survivorship disqualification rule so dungag ni siya. That’s from page
testimony of one eyewitness. 339 to 351 in my book. Then, diretso na balik sa page 431 which is
hearsay, which is mao na ang daan na Section 36.
Plurality Required: You need to know what the rule used to be in order for you to know
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires that what the rule is now.
there be more than one circumstance (Rule 133, Section 4).
EJ confession + corpus delict = conviction (Rule 133, Section 3). September 9 Part 1 | Acevedo
In the crime of treason under Article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code, no person shall be convicted unless on the testimony of
two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of HEARSAY AND EXCEPTIONS
the accused in open court.
SECTION 22. Testimony Confined to Personal Knowledge. —

There is a plurality required here, there must be at least 2 witnesses.
A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of
A person executing a notarial will should sign on every
his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from
page and must be witnesses by at least three (3) persons
his or her own perception. (36a)
who should also sign the will (Article 805, Civil Code of the
Philippines). This was formerly Sec. 36.
What does this tell us?

And there are many more under the law. Mao ni akong gusto na
When you are a witness in court, in any litigation and you are sworn
enumeration.
to an oath in a case whether for the prosecution or the defense,
plaintiff or defendant, you can only testify on the matters that you
Section 36. Unaccepted Offer. An offer in writing to pay a
know not only matters that were just relayed to you, because in that
particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or
case, you will not be testifying based on your own perception.
specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause,
Anything that you repeat in court that is not really a product of your
equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money,
own perception—you did not hear, saw, or personally experience or
instrument, or property.
perceived, that cannot be considered as an evidence based on
personal knowledge. Therefore, that would be hearsay. Hearsay is
It looks quite disembodied if you would ask me, when we are talking
chismis—giingon no ingon.ani sa akoa, akoa ra pud giingon sa
about admissions man. Naa man pud gud tay provisions in relation
inyoha. That is how chismis arises.
to offer of compromise. Kani, offer in writing to pay a particular sum
of money, that’s the reason why nganong naa siya dira.
SECTION 37. Hearsay. — Hearsay is a statement other than one
made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered
Nothing much there, it is more applicable when we talk about
to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
obligations and contracts. Just read my commentaries as to Section
A statement is:
36 in my book.
(1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or
*Note: Below are no longer part of the discussion, but sir talked
her as an assertion.
about how the amended rules affected the previous rules.
With that we are already done with admissions, beginning from section
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise
27 to 36. However, medyo diri naputol ang continuity sa akong book. provided in these Rule.
Because from Section 36, we need to go back to Section 22 of the A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or
Amended Rules. hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the
Take note that there is Section 22 under qualification of witnesses. A
statement, and the statement is:
witness must testify based on his personal knowledge or those derived
from his own perception, Section 22. Then, mu diretso ta sa Section 37. (a) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given
under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial hearing,
Then, after Section 37, you have there the exceptions to the hearsay or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
rule. There are too many exceptions, in fact in addition to Section 22,
which is the main provision on hearsay which is previously Section 36
– ang Section 37 there is another provision in relation to hearsay.
FIRST
EXAM 114
(b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to If I am the witness, I will say in open court that X told
rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of me something and I am telling the court to believe
recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or and believe what he told me because that is true. If X
told me that Y killed Z and I repeat that in court and I
(c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him want the court to accept that is really Y who killed Z,
or her. (n) then that is being offered as a proof of the fact
asserted.
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth 3. It is inadmissible, as a general rule.
of the facts asserted therein
There is a declarant, but he is not actually the one testifying in court. c. Types of Statements in the context of the Hearsay Rule as
Somebody says something out of court and that declaration of that provided in Sec. 37
particular declarant is repeated in court by somebody else. A statement is simply an assertion of facts. You want the
court to believe that what you are saying are true.
Where does this amendment come from? This is a new Under Sec. 37, a statement can be:
provision. 1. An oral or written assertion or
This is just copied from the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Oral assertion
A. BASICS i.e. out-of-court declaration by a person other than
the witness.
a. What is hearsay evidence?
Hearsay evidence is evidence given by a witness based on Written assertion
information passed to the person by others rather than i.e. affidavits.
evidence experienced at first hand by the witness.
2. A non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended
Under Section 22: A witness can testify only to those facts by him or her as an assertion (i.e., gestures).
which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that What if you are going to tell the court, what was the
is, which are derived from his or her own perception. gesture of X when you spoke to him and you repeated
X’s gesture of making a cut-throat gesture. Thus, it is
This is mere secondhand information. It was merely relayed by a non-verbal conduct of a person if it is intended by
other person to me. Now, I am repeating it in open court. him or her as an assertion.
Marissa Unchuan v. Antonio Lozada, et. Al. d. When a statement is not Hearsay under Sec. 37
G.R. NO. 172671: April 16, 2009
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant:
Ruling: (1) testifies at the trial or hearing and
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends, in (2) is subject to cross-examination concerning the
whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of some statement.
persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to be
produced. Note: In this case, it is no longer an out-of-court
declaration.
Comment:
This means that whoever made that declaration, he is not You uttered something in court and you are the declarant,
present in court. Therefore, that declarant cannot be subjected you are placed at the witness stand, this time, that
to cross-examination to ferret out the truth. declaration, that is not hearsay. If it is confirmatory with
what he said previously then it is not hearsay if the
b. Characteristics of Hearsay Evidence (Based on Sec. 37) declarant takes the witness and is cross-examined by the
adverse party.
1. It is a statement other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at a trial or hearing. Thus, it is an out- But it may not be that in all instances that the declarations
of-court declaration repeated by a witness who are the same.
himself did not make the declaration.
e. Statement and Use in Court
STATEMENT USE IN COURT
2. It is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (1) Impeachment.
FIRST
EXAM 115
This is the out of The statement is out of court declaration and

court declaration inconsistent with the it is not hearsay as it is
which is later used in declarant’s testimony, and defined under Sec. 37
the courtroom for was given under oath because it is used for
the purpose subject to the penalty of impeachment. You must to
outlined in the 2nd perjury at a trial, hearing, or the court that his statements
paragraph of other proceeding, or in a in RTC 1 and RTC 2 are not
Section 37: deposition. consistent. Either way, he
was lying either in RTC 1 or
Situation: X is a witness in RTC 2.
both RTC 1 and RTC 2. (2) Rebuttal.
Different cases. In RTC 1, he The statement is consistent
says that X killed Y. with the declarant’s
testimony and is offered to
What is the status of that rebut an express or implied
statement that he made in charged against the
RTC 1 and in a case declarant of recent
prosecuted in RTC 2? Is fabrication or improper
that considered an open- influence or motive.
court-declaration?
No, it is not. It is Comment: In the current
extrajudicially made because case that he is testifying, he
it is not made in the same is saying something
case. consistent with what he said
previously outside of the
Situation: In RTC 2, the court room.
declarant made a testimony
but now he declared that Y He is saying something that
was not killed by X. It is is the same with what he said
already A who killed Y. His in another place other than
statements are not the same. the court and in the present
case in which he is being
What would be the non-
examined, the other side
hearsay statement there?
that he is lying. In order to
rebut the charge that he has
General Rule: It is that
lied in his testimony before
statement where he said that
the court at the present time,
A killed Y.
you can present what he
What happens to stated at another place to
testimony that he made in bolster or rehabilitate his
RTC 1? testimony that he did not lie.
That is technically That is why it is not
considered as hearsay considered as hearsay and
because he did not make therefore admissible.
that declaration in RTC 2. (3) Identification.
Maybe, somebody heard or The statement is one of
made a record of what he identification of a person
said in RTC 1 and now wants made after perceiving him or
to impeach his testimony in her.
RTC 2 because he said
something different in RTC 1, Comment: If it is a
that is the reason why it statement that he made out
cannot be considered as of court and it is only for
hearsay because while purposes of identification.
technically speaking it is an Identification that may or
FIRST
EXAM 116
may not be consistent in the

present case, then that will h. Reasons for admissibility of Hearsay
still not be hearsay. It is
admissible. (1) Absence of Cross-Examination
f. Two concepts of hearsay evidence While you can examine the witness [the out of court
declarant who is not in courtroom right now], you
(1) Secondhand information; and cannot cross-examine the source of his information.
Not derived from personal knowledge of witness.
(2) Absence of Demeanor Evidence
The witness is not testifying based on his or her personal The court cannot determine the credibility of an out-
knowledge, not derived from his or her perception. of-court declarant by judging his demeanor because
that demeanor is absent..
(2) Testimony by a witness derived from his personal
knowledge but the adverse party is not given When the declarant told the witness, did he seem to
opportunity to cross-examine. be truthful?
Situation: (3) Absence of oath or affirmation

Plaintiff presents witness A. A testifies in court on matters The out-of-court declarant cannot be subjected to
personally known to him. After direct examination, court perjury because he is not under oath. The witness is
tells that the defendant can cross examine on next under oath.
scheduled hearing [because the court would still
administer a wedding]. On the next scheduled hearing, What if it later on appears that what the declarant
witness A no longer appears and could no longer be told the witness that it is not true, can you subject
located [he might be abducted by aliens already or the witness to perjury?
whatever reason that he cannot be presented in court No, because he was merely repeating a statement that
anymore]. was relayed to him by another person.
That is technically hearsay because the counsel was i. As a rule of exclusion

deprived of his opportunity to cross-examine. Without The hearsay character of evidence may be waived by failure to
cross examination, it is now proper to be stricken out of object. It was admitted to the court because you did not object.
the records. It becomes hearsay. There is hearsay for
second information and there is also hearsay for lack of Example:
cross-examination. Objection your Honor, the statement is merely hearsay. It is not
What it the remedy? derived from the personal knowledge of the witness. But you
Ask that the testimony of witness A be stricken out since it failed to object.
now becomes hearsay.
Note: Admissibility is not the same as evidentiary weight or
g. Requisites in order that a statement be considered hearsay. probative value.
Note: When we talk about the requisites of a hearsay, we Philippine Realty Holdings Corporation
are just actually repeating what we already discussed in v. Firematic Philippines
Sec. 37. G.R. NO. 156251; April 27, 2007
A statement will be considered hearsay if it is: The lack of objection may make an incompetent evidence
(1) An assertive statement admissible, but admissibility of evidence should not be
It expresses, confirms, or negates an allegation. equated with weight of evidence. Indeed, hearsay evidence
whether objected to or not has no probative value.
(2) Made by an out-of-court declarant
He is not the witness being presented but rather, it is j. Hearsay evidence may be:
somebody else repeating what he told the witness. (1) Oral
(2) Written or
(3) Offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (3) Non-verbal conduct.
therein.
The witness will try to convince the court that what The rule excluding hearsay is not limited to oral statements. It
was told to him by the declarant was the truth and the also applies equally well to written evidence (such as affidavits,
court should take it as the truth.
FIRST
EXAM 117
letters, sworn statements) as well as to non-verbal conduct notice, supposedly that would be hearsay. However, such would not
(such as gestures and actions). be applicable before the Labor Arbiters.
k. Affidavits Contrarily, when you talk about the Department of Labor and
The Constitutional right to confrontation precludes reliance on Employment, let’s say for example the BLR, if you have an affidavit
affidavits. Such a constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied you want to submit before it such would not be admitted unless the
unless the opportunity is given to the accused to test the witness appears before the hearing officer and reaffirms the
credibility of any person, who, by affidavit or deposition would contents of his affidavit.
impute the commission of an offense to him. It would be to
disregard one of the most valuable guarantees of a person But the general rule is that affidavit is hearsay to overcome this, the
accused if solely on the affidavits presented, his guilt could be affiant must take the witness stand.
predicated.
In summary procedure, the affidavits take the form of testimony or
Situation: it is the substitute of a testimony. But what if the witness/affiant did
The evidence of the prosecution is that, they did not not appear before the court to reaffirm the contents of his affidavit
present any witness. They only submitted affidavits. and ask the court that his affidavit be the substitute of his testimony?
It would be hearsay. The witness must reaffirm the contents of his
Can that be offered into evidence? affidavit under summary rules.
No, because it cannot be sponsored by any witness.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
In order for affidavits to be admissible in court, they Double Deck Hearsay
have to be either: It is hearsay within a hearsay. It is when a witness testifies as to an
(1) Repeated; or assertion by an out-of-court declarant which in turn is merely
(2) Reaffirmed by the affiant [the person who made the second-hand information. Double hearsay is actually mere third
affidavit] hand information.
The same thing applies to the judicial affidavit rule. Actually, this is a different kind of level of hearsay since such is a
The judicial affidavit rule is the substitute for direct hearsay twice removed from the source. It is a hearsay within a
examination of witnesses. hearsay, why? Because when a witness testifies about a newspaper
article, what would be the source? It would be such newspaper
September 9 Part 2 | Amistad article, then what would be the source of such newspaper article?
We do not know or it could be an anonymous source. Remember
That is his direct testimony. But what happens if he does not appear the newsmans’ privilege, that newsmen can actually refuse to
to reaffirm the statements he made under oath in his judicial divulge the source. So, as you can see, it’s not merely second-hand
affidavits? -That would also be stricken from the record. information but a third-hand information.
Unchuan vs. Lozada However, in American Jurisprudence, newspapers are considered

G.R. No. 172671, April 16, 2009 self-authenticating.
It is hornbook doctrine that an affidavit is merely hearsay I think that is also applicable in the Philippines since you can assume
evidence where its maker did not take the witness stand. Verily, that every copy of the newspaper in the newsstand are the same.
the sworn statement of Anita was of this kind because she did (e.g. newspaper published by Inquirer on a particular date, you can
not appear in court to affirm her averments therein. safely assume that such newspaper all have identical contents, that
makes them self-authenticating in American Jurisprudence.)
Please take note of the cases that I mentioned in my book, when
would affidavits be given weight? Usually when you are before a
quasi-judicial/administrative body. Why? Since there are no BAR QUESTION 2003
requirements in relation to oath, personal appearance of a
witnesses. Homer Honesto Henson was charged with robbery. On the
strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the court, Homer
Example: Honesto Henson was arrested by police operatives. They seized
In a labor case, you would submit a position paper and you would from his person a handgun. A charge for illegal possession of
include an affidavit of the employer saying that they sent a notice firearms was also filed against him. In a press conference called
and such was attached but in truth they did not actually send such by the police, Homer Honesto Henson admitted that he had
robbed the victim of jewelry valued at P500,000.
FIRST
EXAM 118
Counsel Z: What did A tell you?

The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried Opposing Counsel: Objection, Your honor! That calls for
jointly. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper a hearsay answer.
clipping of the report of the reporter who was present during the
press conference stating that Homer Honesto Henson admitted How would Counsel Z defend against it?
the robbery. It likewise presented a certification of the PNP Counsel Z: Your Honor, we are not presenting the answer of
Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that the accused had no the witness as proof of the truth but only as to the fact that
license to carry any firearm. The certifying officer, however, was the statement was uttered by the witness, only as to the
not presented as a witness. Both pieces of evidence were tenor, your honor.
objected to by the defense.
Only as to tenor, what are we trying to prove? Suppose that an out-
Note: Let’s not focus on the certification of the PNP Firearms and of-court declarant said to the witness that pangit si B. Are you
Explosive Office but on the newspaper clipping of the report of the offering that to prove that pangit jud si B? Kung dili, that’s the tenor.
reporter who was present during the press conference stating that Mao na sya ang exception, the doctrine of independently relevant
Homer admitted the robbery. statements. But what we need to remember is the fact that it has to
be relevant independently of the statement.
Q: Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence against
Homer Honesto Henson? Espinelli vs. People
G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014
A: Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence against
Homer Honesto Henson, regardless of the truth or falsity of a Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is
statement, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the
be shown where the fact that it is made is relevant. Evidence as to hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As
the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is
statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute
relevant as to the existence of such fact. (Gotesco Investment a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of
Corporation vs. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18) such a fact. This is known as the doctrine of independently
relevant statements.
How can you relate this on our discussion on newspaper articles?
Report of the reporter who was present during the press Again, the emphasis here is that it does not matter if what the
conference? Isn’t that hearsay? witness said is true or not, but only to prove as to the fact that such
statement was made.
When you answer the Bar examinations, what would you do? Find
out what the general rule is and see if it is applicable. When will you People vs. Malibiran
apply the exceptions? You try to look at the applicability of the G.R. No. 178301, April 24, 2009
exception only if you are not sure that the general is not applicable.
The law provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One
When I answered this question during the Bar, I was sure that the is the doctrine of independently relevant statements, where only
general rule is applicable, that newspaper clippings are supposed to the fact that such statement were made is relevant, and the truth
be hearsay. But what the examiner had in mind was this doctrine. or falsity thereof is immaterial. xxx The witness who testifies
One of the non-codal exceptions to the hearsay rule, the doctrine of thereto is competent because he heard the same, as this is a
independently relevant statements. matter of fact derived from his own perception, and the purpose
is to prove either that the statement was made or the tenor
Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statement thereof.
While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by
another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the Why would that be admissible, if you are presenting it only as
fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is to the tenor of the statement?
otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is The tenor of the testimony of a witness is made to prove the mere
merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such fact that something was said to him by someone and not the truth
statement, was made. of what was said.
So, what’s this doctrine of independently relevant statement? Why is independently relevant statement admissible despite
being hearsay?
Example: Simple, because it is relevant. They are relevant because the
*Situation: In court, Counsel Z asks a witness statement itself is:
FIRST
EXAM 119
Either the very fact in issue; or testator to make a will, this is at very least circumstantially relevant.
Circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue. What would be directly relevant here? The result of an examination
as to the sanity of the testator.
The very fact in issue
Consider an action for oral defamation where the following OTHER NON-CODAL EXCEPTIONS
exchange took place between the prosecutor and his witness:
1. Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
Prosecutor: What did you hear the accused say?
Defense: Objection, Your Honor. Question calls for Sec. 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. – A statement
hearsay testimony! made by a child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the
Court: Not so fast! Witness may answer. hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-
Witness: The accused said while pointing to the victim: criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
“You are a thief. You stole my money! You are a liar!” a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its
proponent shall make known to the adverse party the
Again, this is an action for oral defamation. Does it matter that the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to
victim is really a thief? That he actually stole the money of the provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is
accused? That the victim is a liar? Does it matter if such statements available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse
were true? In a case for oral defamation, it does not matter. As long party, require the child to be present at the presentation
as there was a malicious imputation and there is an element of of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the
publicity, the statements allegedly made are relevant in a adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of
prosecution for oral defamation. such circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
That is why such would be the very fact in issue of the case, unsa ba b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement,
jud ang gi ingun sa akusado against the victim. the court shall consider the time, content and
circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of
Circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue reliability. It shall consider the following factors:
Let us assume we have a special proceeding in court. Let us say it is 1) Whether there is a motive to lie;
the probate of a testator’s will. Some heirs who felt aggrieved by the 2) The general character of the declarant child;
dispositions in the will have raised the issue of the testator’s sanity. 3) Whether more than one person heard the
statement;
Remember that one of the requirements for the making of a 4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
will is that the testator was in compos mentis (sound mind). 5) The timing of the statement and the relationship
If the will was made during the time when the testator was between the declarant child and witness;
not of sound mind and it led to the disinheritance of certain 6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of
heirs. Such will could be invalidated. knowledge of the declarant child;
7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the
The will was purportedly executed on January 3 of the previous year. declarant child is remote; and
A witness for the oppositor is on the stand to testify on the testator’s 8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are
alleged incapacity: such that there is no reason to suppose the
declarant child misrepresented the involvement
Q: How long have you known the testator? of the accused.
A: For twenty (20) years by the time he died, Sir.
Q: How did you come to know him? c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under
A: I was her nurse for twenty (20) years, Sir. the following situations:
Q: On January 3, 2004, what did you hear the testator say? 1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of
Opposing Counsel: Objection, Your Honor! Hearsay! memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to
Court: Not so fast, Witness may answer. severe psychological injury; or
A: In the morning of January 3, he said, “I am DARNA!” 2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of
his statement has been unable to procure his
The testator said that siya daw si Darna and he seemed very serious attendance by process or other reasonable
about it. Now the question is, does it matter if it is true that he is means.
Darna? Does it matter? It doesn’t matter. Why? Because if he really
was of the belief that he was Darna, it means that the testator was d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay
not of sound mind. Therefore, we can invalidate the will. Hence, if testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other
the fact in issue is the testamentary capacity or incapacity of the admissible evidence.
FIRST
EXAM 120
G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009
I want you to read this on your own and I would no longer But in this case, the Supreme Court relaxed the rule on Hearsay
discuss this. when in it comes to Writ of Amparo cases. According to the
Supreme Court, you should consider the totality of evidence and
When would this be applicable? consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual
Suppose that a victim is a child who is unable to testify or rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible
already dead. The only witness of the alleged child abuse is a evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the
playmate of the child. So, normally you would object if such most basic test of reason- i.e. to the relevance of the evidence to
child is presented as a witness on the ground that we cannot the issue at hand and its consistency with all the other pieces of
anymore cross-examine the source of information BUT take adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted
note that it is allowed under Section 28. Provided that you fulfill if it satisfies this basic minimum test.
the requirements laid down in Section 28.
Because, diba, kung tanawon jud nimo, its really inadmissible
2. Section 27 of Rules of Evidence because its hearsay. But the Supreme Court can relax it in writ of
amparo cases based on totality of evidence presented and the basic
Sec. 27. Admission of a party – The act, declaration, or test of relevancy.
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him or her. (26a) 4. Present Sense Impression
For example, you’re riding a car and its going very fast. And you said,
It is something he said out-of-court, somebody is going to “kapaspas na! mabangga nata!” That’s present sense impression.
repeat what he said in open court. Then such would no longer
be considered as hearsay. Q: So, later on, naay nakadungog nimo nga paspas kayo ang
dagan. Can that be used as proof nga paspas ang dagan sa
It has long been settled that these admissions are admissible sakyanan?
even if they are hearsay. (Unchuan vs. Lozada, Ibid) A: Pwede. That is present sense impression. Unsa imong impression
presently. Unsay na-feel nimo karun.
3. Relaxation of the Hearsay exclusion in Writ of Amparo
cases (Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009) Read Lozano vs. People GR. No. 165582, 2010
In this case, there is this Engineer Tagitis, who was reportedly The RATIONALE for present sense impression is that:
abducted by elements of the State (Law enforcement officials 1. there is no substantial danger that defects int the
of the state). The wife, with strong suspicions that his husband declarant’s memory will affect the value of the statement
was actually abducted by the police, filed a case for writ of 2. the declarant would not have had much time to fabricate
amparo. Take note that the purpose of the writ of amparo is to before making the statement
produce the person whose disappearance was allegedly 3. in many cases, the person to whom the statement was
enforced by the agents of the government. What was the basis addressed would have been in a position to check its
of the wife that his husband was kept by the police? accuracy
September 9 Part 3 | Bahalla Hence, the declarant could speak with care.
There is this confidential informant alias Col. Kasim who said

“your husband is being kept at camp Catitipan in Davao City.” CODAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE:
So, mao na siya ang basis sa filing ni Mrs. Tagitis against the
Philippine National Police. Mrs. Tagitis said “produce my 1. Dying declaration
husband. You’re keeping him according to the informant.” Do 2. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind
you think that informant will come to court and testify “Oo. 3. Declaration against interest.
Tinood na ang bana naa didto sa Camp Catitipan?” 4. Act or declaration about pedigree
5. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
No. 6. Common reputation
7. Part of res gestae
Razon said that it is hearsay. You cannot issue a Writ of Amparo 8. Records of regularly conducted business activity
solely on hearsay evidence 9. Entries in official records
10. Commercial lists and the like
Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis 11. Learned treatises
FIRST
EXAM 121
12. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding charge Kimble with murder, and he is sentenced to death by lethal
13. Residual exception- katong nabilin. the residue of injection.
everything else nga dili covered by the provisions, it might
be covered by this exception. Mao ni ang nahitabo: the wife was attacked and then while buhi pa
**memorize the codal exceptions to the hearsay rule tong wife, nitawag siyag 911. And while at the phone with 911,
niabot iya husband, Richard. So, instead of talking to the phone
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS operator, the wife kept uttering the word “Richard! Richard!” kay
Take note that from original 11 codal exceptions, we now have nakita niya nga niabot na iyang husband. Okay? So, that 911 call was
13. misunderstood by the police and by the prosecution to mean that
Among the original 11 codal exceptions, only 4 remain virtually she was identifying her killer. It was misinterpreted as a dying
unchanged. declaration.
The Deadman Statute or the Survivorship Disqualification Rule
(formerly Section 23) is now an exception to the hearsay rule. Why is a dying declaration admissible?
In the case of People v. Bautista, there are two obvious reasons why
DYING DECLARATION we need to admit dying declarations:
1. NECESSITY because the declarant's death renders impossible
Section 38. Dying declaration. – The declaration of a dying his taking the witness stand.
person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, 2. TRUSTWORTHY since the declaration is "made in extremity,
may be received in any case wherein his or her death is the when the party is at the point of death and every hope of this
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and
circumstances of such death. (37a) the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to
speak the truth. A situation so solemn and awful is considered
A dying declaration is one of the oldest exceptions to the hearsay by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is
rule. In fact, as early as 1928, the Supreme Court of the Philippines imposed by an oath administered in court."
ruled anent the object of dying declarations that:
A dying declaration is admitted of necessity in order, as Mind you, tanang codal exceptions to the hearsay rule, ang iyang
the Supreme Court of Mississippi states, “to reach those reasons kay pareha lang: necessity and trustworthiness.
man slayers who perpetrate their crimes when there are no
other eyewitnesses.” (People vs. Toledo, G.R. No. L-28655, Trustworthiness
1928)
Marturillas vs. People
Q: Imagine somebody who is being stabbed or shot and it is only G.R. No. 163217
the victim and the shooter or stabber who saw it. And nay
niabot, anak or asawa, ingon dayon siya “ang nidunggab nako Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the
kay si cardo” and then namatay. So, what’s the only evidence verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of credence
for the prosecution to prosecute the accused, Cardo? and respect. Persons aware of an impending death have been
A: The only thing that proves that it was Cardo who attacked the known to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely
victim was the fact that the victim told the spouse or the anak ba to scrupulous in their accusations. The dying declaration is given
nga ang nidunggab niya kay si Cardo. Hearsay diba? It was only told credence, on the premise that no one who knows of one’s
by someone to another person which will now be the witness for the impending death will make a careless and false accusation.
prosecution of Murder against Cardo.
But it is now exempted from the general rule ang ginatawag nato as Q: Kung mamatay nalang man ka and you face the prospect of
Dying Declaration otherwise known as: facing your Creator, mamakak pa ba ka? Would that be the last
Ante Mortem Statement thing that you’ll be going to do when you are about to meet
Statements in Articulo Mortis your maker?
A: Supreme Court ruled no. Persons aware of their impending death
have been known to be genuinely truthful in their words. So, mao
One popular example of a dying declaration was in the movie “The
na ang reason ngano trustworthy siya.
Fugitive.” Dr. Richard Kimble, a successful vascular surgeon in
Chicago, comes home one night to find his wofe Helen fatally
People vs. Palanas
wounded by a man with a prosthetic arm, and though he attempts
G.R. No. 214453
to subdue the killer, the man escapes. The lack of evidence of a
break-in, fingerprints being found on the gun and the bullets, and
This declaration is considered evidence of the highest order and
Helen’s misunderstood 911 call led to Chicago Police Department to
is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his
impending death would make a careless and false accusation.
FIRST
EXAM 122
Verily, because the declaration was made in extremity, when the X, the husband, was shot while Y, the wife, was stabbed. At the
party is at the point of death and when every motive of falsehood emergency room of the hospital, X said that it was Z who
is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful stabbed his wife. Then, he died.
considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a
situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to Q: Can this qualify as a dying declaration?
that which is imposed by an oath administered in court. So when he said to somebody that it was Z who stabbed his
wife, is that a dying declaration?
A: No. The statement is not a dying declaration because it

REQUISITES pertains to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
For a dying declaration to constitute an exception to the hearsay wife’s death and not of the declarant’s OWN death. Dapat
evidence rule, 4 conditions must concur: iyahang kaugalingon.
1. The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death;
2. That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is BAR QUESTION 2017
conscious of his impending death;
3. The declarant was competent as a witness (had he or she Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his chest,
survived); and Venancio told the attending physician, in a very feeble voice, that
4. The declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, it was Arnulfo, his co-worker, who had shot him. Venancio added
Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim. People that it was also Arnulfo who had shot Vicente, the man whose
vs. Palanas, G.R. No. 214453; People vs. Umapas, G.R. No. cadaver was lying on the bed beside him. In the prosecution of
215742; People vs. Santillan, G.R. No. 227878 Arnulfo for the criminal killing of Venancio and Vicente, are all
the statements of Venancio admissible as dying declaration?
But if you look at the codal provisions, naa bay nakabutang Explain your answer.
“Homicide, Murder, or Parricide?” Ang nakabutang sa codal
provision “offered in any case wherein his or her death is the subject With respect to his own death, diba giingon niya na it was Arnulfo
of inquiry.” Walay nakabutang nga it has to be a criminal case of who shot him? That’s a dying declaration.
homicide, Murder, or Parricide. That’s why when the case of Palanas
came out, nay bag-ong requisites. But with respect to Vicente, that is not a dying declaration because
the declaration does not concern the cause and surrounding
September 9 Part 4 | Du circumstances of the declarant’s death. It was somebody else’s
death.
People vs. Badillos
G.R. No. 215732, June 6, 2018 A dying declaration may be inculpatory or exculpatory.
Meaning, it may inculpate or exculpate you. It may find you guilty or
A dying declaration is admissible in evidence if the following find you innocent.
circumstances are present:
1. It concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the More often than not, the requisite relates to the inquiry of who killed
declarant’s death’ the declarant but it does not preclude information as to the motive
2. It is made when death appears to be imminent and the and other conditions that attended the killing of the declarant.
declarant is under a consciousness of impending death;
3. The declarant would have been competent to testify had he or This also means that a dying declaration may be used not only
she survived; and against the accused but also in his favor.
4. The dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject
of the inquiry involves the declarant’s death. Q: So what if the victim said X shot me and then Y was the
main suspect. Can you use the dying declaration of the
The first three requisites are the same but in the fourth requisite, victim as evidence that Y is innocent?
walay giingon na criminal case siya, so ning revert napud. A: Of course you can.
Let’s discuss the REQUISITES: Example:

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States. He used to be a
1. Declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding lawyer before he became President.
circumstances of the declarant’s death
In 1770, a street confrontation known as the Boston Massacre
Example: resulted in British soldiers killing five civilians. The accused soldiers,
FIRST
EXAM 123
Patrick Carr, told his doctor before he died that the soldiers had by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth” that makes
been provoked. The doctor’s testimony helped John Adams to the declaration trustworthy.
secure acquittals for some of the accused and reduced charges for
the rest.
BAR EXAMINATION QUESTION (MAYBE 2018)
It may thus be used as proof of a justifying circumstance or as proof
that another person committed the killing other than the accused. During the time that he was shot, he was at the emergency room at
the hospital, nagcellphone pa siya, naglike sa mga post s aiyang
2. When the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious friends, nagselfie pa siya. 8pm emergency room. Then he said to the
of his impending death attendant that it was X who shot me and then he died thereafter.
Meaning, para sa iyaha, mamatay na gyud ko. But he doesn’t

Q: Dying declaration?
have to state it but klaro kayo no.
A: Of course not. Ang conduct ba niya same as a person who feels
that he is at the point of death? Obviously not.
What factors should be considered in determining whether the
declarant is conscious of his impending death?
Marturillas vs. People
1. The very utterances made by the declarant;
G.R. No. 163217, April 18, 2006
2. The actual character and seriousness of his wounds; and
Consciousness of impending death need not be explicitly stated but

People vs. Villariez
may be established by circumstantial evidence.
G.R. No. 211160, September 2, 2015
The law does not require the declarant to state explicitly a
At the brink of death and with a voice she could hardly hear, her
perception of the inevitability of death. The perception may be
father uttered the name “Toti.”
established from surrounding circumstances, such as the nature of
the declarant’s injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion
Held: Dying declaration. Although he made no express statement
that there was a consciousness of impending death. Even if the
showing that he was conscious of his impending death, it was clear
declarant did not make an explicit statement of that realization, the
however, considering the fatal quality of his injury and that he was
degree and seriousness of the words and the fact that death
barely heard by ana when he uttered accused’s name, that his death
occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient
was imminent.
evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full
consciousness of being in a dying condition.
That can be considered as a dying declaration even if he did not say
that mamatay na ko. No need to say. You don’t have to be very
DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER:
technical.
The victim need not state that he has lost all hope of recovery.
It is sufficient that circumstances are such as to inevitably lead
3. By the declarant’s conduct and the circumstances at the
to the conclusion that at the time the declaration was made,
time he made the declaration, whether he expected to
the declarant would not expect to survive the injury from which
survive his injury. he actually died.
The degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that
Example:
death supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of
Gerald was shot but he can still walk and talk. He went home to his
the victim’s consciousness of his impending death. (People vs.
house, cleaned up his own wounds and went out to go to the
Tanaman et al., G.R. No. 71768, July 28, 1987)
hospital. Along the way, he rode a taxi. The driver was a childhood
friend, Matteo who asked him what happened to him. He answered
What about if wala siya namatay dayun? Ok lang ba?
that Luis shot him but that he was okay. It was only a flesh wound.
At the hospital, Gerald died after a couple of hours.
People vs. Bautista
G.R. No. 111149, September 5, 1997
Q: Is the statement of Gerald to Matteo a dying declaration?
A: No, because he made the statement without having thought that
Dying declaration has weight even if declarant did not die
he is already dying. He made the statement thinking that it was a
immediately after his declaration: The fact that the declarant died
flesh wound and that he would survive it. In order to be admissible,
four (4) hours after his statement does not diminish the probative
the declarant must have thought that he was about to die because
value of the dying declaration since it is not indispensable that a
it is the fact that the declaration is “made in extremity, when the
declarant expires immediately thereafter.
party is at the point of death and every hope of this world is gone;
when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced
FIRST
EXAM 124
It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid succession of

death that renders the dying declaration admissible. 3. The declarant was competent as a witness
Dili kinahanglan na kanang mamatay dayun. Pwede kanang mabuhi This means that, had the declarant survived, he would not have
pa kadali because of timely medical intervention pero not knowing been disqualified or otherwise prohibited to testify.
that it was a fatal wound.
Thus, the utterance of the deceased must have been one borne
of personal knowledge.
People vs. Badillos
So when he says si X ang nagpusil nako, dapat nakita gyud niya.
G.R. No. 215732, June 6, 2018
He was in a position to see X shoot him.
In order to make a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in
Here’s a weird case:
inevitable and imminent death must be entered into by the
declarant. It is the declarant’s belief of his impending death and not Geraldo vs. People
the rapid succession of his death in point of fact that renders his G.R. No. 173608, November 20, 2008
declaration admissible as a dying declaration. The test is whether the
declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looks on death as Competence means opportunity to see assailant.
certainly impending.
It has not been established, however, that the victim would have
been competent to testify had he survived the attack. There is no
People vs. Rarugal
showing that he had the opportunity to see his assailant. Among
G.R. No. 188603, January 16, 2013
other things, there is no indication whether he was shot in front.
At all events, even if the victim’s dying declaration were admissible
On the night of October 19, 1998 at around 9:45pm, while victim
in evidence, it must identify the assailant with certainty; otherwise it
Arnel Florendo (Florendo) was cycling along Sampaguita Street,
loses its significance.
Barangay Capari, Novaliches, Quezon City, Rarugal with the use of a
long double-bladed weapon, stabbed Florendo; thus, forcibly
Ang dying declaration niya was that a certain person killed him. But
depriving him of his bicycle. Immediately thereafter, appellant
by means of examining evidence, by looking at ballistics, and nakita
hurriedly fled the scene. This incident was witnessed by Roberto Sit-
is that the entry wound was from the back, exit wound front. How
Jar, who positively identified appellant in court.
could he have seen his attacker? Murag ingana ang contention sa
accused.
Florendo arrived home bleeding. He was quickly attended to by his
siblings, including his brother Renato. When Renato recounted the
Compare that case with this case of:
events of that night to the court, he testified that Florendo told him
People vs. Villariez
and his other relatives that it was Rarugal who had stabbed him.
G.R. No. 211160, September 2, 2015
They then took Florendo to Tordesillas Hospital but had to transfer
him to Quezon City General Hospital, due to the unavailability of
The victim made a dying declaration about the person who shot him.
blood. It was there that Florendo died on October 26, 1998.
The accused was convicted based on this and the SC affirmed and
appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. It found that
Note:
The victim was still alive after the stabbing incident. He had time the victim was shot at the back.
to reach his house and confide in his brother, witness Renato,
that it was appellant who had stabbed him. Rather than discrediting the dying declaration, the SC appreciated it
The victim also did not die immediately. as a qualifying circumstance of treachery. It qualified simple
homicide to murder. So nay difference sa facts between the two
Held: Yes. It is of no moment that the victim died seven days from cases.
the stabbing incident and after receiving adequate care and
treatment, because the apparent proximate cause of his death, the For example niingon ka: I think ang nipusil nako kay si A. I think si A
punctures in his lungs, was a consequence of appellant’s stabbing to kay naa siyay kasuko nako.
him in the chest.
I think kay wala nimo nakitan. Dying declaration? No. You are not
competent, you are stating a matter of opinion. You must state a
He died one full week from the making of the declaration. Is this
matter of fact. Dapat naobserve sa declarant in order for it to
considered a dying declaration? Diba, dugay namatay, did not die
constitute a dying declaration.
immediately. Pwede gihapon. Dili magmatter one week, pwede
gihapon siya magqualify as dying declaration.
FIRST
EXAM 125
4. Offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or dead.” There is no dying declaration in cases of homicide or murder
parricide where the declarant is the victim in their attempted or frustrated stage.
Ayaw na pangutana ngano walay infanticide. Diba? Cannot Technically speaking, kung comatose, buhi pa na. There can be no
make a declaration of course. homicide or murder. Attempted or frustrated lang siguro imong
pwede ifile. Muhulat ka na mamatay before it becomes a dying
Compare this requisite with what is stated in the codal declaration.
provision:
“in any case wherein his or her death is the subject of inquiry”
Walay giingon na criminal case. It does not specify na homicide,

murder or parricide where the declarant is the victim. September 9 Part 5 | Escritor
Since the SC in that 2018 case (People vs. Badillos) reverted back to Unsa ni karon? Admissible or dili? Admissible sya, but no longer as
any case, pursuant to the codal provision, naa ba possibility na ang a dying declaration; but rather pwede sya na under a different
dying declaration can be appreciated in a civil case where the subject exception which is, part of the res gestae, which we will be talking
of inquiry is the declarant’s death? Naa ba? Pwede kaha na siya in about later.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code?
Does the requirement of death, include presumptive death? Diba
Note that the provision opens the possibility of admitting a dying naay presumptive death? Under Persons and Family Relations. Naa
declaration in any case for as long as the subject of inquiry is the pud tay discussion ana. Presumption of Death. Does the
declarant’s death. requirement of death for dying declaration, include presumptive
death?
Example:
In a civil case under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the victim was The first question that you need to ask is:
able to see the driver of the vehicle that hit him. He stated the name Can a prosecution for unlawful killing be made without the
of the driver to the rescuer. victim being found? Gi-presume lang na dead.
Q: Can that be considered as a dying declaration? So, wa gyud nimo nakita. Let’s say napusilan sya. Naay nakakita
The question is whether under Article 2176 which defines a quasi- napusilang sya. Nya wan a gyud sya nakita ever since. Can you infer
delict, ang subject of inquiry ba is the declarant’s death? the fact of death there?
A: Technically it is not. Under said article, it is not necessary that The answer is yes.
the victim dies. Pwede man na nainjure or damage lang. My opinion
only is that the subject of inquiry in Article 2176 is the negligence of People v. Roluna
the defendant. Not the injury or the death.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder
And seemingly the SC supports that opinion because the SC will not although the body of the victim was not found or recovered. In
specify homicide, murder and parricide, if they are not of the same said case, we rule that in murder or homicide, it is not necessary
opnion. to recover the body of the victim, or show where it can be found.
It is enough that the death or the criminal agency causing death
So clearly, it cannot be in a civil case. Although in that 2018 case, is proven. The court recognize that there are cases where the
ning revert napud ang SC karon. In any case napud siya. But wait for death and intervention of the criminal agency that caused it may
recent cases. be presumed or established by circumstantial evidence.
The declarant must not have survived. So, pwede. Without really seeing somebody, the cadaver of a
person, pwede ka magprosecute based on presumptive lang na
Mao gani dying declaration. If nagsurvive, then present him as a death.
witness.
Second question:
The requirement of the Rules is that the statement is offered in a Can there be a situation where a dying declaration can be made in
case where the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry. This means circumstances where there’s merely presumptive death?
actual death and does not apply to cases of mere unavailability such Hypothetical case of survivor.
as when the patient is in a comatose condition or merely “brain
FIRST
EXAM 126
Illustration: Unya, he was attended to by Dr. Raza who found him in critical
condition. Three fatal wounds caused by a bladed weapon were
Naa diri si Gerald, si Tamolmol ug Matukol. Crash landed on a found in Januario’s body which eventually caused his death.
deserted island. Before they were actually rescued, Matukol saw Maria Castillo, for her part, testified on how she learned of what
Gerald clutching his stomach, and saw that he appeared to be happened to her husband, the victim herein, the amount
stabbed several times. He then asked Gerald what happened and allegedly stolen from her husband, as well as on the expense and
Gerald said that Tamolmol stabbed him repeatedly with a jungle loss occurred by reason of Januario’s death. She further
knife. As he was saying this, a boat appeared at the horizon. quantified the quantified the sorrow and anxiety the family
Hoping for rescue, Gerald swam towards the direction of the suffered by reason of such of death.
boat. A few moments later, Gerald disappeared at the deeper
part of the sea and was never found again. As to the identity of the perpetrators, what was the evidence for
the prosecution? Katong response sa victim kang SPO3 Mendoza
After four years, Tamolol was prosecuted for murder. as to who committed the crime against him. Meaning, katong si
Jayr ug iyahang uncle.
Can the statement made by Gerald to Matukol prior to his
disappearance be considered as a dying declaration? On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. However, wala niya
gi-treat sya as part of the res gestae katong statement; but rather,
To my mind, based on how this example was framed, pwede. Tanang as a dying declaration. So, gibaliktad. Sa RTC, giingon nil res
requisites naa eh. Diba the declaration was to the cause and gestae. Pag-abot sa CA, “Ay, dili. Dili lang na sya part of the res
surrounding circumstances of his death? Because diba, multiple stab gestae but also a dying declaration.”
wounds. Syaro sad dili ka mamatay. Possible pud na namatay sya by
drowning. But, dili pud impossible na namatay sya because of the My question is: Does it matter? Whether it is not a dying
stabbing. So, pwede. Pwede sya. To my mind. Based on the example declaration?
that I just laid out to you.
While in this case, wala man gud naprove that the declarant was
Again, what if the victim survives? Then, part of the res gestae sya. under the consciousness of an impending death when he made the
No need to die if it is part of the res gestae. statements, it cannot be considered as a dying declaration. But, the
SC said, pwede gihapon sya na ma-appreciate as part of the res
People v. Gatarin gestae. Kanang gintawag nato na excited utterances.
November 3, Umali was riding a bicycle on his way home when Take note, dying declaration can be in any form: oral or written. If
he saw Januario being mauled by two persons. Upon seeing the oral, the witness who heard it may testify thereto without the
incident, he stayed in front of the church until such time that the necessity of reproducing the word of the decedent if he is able to
accused ran away and were chased by policemen that alighted give the substance thereof. Dili kinahanglan word for word.
from the police patrol vehicle.
An unsigned dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by
On the same night, SPO3 Mendoza and PO1 Jeffrey Jefferson the witness who took it down. That’s People v. Boller. No need to
Coronel were on board their patrol vehicle performing their be verbatim. Pero karon, diba, grabe ang possibilities. Let’s say
routine patrol duty when they met two men, then later identified you’re the rescuer. You see somebody lying on the street in a pool
to be the accused, who were running at a fast speed. When asked of his own blood, apparently being a victim of an attack. And then
why they were running, the accused did not answer, prompting you have your cellphone. Pwede nimo na i-record, pwede nimo i-
the policeman to chase them. The policemen however, were video, right? So, naglevel up atong mga exceptions because of the
unsuccessful in catching them. And when it became evident that availability of technology. Pwede sya mahimong documentary
they could no longer find them, they continued patrolling the evidence, pwede mahimong object evidence, pwede pud sya na
area. There they saw Januario lying on the street in front of Tom’s mahimong dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule.
studio. As he was severely injured, the policemen immediately
boarded Januario to the patrol vehicle and brought him to the A dying declaration pwede pud na the police investigators wrote
Zigzag Hospital. down a statement and gipa-thumbmark later by the deceased when
he was still alive. People v. Comiling pud na sya. SC said, dying
While inside the vehicle, SPO3 Mendoza asked Januario who hurt declaration, that qualifies. My problem there is, how do we know
him. And he said, “Si Jay rug ang iyahang uyu-an.” The uncle ang pag thumbmark sa victim was done at a time na buhi pa gyud
turned out to be the appellant, while Jayr, who is his co-accused, sya? Because if you base it on Peopla v. Comiling, diba pwede kaayo
remains at large. na angbuhat-buhat lang ang police ug statement? Pagkahuman,
gipa thumbmark using the cadaver or the thumb? Pwede gud kaayo
FIRST
EXAM 127
na niya buhaton na ingon-ana. So it’s kinda weird. Pwede nato i- pwede ba na kana bitawng last wishes of a deceased person? Is that
criticize ang ruling diha sa People v. Comiling. enforceable if it is not in the form of a will? Can you settle an estate
using the last wishes of a dying man? You can’t, diba? So let’s try
Pwede pud in the form of an affidavit, for as long as the requisites that here.
are present. Diba kapaspas magbuhat ug affidavit karon. “Ay sa’g
kamatay ha? Magbuhat sa kog affidavit nimo.” Pwede kaayo. You Luis, at his death bed, confessed to Rayver that he is the father
can actually do that very quickly. of Jesse’s child. He died two seconds later. During the settlement
But about this one.. of the estate, Jesse appeared in court to assert the rights of her
child with Luis, and wanted to present Rayver to testify as to the
People v. Padrones admission of Luis that he is the father of Jesse’s child. Can the
legitimate children of Luis object to the admissibility of Rayver’s
Three pages ang statement, ang alleged na dying declaration. testimony?
Executed on August 13 while the deceased died August 21, 1986.
SC said, let’s examine the signatures. The signatures were in bold
I’ll let that simmer sa inyoha. Deathbed confession. Meaning, things
and clear strokes, with grand flourishes.
that you will never say while you are still alive. Unya kay mamatay na
man ka, “Sige. I’ll be honest.” Mao na ang deathbed confession.
That cannot be considered as a dying declaration, diba? Kung
kintahay at the point of death na gyud nang tawhana na, as the
So what’s the ground for the objection?
police here allege, dili siguro ka makasign ug ing-ana. Kanang
Hearsay, diba? Luis is not available to testify. But the question there
bold flourishes.
is, should the court overrule the objection, or should it sustain the
objection? Kato bang admission niya kay Rayver na sya ang Papa sa
Can non-verbal acts be used as dying declarations?
anak ni Jesse, admissible ba sya or is it hearsay? Is it exempt ba from
the operatio of the hearsay rule? Let’s just put it there for now. Let’s
Example:
just do it another way.
While Gerald was lying in a pool of his own blood and dying, he
pointed with a very angry face at one of the bystanders, Matteo. Is Let’s change the facts a little bit.
that a dying declaration? Can you take that to mean that Matteo was
the killer of Gerald? Luis, at his deathbed, confessed to Twerky Jugs’ daughter, Lucy,
that he is her father and wanted to give her P3 Million so that
Answer: she can finish law school and take the bar as many times as she
No, because it violates the Doctrine of Completeness. wants. He died 2 seconds later. During the settlement of his
estate, Lucy appeared in court and wanted to testify as to Luis’
Unsa may meaning lang daw anang suko iyang nawong, and he was admission of paternity and the gift of P3 Million Pesos. Can the
pointing at one of the by-standers? “Mao na ang ni-ilog sa akong legitimate children of Luis object to the admissibility of Lucy’s
uyab!” Mao siguro na. Not necessarily na sya ang ningpatay, diba? testimony?
People v. Comiling Naay will na naghatag kang Lucy ug P3 Million? Wala. Any other
evidence for that matter na nagahatag kang Lucy ug P3 Million?
A dying declaration is complete when it is a full expression of all that Wala. So, can the legitimate children of Luis object to Lucy’s
the declarant wanted to say with regard to the circumstances of his testimony? Is there any evidence other than Lucy and the alleged
death. deathbed confession of Luis to Lucy?
Take note also this case of People v. De Joya, November 8, 1991. What are the grounds for objection?
Again, with respect to the Doctrine of Completeness. That the testimony is hearsay.
Patay na ang declarant.
Take note however that admissibility is different from weight. What Deadman’s statute (old provision)
the law merely assures is admissibility. There’s no assurance that the Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in
dying declaration is to be automatically believed if it’s controverted whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an
by other competent evidence, the dying declaration may be set executor or administrator or other representative of a
aside. deceased person, or against a person, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand
Deathbed confessions against the estate of such deceased person, or against
Now, what about a death bed confession? Can that be considered such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any
as a dying declaration? Naa bat ay ingon-ana? In the same vein, matter of fact occurring before the death of such
FIRST
EXAM 128
deceased person or before such person became of He goes to the executor of the estate of Matteo, Rayver, and tells
unsound mind. (This is the old Section 23) him of the debt of Matteo. Rayver, having no knowledge of the debt,
You cannot testify to what a dead man told you that refuses to pay Gerald. Gerald is forced to sue the estate of Matteo.
tends to diminish his estate. In this case, the
admission of paternity and alleged gift of P3Million During the trial, can Gerald testify and establish his claim
pesos. which existed before Matteo died?
Also called: NO. It is forbidden under the Dead Man’s Statute.
Dead Man’s Statute
Survivorship Disqualification Rule September 9 Part 6 | Estrosas
Surviving Parties Rule
According to Riano:
Gerald is rendered incompetent to testify as to the transaction he
had with Matteo. He is incompetent because of the possibility
that his claim is fraudulent. There would be a high risk of paying
Review: a fraudulent or a fictitious claim. It is Gerald who has the motive
Parol Evidence Rule to lie. He is the survivor. Matteo cannot lie. He is dead and cannot
answer back. He cannot disprove the claim of Gerald.
Section 10. Evidence of written agreements – When the terms
of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered Because verily, diba? You can go instead of ambulance
as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, chasing to funeral parlor chasing, makiramay ka. E.g. By
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence the way kanang gihaya, naa gud na’y utang sa ako. Bayri
of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. ko ah.
xxx The term “agreement” includes wills.
Kay sa mutuo lang bitao, mao na siya ang dili gusto sa
So, you cannot testify to something na wala sa agreement sa will. Dead Man’s Statute. You cannot anymore disprove it
because the person is already dead. You cannot anymore
Situation refute your claim whatever your claim is against the estate
In Gerald’s will, there is a bequest of P200,000 to Matteo. During the kay patay na siya. That’s the reason why we have the Dead
probate of the will, Matteo claimed that Gerald told him is, in the Man’s Statute.
event of Gerald’s death, Matteo will get P2,000,000.
So, bawal ang ing-ana nga testimony.
Effect:
Matteo cannot prove by extrinsic evidence that the bequest was To level the playing field between the lucky survivor and the poor
P2,000,000 and not P200,000. This is not allowed under the Parole deceased, the rule would seal the lips of the survivor by declaring
Evidence Rule. Otherwise, there will be a lot of spurious claims him incompetent to testify on the transaction between him and
against the estate of a deceased person. the deceased. The rule is one that does not protect the survivor
even at the risk of not paying a just and valid claim because it is
Why is the Rule applied to wills? the survivor who has the stronger reason to file a false claim. The
The dangers sought to be avoided by the requirement of the Rule is rule is for the protection of the guy who died. Hence the name,
present in the making of wills and are deemed to be more prevalent Dead Man’s Statute.
inasmuch as the maker of a will, the decedent, can no longer object
to attempts to vary his testamentary intent as his voice is already OBJECT OF THE RULE
silenced by death. The Supreme Court had repeatedly held in not a few cases that the
object of the rule is: to guard against the temptation to give false
THE SITUATION UNDER THE FORMER SECTION 23 testimony in regard to the transaction on the part of the
Matteo approaches Gerald to borrow One Million Pesos to be paid surviving party and thereby put the parties upon equal terms.
in two months’ time. Without hesitation, Gerald gives Matteo the Its purpose is to close the lips of the plaintiff when death has
amount requested without any contract, receipt or any other written closed the lips of the defendant, in order to remove from the
defendant the temptation to do falsehood and the possibility of
proof of the loan.
fictitious claims against the deceased (TAN vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 125861, September 9, 1998).
Exactly a day before the agreed date for payment, Matteo was
electrocuted then fell off the balcony of his condo, got hit by a train NEW DEADMAN’S STATUTE
and then splattered to pieces. In short, he died.
Section 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound
What will Gerald do? mind. – In an action against an executor or administrator or other
FIRST
EXAM 129
representative of a deceased person, or against a person of must prove that it is not trustworthy. In other words, the
unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of objection is grounded on general grounds of hearsay and
such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, not survivorship disqualification which, technically
where a party or assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf speaking, no longer exists.
a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact occurring before Wala na ning survivorship disqualification rule.
the death of the deceased person or before the person became Rather than inadmissible, it becomes admissible
of unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person as an exception to the hearsay rule.
of unsound mind, may be received in evidence if the statement
was made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or the COMPARISON
person of unsound mind at a time when the matter had been Survivorship Disqualification Statement of decedent or
recently perceived by him or her and while his or her recollection person of unsound mind
was clear. Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under Rule of exclusion. It excluded Rule of inclusion. It now admits
circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness. (23a) testimony that tends to testimony on a claim against
establish a claim against the the estate, a deceased person
This is the new Section 39 which is even longer than the old Section estate of a deceased person or or person of unsound mind
23. Being the new Section 39, the old Section 23 has become an person of unsound mind. based on the out-of-court
exception to the hearsay rule. If the general rule before is that the declarations of such persons
survivorship disqualification rule or deadman’s statute under Section provided the testimony on the
23 was a rule of exclusion, you cannot testify to establish a claim claim is trustworthy.
against the estate of the deceased person. Now you can because it
is an exception to the hearsay rule. If you heard the deceased
stating something, even if it
TRACKING AND EXPLAINING THE CHANGES tends to establish a claim
against his estate, but then
“In an action” he’s dead, that is actually
This phrase appears to modify the requisite that the admissible as an exception
Deadman’s Statute is applicable only to civil cases or to the hearsay rule.
special proceedings under the old law.
However, take note that an action under the Rules of Civil It was ground to disqualify a An exception to the hearsay
Procedure may refer to an ordinary or special civil action witness if he is the survivor. rule which no longer
or a criminal action. disqualifies a witness from
testifying on the ground of
“any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, merely being a survivor.
may be received in evidence if the statement was made upon The burden was upon the The burden now falls on the
the personal knowledge of the deceased or the person of claimant to plead any one of executor, administrator or
unsound mind at a time when the matter had been recently
the exceptions to the Rule. other representative of a
perceived by him or her and while his or her recollection was
deceased or insane person to
clear.”
prove that the out-of-court
This means that while the declarant is already deceased or
declaration or statement was
insane (NECESSITY – it means necessary that we admit this
made under circumstances
as an exception to the hearsay rule), he uttered the
indicating its lack of
statement based on his own perception while his
trustworthiness.
recollection was still clear (TRUSTWORTHINESS).
Furthermore, the law is presently worded, changed the
Note: Remember this Table. You will not see this anywhere else. This
nature of the Deadman’s Statute from a rule of exclusion
is a product of JZE’s research.
into a rule of inclusion, as it is already an exception to the
hearsay rule.
Once again, take note that the guarantee of the law is ANOTHER EXAMPLE
merely admissibility, not probative value or “believability.” Luis, at his death bed, confessed to his daughter, Lucy, that he killed
Matteo, not Gerald who currently stands trial for Matteo’s murder.
Luis died 2 seconds later. During the trial of Matteo, he wanted to
“Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under present Lucy to testify as to the deathbed confession of Luis. Can
circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness.” the prosecution object?
Thus, if the defendant (executor or administrator) wishes
to successfully object to the out-of-court declaration or What’s the ground for objection?
“statement of decedent or person of unsound mind,” he
FIRST
EXAM 130
o THAT THE TESTIMONY IS HEARSAY. Lucy will be

testifying as to what Luis told her when he was DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (NEW)
still alive.
Should the court overrule or sustain the objection? Section 40. Declaration against interest. – The declaration
made by a person deceased or unable to testify against the
Is there a specific rule in Philippine law about deathbed interest of the declarant1, if the fact asserted in the declaration
confessions? was at the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant’s own
interest2 that a reasonable person in his or her position would not
In England, in R. v. Gray (1841) Ir. Circ. Rep. 76, a deathbed have made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be true,
confession by a third person that he, not the accused, had may be received in evidence against himself or herself or his or
committed the murder charged was held inadmissible. her successors in interest and against third persons. A statement
tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered
In the US, however, under Rule 804 of the Federal Rules, a deathbed to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating
confession can be admissible in court under the right circumstances. circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the
If someone confesses knowledge of a crime and then dies or his statement.
condition worsens, the law does not consider the statement to be
hearsay and can be used in a criminal trial. 1
His own interest, remember right? Like gipatay nako tung tawhana tuh,
and then he died.
2
Example: James Brewer Case Meaning, it is really something that is prejudicial to his own interest that
he would not normally do that.
James Brewer was suffering from a stroke and thought he was
going to die when he decided to come clean about his life. In While this is not called the deathbed confession rule, this is our own
1977, James Brewer, in a jealous rage, killed his neighbor, version of a deathbed confession rule as an exception to the hearsay
skipped bail, and then ran away with his wife and they took on rule.
new identities as the Andersons. They were model citizens and
even lead a Bible study group. He confessed this in 2009 to the FUENTES, JR. vs. CA
police on his deathbed. G.R. No. 111692, February 9, 1996
Luckily (or unluckily) for him, he recovered. When he was already The admissibility in evidence of such declaration is grounded on
fit to stand trial, he was prosecuted. He was later found guilty of necessity and trustworthiness.
murder and sentenced to the death penalty.
There are three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a
LET’S GO BACK TO THE EXAMPLE declaration against interest:
a) The declarant must not be available to testify;
b) The declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
Luis, at his death bed, confessed to his daughter, Lucy, that he killed
declarant; and
Matteo, not Gerald who currently stands trial for Matteo’s murder.
c) The circumstances must render it improbable that a
Luis died 2 seconds later. During the trial of Matteo, he wanted to
motive to falsify existed.
present Lucy to testify as to the deathbed confession of Luis. Can
the prosecution object? YES!!!
EXAMPLE
Twerky Juggs was charged with the crime of kidnapping of Rrramon,
Remember, this is not a dying declaration although the her husband. One of the testimonies presented by the prosecution
common element is “somebody dies”. was that of Maja who testified that Rrramon confided to her that he
and Adela were having an affair. Undoubtedly, Rrramon’s infidelity
What’s the ground for objection? was ample reason for Twerky Juggs to contemplate revenge.
o THAT THE TESTIMONY IS HEARSAY. The Consequently, the trial court convicted Twerky Juggs based on the
declarant is already deceased. He cannot be testimonies of the witnesses.
cross-examined. Lucy will only be testifying as to
what Luis told her. Diba? Hearsay siya, but the Was the testimony of Maja admissible as evidence?
question now is…(refer to next)
You need to remember here that Rrramon was not available
Should the court overrule or sustain the objection? to testify, right? Because he was kidnapped, he could no
o OVERRULE. There is a rule that can be used to longer be found, and the witness of the prosecution was
justify departing from the hearsay rule without Maja who was trying to say that Rrramon said that he and
calling it a deathbed confession rule, and that is:
Declaration against interest (old Section 38).
FIRST
EXAM 131
Adela were having an affair. Of course, behind the back of the deathbed confession of a deceased person owing to
Twerky Juggs, the wife. the crime of murder. So, you can invent a story of an
alleged deathbed confession.
YES. Rrramon’s revelation to Maja regarding his illicit relationship
with Adela is admissible in evidence, pursuant to Section 38 (now Examples:
Section 40), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Declaration The wife of the accused allegedly heard the confession of
against interest includes all kinds of interest, that is, pecuniary, the deceased that he, not her husband, committed the
proprietary, moral or even penal. Rrramon, having been missing crime.
since his abduction, cannot be called upon to testify. His confession The brother of the accused, as a parting gift, decided to lie
to Maja, definitely a declaration against his own interest, since his on his deathbed and own up to a crime committed by the
affair with Adela was a crime, is admissible in evidence because no accused in order to save the latter from prison (whether
sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own with or without consideration).
detriment. (People vs Bernal, G.R. No. 113685, June 19, 1997)
SECOND, the declarant cannot be cross-examined anymore on his
ADDITION TO THE RULE declaration against interest.
“A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal These are the reasons why such out-of-court declaration by a person
liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible deceased is inadmissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly
unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. The law therefore
trustworthiness of the statement.” requires corroboration by evidence other than the declaration itself.
This will not be admissible as a general rule. Kanang the

SUMMARY
declarant, he is about to die, then he says ako ang nipatay ning DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
tawhana ni dili tung tawo who stands trial for murder right now. A witness may testify only to those facts which
Ngano dili siya automatic admissible? General Rule
he knows of his personal knowledge.
The declaration made by a person deceased or
o Recall that under English jurisprudence, in R. v. Gray (1841)
Exception unable to testify against his interest is
Ir. Circ. Rep. 76, a death bed confession by a third person
admissible.
that he, not the accused, had committed the murder
A statement tending to expose the declarant
charged was held inadmissible.
Exception to (katong namatay na) to criminal liability and
Take note: in English jurisprudence, it is not
the Exception offered to exculpate the accused is not
admissible. It is only in American law that it became
admissible.
an exception to the hearsay rule.
Exception to The statement tending to expose the declarant
o The general rule, as presently worded, is similar to the
the Exception to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the
doctrine enunciated in that case. to the accused is admissible if corroborated by
Exception circumstances clearly indicating the
Let’s analyze… (if there’s such a
trustworthiness of the statement.
What could probably be the motives for the person to say ‘ako thing; for lack of a
ang nipatay’ before he died? term so let’s call it
like this )
The situation envisioned under the rule as amended is that of a

person who made a deathbed confession that he, and not another Distinguish Admission against Interest from Declaration
against interest
person accused in a case for unlawful killing, is the true culprit.
(That’s an example in the last portion of the provision.)
LAZARO, ET AL. vs. AGUSTIN
G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010
The rule makes it inadmissible as a general rule conceivably because
of the following reasons: It has long been settled that these admissions are admissible
even if they are hearsay. Indeed, there is a vital distinction
FIRST, a deathbed declaration confessing to the commission of a
between admissions against interest and declaration against
felony can be used as a convenient excuse for an accused who,
interest.
otherwise, has no credible defense. For such reason, a supposed
deathbed confession can easily be concocted either by the accused
Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a
or by someone who has an interest in the acquittal of the accused.
litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest
with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant
E.g. an accused is now standing trial for murder, and then
is available as a witness.
suddenly he wants to present his wife who allegedly heard
FIRST
EXAM 132
Declaration against interest is those made by a person who is REQUISITES:

neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary 1. The actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify;
evidence and constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They 2. The act or declaration is made by the person related to the subject
are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a by birth, adoption or marriage or with whose family he or she was
witness. Thus, a man’s acts, conduct, and declaration, wherever so intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate information
made, if voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that concerning his information concerning his or her pedigree;
it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is 3. The relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject
his fault if they do not. is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration (there must
be corroborative evidence or evidence aliunde as to the putative
Now, let’s go back to the question: relative); and
4. The act or declaration was made ANTE LITEM MOTAM (prior to the
Is there a specific rule in Philippine law about controversy)
deathbed confessions?
o YES. It is Section 40 of Rule 130 of the amended TWO MAJOR CHANGES
Rules (Declaration against Interest) which now FIRST, the rule now includes relationship by adoption.
mirrors Rule 804 of the Federal Rules. The factual situation covered by this intercalation to the Rules is an
inquiry as to whether the person who claims a relationship with the
September 10 Part 1 | Fernandez family has actually been adopted. The declarant, before his death
or unavailability, made a statement tending to prove or disprove
OLD RULES the subject’s relationship to the family.
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree — The act or
declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to Q: Who is this subject?
the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, A: That who the declarant refers to as his relative. He is the putative
may be received in evidence where it occurred before the relative by reason of the declaration.
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree"
The rule is not anymore limited to just relationship by birth or
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
marriage. Included already is relationship by adoption. We need to
dates when and the places where these fast occurred, and the names
remember, there are many instances of simulated birth and those
of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree. (33a) of informal adoptions. As time passes, we do not know anymore if
these persons or these putative relatives are actually officially
NEW RULES adopted or that his birth was not simulated.
Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree — The act or
declaration of a person deceased or unable to testify, in respect to SECOND, with whose family he or she was so intimately associated as
the pedigree of another person related to him or her by birth, to be likely to have accurate information concerning his information
adoption, or marriage or in the absence thereof, with whose family concerning his or her pedigree,
he or she was so intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate This appears to be a recognition of the fact that, in Philippine
information concerning his information concerning his or her culture, there are very close family acquaintances who are likely to
pedigree, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the know intimate family information including matters of pedigree.
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word “pedigree” We are not talking with respect to the relatives only. The Rule has
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
expanded the applicability of the exception to the hearsay rule to
dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names
people who, Philippine culture have close family ties and
of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
acquaintances. And because of this knit-close relationship or those
connected with pedigree. (39a)
of close family acquaintances can actually make declarations in
relation the pedigree or the relationship of the subject to the family
Discussion
in question.
In this Section 41, again there is an out-of-court declaration that was
relayed or heard by another person. It refers to the relationship of a
GENEALOGY
certain person to another person who made the declaration in the first
a. A line of descent traced continuously from an ancestor. Simply,
place.
lineage.
b. In the olden times, people really keep track of family lineage and
Situation:
write them down in family heirlooms. However, nowadays, what we
Prior to his death or prior to his inability to testify, that person says that
know of our lineage comes specifically from mere oral traditions.
this certain person is my relative or related to me. (This is relevant when
we speak of hereditary rights.)
FIRST
EXAM 133
c. An example of tracing common ancestry is the Bible, specifically the GR 181258, March 18, 2010
Gospel according to St. Matthew there is that portion where the
lineage of Jesus Christ was traced beginning from Abraham. FACTS:
Born on June 8, 1999, Arhbencel claimed to have begotten out of an
BIRTH extramarital affair of petitioner with Araceli; that petitioner refused to
a. You do not really have personal knowledge of your birthday. affix his signature on her Certificate of Birth; and that, by a
handwritten note dated August 7, 1999, petitioner nevertheless
Whatever you know about this was merely told to you, making it
obligated himself to give her financial support in the amount of P1,
hearsay.
500 on the 15th and 30th days of each month beginning August 15,
b. Precisely, it falls under one of the exceptions of Hearsay Rule
1999.
because no one would refute that as it is your relatives who most
likely have accurate information relating to your date of birth. ISSUE:
Was the pedigree of Arhbencel sufficiently established?
EXAMPLE
Luis , at his death bed, confessed to Rayver that he is the father of Jessy’s RULING:
child. He died 2 seconds later. During the settlement of his estate, Jessy First, the Supreme Court summarized the rules as follows:
appeared in court to assert the rights of her child with Luis and wanted 1. In Pe Lim v. CA, a case petitioner cites, we stated that the
to present Rayver to testify as to Luis’ admission of paternity. issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such
conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal
and written acts by the putative father.
Q: Can the legitimate children of Luis object to the admissibility of
2. Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary
Rayver’s testimony?
recognition by a parent shall be made in the record, or in
A: Yes, on the ground that the testimony is hearsay. The witness is not
any authentic writing. To be effective the claim of filiation
Luis, because he is already dead but it is Rayver who merely heard Luis’ must be made by the putative father himself and the
confession of being the father of Jessy’s child. writing must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial
agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by
Q: Should the court sustain the objection? the putative father was considered acceptable evidence.
A: Yes, if Jessy cannot present evidence other than the act or declaration 3. Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the
of Luis that he is the father of her child. What is involved is merely a child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child
hearsay, hence there is the need to corroborate said declaration of Luis on various occasions, together with the certificate of live
by evidence aliunde. birth, proved filiation.
Q: What should Jessy’s counsel do? However, in this case the putative father refuses to sign the certificate
of live birth.
A: Counsel can ask to have the testimony of Rayver regarding Luis’
statement conditionally admitted. Recall the concept of Conditional
4. A student permanent record, a written consent to the
Admissibility:
father’s operation, or a marriage contract where the
Evidence is admissible only in dependence upon other facts. It putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic
is received on the express assurance of counsel, when writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor
objection is manifested, that other facts will be duly presented family pictures are sufficient to establish filiation.
at a suitable opportunity before the case is closed.
Hence, “Your honor, may we have the testimony of Rayver The handwritten note in the case at bar reads:
regarding the statement or declaration of Luis conditionally I, Ben-Hur C. Nepomuceno, hereby undertake to give and provide
admitted. We assure you your honor, that we will corroborate financial support in the amount of P1, 500.00 every fifteen and thirtieth
that later on with evidence other than declaration of Luis.” day of each month for a total of P3, 000.00 a month starting Aug. 15,
1999, to Ahrbencel Ann Lopez, presently in the custody of her mother
Q: Suppose the court conditionally admits the testimony of Rayver but Araceli Lopez without the necessity of demand, subject to adjustment
later depending on the needs of the child and my income.
Jessy is unable to present corroborative evidence, what is the remedy of
her opponents?
Q: Does it in any way contain a statement or a declaration that
A: The opponents can move to strike the testimony on the ground that
recognizes the child to be the child of Nepomuceno?
the condition for admitting the hearsay evidence was not fulfilled.
HELD:
BUT, if Jessy is able to present corroborative evidence, then it falls under No. The above quoted note does not contain any statement
the exceptions to the hearsay rule which is under Section 41 the act or whatsoever about Arhbencel’s filiation to petitioner. It is, therefore
declaration about pedigree. not within the ambit of Article 172 (2) vis-à-vis Article 175 of the
Family Code which admits as competent evidence of illegitimate
filiation an admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument
NEPOMUCENO v. LOPEZ signed by the parent concerned.
FIRST
EXAM 134
The note cannot also be accorded the same weight as the notarial clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or any member of the
agreement to support the child referred to in Herrera v. Alba for it is family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to
not even notarized. And Herrera instructs that the notarial agreement testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date
must be accompanied by the putative father’s admission of filiation of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130, shall
to be an acceptable evidence of filiation. Here, however, not only has be sufficient under the following circumstances:
petitioner not admitted filiation through contemporaneous actions. a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is
He has consistently denied it. sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is
The only other documentary evidence submitted by Arhbencel, a
sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
copy of her Certificate of Birth, has no probative value to establish
filiation to petitioner, the latter not having signed the same. c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is
sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
Section 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree —
The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or
controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the
may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that
a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity, or it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. (Why must it be
adoption. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, admitted by the accused? Take note that the complainant’s
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as testimony relating to her age is hearsay—no personal knowledge as
evidence of pedigree. (40a) to when she got out of her mother’s womb.)
Both Sections 41 and 42 relate to family relationships/genealogy or FAMILY BIBLES

pedigree.
Not every Bible belonging to a family, even if handed down
Except that in Section 42 there is a slight important difference between from generation to generation, can be considered as proof of
the said 2 provisions. pedigree under Section 42.
It will be admissible only if it is a Bible that has spaces or
REQUISITES: notations reserved for recording of important family events.
1. There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member of
the family; ENGRAVINGS ON RINGS
2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned
existed (ANTE LITEM MORTAM) previous to the controversy; and Usually, name (spouse) and date of the wedding is engraved on the
3. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding wedding rings. It is an heirloom passed from one generation to
pedigree of the person concerned must be a member of the family another. What if you want to prove 50 years from now that a certain
of said person either by consanguinity, affinity or adoption. Ms. Igbalic was married to a certain Mr. Cerro on a particular date—
Dec. 2019, but you have no other proof? Engravings on rings can
September 10 Part 2 | Jamero be used even if nobody has personal knowledge of that anymore (as
it is 50-60 years from now when all of us have probably gotten back
TWO PARTS to dust.)
1. Testimonial Evidence of Pedigree (testimony of a family FAMILY PORTRAITS
member)
2. Documentary or Object Evidence of Pedigree (entries in (JZE shows a B&W family portrait of a man, a woman, and their
family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on daughter. Daughter was already dead when they took the family
rings, family portraits and the like) portrait, posing as if she is still alive.) If you wanted to prove that
this girl is the daughter of Mr. X and Mrs. Y, the family portrait can
TESTIMONY be used.
DOCUMENTARY/OBJECT EVIDENCE
Recall the case of People vs. Pruna and read the case of People vs.
Sariego, GR No. 203322, February 24, 2026, on the matter of Q: Can the following private documents be considered under
proving the age of the offended party in cases of rape where his or the 2nd part of Section 42:
her age is a qualifying or aggravating circumstance. Letters of introduction to possible relatives;
recommendation letter for employment from a putative
People vs. Sariego, relative; photograph taken at a birthday party; letter of
G.R. No. 203322, February 24, 2026 introduction from Former Vice President Fernando Lopez
(relative of the putative father) addressed to then United
If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have States Consul Vernon McAnnich.
been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if
FIRST
EXAM 135
A: NO (Jison vs. CA) It must be in the nature of a family heirloom, or Kami tanan nakabutang diri, mga igsuon mi, mga apo ni sila tanan
a family possession, or a family’s joint statement of its belief as to or mga anak ni sila tanan.
the pedigree of a person.
But the question is, is it in the nature of a family heirloom or
JISON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, family possession that is kept? No. It may be an admission/a
G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998 statement of the family’s belief BUT it’s not in the nature of a family
heirloom or family possession. But if wala jud ko lain evidence, I will
The second portion of this provision [Documentary/Object take a photograph of that and present it in court.
Evidence], in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to
objects which are commonly known as family possessions, or Section 41 Section 42
those articles which represent, in effect, a family’s joint Act or declaration about Family reputation or tradition
statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have pedigree regarding pedigree
been described as objects openly exhibited and well known to the Witness need not be a member Witness is a member of the
family, or those which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as of the family family
giving a family tradition. Other examples of these objects which are Relation of the declarant and The witness is the one to whom
regarded as reflective of a family’s reputation or tradition regarding the person subject of the the fact [of pedigree] relates, it
pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin inquiry must be established by is not necessary for him to
plates. independent evidence establish by independent
Plainly then, the Exhibits, as private documents not constituting evidence his relationship to the
"family possessions" as discussed above, may not be admitted on family
the basis of Rule 130, Section 40 (now Section 42). Testimony is about what the Testimony is about family
declarant, who is dead or reputation or tradition
Example: unable to testify, has said covering matters of pedigree
In a case, ingon nila ninong niya ang isa niya nga uncle. Is concerning the pedigree of the
that enough to prove pedigree na nipirma sa iyahang family
baptismal certificate ang iyahang putative na uncle? If you
use Jison vs. CA, of course not because it cannot be FINAL NOTE
considered a family’s joint statement of its belief as to the It is the common reputation in the family, and not the common
pedigree of a person. It has to be a family’s joint statement, reputation in community, that is a material element of evidence
common ang belief na atoa ning parente si A, or B, or C. which establishes pedigree. Thus, matters of pedigree may be
proved by reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the
TOMBSTONES neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree in question is
marriage which may be proved by common reputation in the
You wanted to prove a certain Gerald Anderson existed, but you community.
don't have his birth certificate anymore. Your only evidence would
be a photograph of his tombstone: born March 21, 1885; died April IMPORTANT CASES
16, 1918. Kinsa man nagpabuhat anang tombstone, syempre ang
family. When they stated the date of birth and date of death, it is a
family’s joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. TECSON EL AL vs. COMELEC, FPJ
Remember, pedigree includes date of birth and date of death., place GR Nos. 161434, 161634 & 161824, March 3, 2004
and time which it takes place.
What proof of pedigree allowed FPJ to run for president despite
MONUMENTS and COFFIN PLATES questions regarding his citizenship?
(shows a Coffin Plate: Seth Harding; Died Sept. 29, 1868; Age: 88.) The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of determining his
That used to be very prevalent before in the US, Great Britain, and citizenship status should thus be deemed independent from and not
later on Philipines. Now, instead of a coffin plate, inextricably tied up with that prescribed for civil law purposes. The
Civil Code or Family Code provisions on proof of filiation or
(shows casket ribbon banners: alaala ng mga magulang xxx) paternity, although good law, do not have preclusive effects on
Can that be considered as document/object evidence of matters alien to personal and family relations. The ordinary rules on
pedigree? evidence could well and should govern. For instance, the matter
about pedigree is not necessarily precluded from being applicable
It is definitely a joint statement of the family’s belief as to the by the Civil Code or Family Code provisions.
pedigree of the person. Kanang gihaya diha amoa nang relative.
FIRST
EXAM 136
For the Sec. 39 (now Sec. 41), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to apply, competent by virtue of the necessity of receiving such evidence to
it would be necessary that (a) the declarant is already dead or unable avoid a failure of justice. More importantly, there is in the present
to testify, (b) the pedigree of a person must be at issue, (c) the case an absolute failure by all and sundry to refute that declaration
declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in made by the decedent.
question, (d) declaration must be made before the controversy has
occurred, and (e) the relationship between the declarant and the From the foregoing disquisitions, it may thus be safely concluded,
person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence on the sole basis of the decedent's declaration and without need for
other than such act or declaration. further proof thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephew of
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. As held in one case, where the subject
Thus, the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley of the declaration is the declarant's own relationship to another
Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley Poe submitted as Exhibit 20 before person, it seems absurb to require, as a foundation for the admission
the COMELEC, might be accepted to prove the acts of Allan F. Poe, of the declaration, proof of the very fact which the declaration is
recognizing his own paternal relationship with FPJ, i.e, living offered to establish. The preliminary proof would render the main
together with Bessie Kelley and his children (including respondent evidence unnecessary.
FPJ) in one house, and as one family.
Applying the general rule in the present case would nonetheless
TISON vs. COURT OF APPEALS produce the same result. For while the documentary evidence
G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997 submitted by petitioners do not strictly conform to the rules on their
Read this for Sections 41 and 42 admissibility, we are however of the considered opinion that the
same may be admitted by reason of private respondent's failure to
This is a case of an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land and interpose any timely objection thereto at the time they were being
an apartment. Teodora Guerrero died and left a parcel of land and offered in evidence. It is elementary that an objection shall be made
an apartment. Her husband Martin Guerrero adjudicates the said at the time when an alleged inadmissible document is offered in
land to him and consequently sold to Teodora Domingo. The evidence, otherwise, the objection shall be treated as waived, since
nephews and nieces Tison et al seek to inherit by right of the right to object is merely a privilege which the party may waive.
representation from the property disputed property presenting
documentary evidence to prove filial relation. The respondent As explained in Abrenica vs. Gonda, et al., it has been repeatedly laid
contended that the documents/evidence presented is inadmissible down as a rule of evidence that a protest or objection against the
for being hearsay since the affiants were never presented for cross- admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time,
examination. otherwise it will be deemed to have been waived. The proper time
is when from the question addressed to the witness, or from the
ISSUE: answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof, the
WON the evidence presented is hearsay evidence and is inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may be inferred.
inadmissible.
Thus, a failure to except to the evidence because it does not conform
HELD: with the statute is a waiver if the provisions of the law. That objection
The general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming seeks to a question put to a witness must be made at the time the question
recovery against a relative common to both claimant and declarant, is asked. An objection to the admission of evidence on the ground
but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's estate, the of incompetency, taken after the testimony has been given, is too
relationship of the declarant to the common relative may not be late. Thus, for instance, failure to object to parol evidence given on
proved by the declaration itself. There must be some independent the stand, where the party is in a position to object, is a waiver of
proof of this fact. As an exception, the requirement that there be any objections thereto.
other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the
relationship, does not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of The situation is aggravated by the fact that counsel for private
the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right through his respondent unreservedly cross-examined petitioners, as the lone
declarations to the property of some other member of the family. witness, on the documentary evidence that were offered. At no time
was the issue of the supposed inadmissibility thereof, or the possible
We are sufficiently convinced, and so hold, that the present case is basis for objection thereto, ever raised. Instead, private respondent's
one instance where the general requirement on evidence aliunde counsel elicited answers from the witness on the circumstances and
may be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the estate regularity of her obtention of said documents: The observations
of the declarant herself. Conformably, the declaration made by later made by private respondent in her comment to petitioners'
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is her niece, is offer of exhibits, although the grounds therefor were already
admissible and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship, apparent at the time these documents were being adduced in
notwithstanding the fact that there was no other preliminary evidence during the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison but which
evidence thereof, the reason being such declaration is rendered objections were not timely raised therein, may no longer serve to
FIRST
EXAM 137
rectify the legal consequences which resulted therefrom. Hence, Magsaysay Avenue. Sandawa is actually Guillermo E. Torres St,
even assuming ex gratia argumenti that these documents are named after founder of UM, and Magallanes St is actually Pichon St.
inadmissible for being hearsay, but on account of herein private
respondent's failure to object thereto, the same may be admitted Ngano kabalo man ta? Why? Because of Section 43. You want to
and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein asserted. prove where Magallanes is. You just know, why? Because it’s
common reputation existing in the community. Everybody knows
Accordingly, the Certificate of Marriage (Exhibit S) wherein it is that when you are talking about Uyanguren St, you are actually
indicated that the parents of Teodora Dezoller are Isabelo Dezoller talking about Ramon Magsaysay Avenue. Everybody knows that.
and Cecilia Calpo, as well as the Certificates of Baptism of Teodora
Dezoller (Exhibit H) and Hermogenes Dezoller (Exhibit J) which both Karon, giklaro. Apil na siya sa section 43, boundaries of or customs
reflect the names of their parents as Isabelo Dezoller and Cecilia affecting lands in the community, reputation as to events of general
Calpo, to show that Hermogenes Dezoller is the brother of Teodora history important to the community.
Dezoller Guerrero; and the Death Certificate of Hermogenes
Dezoller (Exhibit K) the entries wherein were made by petitioner Example:
Corazon Dezoller Tison as his daughter, together with the Joint Tree of Rizal
Affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar (Exhibits N and P), to When I went to Laguna. I had a case there. I was looking for the
prove that herein petitioners are the children of Hermogenes Register of Deeds in Calamba, Laguna. We all know that diha man
Dezoller — these can be deemed to have sufficiently established the natawo si Rizal. Nangutana kog pedicaber, ang gitubag puno ni
relationship between the declarant and herein petitioners. This is in Rizal. Meaning, ang puno na ginakatkat ni Rizal tong bata pa siya.
consonance with the rule that a prima facie showing is sufficient and Everybody knew where that in puno ni Rizal is in Calamba, Laguna.
that only slight proof of the relationship is required. Finally, it may
not be amiss to consider as in the nature of circumstantial evidence Explanation
the fact that both the declarant and the claimants, who are the Why is this hearsay? Kabalo ba ta kinsa ang source sa
subject of the declaration, bear the surname Dezoller. information? Kabalo ba ta kinsa ang naghingalan anang
Magallanes, Uyanguren kaniadto? Wala ta kabalo. That’s a
COMMON REPUTATION long time ago. And yet, everbody accepts it as truth. It is
[as an exception to the hearsay rule] necessary to accept this as an exception to the hearsay
rule, because we do not know the original source of
OLD RULE information. Original source of information is gone, dugay
Section 41. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing na nang patay. It is trustworthy because everybody seems
previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general to believe it and accept it as true.
interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or moral
character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in WHAT IS COMMON REPUTATION?
public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. It is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be
(35) proved is known or exists. It means the general or substantially
undivided reputation, as distinguished from a partial or qualified
one, although it need not be unanimous. (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 787,
September 10 Part 3 | Macacua
2008 ed.
NEW RULE
General Rule:
Section 43. Common reputation. – Common reputation
The reputation of a person should be that existing in the place of his
existing previous to the controversy, as to boundaries of or
residence; it may also be that existing in the place where he is best
customs affecting lands in the community and reputation as to
known.
events of general history important to the community, or
In Davao City, kinsa ang pinakasikat? Rodrigo Roa Duterte.
respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in
He is famous. He is notorious in a good way. What is his
evidence.
reputation in his place of residence? That he is a good
man.
Example:
Uyanguren, Sandawa, Magallanes
REQUISITES
1. The facts must be of public or general interest as to boundaries
JZE: Do you know where Uyanguren Street is? Where is Sandawa?
of or customs affecting lands in the community and reputation
Do you know where Magallanes is?
as to events of general history important to the community, or
respecting marriage or moral character;
Officially, there is no Uyanguren St, Sandawa St, Magallanes St in
2. The reputation must have been one formed among a class of
Davao City. At least, not anymore. Actually, Uyanguren is Ramon
persons who were in a position to have some sources of
FIRST
EXAM 138
information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of The rules now, as amended, only has one “ancient
the opinion; and provision” which is Rule 132, Section 21.
3. The common reputation must have been existing previous to
the controversy. 2. Insertion of “as to boundaries of or customs affecting lands in
the community and reputation as to events of general history
We do not know who but we know as to the class of persons. important to the community”.
For example, mga taga Davao or taga Laguna. Again, must
have been existing previous to the controversy or ante litem In relation to boundaries of or customs affecting lands in
motam. the community, there is an important correlation to be
made. Recall that we have the Indigenous People’s Right
EXAM TIP Act of 1997 (RA 8371) which defined Ancestral Domains.
What if mag ask ko sa inyong exam, in what instances is ante litem
motam mentioned in the Rules of Court? Previous to the JZE: Unsa bay proof sa mga Indigenous Cultural Communities or
controversy, mao na ang ante litem motam. Pag muingon kog Indigenous People na ilaha jud nang ancient hunting grounds or
evidence aliunde, mao pod na ang other act or declaration. that belong to their community as time immemorial? Naa ba tay
mapa diha? Cadastral survey? Wala. It’s usually just word of mouth.
Rationale In other words, common reputation ra.
Evidence of common reputation is admissible on grounds
of NECESSITY and TRUSTWORTHINESS. Take note that, with respect to what constitutes ancestral
It is necessary to admit into evidence because of the domain, ICCs or IPs do not have direct evidence as to their
inherent difficulty in obtaining evidence than that can be claims thereto. Their evidence would normally consist in
taken from common reputation. It is trustworthy because oral traditions passed down from generation to
of: generation. This illustrates perfectly common reputation.
1) The presumption that the public is conversant with The actual source of the information is no longer available
the fact to be proved because of their general (NECESSITY) but, while the information is technically
interest in them; and hearsay, it is reliable (TRUSTWORTHINESS) being
2) The fact that any error in such evidence can easily be information that is of general history important to the
corrected by other testimony due to the public’s community.
interest in such fact.
COMMON REPUTATION REGARDING MARRIAGE
All exceptions to the hearsay rule, and iyang rationale will always be Attendance in weddings and baptisms where a man and a
necessity and trustworthiness. woman purport themselves to be husband and wife is
evidence of common reputation regarding marriage.
TRACKING THE CHANGES (Trinidad vs Court of Appeals)
1. Deletion of the period of thirty (30) years.
There is no longer any need to prove that the matter of COMMON REPUTATION REGARDING MORAL CHARACTER
common reputation is “ancient”. This change in the rule Settled is the principle that evidence of one’s character or
reflects the fact that the common reputation can be reputation must be confined to a time not too much
formed within a community for a lesser period of time remote from the time in question. In other words, what is
than thirty (30) years. to be determined is the character or reputation of the
person at the time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at
JZE: Wala na tay ancient period, but naa tay ancient document. a period remote from the commencement of the suit.
CROSS REFERENCE Hence, to say that a person’s credibility is diminished by

Rule 132, Sec. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private proofs of tarnished reputation existig almost a decade ago
document not necessary. Where a private document is more than is unreasonable. It is unfair to presume that a person who
thirty (30) years old, is produced from a custody in which it would has wandered from the path of moral righteousness can
naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any never retrace his steps again. Certainly, every person is
alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its capable to change or reform. (Civil Service Comission vs
authenticity need be given. Belagan, October 19, 2004)
When the rules, prior to amendment, spoke about the RES GESTAE
term “ancient”, there was a time period fixed as more than Res Gestae means “things done”
“thirty years old”.
OLD RULE
FIRST
EXAM 139
Section 42. Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person Excited Utterances
while starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, REQUISITES:
may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, 1. The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, Something ordinary or you do not see every day. (e.g.,
and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the earthquake)
res gestae. 2. The statements were made before the declarant had time to
contrive or devise; and
TWO (2) EXCEPTIONS: 3. The statements concern the occurrence in question and its
a. First sentence (startling occurrences) immediately attending circumstances. (People v. Guting, GR
b. Second Sentence No. 205412, September 9, 2015)
Startling occurrences
You see something, out of the ordinary, spontaneous reaction is Startling Occurrence
considered as part of res gestae, even if the declarant is not available Take note that there is no standard form of human behavior in
to testify in court. That’s an exception to the hearsay rule. response to a shocking incident, a startling occurence or a frightful
experience. The workings of the human mind under emotional stress
September 10 Part 4 | Maglinte are unpredictable, such that people react differently to similar
situations: some may be shocked into insensibility; others may
NEW RULE welcome the intrusion.
Sec. 44. Part of the res gestae. – Statements made by a person
while a startling occurrence taking place or immediately prior or MANULAT v. PEOPLE
subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement caused by the GR NO. 190892, August 17, 2015
occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given
in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements Two tests in applying the res gestae rule:
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a (a) The act, declaration or exclamation is so intimately interwoven
legal significance may be received as part of the res gestate. or connected with the principal face or event that it
characterizes as to be regarded as part of the transaction itself;
Mas giklaro siya tung sa “under the stress of excitement” caused by (b) The said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or
the occurrence. You need to know that phraseology. What gives you purpose to manufacture testimony (ELEMENT OF
SPONTANEITY).
stress of excitement? Probably recitations during Persons.
Necessity and Trustworthiness Spontaneity

There is necessity because, due to the unavailability of the declarant, There is no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may be
there is otherwise no way to know the existence and condition of determined although a number of factors have been considered,
the declarant. There is trustworthiness because the exception including but not always confined to:
presupposes a declaration made out of instinct and spontaneity and
the lack of opportunity to contrive or concoct a story. 1. The time that lapsed between the occurrence of the act or
transaction and the making of the statement;
Example: 2. The place where the statement is made;
Naay nihapak sa imoha tas sakit, maghuna-huna pa ba ka kung unsa 3. The condition of the declarant when the utterance is given;
imong reaction to it? Agay? Aguroy? Ouch? 4. The presence or absence of intervening events between the
audience and the statement relative thereto;
The thing is, when you react spontaneously startling occurrence, act 5. The nature and circumstances of the statement itself.
out of instinct spontaneously. That is a startling occurrence.
Distinguish the 2 main exceptions to the hearsay rule
What are admissible as part of the res gestae? DYING DECLARATION RES GESTAE
Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is a sense of impending death It is the event itself which
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto takes the place of an oath and speaks
under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence with the law regards the declarant - through the person’s
respect to the circumstances thereof; and as testifying reaction of the event
Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the can be made by the victim only may be made by the victim, or
issue and giving it legal significance. the killer or during the killing
or by a third person.
FIRST PART
FIRST
EXAM 140
- Killer said: “my god, Requisites

gipusil nako si A”. A 3rd 1. The fact or occurrence characterized must be equivocal;
person can testify that it 2. The verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal act;
was said by the killer. 3. The equivocal act must be relevant to the issue; and
4. The verbal acts must be contemporaneous with the equivocal
Confined to matters, occurring May precede, or accompany or act.
after the homicidal act. follow a principal act.
- It concerns the cause and - Precede – hapit na ta Distinguish the two different parts of the res gestae
the circumstances mabangga Excited Utterances Verbal Acts
surrounding the - Accompany –mabangga Principal fact is a startling Principal act is an equivocal act
declarant’s death na ta occurrence
- Principal act – oy Statement may precede, Statement must accompany
nabangga na gyud ta accompany or succeed the the equivocal act.
Justified by trustworthiness Justification is the spontaneity startling occurrence.
being given by the person who of the statement. The statement need not Statement must explain the
was aware of his impending - Not time to devise or necessarily explain the principal fact and give it legal
death. contrive principal fact. significance
- Equivalent to an oath in
court
CASES:
Declarant must die Declarant did not die. A
statement is inadmissible as Golden (Iloilo) v. Pre-Stress
DD may be admissible as part GR No. 176768, January 12, 2009
of the RG. Res Gestae in a civil case for replevin
- Multiple admissibility of
evidence People v. Sace
GR No. 178063, April 5, 2010
SECOND PART The res gestate statement may come from the accused himself
verbal acts (statements accompanying the equivocal acts)
Marturillas v. People
Equivocal means ambiguous; capable of different interpretations. GR No. 163217, April 18, 2006
The shooting itself is a startling occurrence
Example:
I give P1, 000 pesos to a student and she received it. What could be
the possible reason? People v. Feliciano
It can be a donation, payment for services rendered, to GR No. 196735, May 5, 2014
borrow money, payment of loan. The act is capable of
different interpretations. What prevails between res gestate and positive identification?
(Comment: This will come out in the bar exam soon).
EQUIVOCAL/VERBAL ACTS:
According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma Rho
A witness testifies on the stand for the plaintiff in a collection case
Fraternity, he looked around when Venturina Shouted, and he saw
where the defendant denies having borrowed P10, 000 from the
about 10 men charging toward them. The men were armed with
plaintiff. The debt is not evidenced by a promissory note because
basketball hats and lead pipes, and their heads were covered with
the plaintiff claims that the defendant had orally borrowed money
either handkerchiefs or shirts. Within a few seconds, five of the men
from him in the past and had always paid. This time he refuses to
started attacking him with their lead pipes. During the attack, he
pay. The witness testifies that one year ago, he saw the plaintiff give
recognized one the attackers as Robert Beltran Alvir because his
money to the defendant. And he heard the plaintiff said that: ”here’s
mask fell off. Other members of Sigma Rho were able to identify
the money you are borrowing from me.” Further, he said that he
some of the attackers, members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity,
heard the defendant say: “Thank you, I will pay you one year after.”
allegedly because some of the attackers either took off their masks,
[Here, the equivocal act of handing money was given
significance by the statement of the plaintiff.] or some of them did not wear masks at all.
So somebody who heard it can testify under section 44 as According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador, when he
an exception to the hearsay rule to prove that there was a arrived at the scene, he interviewed the bystanders who all told him
debt. that they could not recognize the attackers since they were all
FIRST
EXAM 141
masked. This, it is argued, could be evidence that could be given as attack, testified that the attackers had their masks on at first, but
part of the res gestae. later on, some remained masked and some were unmasked.
September 10 Part 5 | Ugdang When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against those of the
victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from the
He interviewed and said that the bystanders were eating and so, beginning to end at close range, the former become merely
what happened? And everyone told him that they could not corroborative of the fact that an attack occurred. Their account of
recognize the attackers since they were all masked. And remember the incident, therefore, must be given considerably less weight than
that the attack can be considered as a startling occurrence and their that of the victims.
statements saying that they could not recognized the attackers
because they were all masked can be considered as a spontaneous It’s a case of positive identification overriding an exception of the
statement. hearsay rule which is the res gestae exception.
An excited utterance which is part of the res gestae
PEOPLE v. PASCUAL
But, remember again, according to the members of the Sigma, they GR no. 172326
had identified that they were members of sestira juris kai which their
masks were removed which is of course in opposition to what the The statement of the accused-appellant’s wife, Divina, immediately
bystanders were saying, and therefore we could not identify them. after the fateful incident all the more convince the court as to
accused-appellant’s guilt. Part of the res gestae and admissible in
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule were Divina’s
If the res gestae statements were to be admitted and believed,
utterances to Gorospe after seeing the dead and raped body of the
it may cast reasonable doubt on the supposed positive
victim. i.e “may nagyari sa itaas at galing doon si Boyet” and her
identification of the accused by the victims.
subsequent narration of seeing the accused-appellant going out of
the victim’s room and running away therefrom.
Remember these are both law fraternities, so the elders would help
the fellow members, it was actually a legal battle coming from a
BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION (OLD RULE)
useless frat war.
REPLACED BY RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED
BUSINESS ACTIVITY
HELD:
Section 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity – A
The SC said that there is no doubt that the sudden attack on a group
memorandum, report, record or date compilation of acts, events,
peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling occurrence.
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing typing,
Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made
electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or
immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact,
from transmission or supply of information by a person with
admissible as evidence given in res gestae.
knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a
business activity, and such was the regular practice to make the
PEOPLE v. ALBARIDO memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic,
optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of
This court has stated that “in accord to the ordinary human the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is expected from the rule
experience” x x x persons who witness an event perceive the same on hearsay evidence (43a)
from their respective points of reference. Therefore, almost always
they have different accounts of how it happened. Certainly, we Makahangak. How many words are there? We can have it into
cannot expect the testimony of the witnesses to a crime to be several sentences. How can we understand it? we must simplify.
consistent in all aspects because different persons have different
impressions and recollections of the same incident. First, why are business records admitted? Based on necessity and
trustworthiness.
The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible, have
little persuasive value since the bystanders could have seen the Remember that all exceptions to the hearsay rule are based on
events transpiring at different vantage points and at different points NECESSITY and TRUSTWORTHINESS. How does this apply to this
in time. Even Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the current iteration of the business records exception?
FIRST
EXAM 142
NECESSITY 2. The entries were made at or near the time of or from

Take note that the witness who testifies here is either the custodian transmission or supply of information by a person with
of the records or another qualified witness. It presupposes either of knowledge thereof;
the two situations: 3. The entrant or entrants were in a position to know the facts
1. There are so many entrants that it would be impractical to make stated in the entries;
them all testify as to each individual stage that resulted in the 4. The entries were made in their professional or in the
creation of the business record or compilation; (i.e they have a performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or
certain process in the issuance of checks, they go to another religious; and
department to make a purchase order and another to issue the 5. The entries were made and kept in the regular course of regular
check, voucher and etc. they have so much entrants, they all course or conduct of a business activity.
have to testify?) or
2. The actual entrant or entrants are unavailable to testify due to These are the new requisites that we need to remember. The entrant
death or personnel changes. (say for example, 5 years ago ang had personal knowledge when he made the entry or at that time
business entry, is it probable to suppose that those who made when somebody told him to make the entry. For example,
the entry has been dead, resigned, or terminated, it is possible somebody told him to make an entry because they had made 10k
that the current person is the custodian but not in the purchases and he did it. but the problem is that entrant is no longer
preparation for the record – it is necessary because of these available to testify.
sitations)
So, who will testify? You make the records testify. You ask somebody
TRUSTWORTHINESS else to sponsor that document and testify about it in court. That’s
The business records are deemed reliable because they are what you do.
made by ROTE AND REPETITION (pabalik-balik) in the regular
course or conduct of a business activity, and which was the REPUBLIC v. MANGOTARA
regular practice of the business.
Trustworthiness is also a result of the operation of the The admissibility of baptismal certificate absent the testimony of the
presumption of regularity of private transactions. officiating priest or the official recorder, was settled thus –
Xxx the entries made in the registry book may be considered as
Like everyday you are an accounting clerk, everyday you prepare entries made in the course of the business under Sec. 43 of rule 130.
vouchers. Day in and day out that is all you do. Is it reasonable to Which is an exception to the hearsay rule. The baptisms
suppose that you do these things over and over again? That is ROTE administered by the church are one of its transactions in the exercise
and REPETITION and that’s what makes it trustworthy and of ecclesiastical duties and recorded in the book of the church
trustworthiness is what a result of the operation of the REGULARITY during the course of its business.
OF PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS.
Who made the entry? The priest. Is the priest still available? Its quite
DUTCH BOY v. SENIEL possible, that the priest is already dead. So, there is no need to
GR no. 170008
present that actual celebrant of the sacrament of baptism.
Whoever alleges fraud or mistake affecting a transaction must IS THERE AN INSTANCE WHERE BUSINESS ENTRIES MAY BE
substantiate it, since it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE EVEN WHEN THE DECLARANT IS
of his concerns, and that private transactions have been fair and ALIVE?
regular. Yes, pwede. But not as an exception... the entries will not
be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, but they may
Good faith is always presumed, and it is the burden of the party nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a memorandum to
claiming otherwise to adduce clear and convincing evidence to the refresh his memory while testifying on the transaction reflected
contrary. therein.
NEW REQUISITES We will discuss that when we reach Rule 132. As to those which are
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to recorded…? As past recollection recorded, present memory revived.
testify; Weird but may come out in the bar.
HOW REBUT BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION?
FIRST
EXAM 143
Take note, that the rules merely assure admissibility and not What if the one who entered the blotter of the person reporting is
probative value of the business records exception. not the one… or let us say he was reassigned to another office? What
will happen? You cannot present the blotter? It is allowed as an
Hence, any rebuttal evidence ought to address the trustworthiness exception to the hearsay rule.
of the business record. It is possible to diminish the probative value Just read this case.
of the business record by proving that there was a deviation from
the regular practice, course or conduct of a business activity. DST Movers v. People’s General Insurance
GR no. 198627
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Sec. 46. Entries in official records. – entries in official records made The MTC, the RTC, and the Court of Appeals upheld a police report
in the performance of his or her duty by the public officer of the as an exception to the hearsay rule. They maintain that it is
Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially admissible as prima facie evidence of the facts it states. However,
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. during trial, it was admitted that neither the witness nor the person
It is an exception of the hearsay rule. who supposedly reported the events gave a testimony in support of
the report.
REQUISITES
1. The entry was made by the public officer or by another person HELD:
specially enjoined by law to do so; (it is part of his duty) The following requisites must be present:
2. The entry was made by the public officer in the performance of 1. That the entry was made by a public officer or by another
his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty person specially enjoined by law to do so;
specially enjoined by law; and 2. That it was made by the public officer in the performance of his
3. The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him specially enjoined by law; and
personally or through official information. 3. that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge
of the facts by him stated which must have been acquired by
EXAMPLE him personally or through official information
People v Mayingque
GR no. 179709 Take note of the last requisite here.
So, the person who made the record in the public entry should have
Anatomical sketches, medico-legal report. known or should have had acquired some personal knowledge of it
It could be possible that the officer who made the medico legal or personal information. If without the same it is not allowed. The
report has been transported to another region. It is possible that in exception will not be applicable.
court, it is not the one who prepared the medico-legal report could
be presented. Will that be inadmissible? NO. it is still admissible as COMMERCIAL LISTS (Unchanged)
an exception to the hearsay rule. Sec. 47. Commercial lists and the like – Evidence of statements of
matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained
People v. Presas in a list, register, periodical or other published compilation is
GR no. 182525 admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so
stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged
Report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them
prohibited drug. therein (45)
What if the forensic chemist has been transferred or reassigned or
assassinated? Can you not present the evidence? NO. It is still So, what is this? It is an exception to the hearsay rule which has the
allowed. Under the exception to the hearsay rule. following requisites.
People v. San Gabriel REQUISITES

GR no.107735 1. it is the statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in
an occupation (it has to be specialized);
Advance information sheet, police blotter and other police 2. such statements is contained in a list, register, periodical or
reports. other published compilation;
FIRST
EXAM 144
3. said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged Then, nag ingon sila na, wala g’present ang nag publish sa
in that occupation; and newspaper.
4. it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same
occupation Ana pud ang pikas, commercial list siya which is an exception to
So you are using these commercial lists as habitual reference. A the hearsay rule.
particular business or occupation.
The Supreme Court said, NO, that is not a commercial list.
Because there should be the element of habituality. It should be
CASES
habitually used by persons engaged in a particular occupation.
The problem with these cases are it will tell you what are NOT but it
will not tell you what are commercial lists.
According to Francisco these are the examples:
What are the examples of commercial lists and the like?
PNOC v. CA 1. Trade journals reporting current prices and other market data;
GR no. 107518 Like, stock exchange indexes.
2. Mortality tables compiled for life insurance;
Excludes mere price quotations or replies to queries as to costs. Under insurance law, and maybe in torts and damages.
This is collision case, the ship was broken and a case was filed for 3. Abstracts of title compiled by reputable title examining
damages for the repairs. How will he prove a cost for repairs? They institutions or individuals; or
asked for prices from contractors for quotations. So, the persons I have seen this from the belongings of my deceased
they called compiled the price quotations. And based on those, that grandfather who used to be a surveyor, he had abstracts
of title
was the amount that they wanted defendant to pay.
4. Business directories, animal pedigree registers, and the like.
(Francisco, o. 339, 1992 ed.)
September 10 Part 6 | Rojo
Section 48. Learned treatises. – A published treatise, periodical
Nadaot ang barko, so mag file siya karun ug kaso, for damages for
or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is
the repair of the barko. How does he intend to prove the cost for
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
repairs na gusto niya ipa bayaran sa defendant?
therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the
subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise,
Ang g’buhat nila is nanawag sa mga possible contractors and asked
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or
for price quotations. So, katong gpang tawagan nila, they compiled
calling as expert in the subject. (46a)
the said price quotations and based on that price quotations that
was the amount of damages that they want for the defendant to pay.
Perfect example there would be medical textbooks or medical
treatises.
The defendant objected, that is not the probative of the cost of
repairs or the damages that they have suffered considering that, it
What’s the most famous medical treatise that we know?
is technically speaking, hearsay. Wala man nag appear sa court ang
Gray’s Anatomy. It is actually a book. everybody would know, you
mga nag submit ug price quotations.
quote from Gray’s anatomy about, the anatomy of a human person
in a case for a medical malpractice or medical negligence.
Now, according to the plaintiff here that ang tawag ana is
commercial list.
Do you need to present the author?
Dugay na siya patay. But, can it still be admissible even if the author
According to the Supreme Court, it is not commercial list, price is not there, when he is clearly an expert in the subject?
quotations lang na siya that you just compiled.
Yes, Section 48 learned treatises.
Meralco vs. Secretary of Labor When are learned treatises admissible?

G.R. No. 127598, February 22, 2000 1. When the court can take judicial notice of them; or
2. When an expert witness testifies that the author of such
“Excludes mere newspaper accounts” recognized as expert in that profession. (Sec. 48)
Newspaper clippings on minimum wage rate, regional cost of Examples:

living allowances. Gusto nila gamiton ang newspaper accounts or 1. Historical works;
newspaper clippings.to prove kung pila dapat ang ibayad na na 2. Scientific treatises; or
cost of living allowance. 3. Law (Francisco, pp. 340-341, 1992 ed.)
FIRST
EXAM 145
I do not agree with number 3 law, because it is always subject to a material fact; (b) the statement is more probative on the point
interpretations and peculiar backdrop of the case. You cannot for which it is offered than any other evidence which the
present law as an evidence because it is something that the court proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (c) the
already take judicial notice of. general purposes of these rules and the interest of justice will be
best served by admission of the statement into evidence.
Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception
– The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or out of the unless the proponent makes known to the adverse party,
Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in
or is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in a former the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party
case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s
parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including
adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him or the name and address of the declarant. (n.)
her. (47a)
This is actually a new exception, a residual exception. Kung wala
Take note that this is already covered by what we discussed in siyay apil didto sa mga previous codal exceptions, so pwede pa nimo
Section 37. You want to impeach the testimony of the witness I’appy ang Section 50 subject to certain conditions.
because he made a declaration contrary to what he made previously,
it is related to the topic of Section 49 NOTE:
Our new residual exception is once again taken from the Federal
REQUISITES: Rules of Evidence. It provides in Rule 807 thereof that:
1. Witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is dead or out (a) In General. Under the following condition, a hearsay
of the Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be found statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if
therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify; the statement is not admissible under a hearsay exception in
2. The testimony or deposition was given in a former case or Rule 803 or 804:
proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same 803 and 804 are their codal exception. Now, look at their
parties or those representing the same interests; conditions,
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the (1) The statement is supported by sufficient guarantees
present case, although on different causes of ation; of trustworthiness – after considering the totality of
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the circumstances under which it was made and evidence,
same issue involved in the present case; and if any, corroborating the statement; and
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the
witness in the former case. (2) It is more probative on the point for which it is offered
than any other evidence that the proponent can
The number 3 requisite is the most important requisite. obtain through reasonable efforts.
WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS, ASIDE FROM DEATH, WHICH MAKE The conditions are also the same as ours, so we just
A WITNESS UNABLE TO TESTIFY IN A SUBSEQUENT CASE?
actually copied. Like, guarantee of trustworthiness, sa atoa,
1. Insanity or mental incapacity or the former witness loss of
circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.
memory through age or disease;
2. Physical disability by reason of sickness or advanced age;
(b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if the proponent
3. The fact that the witness has been kept away by contrivance of
gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer
the opposite party; or
the statement –including its substance and the declarant’s
4. The fact that after diligent search the former witness cannot be
name – so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it. The
found. (Francisco, p. 342, 1992 ed.)
notice must be provided in writing before the trial or hearing
– or in any form during the trial or hearing of the court, for
Take note of these, because the situation here presupposes na nag
good cause, excuses a lack of earlier notice.
testify ang witness sa previous case, deposition or proceeding, then
karun dili na siya available. That is why somebody else is gong to
Then this notice, it is the second paragraph in Section 50.
enter that deposition or testimony on the record.
Kaning reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement
xxx so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it , sounds
Section 50. Residual exception. – A statement not specifically familiar, right? Same kaayo with our Section 50.
covered by any of the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the FIRST SENTENCE
court determines that (a) the statement is offered as evidence of
FIRST
EXAM 146
A hearsay statement, even if it is not covered by the exceptions Let’s go back to Section 37:
encompassed under Rule 130, Sections 38 to 49 if the court finds Section 37. Hearsay. – Hearsay is a statement other than once
that: made by the declarant whie testifying at a trial or hearing, offered
(a) The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is (1)
(b) The statement is more probative on the point for which it is an oral or written assertion, if it is intended by him or her as an
offered than any other evidence which the proponent can assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise
procure through reasonable efforts; and provided in these Rules.
(c) The general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice
will be best served by admission of the statement into evidence. A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or
hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the
OBSERVATIONS: statement, and the statement (a) inconsistent with the declarant’s
1. First, while of foreign origin, our own Supreme Court has been testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of
leaning towards a more relaxed application of the hearsay rule perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
in recent years. (b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to
rebut an express o implied charge against the declarant of recent
For instance, we have the case of Razon vs. Tagitis, unsa may fabrication or improper influence or motive; or (c) one of
naa ato diba dapat relevant lang. It where the SC relaxed the identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (n)
rule on hearsay applied the totality of evidence test and the
basic relevancy test, in the interest of justice. This new foundational provision on hearsay (together with Section
22) is one that is copied almost entirely from Rule 801 of the Federal
Q: Can the relaxation of the rule on hearsay in Razon vs Rules of Evidence, which provides that:
Tagitis, can it be subsumed in Section 50?
A: Of course, yes. So, I would like to say na ang exception sa Rule 801. Definitions that apply to this article; Exclusions
Razon vs. Tagitis covered na siya sa Section 50. from hearsay. The following definitions apply under this
article:
2. Second, in child abuse cases, we have Section 28 of the Rule on (a) Statement, “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, or
Examination of a Child Witness which allows the admission of nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.
the hearsay testimony of a child describing any act of sexual
abse in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding, subject to Sounds familiar? Of course. That is the phraseology in our Section
certain prerequisites and the right of cross-examination by the 37.
adverse party. The admission of the statement is determined by (b) Is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered:
the court n light of specified subjective and objective (i) to rebut an express or implied change that the
considerations that provide sufficient indicia of reliability of the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent
child witness. improper influence or motive in so testifying; or
(ii) to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility as a witness
Take note that there are guidelines here (section 28): when attacked on another ground; or
(a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its
proponent shall make known to the adverse party the (c) Identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived
intention to offer such statement and its particulars to earlier.
provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is
available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse Sounds familiar? Yes, because that is also our Section 37.
party, require the child to be present at the presentation
of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the The version under Federation Rules of Evidence does not end there.
adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of Why? Because part of their hearsay rule is this one:
such circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered
“its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the against an opposing party and:
intention to offer such statement and its particulars to (a) was made by the party in an individual or representative
provide him a fair opportunity to object,” or in the capacity;
language of Section 50, “sufficient time to meet it.” (b) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be
That’s the same more or less. true;
Isn’t this adoptive admission?
So, our trend was to have residual exceptions even then or even
before the amendment of the Rules.
(c) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make
a statement on the subject;
FIRST
EXAM 147
(d) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter knowledge as it is the province of the court to make deductions
within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or from pertinent facts placed in evidence and to decide matters
(e) was made by the party’s co-conspirator during and in directly in issue. Their testimony must be confined to statements
furtherance of the conspiracy. of concrete facts within their own observation, knowledge, and
recollection – that is, facts perceived by the use of their own
Letter c in relation to d and e, familiar? Diba mao na siya ang res senses – as distinguished from their opinions, inferences,
inter alios acta rule and the exception to the res inter alios acta rule. impressions and conclusions drawn from such facts, which are
What I want to drive at is that under FRE, rule on extrajudicial incompetent and inadmissible.
admissions is actually part of the hearsay rule, exception na siya sa
hearsay rule. Then katong mga exceptions nato sa res inter alios acta EXCEPTIONS
rule, exception lang na nila to the exception. 1. Opinion of Expert Witness (Section 52)
2. Opinion of an Ordinary Witness as to:
We just copied it, but we still try to maintain the continuity of the a. The identity of a person about whom he or she has
res inter alios acta rule and the exceptions – admission by silence, adequate knowledge;
doctrine of adoptive admission, then the requirements under b. A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient
evidence aliunde under Rule 801. familiarity;
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is
What do you notice? sufficiently acquainted; and
Under our rules, the remainder of Rule 801 constitute some of d. The witness’ impressions of the emotion, behavior,
the rules on admissions like the res inter alios acta rule and its condition or appearance of a person (Sec. 53).
exceptions, admission by silence and doctrine of adoptive
admissions. EXPERT OPINION
Note as well the requirement in the latter part of Rule 801 of Sec. 52. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness
evidence aliunde. on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience,
training or education, which he or she is shown to possess, may
September 16 | Campaner be received in evidence. (49a)
Who is an expert witness?

Rule 130 Continued
OPINION and CHARACTER PEOPLE vs. ABRIOL
G.R. No. 123137, October 17, 2001
OPINION RULE An expert witness is "one who belongs to the profession or

calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who
What is an opinion? possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes
It is an inference or conclusion based or drawn from the facts to express an opinion."
established.
When a witness states an opinion, he does not testify based on Q: Is there a definite standard of determining the degree of skill
personal knowledge. Instead of saying what he saw, heard, or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as
smelled, tasted or touched, he is testifying as to what he thinks an expert?
about a particular matter. A: None. It is sufficient that the following factors are present:
(1) Training and education;
Opinion is not perception under the law. (2) Particularity, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and
(3) Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion
GENERAL RULE is based. (People v. Abriol, G.R. No. 123137, Oct. 17, 2001)
Sec. 51. General rule. — The opinion of a witness is not
admissible, except as indicated in the following sections. (48) How is expertise acquired?
There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or
BERNARDINO vs. PEOPLE experience shall have been acquired. Scientific study and
G.R. No. 170453, October 30, 2006 training are not always essential to the competency of a witness
as an expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable
Witnesses can testify only to those facts which they know of their than that acquired by study. (Dilag Co. vs. Merced, 1949)
personal knowledge, that is, which is derived from their own
perception. They are not generally allowed to testify on their What is expert evidence?
opinions or conclusions but must state facts within their
FIRST
EXAM 148
It is the testimony of a person (expert witness) possessing Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that they
knowledge not usually acquired by other persons on a must be accepted as true on the subject of their testimony, but are
particular subject matter. generally regarded as purely advisory; the courts may place
whatever weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject
When is expert evidence admissible? it, if they find that it is inconsistent with the facts in the case
It is admissible when: or otherwise unreasonable.
(1) the matter to be established requires expertise; and
(2) the witness has been qualified as an expert. TABAO vs PEOPLE
G.R. No. 187246, July 20, 2011
What is the test in determining whether there is need to resort
to expert evidence? The use of the word “may” signifies that the use of opinion of an
The test is whether the opinion called for will aid the court in expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of
resolving an issue. the courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that
courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The
HOW DOES AN EXPERT WITNESS TESTIFY? testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been
An expert witness is always offered as such. presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but
to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and
EXPERTISE MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY ADMISSION OR is for the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its
STIPULATION. appreciation of the attendant facts and the applicable law.
If the opponent admits that he is an expert, he can immediately
proceed with his testimony. Q: Are there instances where expert evidence is actually
But what if the opponent does not admit the expertise of the required?
witness?
A: YES. For example:
QUALIFYING A WITNESS Testimony on DNA Evidence
If the opponent does not admit that he is an expert witness, Medical Malpractice Cases (CASUMPANG vs. CORTEJO,
then before a witness proposed as an expert may testify, he G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015)
must first be qualified. Section 46, on learned treatises
Article 36 Cases (REPUBLIC vs. MOLINA, 268 SCRA 198)?
“QUALIFYING A WITNESS” means the act of proving that the
witness is an expert. BIER vs. BIER
G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008
This is done by making him testify, through preliminary
questions, as to his training, education and expertise. The personal examination of the party alleged to be
psychologically incapacitated by a psychiatrist or psychologist is
BASIS OF OPINION no longer mandatory for the declaration of nullity of the marriage
An expert witness may base his opinion either on the first-hand under Article 36 of the Family Code but the totality of evidence
knowledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical questions must still prove the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability
where the facts are presented to him and on the assumption that of the alleged psychological incapacity.
they are true, formulates his opinion on the hypothesis.
CASUMPANG vs. CORTEJO
PROCEDURE G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015
1. Introduce and qualify the witness, if his qualifications are not
otherwise stipulated upon by the opponent; EXPERT OPINION IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES
2. Present his factual testimony, if he has knowledge of the facts; Expert testimony is essential to establish not only the
3. Begin the hypothetical question by asking him to assume professional standards observed in the medical community, but
certain facts as true; also that the physician's conduct in the treatment of care falls
4. Conclude the question, by first asking the expert if he has an below such standard.
opinion on a certain point assuming that these facts are true
and secondly, asking him, after he has answered affirmatively,
DE LA LLANA vs BIONG
to give his opinion on the point. G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013
5. After he has stated his opinion, ask him to give his reasons or
the bases for his opinion. On March 30, 2000, at around 11:00 p.m., Juan dela Llana was
driving a 1997 Toyota Corolla car along North Avenue, Quezon
NATURE OF EXPERT OPINIONS
FIRST
EXAM 149
City. His sister, Dra. dela Llana, was seated at the front passenger
seat while a certain Calimlim was at the backseat. As to her testimony
Dra. dela Llana, as the plaintiff in this quasi-delict case, was the
Juan stopped the car across the Veterans Memorial Hospital lone physician-witness during trial. Significantly, she merely
when the signal light turned red. A few seconds after the car testified as an ordinary witness before the trial court. Dra. dela
halted, a dump truck containing gravel and sand suddenly Llana essentially claimed in her testimony that Joel’s reckless
rammed the car’s rear end, violently pushing the car forward. Due driving caused her whiplash injury.
to the impact, the car’s rear end collapsed and its rear windshield
was shattered. Glass splinters flew, puncturing Dra. dela Llana. Despite the fact that Dra. dela Llana is a physician and even
Apart from these minor wounds, Dra. dela Llana did not appear assuming that she is an expert in neurology, we cannot give
to have suffered from any other visible physical injuries. weight to her opinion that Joel’s reckless driving caused her
whiplash injury without violating the rules on evidence.
The truck driver revealed that his employer was Rebecca Biong.
In the present case, Dra. dela Llana’s medical opinion cannot be
A month and a half after the accident, Dra. De la Llana began to given probative value for the reason that she was not presented
feel moderate pain on the left side of her neck and shoulder. Her as an expert witness. As an ordinary witness, she was not
health deteriorated to the extent that she could no longer move competent to testify on the nature, and the cause and effects of
her left arm. She consulted with Dr. Rosalinda Milla to examine whiplash injury.
her condition. Dr. Milla told her that she suffered from a whiplash
injury, an injury caused by the compression of the nerve running Furthermore, we emphasize that Dra. dela Llana, during trial,
to her left arm and hand. nonetheless did not provide a medical explanation on the nature
as well as the cause and effects of whiplash injury in her
She sued the defendants for damages for her whiplash injury. testimony.
During trial, as a medical doctor, De la Llana herself testified PAJE vs. CASIÑO
about her condition. G.R. No. 207257, February 3, 2015
EVIDENCE OF DE LA LLANA Expert opinion in environmental cases.

(1) The pictures of her damaged car
To show that the collision was strong and it can be SAN DIEGO vs. PEOPLE
reasonably inferred from these pictures that the G.R. No. 176114, April 8, 2015
massive impact resulted in her whiplash injury.
(2) The medical certificate dated November 20, 2000 Dueling expert witnesses in criminal cases involving mishandling
Dr. Milla categorically stated in the medical certificate or theft of money,
that Dra. dela Llana suffered from whiplash injury.
(3) Her testimony that collisions can cause whiplash injury. TOLENTINO vs. LATAGAN
G.R. No. 179874, June 22, 2015
Credible because Dra. dela Llana herself was a surgeon.
Is it required for a handwriting expert to examine the original
EVIDENCE OF DE LA LLANA documents allegedly forged?
(a) The pictures of her damaged car
According to the SC, it only proves impact. It cannot be Would a showing of possible bias on the part of the expert
used to infer whiplash injury. adversely affect the proponent?
(b) The medical certificate dated November 20, 2000 PUNZALAN vs. COMELEC
HEARSAY. The doctor who issued it did not testify. G.R. No. 126669, April 27, 1998
(c) Her testimony that collisions can cause whiplash injury.
Are handwriting experts required in examining or comparing
EXCLUDED FOR BEING A MERE OPINION. handwriting in a ballot?
As to the Medical Certificate
The medical certificate has no probative value for being hearsay. OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS
It is a basic rule that evidence, whether oral or documentary, is
hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal Sec. 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a
knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another witness, for which proper basis is given, may be received in
person who is not on the witness stand. evidence regarding —
FIRST
EXAM 150
(a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate A: They are admissible because they are:
knowledge; (1) logical and
(b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity; (2) based on ordinary human experience. Besides, impressions on
and human emotion, behavior, condition and appearance are
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is (3) derived from personal observation.
sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the BAR QUESTION
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (50a)
Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a chair and
IDENTITY robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and money. Dencio then
brought Candida, Marcela's maid, to a bedroom where he raped
PEOPLE vs. PRIETO her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: "Huwag!
G.R. No. 141259, July 18, 2003 Maawa ka sa akin!" After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the
house with the loot. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to
This Court has ruled that identification by the sound of the voice the police station about a kilometer away and told Police Officer
of a person identified, is a sufficient and acceptable means of Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged into the house of
identification where it is established that the witness and the Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her jewelry
accused had known each other personally and closely for a and money.
number of years.
Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas,
HANDWRITING Dencio had raped her. The policeman noticed that Candida was
hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with
MARIANO vs. ROXAS robbery with rape. During the trial, Candida can no longer be
A.M. No. CA-02-14-P, July 31, 2002 located.
That the receipts are not genuine was confirmed by Lorna Caraga.
She testified that she is familiar with the signature of complainant If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida to be
who was her officemate for a period of 5 years in the RTC of hysterical and on the verge of collapse, would such testimony be
Caloocan City. In many occasions, complainant signed considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible? Explain.
documents in her presence. Her opinion as to complainant’s
genuine signature is admissible in evidence pursuant to Section ANSWER
50, Rule 130. No, it cannot be considered as opinion, because he was testifying
on what he actually observed. The last paragraph of Sec. 50 (now
MENTAL SANITY Section 53), Rule 130, Revised Rules of Evidence, expressly provides
When a person not an expert testifies as to the mental sanity of that a witness may testify on his impressions of the emotion,
a person, he is actually stating a matter of opinion derived from behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
his own perception. However, in order to be admissible, the
witness must have been sufficiently acquainted with the person
and his mental sanity. To be considered sufficiently acquainted, BAR QUESTION
the proponent must establish the degree of familiarity between
the witness and the person whose sanity he is testifying about. At Nolan’s trial for possession and use of the prohibited drug,
This is particularly useful in Succession cases considering that known as “shabu”, his girlfriend Kim, testified that on a particular
one of the requirements for testamentary capacity is that the day, he would see Nolan very prim and proper, alert and sharp,
testator must be of sound mind. but that three days after, he would appear haggard, tired and
overly nervous at the slightest sound he would hear. Nolan
EMOTION, BEHAVIOR, CONDITION AND APPEARANCE objects to the admissibility of Kim’s testimony on the ground that
Take note that, when a person testifies on EMOTION,
Kim merely stated her opinion without having been first qualified
BEHAVIOR, CONDITION and APPEARANCE, he may seem like
as expert witness. Should you, as judge, exclude the testimony of
he is stating facts based on his own perception but they are Kim?
merely impressions or opinions because he is not really sure
about it. For example, when one says that another was drunk
ANSWER
(which can be a statement on another’s behavior, condition or
No. The testimony of Kim should not be excluded. Even though Kim
appearance), he cannot really state this as a factual certainty.
is not an expert witness, Kim may testify on her impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (Sec. 50,
Q: If they’re just opinions, then why are they admissible?
now Sec. 53 of Rule 130).
FIRST
EXAM 151
opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into

CHARACTER EVIDENCE relevant specific instances of conduct.
PRIOR TO AMENDMENT In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof
exceptions: may also be made of specific instances of that person’s
(a) In Criminal Cases: conduct. (51; 14, Rule 132)
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which
is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged. DEFINITION
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his (Black’s Law, Second Edition)
bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong
involved in the offense charged. to and distinguish an individual person; the general result of
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party the one’s distinguishing attributes. That moral predisposition or
may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable habit, or aggregate of ethical qualities, which is believed to
degree the probability or improbability of the offense attach to a person, on the strength of the common opinion and
charged. report concerning him; the opinion generally entertained of a
(b) In Civil Cases: person, derived from the common report of the people who are
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is acquainted with him. derived from the common report of the
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character people who are acquainted with him.
involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a) A “trait of character” on the other hand is a mere aspect of a
person’s behavior as opposed to his general character or
reputation.
Rule 132, Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. – PURPOSE
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until What is the purpose of presenting evidence as to a person’s
such character has been impeached. character?
Character evidence is offered to prove that the person acted in
AFTER AMENDMENT conformity with that character. If the Accused is charged with a
Section 54. Character evidence not generally admissble, crime involving dishonesty, he will present character evidence
exceptions. — Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of that tends to prove that he is honest to bolster the belief that
character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in he would act usually act in conformity with such character of
conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: honesty. Honesty is offered to disprove dishonesty.
However, as a general rule, such evidence of character is not
(a) In Criminal Cases: admissible.
(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the CHARACTER VS. REPUTATION
probability or improbability of the offense charged. Character and reputation are not synonymous terms. Character
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral is what a man or woman is morally, while reputation is what he
character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the or she is reputed to be.
offense charged. However, the prosecution may not Note, however, that general character has always been proved
prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal. by proving general reputation. (Leverich v. Frank, 6 Or. 213).
(b) In Civil Cases: RATIONALE FOR INADMISSIBILITY

Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is Generally, the character of a party is regarded as LEGALLY
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character IRRELEVANT in determining a controversy.
involved in the case. IT IS ALSO PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL as evidence to prove
the fact in issue in the case. These are the reasons why it is
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases: inadmissible, as a general rule.
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible
until such character has been impeached. PEOPLE vs. LEE
G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of
character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded
testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that
FIRST
EXAM 152
evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the a probability, cannot prevail over facts sufficiently proven by the
issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of prosecution during the trial belying such aggression.
the character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt
to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual PEOPLE vs. ADONIS
inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the business of the G.R. No. 98196, January 31, 1995
court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may
have a righteous cause. Even if it had been proved by competent evidence that the
deceased was of a quarrelsome disposition, such evidence would
only have established a probability that he had indeed started an
CHARACTER OF THE OFFENDED PARTY unlawful assault on Eleuterio. This probability cannot overcome
The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends the positive statement of the prosecution witnesses during trial
to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or that the accused-appellant had assaulted Basas without any
improbability of the offense charged. provocation.
EXAMPLES RAPE AND SIMILAR OFFENSES

In a prosecution for murder where the Accused pleads the
justifying circumstance of self-defense, he may present GENERAL RULE: In rape and acts of lasciviousness or in any
evidence of the bad character of the victim (i.e., that the victim prosecution involving an unchaste act perpetrated by a man against
is a violent person, proving unlawful aggression). a woman where the willingness of a woman is material, the woman’s
In a prosecution for rape where the defense of the Accused is character as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she
consent, he may present evidence of the bad character of the consented to the man’s act.
woman (i.e., that a woman is of loose morals, that the woman
does not have a virtuous character, etc.) EXCEPTIONS:
When the woman’s consent is immaterial such as in statutory
HOMICIDE, ETC. rape or rape with violence or intimidation.
In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is In the crimes of qualified seduction or consented abduction
admissible in two situations: where the offended party must be a "virgin," which is
(a) as evidence of the deceased’s aggression; and "presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation," or a
(b) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused. "virtuous woman of good reputation."
The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES
deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature, as the Sec. 30. Sexual abuse shield rule.—
case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the (a) Inadmissible evidence.— The following evidence is not
accused was the aggressor. admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged
child sexual abuse:
When the evidence tends to prove self-defense, the known violent (1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim
character of the deceased is also admissible to show that it produced engaged in other sexual behavior; and
a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused (2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual
and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was predisposition of the alleged victim.
necessary. (b) Exception.— Evidence of specific instances of sexual
behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other
BUT… than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other
Proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of physical evidence shall be admissible.
murder committed with treachery and premeditation. (PEOPLE vs.
LEE, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002) ADULT RAPE
The evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, or reputation or
PEOPLE vs. SAZON opinion thereof shall not be admitted unless and only to the extent
G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990 that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to
the case (Rape shield, Sec. 6, R.A. 8505 or Rape Victim Assistance
The bad moral character of the offended party may be proven in and Protection Act of 1998).
evidence to establish in any reasonable degree the probability of
the offense charged, e.g., the quarrelsome nature of the victim GOOD CHARACTER OF THE ACCUSED
may tend to establish that he started the unlawful aggression. The accused may prove his good moral character, pertinent to the
Nonetheless, such evidence, seeking to establish as it does only moral trait involved in the offense charged.
FIRST
EXAM 153
When the accused presents proof of his good moral who had been the boyhood friend and next-door neighbor of
character, this strengthens the presumption of innocence, the Prosecution witness for 30 years. One question that the
and where good character and reputation are established, defense counsel asked of the impeaching witness was: "Can you
an inference arises that the accused did not commit the tell this Honorable Court about the general reputation of the
crime charged. This view proceeds from the theory that a prosecution witness in your community for aggressiveness and
person of good character and high reputation is not likely violent tendencies?" Would you, as prosecutor, interpose your
to have committed the act charged against him. objection to the question of the defense counsel? Explain your
Thus, a person accused of a crime involving dishonesty answer. (4%)
may present evidence tending to prove that he is honest.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
BY THE PROSECUTION Yes, I as the trial prosecutor, would interpose my objection to
The prosecution may not prove his bad moral character, unless in defense counsel’s question on the ground of improper
rebuttal. impeachment.
For example, if Gerald is accused of stealing from the purse
of Maja, the prosecution cannot present witnesses tending Under the Law on Evidence, an adverse party’s witness may be
to show that Gerald has the propensity to steal. properly impeached by reputation evidence provided that it is to the
However, if Gerald presented character evidence tending effect that the witness’s general reputation for honesty, truth, or
to show that he is honest or that he is not a thief, the integrity was bad. [S11 R132] The reputation must only be on
prosecution now present adverse character evidence but character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
only in rebuttal.
IN BOTH (1) AND (2) FOR CRIMINAL CASES BAR QUESTION 2018
The character evidence must be relevant and germane to the
kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape, character for Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law student who
chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or sidelines as a call center agent. Dave offers the testimony of
violence; on a charge for embezzlement, character for honesty Danny, who says that Dave is known in the community as a
and integrity. decent and discerning person. The prosecution presents a
rebuttal witness, Dovie, who testifies that, if Dave was reputed to
IN CIVIL CASES
be a good person, that reputation was a misperception because
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible
Dave had been previously convicted of homicide.
only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
Is Dovie's testimony admissible as to the character of Dave?
(2.5%)
EXAMPLES
1. DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE DUE TO
SUGGESTED ANSWER
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.
No. Dovie’s testimony as to the character of Dave is not admissible
Where a party is alleged to be psychologically
because it is impertinent.
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, there are times when evidence of
Under the Rules on Evidence, the accused may prove his good moral
his character must be adduced (example: the respondent
character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
is a compulsive gambler, a womanizer, a sex addict, etc.)
charged. Such act of the Accused would then allow the prosecution
to prove his bad moral character on rebuttal.
2. CUSTODY CASES.
In custody cases, more often than not, one parent would
In the case presented, Dovie’s testimony that, if Dave was reputed
be attacking the moral character of the other if only to
to be a good person, such reputation was a misperception because
prove that he or she is the better parent to take sole
Dave had been previously convicted of homicide, is not relevant or
custody of the child. If the child is a minor below 7 years
germane to the offense charged. A prior conviction of homicide is
old, the mother is preferred. It seems that the only way for
not pertinent to the moral trait involved in a case for sexual assault.
the father to take custody is to prove that the mother is
manifestly unfit.
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases:
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until
such character has been impeached.
BAR QUESTION 2017
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character
of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to
In an attempt to discredit and impeach a Prosecution witness in
reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-
a homicide case, the defense counsel called to the stand a person
FIRST
EXAM 154
examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances

of conduct. RULE 131
BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an AND PRESUMPTIONS
essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also
be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct. (51; 14,
Rule 132) SECTION 1. Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence. —
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the
Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. - Evidence facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by
of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such the amount of evidence required by law. Burden of proof never
character has been impeached. shifts.
This new paragraph is a simple transposition from the previous
Rule 132, Section 14. Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence
sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima
facie case.
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character
of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to the other in the
reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-
course of the proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the
examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances
case. (1a)
of conduct.
This is identical to Rule 405 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Under the amended provision, it is now longer because it includes
which provides: burden of evidence which is often confused with the term ‘burden
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of proof’. Under the amended rules, we can now have an academic
of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as distinctions between burden of proof and burden of evidence in
to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On one provision.
cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific
instances of conduct. A. BURDEN OF PROOF IS WHY WE PRESENT EVIDENCE
If you have the burden of proof, you have to present evidence.
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an
It is said to discharge the burden of proof is the end sought to
essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also
be achieved by the presentation of evidence.
be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct.
This is again identical to Rule 405 of the Federal Rules of
Simply put, burden of proof, or “onus probandi,” refers to the
Evidence which provides that:
obligation or duty of a party to the litigation to persuade the
court that he is entitled to relief.
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a
person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or
In other words, this is to say that if we have the burden of proof,
defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of
we have to present evidence regardless of whether it is
that person's conduct.
evidence presented for purposes of establishing a claim or
defending against a claim, you have to present evidence
Take note however that the object of this provision is already
because that is what burden of proof is all about.
covered elsewhere.
Can you recall what it is?
B. AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED BY LAW
Amount of evidence is synonymous to the term “Quantum of
Sec. 35. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one
Proof” which is discussed under Rule 133. There are different
did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
types of quanta of proof, depending on the type of case or issue
admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the
that is brought before a tribunal.
same or similar thing at another time; but it may be
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, QUANTUM OF PROOF IN:
plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the Criminal Cases Civil Cases Administrative
like. (34a) Cases
FOR SECTION 54 Proof beyond Preponderance of Substantial
Memorize the codal provision and you will never go wrong. reasonable doubt. Evidence. Evidence.
September 30 Part 1 | Acevedo Who bears the burden or proof or onus probandi?
FIRST
EXAM 155
There is a burden of proof that is supposed the reason why a party Article 527. Good faith is always presumed, and
presents evidence. But the question is who has the burden of proof upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a
or the so called onus probandi? possessor rests the burden of proof. (434)
It is actually one provision that supports the proposition that
General Rule: He who bears the affirmative of the proposition or he we have that whenever a presumption applies in favor of a
who affirms a fact has the burden to prove it not one who merely party, the burden of proof rests on the other. Art. 527 illustrates
negates or denies it. [Ei Uncimbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat] that.
If you want to prove something, you have the burden of proof. If you In Obligations and Contracts:
want to affirm that a fact exists, you have the burden of proof. Article 1272. Whenever the private document in
which the debt appears is found in the possession of
a. Criminal cases the debtor, it shall be presumed that the creditor
In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, delivered it voluntarily, unless the contrary is proved.
because under Rule 133 the accused is entitled to acquittal (1189)
unless his guilt is demonstrated by proof beyond reasonable There is that presumption of voluntary delivery of the evidence
doubt. of the indebtedness. But there is this phrase: unless the contrary
is proved.
In the case of criminal prosecutions, burden of proof is said to
be pinned [to the prosecution] institutionally due to the Who has the burden now of proving the contrary?
constitutional mandate that the accused is presumed innocent It will now be the creditor. He has the burden to prove that he
until the contrary is proven. did not deliver voluntarily if that is part of his allegations in a
particular and applicable case.
You cannot change that burden. The burden usually in a
criminal case would therefore be upon the prosecution which Conclusion:
is to prove that the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (1) There is an intimate connection that exists between
presumptions and burden of proof.
Presumption of Innocence
Take note that the right of the accused to be presumed That is why it is lump under the same provision or under
innocent until proven guilty is guaranteed under Sec. 14 (2), Art. Rule 131 because if there is a presumption, it affects
III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution. This fundamental right of burden of proof.
the accused is also embodied under Sec. 2, Rule 133 of the
Rules of Court, which specifically states that “in criminal case, (2) When there is an applicable presumption, the burden
the accused is entitled to acquittal, unless his guilty is proved of evidence shifts to the party who denies to dispute
beyond reasonable doubt.” and rebut the presumption. Verily, an unrebutted
presumption is equivalent to proof already.
Take note that that is the burden of proof that is placed upon
Still in Criminal Cases
the prosecution. The one who will prove the guilt of the accused
The obligation to convince the trier of facts to show the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt is the prosecution.
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the
Does the defendant in a criminal case have burden of proof
prosecution, as a rule, throughout the trial.
as well, does he have an onus probandi?
Yes, because we will learn later that after the prosecution for However, when the accused invokes self-defense, the burden
example presents evidence on the fact in issue, they want to for of proof rests upon the defense to prove that the killing was
example establish the guilty of the accused, the accused also justified (People v. Tan, 315 SCRA 75).
has a burden of proof to prove his innocence, otherwise he will
lose in a case and eventually convicted of the crime that is Take note of what an invocation of a justifying
circumstance such as self-defense. What is its implication
charged.
in case? What type of defense is that?
Thesis:
Whenever a presumption applies in favor of a party, the In the language of the Civil Procedure, justifying
burden of proof rests on the other [Take note]. circumstance of self-defense is one of confession and
If there is a presumption in favor of a party to a case, the burden evidence.
rests upon the opposing party.
Examples:
Example:
FIRST
EXAM 156
I am saying that it is true that I am the one who killed but I G.R. No. 184565 November 20, 2013
have a justification which is—I killed him because if I did not
do so during that time, I will be the one who he will kill. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court defines "burden of
Remember that the accused already admits to the basic proof" as "the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
proposition that is offered by the prosecution, that there is a issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount
killing that took place and that it is the accused who is of evidence required by law."
responsible for the killing. But, his defense is self-defense
which is a justifying circumstance, a confession that at the In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is
same time seeks to avoid penalty for criminal liability. required to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
The burden now according to the case of People v. Tan, rests Note: Once the plaintiff has established his case [he is already
on the defense to prove that the killing was justified. done in presenting his case and he is assumed to have already
discharged the burden of proof given to him at the beginning of
What is the effect if the accused invokes self-defense in trial], the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant, who, in turn,
the beginning of the trial “Not guilty your Honor by has the burden to establish his defense.
reason of self-defense” and he fails to prove the
elements of proof during trial, what will happen? Comment: The Supreme Court here did not use burden of proof,
When he invoked the justifying circumstance of self-evidence but rather it uses the phrase “burden of evidence’—the one which
is admitting that he killed but he was not able to prove the shifts to the defendant.
element of self-defense, that is already equivalent to a
conviction because he admitted but he failed to prove his Now, it is already inserted under the new rules. It is not the
justification of self-defense. burden of proof that shifts. It is the burden of evidence that shifts
according to the exigencies of trial, it depends.
Effect: If you fail on your basic and general burden of proof,
you lose the case regardless of whether you are the plaintiff But does it mean that when the plaintiff has already
or the defendant or if the prosecution or the defense. If you established his case [he has the initial burden] he establishes
fail the burden of proof as it is pinned at the beginning of his case meaning he already has discharged his onus
trial, you will lose regardless of what happens. probandi already the duty to present evidence? Does it mean
that the defendant does not have burden of proof because
b. Civil Cases he only has burden of evidence?
In civil cases, whoever makes an affirmative allegation has the
burden of proof. A party who alleges a fact has the burden of There is still a general burden of proof.
proving it (Gamboa, Rodriguez, Rivera and Co. v CA, GR No.
117456, May 6,2005; Dela Cruz v. Sison, 451 SCRA 754, Feb. 17, Jesus is Lord Christian Foundation v. City of Pasig,
2005). GR No. 152230, August 9, 2005
In civil cases, the one who usually makes an affirmative In an eminent domain case, the local government that seeks to
allegation is the plaintiff. It is the party who alleges a fact who expropriate private property has the burden of proving to show
has the burden of proving it. It is the party who affirms and not the existence of compliance with the elements for the valid
the party who denies who has the burden of proving [Ei exercise of the right of eminent domain.
Uncimbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat].
Mayon Hotel and Restaurant v. Adana,
PNB v. Pasimio 458 SCRA 609 [2005])
G.R. No. 205590, September 02, 2015
Case for collection of a loan.
It is settled that the burden of proof lies with the party who Thus, if the plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes him a sum
asserts a right and the quantum of evidence required by law in of money, the plaintiff has the burden to prove the debt.
civil cases is preponderance of evidence. Conversely, if the defendant admits the debt but defends by
alleging that it has already been paid, waived, or otherwise
Just as settled is the rule that the plaintiff in civil cases must rely extinguished, he has the burden to prove the extinguishment of
on strength of his or her own evidence and not upon the the alleged obligation.
weakness of that of the defendant.
Comment:
These paid, waived or otherwise extinguished are our
De Leon v. BPI affirmative defenses. This is one of the supposedly
grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 but right
FIRST
EXAM 157
now, motion to dismiss is no longer allowed exception on

the four grounds [ (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject Who will win in that case? Definitely, the defendant since the
matter, (2) res judicata, (3) litis pendentia and (4) plaintiff was unable to prove his cause of action by failing to
prescription. discharge the burden.
September 30 Part 2 | Amistad Is the defendant, in this situation, still required to present
evidence of his defense? No need na, pildi naman daan ang
Upat na lang ang nabilin na pwede nimo gamitun na plaintiff.
ground for a motion to dismiss. But again, the focus here
is on the affirmative defense of payment. So, what is the Now what happens if the plaintiff was able to present evidence but
effect? An affirmative defense is one that confesses and the defendant has not. Further, the plaintiff, by the estimation of the
yet seeks to avoid, confession and avoidance. court, has already presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima
facie case against the defendant? The defendant will therefore lose
So, what happens there? He admits the debt but he fails his case.
his burden to prove the fact of payment. What is the
effect? He will lose his case. Why? Because he already So let’s go back to the basic test, kinsa ba na partido ang mapildi
admitted the existence of the debt pero wala niya na prove kuntahay wala’y mag presentar og evidence?
iyang affirmative defense, the burden of proof was not
discharged. Let’s apply that on a different way.
Constitutionality of Laws Plaintiff files a case for collection against the defendant, the latter
The one assailing the constitutionality of the regulation carries the says that: Oo tinuod na naa ko’y utang pero nabayran na nako na
heavy burden of proving that the measure is unreasonable, (confession and avoidance or affirmative defense). What are the
oppressive or confiscatory. The time-honored rule is that the burden options here based on the old rules of civil procedure? Pwede pa na
of proving the unconstitutionality of a law rests upon the one mag preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses as if a motion
assailing it. (Manila Memorial Park vs. DSWD, G.R. No. 175356, to dismiss was filed.
December 3, 2013)
Kinsa’y mauna karon na mag present og evidence? The plaintiff
Let’s go back to the previous example I have given to you, the case or defendant? It’s the defendant who presents evidence first and if
of Cruz vs. DENR, which upheld the constitutionality of the IPRA. he fails to present evidence, for example, on his affirmative defense
The plaintiffs argued that such law was unconstitutional for it of payment or prescription, then the defendant will lose his case.
established terms such as Ancestral Land and Ancestral Domains That’s an illustration of burden of proof.
which are inconsistent with the concept of Jura Regalia (That all
lands of private ownership are deemed to have come from the Tanang partido in a civil or criminal case naa’y burden of proof na
State). kailangan i-discharge.
So, what happened? Upon voting of the Supreme Court, they were WHERE BURDEN OF PROOF IS FIXED
equally divided. Hence, the IPRA was deemed constitutional by The burden of proof is fixed by the pleadings. The claim of the
default. Why? Because the plaintiffs failed to carry the burden of plaintiff which he must prove, is spelled out in his complaint. The
proving that the law is unconstitutional. So that’s the effect. defendant’s defenses which he must likewise prove, are to be found
in his answer to the complaint. The burden of proof of both parties
Test to determine where the burden of proof lies do not shift during the court of the trial. For example, the burden of
The test for determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask proof to establish that the defendant owes the plaintiff remains with
which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence the plaintiff.
competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he
seeks to obtain. If the defendant has affirmative defenses, he bears In such case, mao jud na ang burden sa plaintiff. From the very
the burden of proof as to those defenses which he sets up in answer beginning until the end. Every evidence that he is going to present
to the plaintiff’s cause of action. Hence, if the defendant sets up the during trial seeks to establish that fact, that naa’y utang sa iyaha ang
affirmative defense of prescription, he must prove the date when defendant or maybe later on, rebut any evidence that will be
prescription began to run (Aznar Brothers Realty Co. vs. Aying, presented by the defendant to the contrary.
G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005).
The burden of proof to establish that the loan has been paid remains
Let’s talk about an ordinary plaintiff in a civil case. So, nag file siya’g with the defendant throughout the litigation. Mao lang jud na sya
kaso, then the defendant files his answer against the plaintiff. But ang paninguha sa defendant, tanang ebidensya na iyahang i-
the plaintiff, right after pre-trial fails to present any evidence.
FIRST
EXAM 158
present during trial will always be in line with the proposition na na 1. BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD – or the burden of producing
bayaran na niya. evidence;
Example: Illustration of going forward with the evidence

Res Ipsa Loquitor For example, after the existence of a debt has been proven by
Negligence must be proved in a suit on a quasi-delict, so that the the creditor the burden of proving payment devolves upon the
plaintiff may recover. The plaintiff therefore has the burden of proof debtor. Where the debtor introduces evidence of payment, the
to establish that the defendant is liable, pursuant to the general rule burden of going forward with the evidence of payment – as a
that he who alleges must prove. distinct from the general burden of proof – shifts to the
creditor who is then under the duty of producing evidence to
The defendant has the benefit of assumption. In a case where the show non-payment (Jimenez, et. al. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 116960,
doctrine applies, the presence of facts and circumstances April 2, 1996).
surrounding the injury clearly indicate negligence on the part of the
defendant (Example: collision between a tugboat and a stationary So, the plaintiff establishes a fact. What is the burden placed
object in the case of Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring, September 29, upon the defendant after the plaintiff was able to establish a
1967). fact? The defendant will now have the burden of going forward
with the evidence to deny/controvert the facts established by
Res Ipsa Loquitor – The thing speaks for itself the plaintiff. If the defendant does that sufficiently, then the
plaintiff now has the opportunity to rebut, then after that
Mura bitaw’g wala’y laing explanation. Let’s apply this in a medical pwede pud na mag surrebuttal na pud ang defendant.
malpractice case, you go there to get an appendectomy but you
went home with a vasectomy. That’s clearly medical malpractice, So, if you talk burden of going forward or producing evidence,
there is medical negligence. And who has the exclusive control of mao ni siya ang atoang burden of evidence. Meaning, when
the instrumentality that caused damages? It’s the hospital, it’s you say burden of evidence, it is simply a component of the
impossible that it was due to the plaintiff’s fault or negligence. general burden of proof. It is only a portion of the Onus
Probandi kining burden of evidence.
So, what’s the effect of res ipsa loquitor in litigation?
Remember, as a rule, when you are going to file an action for In that flow of litigation, it illustrates the alternating frequency
damages under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, the burden of proof is of the shifting of burden of evidence. In the beginning, the
upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent and plaintiff has the burden of proof and the burden of going
therefore liable in the case. forward with the evidence to establish a prima facie case
against the defendant. After that, it’s now the defendant’s turn
EL INCUMBIT PROBATIO QUI DICIT, NON QUI NEGAT, whoever to present evidence against the plaintiff, and so on and so
affirms a fact has the burden of proving it. But, if the doctrine of forth. So, naa’y alternating na pag shift sa burden of going
res ipsa loquitor applies, like in the case of Republic vs. Luzon forward or the burden of evidence.
Stevedoring, dili na kailangan i-prove na negligent ang defendant,
because clearly the latter was negligent based on the facts, kinsa 2. BURDEN OF PERSUASION – burden of persuading the trier
man diay ang mu banga? Diba ang tuboat raman ang pwede mu of facts that the burdened party is entitled to prevail.
banga – res ipsa loquitor, the thing speaks for itself.
Is burden of proof the same as “burden of evidence’?
What happens now? No, they are not the same. Before the recent amendments,
The burden would now be placed upon the defendant to prove that burden of evidence was not mentioned in Rule 131. It is only
he was not negligent. So kung dili siya negligence, unsa siya? in the amended rules that the burden of evidence was
Possible na Act of God, na wala niya gi-tuyo og banga, na nag bagyo expressly stated.
man gud atong panahona to mao nang na pwersa ko na makabanga
anang pier or bridge. Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party, by means
of evidence, to create or meet a prima facie case, or, in the
The maxim applies whenever it is so improbable that such accident words of the Rule, as amended, it is the duty of a party to
would have happened without the fault of the defendant, that a present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue
reasonable man could find without further evidence that it was so to establish a prima facie case. So, mao ni siya ang naga-shift,
caused. The maxim throws on to the defendant the burden of the burden of proof does not.
disproving negligence. This time the defendant carries the burden
of proof while the plaintiff has the benefit of assumption. The burden of going forward with the evidence may shift from
one side to the other as the exigencies of the trial require and
COMPONENT ONERA IN ONUS PROBANDI shifts with alternating frequency.
FIRST
EXAM 159
The moment that the plaintiff is already able to present facts

BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE sufficient to establish the applicability of the presumption, it’s now
Definition the defendant who should present evidence, diba? Mao na sya ang
It is the duty of a party to It is the duty of a party to effect of the presumption.
present evidence on the facts in provide evidence at any stage
issue necessary to establish his of the trial until he has In the meantime, ayaw sa ug present ug evidence, plaintiff, because
claim or defense by the amount established a prima facie case, the defendant is, by the facts that you have presented or established,
of evidence required by law or the duty of the adverse is already presumed negligent. No need to present any evidence of
(Sec. 1, Rule 131). party to meet and overthrow negligence on the part of the defendant. That’s for burden of proof.
that prima facie case thus
established. But what about for Burden of Evidence? What is the effect of
Shifting of burden the presumption?
Does not shift as it remains Shifts to the other party when It creates a prima facie case thereby sustains the burden of evidence
throughout the entire case one party has produced on the point which it covers shifting it to the other party. It relieves
exactly where the pleadings sufficient evidence to be those favored thereby of the burden of proving the fact of the suit.
originally placed it. entitled to a ruling in his favor.
How determined FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE DISCUSSION, KINDLY READ
Generally determined by the Generally determined by the PAGES 540-543 OF EVIDENCE EXPLAINED.
pleadings filed by the party; developments at the trial, or
and whoever asserts the by the provisions of the PRESUMPTIONS
affirmative of the issue has the substantive law or procedural A Presumption is an inference as to the existence or non-existence
burden of proof. rules which may relieve the of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other
party from presenting facts. A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule
evidence on the fact alleged. of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or
Effect of presumption group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.
It does not shift the burden of It creates a prima facie case
proof. However, the one who and thereby sustains the said “courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.”
has the burden of proof is burden of evidence on the Mere allegation of presumption is not enough for a presumption to
relieved, for the time being, point which it covers, shifting apply. Mere allegation that presumption exists favorable to the party
from introducing evidence in it to the other party. It relieves invoking it is not enough to set the presumption into applicability.
support of his averment those favored thereby of the Dili automatic na mag-apply ang isa ka-presumption. Presumption
because the presumption burden of proving the fact can only be applied once there are already facts established by a
stands in the place of evidence. presumed. party who seeks to invoke the presumption.
Recall, in res ipsa loquitor, EXAMPLE:

Presumption that a Child that is 9 years of age acted without
the presumption is that the
Discernment.
defendant is negligent, the
moment that the plaintiff
has already presented facts
(Note: We need to remember na naa natay Pangilinan Law. It
sufficient to establish the
changed the age of criminal responsibility accordingly.)
applicability of the
When you invoke the exempting circumstance na the child who
presumption, it is now the
committed the crime, atleast under the Revised Penal Code, is
defendant who should
exempt from criminal liability because he is below 9 years of age,
present evidence, So in the
automatic ba na nga the court will presume that a child is below
mean time, ayaw sa’g
9 years of age and correlatively presume that he is exempt from
present og evidence
criminal liability because of the conclusive presumption nga he
plaintiff because the
acted without discernment? Automatic ba na or do you still have
defendant is presumed
to prove that your client is a child nga below 9 jud siya? The
negligent.
presumption does not work just because you invoke it. You have
Distinctions between burden of proof and burden of evidence to present proof of facts that would pave the way for the
is a favorite bar question. applicability of the presumption. Dili na siya automatic.
September 30 Part 3 | Bahalla You will learn that in practice, the hard way.
FIRST
EXAM 160
Presumption are applied only in reference to facts that have to to But remember, you still have to prove something. If you want to
be established. invoke that presumption, in trying to establish your case in court,
kinahanglan pa ka magpresent ug evidence. Katong latest na
“A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law installment payment in order for the law step in and apply the
which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group presumption that the prior installments had already been paid.
of facts found or otherwise established in the action.”
I-establish sa nimo katong facts nato that would lead to the
application of the presumption before a presumption is actually Presumption is not applicable just because it is invoked. Later on in
applied. practice you will see how this works. You have to prove certain facts
first before ka mag-apply ug presumption.
Is Presumption evidence?
No. You cannot treat presumption as evidence. A presumption is TYPES OF PRESUMPTIONS UNDER THE RULES
not evidence but it affects the burden of offering evidence. It is not
evidence in itself but it is an assumption resulting from the evidence. 1. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS or PRESUMPTIONS JURIS ET
DE JURE – These are presumptions that are not permitted to
It’s merely something that you’re allowed to presume because be overcome by any proof to the contrary. A presumption is
certain facts have already been established. So, muundang naka conclusive when the presumption becomes irrebuttable upon
after nimo establish anang fact na na. the presentation of the evidence tending to rebut the
presumption is not admissible. The presumption, in reality, a
Balik ta sa res ipsa liquitor. rule of substantive law.
Republic vs. Stevedoring Again, under the RPC, children below 9 years of age
presumed of incapable of discernment. The moment that
Tugboat versus the pier- the bridge. you’re able to present age of the child na criminal na below 9
Kinsang sala? Syempre tugboat. Kinsa man diay ang mubangga years of age at the time of commission of the offense, the law
diba ang tugboat man. Impossible man na ang stationary object will now step in and presume na wala gyud nay discernment na
ang mubangga. nahitabo sa pagbuhat sa krimen anang bata. Mao na siya ang
Conclusive presumption.
But you have to prove first nga nay ingana nga nahitabo. Nga
gibanggaan sa tugboat ang stationary object. And you stop So, if you want to prove nga nag-act with discernment, what’s
there. The law allows you to stop there because the law will ow the effect there? That evidence will not be admitted. Why?
step in and presume that whoever had control of the Because it is contrary to the conclusive presumption which is
instrumentality that caused damage is presumed negligent. It’s not allowed to be overcome by any proof to the contrary. Di
the law now that steps in. Undang nakag present. gyud pwede nimo balihon.
Unya naka magpresent ug evidence of negligence if the 2. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS or PRESUMPTION JURIS
defendant is able to prove pud nga wala siyay negligence in the TANTUM – which the law permits to be overcome or
first place. contradicted. A presumption is disputable or rebuttable if it
may be contradicted or overcome by other evidence. (Rule 131,
Sec 2b) When evidence that rebuts the presumption is
Another Example: introduced, the force of the presumption disappears.
X is the debtor of Z, creditor for P1 million payable in twelve equal
monthly installments. If evidence is introduced that the Meaning, going back to the example, gina-presume karun
installment payment for December has been received by the sa court that you have paid the prior installments when you
creditor, a presumption arises that previous installments have produced a receipt of a later installment but the creditor was
been paid. This is because under the law, the receipt of a later able to present evidence nga wala nabayran ang katong mga
installment of a debt without reservation as to prior installments, previous nga installments. So, gina-rebut karun sa creditor ang
shall give rise to the presumption that such installments have presumption. Pwede ba ka mag-object? “Dili pwede. Dili na na
been paid. (Art. 1176, NCC) siya admissible, you Honor.” Wrong ka because it’s a mere
disputable presumption. Pwede isya i-overcome by
So, kung kintahay naa kay resibo about the installment in countervailing proof.
December, katong sa October ug November can already be
presumed to have been paid already. Katong mga prior While evidence of receipt of payment of a later installment
installments. gives rise to the presumption that previous installments have
been paid, yet when evidence is shown that prior installments
FIRST
EXAM 161
remain unpaid, the presumption fails. Now, burden of evidence (a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or
would shift. omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a
particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following are omission, be permitted to falsify it.
instances of conclusive presumptions:
Naa kay gihatag nga assurance, naa kay gihatag na representation
(a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or to another person, and that person acts on your representation.
omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a Ningsalig siya sa imoha kay nagpasalig pud ka that a particular thing
particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she is true. And because of that, that person suffered damages. You are
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or not permitted to falsify or you are not permitted to deny you made
omission, be permitted to falsify it; and such a representation.
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her Related to this first kind of conclusive presumption is Article 1431
landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of governing estoppel in general. Thus:
landlord and tenant between them. (2a)
This is virtually unchanged if you look at the new rules. Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be
Conclusive Presumption denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
A Conclusive Presumption is an inference which the law makes so
peremptory that it will not allow contrary proof however so strong. So that is basically what you need to learn there for this provision.
It is an artificially compelling force which requires the Trier of Facts You’re estopped already. You cannot deny it. You cannot disprove it
to find such facts as conclusively presumed and which renders because you, by your representation, made another person act or
evidence to the contrary inadmissible. It is sometimes referred to as rely upon it.
an irrebuttable presumption.
DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
The conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court are based on Estoppel may arise from the making of a promise, even though
the doctrine of estoppel. without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be
relied upon and in fact it was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce
Phil. Price Assurance Corp. vs. CA, 230 SCRA 164 it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would
result in other injustice. In this respect, the reliance by the promisee
Doctine of Estoppel is generally evidenced by action or forbearance on his part, and the
Under this doctrine, the person making the representation idea has been expressed that such action or forbearance would
cannot claim the benefit from the wrong he himself committed. reasonably have been expected by the promissor.
Example: Mendoza vs CA
Person who assume to be a corporation without legal authority to G.R. No. 116710, 2001
act as such shall be considered a corporation by estoppel and shall
be liable as general partners. (Sec. 20, New Corporation Code of the The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an exception to the
Philippines). [Remember nga nay recent na amendments sa atoang general rule that a promise of future conduct does not constitute
Corporation Code. Kini before, this was Section 21 of the Old an estoppel. In some jurisdictions, in order to make out a claim
Corporation Code. Karun, its already Section 20]. of promissory estoppel, a party bears the burden of establishing
the following elements:
The ostensible corporation shall not be allowed to use its lack of (1) a promise reasonably expected to induce action or
corporate personality as a defense. They are estopped from doing forebearance;
so. Dili pwede that they say nga “Ay. Dili mi pwede liable kay di man (2) such promise did in fact induce such action or
gud mi corporation gud.” You cannot use that lack of corporate forebearance, and
personality as a defense. That’s by way of estoppel. (3) the party suffered detriment as a result.
FOR CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS NOT BASED ON

ESTOPPEL, KINDLY READ PAGES 551 TO 554 OF EVIDENCE September 30 Part 4 | Du
EXPLAINED
In later cases that tries to construe this first paragraph of this
FIRST CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION provision Section 2, wala na giingon sa Supreme Court ning “in other
FIRST
EXAM 162
jurisdictions”. In all subsequent cases that cites Mendoza vs. CA Conclusive presumptions have been defined as “inferences which
gidiretso nalang na sa SC that these are the elements. the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be
overturned by any contrary proof however strong.” As long as the
SECOND CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION lessor-lessee relationship between the petitioners and Belgravia
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the exists as in this case, the former, as lessees, cannot by any proof,
time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant however strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that
between them. Belgravia has valid title to or better right of possession to the
subject leased premises than they have.
Why? Because again of estoppel, and common sense.
Although conclusive ang presumption, there are exceptions to the
Muadto ka sa isa ka property owner for example and rentahan nimo applicability of such conclusive presumption.
ang yuta. Muadto ba ka ana niya para muoffer ig renta sa iyahang
yuta kung kintahany dili siya ang tag-iya sa imuhang pagtuo? If you EXCEPTIONS:
did not believe him to be the owner of the property, will you even 1. The conclusive presumption set forth in Rule 131, Section 2(b)
approach him for a contract of lease or a contract of tenancy? does not apply in a case where the landlord-tenant
relationship has not been sufficiently established or where
That is why the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his the very existence of the relationship is the very issue of the
landlord. case (Consumido vs. Ros, et al., G.R. No. 166875, July 31, 2007).
When? At the time of commencement of the relation of landlord Meaning, you are the supposed or putative tenant, and he is
and tenant between them. the putative landlord and yet his title is in question. It applies
for example in a tenancy relationship in agrarian reform or in
Related to the second kind of conclusive presumption is Article 1436 agricultural lands.
on commodatum and lease:
Where, ang mga kalaban sa kaso nimo always gyud gina-cite
Article 1436. A lessee or bailee is estopped from asserting title to ning Rule 131 Section 2(b) that you are not allowed to deny the
title of your landlord. But no, precisely gina-deny gani namo na
the thing leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor.
dili qualified and landlord to hold the title. Besides, dili namo
na siya landlord. Ako mismo in my own right as a farmer has
Kabalo man ta aning lease diba. Kabalo man ta aning contract of
the right to have title over the property in my name. Murag
commodatum, where there is a bailor and a bailee. Ang bailor
ingana ang mga kaso na maencounter.
katong imong gihulman, ang bailee kay ikaw.
So dili magapply ang presumption under Rule 131 Section 2(b).

Remember that a contract of commodatum is essentially
Why? Because its existence is the very issue of the case.
gratuitous.
Why? Because the moment that you ask for compensation, it is no
2. If there was a change in the nature of the title of the landlord
longer a commodatum but it is already a contract of lease of things.
during the subsistence of the lease, the presumption does
Ingana ang effect diba kung naa na compensation?
not apply.
Kung ikaw ang nanghulam, di ka pwede mag-assert ug title sa ana
Meaning, gibaligya diay niya. What if nasubject na siya to
na butang na imong gihulam. Kay kinsa nimo dili pwede i-assert?
expropriation ang iyahang property? There could be change in
Against the lessor or the bailor, katong nagpahulam sa imo.
the nature of the tile of the landlord during the subsistence of
Example: Lending to classmate collection of cassette tapes
the lease.
Going back, if you are a tenant you are not allowed to deny the title
SANTOS vs. NSO
of your landlord because clearly it doesn’t stand to reason, not to
G.R. No. 171129, APRIL 6, 2011
mention the fact that you are estopped from doing so by the fact
that you entered into a tenancy or lease with that person.
The rule on estoppel against tenants is subject to a qualification.
It does not apply if the landlord’s title has expired, or has been
It stands to reason man. Dili ka muduol anang tawhana na na kung
conveyed to another, or has been defeated by a title paramount,
wala ka nagtuo na siya gyud tag-iya anang yuta na gusto nimo
subsequent to the commencement of lessor-lessee relationship.
abangan.
In other words, if there was a change in the nature of the title of
DATALIFT vs. BELGRAVIA
the landlord during the subsistence of the lease, then the
G.R. No. 144268, August 30, 2006
presumption does not apply. Otherwise, if the nature of the
landlord’s title remains as it was during the commencement of
FIRST
EXAM 163
the relation of landlord and tenant, then estoppel lies against the
tenant. Rule 301 – Presumptions in general in civil actions and
Ang NSO diri karon ang nagrenta or nangabang. proceedings
(a) Effect. – In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS provided for by stature or by these rules, a presumption
imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden
These are presumptions which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is
which may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. more probable than its existence.
(b) Inconsistent presumptions. – If presumptions are
As the name implies, disputable presumptions are therefore those inconsistent, the presumption applies that is founded upon
that are susceptible to contradiction or rebuttal. weightier considerations of policy. If considerations of policy
are of equal weight neither presumption applies.
But take note of the effect if the disputable presumption is not
contradicted or rebutted successfully by the person against whom First paragraph: “a presumption imposes on the party against
the disputable presumption applies: whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to
It would be equivalent to proof. rebut or meet the presumption”
Kung dili bitaw nimo macontradict and presumption, pildi ka This is covered under the basics on onus probandi and
because the disputable presumption becomes an undisputed presumptions (see pages 544-545).
presumption.
With regard to the first paragraph, diba pareha lang mana siya when
Take note that the 50 or so disputable presumptions that we talk of onus probandi and presumptions. Mao naman na atong
appear in Section 3 are virtually unchanged under the amended gidiscuss ganiha. The shifting of the burden.
Rules on Evidence.
Take note as well that Section 3 is not the sole repository of Second paragraph: “If presumptions are inconsistent, the
presumptions under the whole of the law. Many can be found presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of
in the Civil Code and other codes and statutes. policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight,
[These were no longer discussed. Just read pages 555 to 587] neither presumption applies.”
NEW PROVISIONS IN RULE 131 Under the second paragraph, take note that there are at least two
presumptions that might be applicable in one case and either one
Section 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. – In all of them, standing alone, affects the fact in issue in the case.
civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law
or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom September 30 Part 5 |Escritor
it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or
meet the presumption. Take note as well, the presumptions are invoked in civil cases and
proceedings; not in criminal cases. Diba? We’re talking here,
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded particular emphasis here on the term “civil cases and
upon weightier considerations of policy shall apply. If considerations proceedings”. Wala ni gina-invoke sa mga criminal cases.
of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption applies.
So, these rules, na naa sa second paragraph, dili ni nato i-apply sa
Again, there is this burden of going forward. We are talking here criminal cases. Only in civil cases.
about the burden of evidence.
Again, two situations covered by the second paragraph:
Comment: 1. There are two presumptions that cannot be applied together in
This new provision replicates portions of Rule 301 of the Uniform one case because they are inconsistent;
Rules of Evidence adopted in the US and for some portions, Rule
301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (see also Wyoming Rules, Naa diay ing-ana na presumptions? That are inconsistent with
Practice & Procedure Rule 301; North Dakota Rules, Rule 301 (which one another? Can you think of inconsistent presumptions that
was deemed obsolete by amendment effective March 1, 2014); 2012 can be applied in one civil case? Let’s think about it.
Arkansas Code, Rule 301 (which is at present, is already worded
differently), to wit: For example, one presumption favors the plaintiff because it
[Note: Whatever state you go to it is still Rule 301, because presumes that the defendant is liable, while the other
individual states while they have their own Rules of Procedure, they presumption is favorable to the defendant, because it tends to
pattern it from the Federal Rules. There are just localized variations.] establish that he is not liable. Naa diay mga ingon-ana na mga
FIRST
EXAM 164
presumptions? Can you think of a situation in a civil case where Because both are disputable presumptions, the party that is able
ang is aka presumption, in favor of the plaintiff; ang isa ka to successfully rebut the presumption invoked by his opponent
presumption, in favor of the defendant? is entitled to prevail in the suit. Mao na na sya. Sa simple na
pagkasulti, depende kung kinsa ang makarebut sa presumption.
There are inconsistent, dueling presumptions here. Let’s look at one. Because if a presumption which is disputable is properly rebutted,
that will not be applicable anymore. But yours, ang imohang
The presumption that can be found in: presumption, which still applies because it is unrebutted, you are
Rule 131, Section 3 (f) That money paid by one to another was entitled to win.
due to the latter;
Otherwise, if the party simply relied on their respective
Meaning, kung mubayad ka, dili ka mubayad by mistake because presumptions, and inexplicably presented no further evidence to
the law presumes that people are usually very careful when it comes rebut the other’s invoked presumption, the principle to remember is
to matters of money. Dili ka magbasta-basta ug pataka ug bayad that the weaker presumption yields to the stronger one. Meaning,
kung dili ka sigurado na hangay gyud ka mubayad. But that excludes katong presumption founded upon weightier considerations of
taxes. Diba? Angay gyud ka mubayad ug tax. There’s no escaping it. policy.
There is no payment of mistake when it comes to taxes because you
absolutely have to pay. So the question is, let’s say between the presumption in section 3(f)
of Rule 131, and [Article] 2163 of the Civil Code, asa diha ang
But in all other cases, ang presumption is dili ka basta basta weightier? In case that none of them was able to rebut the other’s
mubayad kung di ka sigurado na angay gyud na syang pagkabayran. presumption. Walay nakarebut sa ilahang duha sa claims sa other
Mao na sya ang Section 3(f). party. Which one is founded on weightier considerations of policy?
But take note of Article 2163. It would be the one in Article 2163. Why? All quasi-contracts,
Article 2163. It is presumed that there was a mistake in the including solution indebiti, are founded on the consideration that
payment if something which had never been due or had already no one should be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of
been paid was delivered; but he from whom the return is claimed another.
may prove that the delivery was made out of liberality or for any
other just cause. (1901) A presumption under Article 2163 is a statutory presumption,
or one under substantive law; while the presumption under Rule
131, Section 3(f), is a presumption provided by procedural law.
But take note ha? Some of which have never been due or had
So, naay weightier consideration of public policy for [article 2163].
already been paid, was delivered. So karon, naay presumption that
And that is unjust enrichment, or the policy of the law against unjust
payment was by mistake. Unsa gani na? Solution indebiti. Payment
enrichment.
by mistake man nang ingo-ana diba?
Tagaan pa nato’g example pa.

So, the situation is, the plaintiff seeks to recover an amount he paid
to the defendant on the ground that it was a payment of an Rule 131, section 3(j). The things which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him or her.
obligation which was never due. Unsa ning tawag nimo ani? Mura
syag reinvindicatory action but we’re talking here of an amount of
money. Payment not owing. Payment by mistake. He invokes article Kung magpahulam ka sa butang na imoha ra pung gihulam, that’s
2163. already an act of ownership, diba? But sadly under Section 3(j), that
which a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership over, are
For his defense, however, the defendant invokes Rule 131, Section owned by him or her. So, there’s that presumption of ownership by
3(f), saying that wala may payment by mistake. The law presumes the exercise of acts of ownership. That’s section 3(j).
that there is no mistake in payment. And all of these presumptions
are individually but variably invoked by the plaintiff and the But you have RA No. 4136. The so-called, Register Owner Rule
defendant, respectively. So, plaintiff invokes payment by mistake when it comes to motor vehicles. The registered owner of the vehicle
under article 2163, defendant invokes section 3(f), the presumption is presumed to be the employer of the driver who caused damage
that you will not pay anything if it’s not due. for purposes of imputing vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code.
Which one will prevail here? Presumptions are inconsistent.
Both of them are disputable presumptions. So, which of the two When you talk about quasi-delicts as a source of obligation under
presumptions would be entitled to prevail here? What does the Article 1157 of the Civil Code,
codal provision state? Article 1157. Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
FIRST
EXAM 165
(3) Quasi-contracts; kung ang registered owner pa baa ng tag-iya gyud ana or gibaligya
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and na ba niya. What matters under RA 4136 is that, you’re still the
(5) Quasi-delicts. (1089a) registered owner.
Ang main provision anang quasi-delicts would be Article 2176. When does the law need a provision like this, the Registered
Nagdanghag ka, nakabangga ka, naka-injure kag another person, Owner Rule? Para ma-avoid na kintathay you’re a victim for
you’re liable for a quasi-delict under Article 2176. And liability for example of a hit and run, na wala kay recourse. All you have to get
quasi-delict can be direct, meaning ikaw mismo ang liable; or would be plate number of the vehicle, find out who the registered
vicarious or kana bitawng you’re liable for the damages cause by owner is, naa na kay pwede karon file-an ug kaso. You can get
somebody that you have supervision of, like an employee. Like, a recourse. You have the right to go against the registered owner of
student if you are a teacher. Or kana bitawng – maybe the State that motor vehicle.
when it comes to its special agents. We learned that in Torts and
Damages. So, pwede ka to be held to answer for damages caused But in the example that I gave you, diba nabaligya na man ni Aly ang
by somebody over whom you are responsible. That’s Article 2180. iyahang vehicle kang Gamy? Wouldn’t it be unfair to still apply the
Dili ikaw ang nakabangga, pero nakabangga ang tawo na dapat gi- Registered Owner Rule under Article 4136?
supervise nimo ug tarong. Pwede ka mahimong liable. And the
liability there is direct and primary. Murag ikaw mismo ang The Registered Owner Rule established another form of vicarious
ningbangga or nakasala sa lain na tao. liability in addition to those enumerated under Article 2180. The
source of a registered owner’s liability is not a distinct statutory
That’s 2180. But, Article 4136, we talk about the Registered Owner provision, but remains to be Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Rule. So, the situation is like this. Naay sakyanan. Let’s say MedRep Code. Take note, under Article 2180, employers are likewise liable
ka. Naa kay sakyanan. Ang sakyanan, nakarehistro sa imong for damages caused by their employees and household helpers
pangalan. Pero gibaligya nimo karon kay eligible na man ka mukuha acting within the scope of their assigned task, even though the
ug laing vehicle from your pharmaceutical company. Karon, naa ra former are not engaged in any business or industry.
gihapon sa iyahang pangalan ang sakyanan, gigamit sa nakapalit,
katong nakapalit, nakabangga ug lain nga tao. Causing injury to that If you are the employer, your employee causes damage, you are
person. Who’s the registered owner? Kato na bang nakapalit? No, liable under Article 2180, unless you are able to prove that you
katong nagbaligya pa. Kay wala pa man nabalhin sa pangalan sa exercised the due diligence in selection and supervision of your
nakapalit ang registration sa vehicle. employee.
Now, situation. I-expand lang nato gamay. Take note that the registered owner of a motor vehicle is not
Hwarang was bumped by a car driven by Sandra who’s an necessarily the employer of the driver, diba? Especially in our
employee of Gamy. Sandra fled the scene of accident, but example. Di man kinahanglan na sya gyud and employer sa driver.
Hwarang was able to take a photo of the plate number of the car. More often than not, basig dili.
Sometime later, Hwarang went to the LTO and found out that the
car was registered under the name of Aly. Hwarang sued Aly for Because jurisprudence of the Registered Owner Rule sites the fifth
damages under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil paragraph of Article 2180 as the basis for liability, is there a limited
Code. employer-employee relationship created and supplied by law?
Kintahay nagpahulam lang ug sakyanan. Definitely diba, dili na nimo
In her answer, Aly denied that she is the employer of Sandra, and empleyado imong gipahulaman ug sakyanan, pero ikaw man ang
averred that two months prior to the accident, she already sold registered owner. So the question is, naa bay ER-EE relationship that
and delivered the car to Gamy. Thus, Aly posits that she could not is created by law here? With that you have the case of
be held liable for damages. “Di na man ako ang tag-iya.
Nabaligya ko naman na. di man pud nako na empleyada na si MMTC v. Cuevas
Sandra. Unfair kung ako pay pabayron ani. Gibaligya ko na nang June 15, 2015
sakyanan. Wa gyud ko kaila anang Sandra nga na. “
MMTC and Mina’s Transit Corp., entered into an agreement to
Under the Registered Owner Rule, however, the registration of sell, whereby the latter bought several bus units from the former
motor vehicles was necessary not to make said registration the on the stipulated price. They agreed that MMTC would retain the
ownership of the buses, until certain conditions were met. But in
operative act by which ownership of vehicles is transferred, but to
the meantime, Mina’s Transit could operate the buses within
permit the use and operation of the vehicle upon any public
highway. It’s main aim is to identify the owner so that if any accident Metro Manila.
happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on
Kinsa ang registered owner? It’s MMTC. Kinsa ang actual na
the public highways, responsibility therefore can be fixed on a
definite individual – the registered owner. So it doesn’t really matter owner? Mina’s Transit. Wala pa nabalhin ang registration sa
FIRST
EXAM 166
motor vehicle. But here, one of the buses hit and damaged a means of a cross-claim seeking reimbursement of all the amounts
Honda motorcycle owned by Reynaldo and driven by Junnel. that it could be required to pay as damages arising from the
Reynaldo and Junnel sued MMTC and Mina’s Transit for damages driver’s negligence. A cross-claim is a claim by one party against
in the RTC. a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim
September 30 Part 6 | Estrosas therein, and may include a claim that the party against whom it
is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part
CONTENTION OF MMTC of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.
Although MMTC retained the ownership of the bus, the actual
operator and employer of the bus driver was Mina’s Transit; and NOTES
that, in support of its cross-claim against Mina’s Transit, a For the purpose of holding the registered owner of the motor
provision in the agreement to sell mandated Mina’s Transport to vehicle primarily and directly liable for damages under Article 2176,
hold it free from liability arising from the use and operation of in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code, the existence of an
the bus units. employer-employee relationship, as it is understood in labor law, is
not required.
So far, makuha man nato ang situation, diba that is applicable
under the registered owner rule. Naa’y presumption na ikaw ang The law steps in and presumes that you are the employer of
employer sa kung kinsa man ang nagdrive sa motor vehicle na that driver or you are the owner of the vehicle, the
nakabangga, right? instrumentality that caused the damage.
HELD
APPLICATION OF THE REGISTERED-OWNER RULE
In view of MMTC’s admission in its pleadings that it had remained Possible situations:
the registered owner of the bus at the time of the incident, it 1. The registered owner is a stranger or is not the employer
could not escape liability for the personal injuries and property of the driver who caused damage.
damage suffered by the Cuevases. This is because of the 2. The registered owner is the employer of the driver who
registered-owner rule, whereby the registered owner of the caused damage. In this situation, the fifth paragraph of
motor vehicle involved in a vehicular accident could be held liable Article 2180 applies as well. This means that the defenses
for the consequences. therein are applicable to the registered owner.
The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the The registered owner is not the employer of the driver
owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or The registered owner of the motor vehicle is considered as
injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, the employer of the tortfeasor-driver.
responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the We follow the doctrine in MMTC.
registered owner.
The registered owner is the employer of the driver
It is well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the Take note that, if the owner is also the employer of the
registered owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the driver, he is supposed to be allowed to claim the defenses
employer of the tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable under Article 2180.
for the tort committed by the latter under Article 2176, in relation o Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
with Article 2180, of the Civil Code. by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
Thus, it is clear that for the purpose of holding the registered even though the former are not engaged in any
owner of the motor vehicle primarily and directly liable for business or industry.
damages under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the However, take note that:
Civil Code, the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
as it is understood in labor relations law, is not required. It is FILCAR vs. ESPINAS
sufficient to establish that the defendant is the registered owner G.R. No. 174156, June 20, 2012
of the motor vehicle causing damage in order that it may be held
vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Neither can Filcar use the defenses available under Article 2180
of the Civil Code – that the employee acts beyond the scope of
REMEDY OF MMTC his assigned task or that it exercised the due diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage – because the motor vehicle
MMTC could recover from Mina’s Transit, the actual employer of registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article 2180 of the
the negligent driver, under the principle of unjust enrichment, by Civil Code by making these defenses unavailable to the
FIRST
EXAM 167
registered owner of the motor vehicle. Thus, for as long as Filcar a hapless pedestrian or motorist with hardly any means to
is the registered owner of the car involved in the vehicular uncover
accident, it could not escape primary liability for the damages (1) the employment relationship of the owner and the
caused to Espinas. driver, or
(2) any act that the owner may have done in relation to
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTICLE 2180 AND that employment.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4136
The registration of the vehicle, on the other hand, is accessible to
Article 2180 requires proof of two things (in order to have vicarious the public.
liability):
1. An employment relationship between the driver and the What about the defendant (registered owner)?
owner; and Dili man nako na siya employee, ngano ako man inyong pabayron?
2. That the driver acted within the scope of his or her
assigned tasks. He can still make use of the defenses available under
Article 2180 for the purpose of refuting the presumptions.
On the other hand, the registered-owner rule only requires the In other words, if the twin disputable presumptions under
plaintiff to prove that the defendant-employer is the registered Caravan apply, he can present proof that he is not the
owner of the vehicle. employer of the driver who caused damage or, if he is, that
he exercised due diligence in selection and supervision. If
CARAVAN TRAVEL vs. ABEJAR he is successful, no liability attaches whether as owner or
G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016 employer.
Thus, it is imperative to apply the registered-owner rule in a LET’S GO BACK TO THIS…

manner that harmonizes it with Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Code. Rules must be construed in a manner that will harmonize RULE 131 REPUBLIC ACT NO.
them with other rules so as to form a uniform and consistent Section 3(j) 4136
system of jurisprudence. XXX That things which a person The registered owner of the
possesses, or exercises acts of vehicle is presumed to be the
Therefore, the appropriate approach is that in cases where both ownership over, are owned by employer of the driver who
the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff him or her. caused damage for purposes
must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of of imputing vicarious liability
the vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves under Article 2180 of the Civil
ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the Code.
requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. As a
consequence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to Comments: In Rule 131, Section 3(j), ikaw nagdrive sa vehicle, so
show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen. ikaw presumably ang tag-iya. But in RA 4136, there is no such
presumption nga siya mao ang tag-iya because we go to the
Comments: There is already a mention directly in the jurisprudence registered-owner rule. It does not really matter. Whoever is the
of the disputable presumption (that there is employer-employee registered owner, he will be presumed to be the employer of the
relationship, and the employee was acting within his assigned tasks); driver.
that’s it if both the registered owner rule and Article 2180 apply.
APPLICATION
What in the blue hell does that mean? Aly, the former owner of the vehicle, can invoke the presumption
Simple. If you are the plaintiff, you don’t need to prove employer- under Rule 131, Section 3(j) that things which a person possesses, or
employee relationship in order to establish a prima facie case exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him or her. This
against the defendant-employer-owner. All you have to do is to means that, because Gamy is the one who possessed and exercised
secure proof of ownership of the motor vehicle. acts of ownership over the car, and in that particular accident,
through her driver Sandra, she cannot be held liable for damages
CARAVAN TRAVEL vs. ABEJAR vicariously under Article 2180. Verily, Sandra is not her employee.
G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016 She is Gamy’s employee and it should be Gamy who can be held
liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
This disputable presumption recognizes that between the owner
and the victim, it is the former that should carry the costs of Hwarang, on the other hand, can invoke the Registered Owner Rule
moving forward with the evidence. The victim is, in many cases, to hold Aly, the registered owner of the car driven by Sandra
vicariously liable under Article 2180. She can contend that, by
FIRST
EXAM 168
proving that Aly is the registered owner of the vehicle, a We discussed that in the chain of custody
presumption arises that Sandra is Aly’s employee for the purpose of requirements. The police officers, for
imputing vicarious liability. example, as a general rule cannot invoke
the presumption of regularity because the
Which of the two presumptions would prevail? other presumption will be the constitutional
It depends on who can successfully rebut the disputable presumption of innocence.
presumption invoked by his opponent.
2. Procedural presumption vs statutory presumption,
Again, because both are disputable presumptions, the party that is STATUTORY PRESUMPTION PREVAILS – e.g. Rules of
able to successfully rebut the presumption invoked by his opponent Court vs RA 4136, the latter prevails.
is entitled to prevail in the suit. Thus, if Aly fails to rebut the
presumption or file a claim against Gamy (a cross-claim if Gamy is
already impleaded or a third party claim if Gamy is still a stranger to TWO SITUATIONS COVERED BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH
the action), Aly will be vicariously liable for the tort committed by
Sandra. SECOND, if considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither
presumption applies.
Otherwise, the stronger presumption prevails over the weaker one.
The Rule therefore seems to have a cancelling effect as it declares
Which of the two presumptions is “founded upon weightier that none of the conflicting presumptions will apply.
considerations of policy”? – The registered owner rule.
FOREIGN CASES: Look for the presumptions
The presumption under the registered owner rule prevails. This In Re Estate of Langeland 177 Wn App 315 October 26, 2013
presumption is founded on the policy aimed at identifying the BH vs KD 506 N.W.2d 368 (1993)
owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury
is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility can
easily be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. NEW PROVISION
It’s an entirely new provision which we do not have any Section 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases.
jurisprudence to draw from in order to provide an explanation. – If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the
Thankfully, it is easy to understand. It is not stretched to offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic
provide an explanation to the new addition to this Rule 131. fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed
fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. (n)
By default, if naa tung duha ka conflicting nga mga
presumptions, depende na. What would prevail would be COMMENT
the presumption invoked by the one whose opponent was This new provision, which has separate counterparts in rules of
not able to successfully rebut the presumption. Whoever procedure adopted in several states in the United States, is one of
rebuts the presumption, lamang ka because your cause and effect. If the presumed fact is either an element of the
presumption will prevail as opposed to the presumption offense charged or a fact which negates a defense and is proved
invoked by your opponent. beyond reasonable doubt, it has the effect of establishing the
presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt as well.
In case both parties failed to rebut the presumptions and
therefore both of them are applicable, that’s the time that you EXAMPLE
will look at weightier considerations of policy. Under Article 353 of Revised Penal Code, a libel is public and
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance
REMEMBER the basic proposition: A weaker presumption yields tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
to the stronger one. juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Article 354 of the same Code provides that every defamatory
Examples: imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
1. Between a statutory presumption and a constitutional intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
presumption, CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION
PREVAILS. Applying the new Section 6 to libel, it seems that all that the
o Presumption of innocence vs. Presumption of prosecution needs to do is to prove that the imputation of a vice or
regularity in the performance of official acts - defect was uttered or published beyond a reasonable doubt. That
constitutional presumption of innocence PREVAILS. there was a defamatory imputation is the basic fact which must be
FIRST
EXAM 169
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By way of effect, it would follow Rule 23, Section 4. Use of depositions.—At the trial or upon
that, malice, as an element of libel, is already proved beyond the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part
reasonable doubt as well. or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of
evidence, may be used against any party who was present or
October 1 Part 1 | Fernandez represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due
notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following
provisions:
RULE 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the
purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony
of the deponent as a witness;
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES (b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time
Section 1. Examination to be Done in Open Court — The of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be managing agent of a public or private corporation,
done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the partnership, or association which is a party may be used
witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a by an adverse party for any purpose;
different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be
given orally. (1) (c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may
be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds:
DISCUSSION
It requires examination of a witness whether for the plaintiff or the
(1) that the witness is dead; or
defendant; prosecution or the accused to be in open court under
(2) that the witness resides at a distance more than
oath or affirmation.
one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of
trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless
RATIONALE
it appears that his or her absence was procured by
The rationale for (with respect to criminal case) this is respect for the
the party offering the deposition; or
accused’s constitutional right of confrontation, or to meet the
(3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify
witnesses against him face-to-face. To safeguard this right, Section
because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
1 of Rule 132, of the Rules of Court thus provides that the
imprisonment; or
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing must be
(4) that the party offering the deposition has been
done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. (People v.
unable to procure the attendance of the witness
Manhuyod, JR., GR No. 124676, May 20, 1998).
by subpoena; or
(5) upon application and notice, that such exceptional
TAKE NOTE:
circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the
As a further reason why it should be in open court, is for the Court
interest of justice and with due regard to the
to be allowed to observe the demeanor of the witness so that it may
importance of presenting the testimony of
accord credibility or evidentiary weight upon the witness’ testimony.
witnesses orally in open court, to allow the
The demeanor of the witness may be taken into consideration by
deposition to be used; and
the court, when it decides to give whatever credence or credibility
to the testimony of the witness.
Under the concept adopted by the new Rules, the deposition serves
EXAMPLE:
the double function of a method of discovery- with use on trial not
a. The testimony of the witness is contrived;
necessarily contemplated- and a method of presenting testimony.
b. Or that he is not sincere;
The taking of depositions has been allowed as a departure from
c. Or the testimony of the witness was made when he was
open court testimony. (Santamaria v. Cleary. GR No. 197122, June
too emotional (sometimes emotion can be a whole mark
15, 2016)
of honesty. It could be an indication that the witness was
telling the truth.)
GENERAL RULE: (as based on the Santamaria Case)
Absent any compelling or valid reason, the witness (deponent) must
personally testify in open court and later on cross-examined by the
IN THE MATTER OF DEPOSITIONS adverse party.
(Remember that a deposition is a Mode of Discovery)
Otherwise, similar to an affidavit, its status is that of a hearsay. That
if you do not take the witness stand and testify once again as to the
FIRST
EXAM 170
content of your affidavit or deposition, that can be considered In other words, the court would still have to determine if the
hearsay because there is no opportunity for cross-examination. deposition is believable and should it be given probative value.
The court should always see to it that the safeguards for the Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded.- The entire
protection of the parties and deponents are firmly maintained. proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions
propounded to a witness and his or her answers thereto, and the
EXCEPTIONS (compelling or valid reasons): statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or
witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means
DISCUSSION of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found
We are referring here to: suitable by the court.
1. When the witness is already dead and cannot testify
anymore. But the above provision, allows the use of A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official
depositions; provided, there is opportunity for the stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by
opponent against the party who calls for a deposition him or her, shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of
taking, the opportunity to object or to raise its objection such proceedings. (2a)
with respect to the testimony of that party in deposition.
2. When the witness resides a distance of more than more So-called TSN Provision of Rule 132
than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of 1st PARAGRAPH
trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it It is required that everything that was said during trial or hearing be
appears that his or her absence was procured by the party recorded. So that later on, we may use it for and make basis upon it;
offering the deposition and try to convince the court when one files a:
3. When the witness is unable to attend or testify because a. Demurrer to evidence (when in effect, you are asking the
of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; court to dismiss the case because the plaintiff has not
4. That the party offering the deposition has been unable established a prima facie case);
to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena b. Upon reaching the Memorandum Stage in a civil case
where the court will allow the parties to submit their
Again, deponent is deceased or unavailable- his testimony can then memoranda in support of their respective cases.
be used even if the witness does not testify in open court anymore.
DISCUSSION
Rule 23, Section 6. Objections to admissibility. — Subject to Before, this Transcript of Stenographic Notes, have been abused (sir
the provisions of Section 29 of this Rule, objection may be made is likewise guilty of it).
at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or
part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of To illustrate:
the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying. The direct examination of a witness is already finish, then the lawyer
of the other party would postpone the cross examination, so he can
TAKE NOTE: ADMISSIBILITY DOES NOT MEAN NON- see the testimony of that witness contained in the TSN so that he
OBJECTIONABILITY can craft his cross examination specifically targeting the weak points
Even if deposition is admissible, in the absence of an open court of the direct testimony of the witness.
testimony by the deponent:
However, said tactic will only be resorted to “if banga na jud ka na
Section 29. Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. lawyer” (hehe).
Xxx
Q: What is the significance of this?
(c)As to competency and relevancy of evidence. Objections to the
competency of a witness or the competency, relevancy, or TAKE NOTE:
materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them 1. With the advent of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, you will already
before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground know in advance what the witness will testify about.
of the objection is one which might have been obviated or 2. The Judicial Affidavit (JA) is the substitute for the actual direct
removed if presented at that time. testimony of the witness.
ADMISSIBILITY DOES NOT MEAN BELIEVABILITY Hence, why the need to get the TSN if the testimonies of the
As regards weight of evidence, “the admissibility of the deposition witnesses are already in the JAs, then one can already craft his cross
does not preclude the determination of its probative value at the examination and look at the perceived testimony of the witnesses.
appropriate time.” Santamaria v. Cleary, GR No. 197122, June 15,
2016
FIRST
EXAM 171
SHALL BE RECORDED BY MEANS OF SHORTHAND OR witness must answer to the fact of his or her previous final
STENOTYPE OR BY OTHER MEANS OF RECORDING FOUND conviction for an offense. (3a)
SUITABLE BY THE COURT
Despite the amendment, the committee which drafted the rules still OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
did not provide for examples of that other means of recording found One must really answer even if the answer may tend to establish a
suitable by the court; which could have perhaps lessen objections claim against you.
made in the future.
MAY TEND TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM AGAINST YOU
2nd PARAGRAPH If you are the witness, this refers to a CIVIL CLAIM.
THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS/REGULARITY OF THE
TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES RIGHTS OF A WITNESS
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
REMEDY IF TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES ARE questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
ERRONEOUSLY TRANSCRIBED
Example: The answer of the witness is a YES but what the Example: You are presenting a witness in court and you want to
stenographer provided for in the TSN is a NO. Instead of it being object to the other party’s counsel to his treatment to the
recorded as an admission, it now becomes a denial. witness:
Hence, remedies are:

a. If the counsel’s questions are irrelevant- object on the
a. If the transcript of stenographic notes appear to be erroneous,
ground that it is IRRELEVANT;
the remedy is for the interested party to file a motion to
b. If the counsel’s questions are improper, insulting,
correct.
harsh, or insulting demeanor- object on the ground of
BADGERING A WITNESS
But the party filing the motion must be transparent and serve
copy of the motion to the adverse party because the party filing
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
may be attempting to change the content of the
examination, so that the answer of the witness would favor said
If the direct testimony, cross examination, re-direct and re-
party. Hence, it gives the adverse party the opportunity to meet
cross, ordinarily the witness cannot be detained any longer. He
whatever matter the stenographer would change.
cannot be brought back if he has already been discharged by
the court, however subject to the Recalling of a Witness
b. A Transcript of Stenographic Notes, being an official entry in
Provision.
the court’s records, is admissible in evidence and there is no
necessity to produce the concerned stenographer as a
Sir shares that he handled a case, and a witness has been on
witness (Fullero v. People, GR No. 170583, September 12, 2007)
the witness stand under the same oath for 5 years. The
testimony of that witness was dragged for so long; suffered a
Because otherwise, it becomes hearsay. It falls therefore, as
lot of postponements and delay.
entry in the official records (the TSN) which is the applicable
This is the fault of the court for allowing the same to be
exception to the Hearsay Rule for Section 2.
postponed for reasons such as weddings to be officiated by the
judge, the lawyer asks for postponement and among others.
Section 3. Rights and Obligations of a Witness — A witness
must answer questions, although his or her answer may tend to
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the
establish a claim against him or her. However, it is the right of a
issue;
witness:
This refers to relevancy of the questions posed to the witness.

(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him or her to
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law;
require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to
the issue;
October 1 Part 2 | Jamero
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him or her
to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law;
Comment:
(right against self-incrimination) or
The witness must answer questions even if it tends to establish a
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her
claim against him or her except in Criminal claims. If it’s a mere
reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact
civil claim, dili pwede mu refuse to answer questions. But if it is a
from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
FIRST
EXAM 172
criminal claim, you have every right not to answer the question o Comment: In autoptic proference, if it’s purely
because you will be subjected to incrimination. mechanical or physical act, it is not an
incrimination. Right against self-incrimination is
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, against the process of extracting from the lips of
unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the the witness the very evidence used to incriminate
fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to him.
the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. This right may be involved in all kinds of proceedings
where testimony is to be taken, including investigation by
Right against self-degradation legislative bodies.
Comment: Right against Self-Degradation

You are not supposed to degrade the reputation of the witness by The right not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
your questioning. In answering a particular question that degrades reputation.
your reputation, you have the right not to answer that question.
SUMMARY
In a Senate hearing, Trillanes asked Paolo “Pulong” Duterte to show GENERAL RULE: A witness cannot refuse to answer questions. The
a tattoo on his back, which the senator claimed to be a colored witness has the obligation to answer questions, although his answer
dragon, the mark of the triad, a syndicate involved in a number of may tend to establish a claim against him (Sec. 3).
criminal activities. Pulong objected invoking his right against self-
incrimination. The fact of having a dragon tattoo dili mana maka- EXCEPTIONS:
incriminate, its circumstantial at best. Atty Carpio advised him, Right against self-incrimination
“ayaw’g self-incrimination, iinvoke na lang ang right to privacy.” JZE: Right against self-degradation.
The fact that he will be asked to disrobe and show his naked back
on national tv, that actually degrades him. EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCEPTIONS:
A witness may not invoke the right against self-incrimination or the
Right against Self-Incrimination right against self-degradation if:
“unless otherwise provided by law” 1. Such question is directed to the very fact at issue or to a
This refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness is granted fact from which the fact at issue would be presumed; or
immunity from criminal prosecution for offences. Examples: 2. If it refers to his previous final conviction for an offense
Under Section 8 RA1379, the law providing for the (Regalado, Vol. II, pp. 841-842, 2008 ed.)
forfeiture of unlawful acquired property; and
Under PD749, in prosecutions for bribery and graft.
Accused vs. Ordinary Witness
Comment: [in terms of the right against self-incrimination]
Like buhaton ka’g state witness. Even if you have the right against
self-incrimination, you still have to answer questions if you are given The accused cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in
immunity from prosecution. the criminal case in which he is the accused or one of the accused.
He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other
DISCHARGE AS STATE WITNESS process or order of the court. He cannot be so required either for
(1) USE IMMUNITY – Prohibits the use of the witness’ compelled the prosecution, for co-accused or even for himself.
testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the
criminal prosecution of witness. An ordinary witness, on the other hand, may be compelled to
The witness will still be indicted for the commission of an testify by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a
offense, but the statements given by the witness cannot particular incriminating question at the time it is put to him.
be used against him. He is not immune from prosecution; However, take note that:
(2) TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY – Grants immunity to the witness ROSETE vs. LIM
from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony G.R. No. 136051 | June 8, 2006
relates. [blanket immunity] Any witness may refuse to take the witness stand in civil and
There is absolute immunity, both to prosecution and use administrative cases that partake the nature of or analogous to a
of the statements given by the witness. criminal proceeding. As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the
party thereto can decline to take the witness stand. It is not the
Note: character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings that
The right against self-incrimination pertains only to natural controls.
persons and with respect to testimonial compulsion only.
FIRST
EXAM 173
Example: Examination-in-chief: you are going to present your witnesses, your

Impeachment proceedings-limited grounds. If found guilty in an testimonial evidence and have your objects sponsored by a witness.
impeachment proceeding, it will cause for the removal from office How? By the medium of direct examination.
and may lead to criminal prosecution. If the President is removed by
impeachment, his or her immunity from prosecution is removed as Notes:
well. Impeachment proceeding is akin or analogous to a criminal Under the rules, as promulgated, direct examination is supposed to
proceeding. be done in open court to guarantee the right to meet witnesses face
to face and for the court to observe demeanor evidence.
ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS
SECTION 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. In civil cases, Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, requires that
— The order in which an individual witness may be examined is as in determining the preponderance of superior weight of evidence
follows: on the issues involved, the court may, among other things, consider
a. Direct examination by the proponent; the “witnesses’ manner of testifying” which can only be done if
b. Cross-examination by the opponent; the witness says give their testimony orally and in open court.
c. Re-direct examination by the proponent;
d. Re-cross-examination by the opponent. However, this rule has now been modified by the judicial
affidavit rule.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Examination-in-chief of a witness by a party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue. (Sec. 5)
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, September 4, 2012
Requires that direct examination, which is the examination-in- chief

of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the
CROSS- EXAMINATION issue, shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject the usual
Examination by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct mode of cross examination.
examination or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom
to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest, or bias or
the reverse and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (Sec. Comment:
6) Instead of the counsel asking questions to be answered by the
witness at the first instance and the latter answering the questions
orally in open court, the direct examination will now be in the form
of judicial affidavit in question and answer format.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
Language Requirement
Re-examination by the party calling him to explain or supplement his
answers given during the crossexamination. Questions on matters not A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the
dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the court in witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a
its discretion. (Sec. 7) translation in English or Filipino. (Sec. 3)
2 POINTS TO REMEMBER
1. Prepared in the language known to the witness.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION For example, unlike judicial affidavit, in an ordinary affidavit (i.e.
Re-examination by the adverse on matters stated in his re-direct affidavit of loss) the language that is being used is not the
examination and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the language of the witness but the language of the counsel.
court in its discetion. (Sec. 8) Therefore, it can be said that it is the counsel himself that is
testifying.
SECTION 5. Direct Examination. – Direct examination is the 2. If not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him or her in English or Filipino.
on the facts relevant to the issue.
Filipino is also an official language of the Philippine Bar
Comment: (language allowed in the courts of justice), not just English.
FIRST
EXAM 174
JZE: I have this case, na tanan akong witnesses kay Ilonggo, so authenticate sa iyahang attached documentary and object
kinahanglan nako ug tao na makasabot Ilonggo para evidence. No documentary and object evidence, there is
matranslate tarong ang testimony in English or in Filipino nothing to identify and authenticate.
Contents of Judicial Affidavit (e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and
occupation of the witness; (f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who
Ordinarily, before the JAR took effect, the witness will still administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law
be asked by the court interpreter or the bailiff his/her to administer the same.
name, age, and other personal circumstances for the
record. “Jurat” tells us that the witness went personally to the notary
public. Nagpakita siya sa iyahang competent proof of identity.
October 1 Part 3 | Macacua That is a notarial jurat.
Before the Judicial Affidavit Rule took effect, when you What are the characteristics of a Judicial Affidavit?
testify, you will be asked by the court interpreter or the
bailiff, your name, age, and other personal circumstances 1. It is a statement of facts presented in question and answer
form.
for the record. Transpose na lang nato na siya, ang counsel
na lang sa nag-prepare sa judicial affidavit, siya na pod ang
The questions are asked by the counsel and answered by the
magbutang kanang name, personal circumstances of the
witness. What is the customary mode of a direct examination?
witness.
How do you ask questions of a witness? It is supposed to be,
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or you ask questions answered by a fact. One question, one fact.
supervises the examination of the witness and the place Question of who, what, when, where, why and how.
where the examination is being held;
Leading questions not allowed
For example, I’m the lawyer and I have a witness. Atty. JZE, Dili pwede yes or no because it becomes a leading question.
address is EYE Law Offices. And the address where the In a leading question, it is the lawyer testifying, not the witness.
examination is being conducted. In all probability, is in the same Merely confirms or denies by answering yes or no.
office. Didto nako paadtuon akong witness para buhatan nako
siya og judicial affidavit. One fact question only
But in a judicial affidavit and in direct examination prior to the
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions judicial affidavit rule, it has to be a question answerable by one
asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, fact question. You are not allowed to lead a witness by
and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony requiring him to answer yes or no only.
or perjury;
2. It is made under oath or affirmation.
In actual practice, you do not ask the witness to take an oath in
front of you. Although it is required under Section 3 that there Although physically, you do not make a witness recite an oath.
should be a statement where the witness acknowledges that he Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Dili
is as if taking an oath in court and testifying accordingly. na kinahanglan, but naa na siya.
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding Judicial purpose only
answers, consecutively numbered, that: It serves a judicial purpose only. It is used as a substitute of a
1) Show the circumstances under which the witness witness’ testimony on direct examination. It may contain and
acquired the facts upon which he testifies; identify witness’ non-testimonial evidence, meaning
2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the documentary and object, which identifies and authenticates
issues that the case presents; and them.
3) Identify the attached documentary and object
evidence and establish their authenticity in 3. It is prepared ex-parte as cross examination takes place,
accordance with the Rules of Court; only after the judicial affidavit has been made.
When we were talking about object evidence, we Although the taking of the testimony is not completely ex-
discussed how to authenticate. How do we establish the parte. Ang ex-parte is only the portion of the direct testimony,
authenticity of object evidence. Apil nimo na diha sa the examination-in-chief of the witness, kay naa pa man mu-
judicial affidavit sa imong witness, ang pag-identify and follow anang direct examination. Naa pa tay cross-
FIRST
EXAM 175
examination, redirect examination, recross examination. Cross RATIONALE He has to testify in Demeanor evidence
examination takes place only after the judicial affidavit has TO ALLOW open court, and the can only be observed
been made. COURT TO court can observe the starting from the cross
EXAMINE witness’ manner of examination of the
DISTINCTIONS DEMEANOR testifying from direct witness
Ordinary Affidavit Judicial Affidavit EVIDENCE to recross
FORM Statement of ordinary Narration of facts Dili nimo makita iyang
facts under oath, but in demeanor when JA is
Q&A form being made
EX-PARTE Always Ex-parte, subject to
later cross ***NOTE: to
examination in court compensate, sec. 7
LANGUAGE Not prepared by Employs affiant’s own provides that the
affiant, but by language, it requires court shall have active
another (lawyer) who that statement participation
uses his own contains affiant’s
language and makes words *Note: Naa bay nakabutang sa Judicial Affidavit na dili ka pwede
statements that may magpadala og copy sa questions nimo sa witness? Padala kag
either be omitted or *Note: Lawyer is not questions sa witness and and tell the witness to write the answers. Is
misunderstood by the supposed to coach there anything in the Judicial Affidavit that disallows you from doing
writer that? That answer is no. It is a good circumvention, that would make
USES Practically anything One use only, to take sure that mashortcut nato and process of making the judicial
under the sun the place of the affidavit.
testimony of the
witness in direct What is the most common affidavit in Civil Procedure?
examination Verification.
ADMISSIBILITY Affidavit is mere The court will not
hearsay when its consider the change, **Note: In summary rules of procedure, it will already be the
affiant or maker did only when the witness substitute of the testimony. Ordinarily, you have to re-testify on the
not make the witness fails to appear in the contents of your affidavit.
stand (Dantis vs hearing or does not
Maghinay) conform to the ***NOTE: Section of Judicial Affidavit Rule
content requirements
under the attestation Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. -
requirements The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the
HOW The affiant must The affiant does not witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to
TESTIMONY testify and be cross have to re-testify, the same. The party who presents the witness may also examine
MADE examined in order inasmuch as his JA him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active
that the contents of constitutes his direct part in examining the witness to determine his credibility as
his affidavit be testimony. The rule well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers
admitted into court requires that he that it needs for resolving the issues.
(re-testify) reaffirms his judicial
affidavit, meaning, What is the purpose of the Judicial Affidavit Rule?
**Note: in contrast mag-attest siya in Very simple, to save time.
with summary rules open court na tama na
iyang mga The court saves time because the testimony of the witness is
gipangbutang. translated in advance. In the old procedure, your witness cannot
WAIVER OF Cross examination is Cross examination is understand English, you ask in the usual manner.
CROSS EXAM waived by any means waived, if counsel
allowed by law, does not appear and Where were you at 3PM on October 1, 2020?
provided there is without valid cause,
direct examination on despite due notice If your witness does not understand English, the interpreter needs
the contents of the to translate your question into Cebuano, which the witness
affidavit understands.
FIRST
EXAM 176
October 1 Part 4 | Maglinte be liberal, you can present 2 witness in one morning but if you
remove 1 hour of direct examination and you go directly to the
Counsel: Diin ka alas tres sa hapon Oktubre 1, 2020? cross-examination, you can present 4 witnesses at least in one
Witness: Naa ko sa amoang balay. morning. You save a lot of time by taking out the period of time
required for direct examination.
Comment:
The lawyer afterwards cannot ask another question kay itranslate na 4. Objections as to admissibility of testimonial and other
pud sa interpreter na “I was at home”. evidence are threshed out before hand as the adverse party
is furnished a copy of the judicial affidavit.
Then that's the time that the lawyer can ask his next question.
Imagine how long it takes elicit one piece of information from a So when you get a copy of the JA of your opponent, if there are
witness who does not understand English. objectionable questions about relevancy competency,
misleading mission question, and other usual ground for
PURPOSE: TO SAVE TIME objection. You can already comment on the affidavit before you
go to the trial. In contrast before, maglalis pa mo sa counsel if
The court saves time under the JAR because: mag-object ka.
1. The testimony of the witness is translated in advance;
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. -
2. The attached documentary and object evidence are pre The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of
identified and pre authenticated in accordance with the direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the
rules of court;
start of the presentation of the witness. The adverse party may move
to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the
Example:
answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall
There are 10 documents that are to be identified and
promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking
authenticated. To authenticate, there is a signature above the
of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of
name of the document.
an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of
excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of
C: In the letter you referred to earlier, can you take a look at
Court
the letter and examine the signature?
W: (Ang witness mag-atik2x siya ug examine sa iyang
signature). Just take note when you raise your objections under sec. 6.
C: whose signature is that?
W: It is my signature Scope of application of the rule
C: What's the relation of that signature to the letter that you The applicability of this rule may refer to:
were referring to earlier? a. the courts where the rule is applicable;
b. the types of cases covered; and
No leading questions allowed like asking questions answerable c. the stage of the proceedings, where the judicial affidavit is
by yes or not. required.
o Leading question: Is that your signature?
o Not a leading question: whose signature is that? Under section 1, the Rule applies to the following courts:
All MTCs
If there are 10 documents, you also do it 10 times. If there All Shari’a Circuit Courts, District and Appellate Courts;
are pages that have a signature, you have to ask the RTCs;
witness again if it is their signature. A lot of time is saved Sandiganbayan;
by doing away this menial task of identifying and Court of Tax Appeals;
authenticating documents. Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme
Court to receive evidence, including the IBP; and
3. There is no longer need for a lengthy direct examination; Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of
How long do you think that examination lasts? If it is your main procedure are subject to the disapproval of the Supreme Court.
witness, by one hour and 30 minutes at least. Now, if the entire
hour actually takes place outside of the courtroom, mudiretso Types of cases
na ta sa the cross examination pagkita nato sa korte. Imagine The rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents
spending 1 hour for direct examination, another 30 mins for requiring the reception of evidence. However the rule shall not
cross examination, re-direct and re-cross which would take apply to small claims cases under A. M. 08-8-7-SC.
30mins each at most. The court opens from 8:30-12. Imagine - In small claims you do not file a complaint, you just fill up
how much time do you need to present one witness alone. To the form there
FIRST
EXAM 177
The rule may apply to criminal cases in three situations as Example of Incidents
provided under Section 9, to wit: A complaint was filed with a prayer for the issuance of a
1. where the maximum of impossible penalty does not writ of preliminary attachment of injunction
exceed six years, Under the rules, there will be a hearing on this prayer and
2. regardless of the penalty involved, with respect to the civil testimony by the applicant
aspect of the actions, or The rule requires the submission of judicial affidavits for
3. in any case where the accused agrees to the use of the these incidents as well.
Rule. It is very clear under the JAR that it applies to all actions,
o Remember the accused has the constitutional proceedings and incidents requiring the reception of
right to confront witnesses, meet the witnesses evidence.
face to face including during direct examination.
o So if you are the accused and you want to make Service and Filing
use of your right to confront witnesses, then do Now again, I want you to take note we're discussing the matter of
not agree to the use of JAR but mandatory if the service and filing under the context of JAR. We will of course make
maximum imposable penalty does not exceed 6 sense of the changes introduced by the amended rules later on.
years
The Rule distinguishes the JA submitted for incidents and
Take note that the JAR was made specifically applicable to cases motions and JA submitted as part of the evidence-in-chief
already pending at the time of its promulgation (Sec. 12). This means of a party.
that even if the pretrial had already been conducted, the For JAs submitted in support of incidents and motions, the
presentation of evidence will be governed by the rule. According to same must be filed and served 5 days prior to the
Justice Abad, the presentation of witnesses will be considered scheduled hearing of incidents and motions.
incidents and the judicial affidavits should be submitted five days For JAs submitted as part of the party’s evidence-in-chief,
before the dates of the scheduled hearings. the party shall serve on the adverse party and file with the
court not later than 5 days before the pre-trial under the
The stage of proceedings JAR.
Under the opening sentence of Section 2, before the promulgation But again alter on, let me preempt you that this is already
of the Amended Rules, the Rule applies to the presentation of the changed under the Amended Rules.
evidence-in-chief of the parties as well as to incidents and motions. Take note under Rule 18, sec. 6.
SEC. 6. Pre-trial brief.— The parties shall file with the
Evidence-in-chief – you are the plaintiff and you present witnesses, court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as
that is your Evidence-in-chief shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) calendar
days before the date of the pre-trial xxx.
Incidents and motions – only incidents and motions which requires Thus the prior promulgation of the Amended Rules, the
the presentation of evidence. deadline for submission of judicial affidavits is 2 days
earlier than submission of pre-trial briefs.
Example of motions
In a case for recovery of possession, the defendant filed a Effect is JA is not submitted on time
motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. For a Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit
motion to dismiss under Rule 15 of the amended rules that Rule. - (a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits
is allowed (that is lack of jurisdiction over the subject and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their
matter). submission.
He avers that the assessed value of the real estate exceeds
the jurisdictional parameter of cases cognizable in the In sec. 10 it is deemed that you have waived your submission of the
MTC (does not exceed 20K – outside MM or does not JA. Even if you miss one day, it will be strict.
exceed 50K – Metro Manila). The assessed value is 21, 000.
Based on what we know from civil procedure, there will be But in the case of:
a summary hearing on the motion to dismiss, and the
movant may be required testify. He will prove and
Lara's Gifts and Decors v. PNB General Insurers
introduce evidence as to the actual assessed value of the
G.R. No. 230429, January 24 2018
real estate if it really exceeded the jurisdictional
parameters of the MTC.
Issue: Can a party submit supplemental judicial affidavits contrary
So in that situation, he needs to file and serve his JA.
to Sections 2 (5 days prior to pretrial) and 10 (sanctions) of the JAR?
FIRST
EXAM 178
Held: YES. The JA Rule and Guidelines on Pre-Trial do not totally SERVICE AND FILING
proscribe the submission of additional evidence even after trial had Sec. 2 notes two modes of service or filing of JA:
already commenced. It bears to note that sec. 10 does not contain a 1. Personal service – which is preferred
blanket prohibition on the submission of additional evidence. 2. Licensed courier service – we do remember that prior to the
However, the submission of evidence beyond the mandated period amended rules, the usual filing and service of registered mail (I
in the JA Rule is strictly subject to the conditions that: want to ask somebody)
a. The court may allow the late submission of evidence only once;
b. The party presenting the evidence proffers a valid reason for What is the rule when you file by registered mail? What is the
the delay; and principle you need to remember if you are filing by registered mail?
c. The opposing party will not be prejudiced thereby. What was that? The date of?
The date of mailing is the date of filing.
October 1 Part 5 | Ugdang
What if you submitted a motion or a pleading by ordinary mail, are
In this case as well, the SC, had the guidelines on pre-trial, the you allowed to do that?
issuance of the SC to confer upon the clerks of court. Yes.
Confers upon the trial court the discretion to allow the introduction
of evidence other than those that have been previously marked and Can you file a pleading by ordinary mail?
identified during the pre-trial provided there are valid grounds. Yes. Actually, you can file anytime by ordinary mail. Except
when you talk about it, you cannot apply the rule that
RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE the date of mailing is the date of filing.
In this case, both parties reserve the right to present additional
evidence. According to the SC that reservation of the right to present Because when you utilize ordinary mail, which can be made at
additional evidence constitutes a WAIVER on the applications of anytime, the rule is that the date of RECEIPT is the date of filing.
sections 2 and 10 of the judicial affidavit rule. That is the difference between registered mail and ordinary mail.
So, its actually a very novel case because again the judicial affidavit What happens when you file your JA by registered mail? Can it be
rule is a very novel … there are very few cases decided done? because it is mentioned in sec. 2 that its either personal
service or licensed courier service and let me tell you, the filing by
Now, misfiling in criminal cases. The general rule for JAR is the registered mail, it is not the same as of the licensed carrier because
simultaneous filing and later on the pre-trial briefs. So, it is a separate mode of filing by registered mail and filing by
simultaneous, it must be submitted together. Later, I have a case that licensed carrier, they are not the same.
I will give you about simultaneous filing. But, an exception can be
found on section 9. Does this mean that the mode of filing, which is by registered mail
not allowed under the JAR?
EXCEPTION TO SIMULTANEOUS FILING It is still allowed.
To the effect that, when it comes to criminal cases, the prosecution
is subject to the rule. He has to submit the JD of his witnesses not However, the rule, under the old dispensation, meaning under the
later than 5 days to the pre-trial. unamended rules, that the date of mailing is the date of filing is NOT
applicable. So, what happens here is it is the look out of the party
But remember, the accused is not required to make the scheduled that his JA is 5 days from the schedule of the pre-trial or schedule of
submission 5 days before the date of the scheduled pre-trial. hearing or motion under the JAR. It is your RISK. Otherwise, if you
They are not subject to it because they have different periods. file by registered mail or service, you cannot apply the date of
mailing is the date of filing. The date of receipt is the date of filing
If the accused wishes to be heard for a period for his defense after under the JAR then, if you use registered mail.
his submission of the JA of the prosecution, he shall have the option
to submit his JA as well as of his witnesses within 10 days from the It is your lookout, otherwise, it will run counter to sec. 10. You have
receipt of such affidavits (of the prosecution) and serve a copy to run afoul. Maybe it will not be considered, the JA.
the public or private prosecutor.
Sec. 4. The sworn attestation of the lawyer – it shall contain a
So, they have a different period given to the accused. Compared to sworn attestation of the lawyer at the end executed by the lawyer
the usual period given to the prosecution. So, take note that it is the who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness to
exception to the general rule for the filing of JA. the effect that he faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded,
the questions and the corresponding answers that the witness
Now, how is service and filing made? gave and neither he nor any other person then present, or
assisting him, coached the witness with regards to the latter.
FIRST
EXAM 179
a. There must be leave of court

A false attestation shall subject the lawyer to disciplinary action b. The delay must be for a valid reason
including disbarment. c. It would not unduly prejudice the opposing party
d. The defaulting party pays a fine of not less than 1k nor
So, again, here in section 4, the sworn attestation of the lawyer, the more than 5k
method where I submit questions to the witness, does it violate the e. Availed of only once
provisions of section 4? Does it violate the attestation requirement? No, you cannot violate this rule twice or request the belated
Do I still faithfully record or caused to be recorded the questions submission twice, only once.
that I asked and the answers given by the witness?
I do. But he already knows the questions im about to ask. FAILURE TO COMPLY
Like for example, under sec 3 and attestation requirement under sec
Then, did I coach the witness regarding his answers? 4. The court may allow again, only once, the subsequent submission
No. I just coached him about the questions that I was of the compliant replacement affidavits provided:
asking. a. Such was for a valid reason
b. Would not unduly prejudice the opposing party
Did I violate section 4 when I submit my questions in advance so c. Must pay also, 1k-5k maximum at the discretion of court
that the JA would be made faster? d. Availed of only once
No. I did not violate anything. Pero ayaw mog saba, kay
secret lang na siya. Masuya baya dayon ang uban. ABSENCE DURING THE SCHEDULED TRIAL DATE
We’ve discussed this, the witness was absent on that date, then his
Then, you will be filed for false attestation because he submitted the JA would not be considered, in fact even absence of one’s counsel
questions ahead of time to the witness. Of course not, I looked at is deemed to have waived his right to confront the witness through
section 4. cross examination the witnesses there present.
TAKE NOTE: It is much worse in civ pro, the effect of failure to file a pre-trial brief
There is no requirement for the lawyer who prepared the JA who – deemed to be a non-suited plaintiff and your case would be
must be the one to present the witness in court. There is no such dismissed.
requirement. So, in effect, based on the language of the rules, there
are at least 2 lawyers involved in the drafting of a judicial affidavit. If you are the defendant, and you did not file a pre-trial brief, what
would be the effect? You are deemed to be as in default. This
First, the lawyer who conducts the examination and who also makes authorizes the plaintiff to present his evidence ex-parte.
the attestation
Here, deemed to waive the right to cross-examine the witness. It is
Second, the lawyer who notarizes the attestation of the one much worse when compared to rule 18 (civil cases without pre-trial
conducting the examination. briefs)
So, you need two lawyers. But before the JA, when witnesses were JURISPRUDENCE
asked questions before they testify in an open court, there was only We’ve already discussed the meat of the JA, not every provision, but
one lawyer. So, that was the complaint with regards to the JA only the important ones. The beauty about this is that, since this is a
because it would require two lawyers. Two de parte lawyers new rule, then we only have little jurisprudence to consider. You can
minimum. memorize the jurisprudence for purposes of the bar exam. Whatever
questions under JA you can answer because there is only little
Take note, [third] there can be another lawyer who will present the jurisprudence.
witness in court on the attestation. There is no requirement that the
lawyer who prepared the JA would be the one to present the witness. Dolo v. Paj
August 27, 2013
EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
We can divide that into 3: This is actually a petition for continuing mandamus. Like the
1. Failure to file MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay case. Where the SC
2. Failure to comply actually took notice of the jurisprudence in India, of all places,
3. Absence during the scheduled trial date because the concept of continuing mandamus started in India
because the government was ordered by continuing mandamus
FAILURE TO FILE to clean up the Ganges river.
This is mainly codal. If you fail to file you JA [….], all the time would
be waived submission. But the rule allows for an exception:
FIRST
EXAM 180
Until it is done, you have to do it, Rule 65, can be compelled to

MMDA case, it is the same, until the Manila Bay would be cleaned, Section 5. Subpoena. – If the government employee or official, or
you have to do your work. (talking about politics and applying the requested witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse
the MMDA case) party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the
Under sec. 1, if you file a petition for continuing mandamus, you relevant books, documents, or other things under his control
have to attach your supporting evidence, the JA is testimonial available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in
evidence, am I right? That is the substitute of the direct testimony court, the requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a
of the witness. subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena
So, here the RTC dismissed the case, on the ground that the to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his
parties failed to attach their JAs among other infirmities. “ahh you deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be
did not submit the JA, I will dismiss the petition for continuing understood to be ex parte.
mandamus” is this correct? NO.
HELD: Section 5 has no application to a hostile witness but there
According to the SC, rule 8 requires that there must be is no need for a finding that a witness unjustifiably refused to
supporting affidavits, but there’s nothing in rule 8 that compels execute a judicial affidavit.
the inclusion of JAs, but if you like to, you can attach the JA, but
you are not mandated. Section 5 of the JAR contemplates a situation where there is a (a)
government employee or official or (b) requested witness who is
October 1 Part 6 | Rojo not the (1) adverse party’s witness nor (2) a hostile witness. If this
person either (a) unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
It is only if the evidence of the petitioner would with conflict of affidavit or (b) refuses without just cause to make the relevant
testimony of witnesses, that would be the tie that judicial affidavit documents available to the other party and its presentation to
must be attached to the petition or complaint. court, Section 5 allows the requesting party to avail of issuance
of subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of
However, we need to remember that under the amended rules in the Rules of Court. Thus, adverse party witnesses and hostile
Rule 7 Section 60 na judicial affidavit of witnesses is now required to witnesses being excluded they are not covered by Section 5.
be attached to the pleading in form an integral part thereof. Only Expression unius est exclusion alterius. The express mention of
witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading shall one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all
be presented by parties during trial others.
So, it is now very hard to file pleadings because you need to attach The situation created before us begs the question: if the
already the judicial affidavit. Sa pag file pa lang nimo ug complaint requested witness is the adverse party’s witness or a hostile
for example, all judicial affidavit of your prospective witnesses dapat witness, what procedure should be followed?
naa na sila sa imong pleading, otherwise if that particular witness
has no judicial affidavit, dili siya pwede i’present during trial under The JAR being silent on this point, we turn to the provisions
Rule 7 Section 60. governing the rules on evidence covering hostile witnesses
specially Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which
We have this case of Ng Meng Tam, the question here is, if imong provides:
gusto kwaon na witness is your adverse party or a witness of the
adverse party, meaning making him a hostile witness na gna tawag SEC. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. –
nato need ba ug subpoena? Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party
Looking at Section 5, subpoena requirement is not applicable. It is producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
because dili nimo kailangan magbuhat ug judicial affidavit kung ang credibility.
imong witness is a hostile witness or the adverse party. Kinsa na
adverse party ang mu sugit na kwaon ka as a hostile witness sa A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
imong kalaban? only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify,
Now, is there a way for you to utilize the adverse party as your own or his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness? That is what being discussed in this case. witnessstand.
NG MENG TAM vs. CHINA BANK The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the
G.R. No. 214054, August 5, 2015 witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by
FIRST
EXAM 181
the party presenting him in all respects as if he had correlative rules including the modes of deposition and discovery
been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of rules shall apply.
his bad character. He may also be impeached and
cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross- FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT vs. PO
examination must only be on the subject matter of his G.R. No. 217694, January 27, 2016
examination-in-chief.
Failure to attach annexes is not fatal if the complaint alleges a
Before a party may be qualified under Section 12, Rule 132 of the sufficient cause of action; evidence need not be attached to the
Rules of Court, the party presenting the adverse party witness complaint.
must comply with Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court which
provides: This is the main ruling of the court. The court also had the
occasion to look at the relevance of the JAR where documentary
SEC. 6. Effect of failure to serve written or object evidence are to be attached.
interrogatories. – Unless thereafter allowed by the
court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of The rules do not compel the plaintiff to attach his evidence to the
justice, a party not served with written interrogatories complaint because, at this inception stage, he only has to file his
may not be compelled by the adverse party to give complaint to establish his cause of action.
testimony in open court, or to give a deposition
pending appeal. The Court deems it proper to discuss the relevance of the Judicial
Affidavit Rule or A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, where documentary or
Take note of this rule if you have an intention to call the adverse object evidence are required to be attached. To begin with, the
party as your witness in support of your cause of action or rule is not applicable because such evidence are required to be
defense, dapat naay prior service of written interrogatories, attached to a judicial affidavit, not to a complaint. Moreover, as
otherwise you cannot compel him to give testimony in open the rule took effect only on January 1, 2013, it cannot be required
court. in this case because this was earlier filed on December 12, 2012.
In Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., this Court stated Granting that it can be applied retroactively, the rule being
that “in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to essentially remedial, still it has no bearing on the ruling of this
the witness stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories Court.
are first served upon the latter.”
In the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the attachments of documentary or
One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent object evidence to the affidavits is required when there would be
fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to a pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled
maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will hearing. Where a defendant fails to file an answer, the court shall
be presumed that a party who does not serve written render judgment, either motu proprio or upon plaintiffs motion,
interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to
most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if what is prayed for. Thus, where there is no answer, there is no
it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness need for a pre-trial, preliminary conference or hearing.
stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be
treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at Since there is no answer, therefore there is no chance to schedule
delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant for a pre-trial or preliminary conference. So, it is not required to
result that a prior written interrogatories might bring. submit JA with your attachments of document or object evidence.
In the case of LAGON, according to the defendant: I am not required
Remember this provision, not everyone knows this even other to present evidence – plaintiff should be the one who should present
lawyers. Di na siya pwede basta-basta tawagon ang adverse party first his evidence. But because of JAR, I am now required to submit
as a witness. Dili ka pwede mag fishing expedition, mao ng simultaneously which rendered my right to file demurrer to evidence
reason for the requirement dapat mag written interrogatories sa nugatory.
ka, Because, you can only examine the adverse party with respect Q: When do you file demurrer to evidence?
to the matters included in the written interrogatories. A: Under Rule 33, you file it after the plaintiff presents his evidence
in chief.
In sum, Section 5 of the JAR expressly excludes from its
application adverse party and hostile witnesses. For the So, the defendant said here that, diba as a defendant in presenting
presentation of these types of witnesses, the provisions on the of evidence I have the right to file demurrer. It is only when my
Rules of Court under the Revised Rules of Evidence and all other demurrer to evidence is denied that I am now supposed to present
the evidence.
FIRST
EXAM 182
AFFECTING THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

Q; is his right to file a demurrer to evidence rendered nugatory
A: According to the Supreme Court, NO.
Modifications for Criminal Cases
LAGON vs. VELASCO A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, or the Revised Guidelines for
G.R. No. 208424, February 14, 2018 Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, which took effect on
September 1, 2017
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule,
which requires a defendant to adduce his testimony and that of Here, diba dapat ang JAR applicable to all cases and courts?
his witnesses by judicial affidavits, and submit his documentary However, the said revised rule seem to depart from the preferential
evidence before the pre-trial or preliminary conference, offends use of judicial affidavits as substitutes for testimony.
his right to due process of law (i.e., it forces him to present
evidence simultaneously with the plaintiff, rendering the right to Q: Why?
file a demurrer nugatory). A: Because in criminal cases in first level courts (i.e., Municipal and
Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc.), witness testimony shall consist of:
There is nothing in the provisions of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, 1. duly subscribed written statements given to law
which prohibits a defendant from filing a demurrer to evidence, enforcement officers; or
if he truly believes that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is 2. affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted during
insufficient. Besides, in the resolution of the demurrer to preliminary investigation; or
evidence, only the evidence presented by the plaintiff shall be 3. if (1) and (2) are not available, judicial affidavits.
considered and weighed by the Court.
So, judicial affidavits are no longer preferred. Pwede na ang duly (1)
Furthermore, the fact that the defendant is mandated to submit subscribed written statements or (2) affidavits or counter-affidavits.
his judicial affidavit prior to the trial and before the plaintiff has What about RTC, Sandiganbayan and CTA?
rested his case is not a cumbersome requirement or a
circumvention of due process. In criminal cases before the RTC, SB and CTA, the form of
testimony depends on the type of case being prosecuted
On the contrary, this Is necessary for the orderly administration in such courts.
of the proceeding before the courts. It must be remembered that
in as early as the pre-trial conference, the defendant is already Where (1) the demeanor of the witness is not essential in
required to submit a pre-trial brief, where he is then tasked to determining the credibility of the said witness, such as
state the number and names of his witnesses, as well as the expert witnesses who will testify on the authenticity, due
substance of their testimonies; the issues to be tried and execution, and contents of public documents or reports;
resolved; and the documents or exhibits to be presented and the and (2) in criminal cases that are transactional in character
purpose thereof. Thus, the defendant is already required in this such as falsification, malversation, or estafa, or other
early stage of the proceedings to formulate his defense and plan crimes where the culpability or innocence of the accused
his strategy to counter the plaintiffs complaint. There is nothing can be established through documents, the testimonies of
too tedious or burdensome in requiring the submission of the the witnesses shall be:
judicial affidavit. In fact, this would even help the defendant in a. The duly subscribed written statements given to
preparing his opposing arguments against the plaintiff. law enforcement officers; or
b. The Affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted
So, dili siya repugnant. Ang JAR which it meant to speed up during preliminary investigation; or
proceedings is not repugnant to a demurrer to evidence which also c. If (a) and (b) are not available, judicial affidavits.
seek to an expedited of trial. In fact, pwede sila mag exist In all other cases where the culpability or innocence of the
harmoniously. accused is based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the
testimonies of these witnesses shall be in oral form.
Read also:
Lim vs. Lim (G.R. No. 214163, July 1, 2019) Preferred ba ang judicial affidavits? Not really. Mas preferred ang (a)
Ang g’buhat diri sa prosecution para dili siya mapugsan mag submit and (b).
ug judicial affidavit, sige siya ug pa postpone sa pre-trial, thrice. On
the third postponement, it was also belated. So, what is the basis Q; As to the last paragraph of the provision, what is the testimony
here? Read the case. here?
A: It is oral testimony. Meaning, mubalik na pud ta sa dati na it shall
be done in oral testimony in open court and not by means of judicial
RECENT RULES AND AMENDMENTS
FIRST
EXAM 183
affidavit. That’s a change in JAR when it comes to criminal cases, dili Mura bitaw’g wala na juy unfair surprises diri, cause you have to lay
na siya preferred. all your cards on the table sa sugod pa lang sa litigation.
Modification for Civil Cases How do the changes play out procedurally?
Under the new Rules on Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 7 The holding in Fairland Knitcraft vs. PO (GR No. 217694,
(Parts and Contents of Pleadings), it is now provided that: January 27, 2016) that failure to attach annexes is not fatal if
Section 6. Contents. – Every pleading stating a party’s the complaint alleges a sufficient cause of action and that
claims or defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by evidence need not be attached to the complaint is deemed
Section 2, Rule, 7, state the following: abrogated. Judicial affidavits, documentary and object evidence
in support of the allegations contained in the pleading (whether
(a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a the complaint or the answer) are now required to be attached
party’s claim or defense; thereto.
The dates for filing of judicial affidavits have been changed.
(b) Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies, o Before, when do you file judicial affidavits? Five days
provided that the judicial affidavits of said witnesses shall before the date of the scheduled pre-trial.
be attached to the pleading and form an integral part o Now, for JAs that form part of a party’s evidence-in-
thereof. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are chief, they have to be attached to the relevant
attached to the pleading shall be presented by the parties pleading.
during trial. Except if a party presents meritorious reasons
as basis for the admission of additional witnesses, no other Di na ka maghulat ug pre-trial. So within the
witness or affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the court; prescriptive period of filing the answer, if you are the
and defendant, dapat naka-attach na imong judicial
affidavits.
(c) Documentary and object evidence in support of the
allegations contained in the pleading. o Thus, if you are the Plaintiff, the Jas should now be
attached to your complaint. As a general rule, only
As what I have said, when you file your complaint or answer, dapat witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the
naa na dira ang judicial affidavits sa imong witnesses. Lisod na kaayo complaint can be presented by the plaintiff during
mag file ug answer karun. That is why the period for filing an answer trial. If you are the Defendant, the JAs should be
has been correlatively increased, from 15 days of receipt of attached to your answer. Similarly, only witnesses
summons together with the copy of the complaint it is now 30 days whose judicial affidavits are attached to the answer
-- because you have to file also judicial affidavits. You do not have shall be presented by the plaintiff during trial.
the benefit of time if you are the defendant. o The rule that requires submission of JAs not later than
five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference is
Compared to a plaintiff when he files his complaint, provided that deemed abrogated already.
he still within the prescriptive period for filing, he can still take his
time to complete his judicial affidavits. So, murag hinay hinay nahimo bang nonsense ang
judicial affidavit rule? Actually, NO, because take note
Also, documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations that JAs can also be submitted for the purposes of
contained in the pleading dapat naa na pud na sa imong pleading. incidents and motions requiring the submission of
Unlike before under JAR, dapat na identify na and authenticated by evidence.
judicial affidavit. Pero kung unsa ng mga documentary or object
evidence in support of the allegation, dapat ibutang pud sa What about JAs for incidents and motions (i.e., not later than five
pleading. days before the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and
incidents)?
Q: How does this affect the Civil Procedure? IT DEPENDS upon the motion or incident.
A: It greatly affects the Civil Procedure. Before, the rule is that every
pleading shall contain only the statement of ultimate facts and omit INCIDENTS
mere statement of evidentiary facts. That is the rule before. EXAMPLE:
Prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. When do
October 1 Part 7 | Campaner you pray for this? When is it granted?
o Under Rule 58, Section 1, a preliminary injunction is
Karon, unsa na ang rule? Both ultimate facts and evidentiary facts an order granted at any stage of an action or
are required to be stated in the pleading. proceeding prior to the judgement or final order.
FIRST
EXAM 184
o Thus, if you already praying for a writ of preliminary 2005). This ground is also available to the Defendant
injunction when you file your complaint, the JAs as an affirmative defense when he files his answer.
supporting your prayer should be attached to your Take note that failure to raise an available affirmative
complaint already. defense at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a
waiver thereof. [Rule 8, Section 12(b)
So di ka magbase kung kanus-a i-hearing ang imong But eitherway
prayer for the writ of preliminary injunction. Sa pagfile o In this setting and using this ground of prescription,
pa lang nimo, dapat naa na didto imong JA in support the Amended Rules imply that JAs in support thereof
of your prayer. Why? Because that is also a claim and should be attached to the answer or the motion to
it is available at the time you file the complaint. dismiss.
o However, if the grounds for injunctive relief become o You don’t file your JAs according to the period set in
apparent only during trial that you could not have the Judicial Affidavit Rule (i.e., not later than five days
prayed for it when you filed your pleading, your before the scheduled hearing with respect to motions
remedy is to pray for the issuance of injunctive relief and incidents).
during trial. Thus, you should submit JAs not later o Again, only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are
than five days before the scheduled hearing of such attached to the pleading shall be presented by the
incident. plaintiff during trial.
SUMMARY
Posible man gud na ang mga actions na gusto nimo If the testimony is already required and available at the time of
ipaenjoin sa court took place when the trial is already filing the pleading, the judicial affidavit should be attached to
taking place. Could you have prayed for that at the the pleading.
time you filed the complaint? No. So, the grounds for o We’re talking about incidents and motions, not
injunctive relief became apparent only after the filing testimonies of witnesses as evidence in chief.
na. So, when will you file your JA? Balik na pud ka sa If the need for such testimony arises only after the filing of the
deadline sa JAR, not later than five days before the pleadings (i.e., during trial), the judicial affidavit should be filed
scheduled hearing of such incident. not later than five days prior to the hearing of the incident or
motion where such testimony will be presented.
EXAMPLE: Prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment. When do you pray for this? When is it granted? So take note of this, kay siguro sa exam I can ask you “When do you
o Under Rule 57, Section 1, at the commencement of need to file your JA?” I’ll give you a situation and ask you that
the action or at any time before entry of judgement, question. So, mao ni sya ang guiding principles nato diri.
a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property
of the adverse party attached as security for the October 7 Part 1 | Acevedo
satisfaction of any judgement that may be recovered.
o Thus, if you are already praying for a writ of Prior to amendment:
preliminary attachment at the commencement of the Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. —
action, the JAs supporting your prayer should be Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may
attached to your complaint already. be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters
o However, if the grounds for attachment becomes stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with
apparent only during trial (at any time before entry of sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and
judgement), you could not have set it up in your truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse,
complaint. Again, you have to pray for the issuance of and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
the relief during trial.
So when do you submit your JAs? Thus, you This is the provision prior to amendment.
should submit JAs not later than five days
before the scheduled hearing of the prayer After the amendment:
for issuance of the writ of preliminary Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. —
attachment. Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may
be cross-examined by the adverse party on any relevant matter,
MOTIONS with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his or her accuracy
EXAMPLE: Motion to dismiss, when allowed, like one based on and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the
prescription reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
o In this motion to dismiss, you have to prove the date (6a)
when prescription began to run (Aznar Brothers
Realty Co. vs Aying, GR No. 144773, May 16,
FIRST
EXAM 185
Cross examination is not only a procedural device but also a Note: This actually seeks to limit the time for cross-
procedural right on the part of the opponent or the party who was examination and the scope of the cross-examination only
not presenting the witness. to matters that were said by the witness during the direct
examination.
A. CROSS EXAMINATION AS A PROCEDURAL DEVICE
(1) It is a procedural matter inasmuch as it follows direct Example: Imagine the course of the examination of a
examination. witness like an inverted pyramid where the biggest portion
is the top. The top portion is devoted to the direct
It is a device in the sense that by the use of skillful examination, examination.
the opponent may be able to cast doubt on the veracity and
the truthfulness of the testimony of the witness. (a) A witness may be directly examined, prior to the JAR,
for 1 hour, the number of questions should be asked
It is also a right. ideally to a witness ideally during the cross-
If the party is denied the opportunity for cross-examination, examination. There will be a narrower scope just like
then it is a violation of his right to due process. In criminal cases, an inverted pyramid. The cross-examination should
the right of the accused to meet the witnesses face to face, our not exceed the number of questions asked during
right of confrontation. direct examination. If you cannot ask relevant
questions that would be helpful to your cause of
B. PURPOSES OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
action or to your defense with that limit in mind, then
1. To impeach the credibility of the testimony;
you are not in cross-examining. You do not know how
When a party cross-examines, he wants to as much as
to cross-examination if you need for more questions
possible impress upon the judge that there is a hole or
than counsel asked during the direct examination for
wrong on the testimony of the witness.
your cross examination.
2. To impeach the credibility of the witness;
(b) It should also be that in the re-direct examination in
But it is also a device to impeach the credibility of a witness
the next provision, it should be less than the
himself.
questions asked during the cross examination.
3. To elicit admissions; and
(c) Finally, when we come to the re-cross examination,
4. To clarify certain matters. there will be a lesser questions or maybe the parties
If there is a need to clarify for the opposing party the can waive the right to re-cross or re-direct sometimes,
testimony of the witness of the other party during the so it is waived (No redirect, your Honor, No re-cross,
direct examination. We can do all of that during the cross- Your Honor). The witness should not be detained
examination. longer than the interest of justice require.
C. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION? What is the rule observed in our jurisdiction?
General Rule: The English Rule is observed in our
1. English Rule jurisdiction.
Where a witness is called to testify to a particular fact, he
becomes a witness for all purposes and may be fully cross- You can ask practically anything. Prior to the amendment,
examined upon all matters material to the issue, the the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party
examination not being confined to the matters inquired as to any matters stated in the direct examination or
about in the direct examination. connected therewith with sufficient fullness and freedom,
etc. You can exceed actually, you can ask as many
Note: Under the English Rule, it allows you to ask questions as you would like in the English Rule. We have
practically any matter. The only limitation thereof is that it that as our general rule because of our prior codal
should be material to the issue. You can ask as many provision.
questions as you want the moment you are able to
establish the materiality of your questions. Exception: The American rule [you just limit in the matter
stated in the direct examination] is observed with respect
2. American Rule to cross-examination of an accused or a hostile witness.
Cross-examination is restricted to facts and circumstances
which are connected with the matters that have been Note:
stated in the direct examination of the witness. (a) The English is made as the general rule as to any other
witness
FIRST
EXAM 186
(b) But the American Rule is observed with respect to the (1) Because of lack of material time—the court has other
accused or a hostile witness or an adverse party hearing to attend to or other hearing; or
witness. (2) The witness is physically indisposed because the witness is
crying.
D. TAKE NOTE OF THE PHRASEOLOGY IN THE AMENDMENT
The court postponed it.
Comment:
But [in relation to the above discussion on what rule is applied], But the problem: The next hearing, when the cross
it leads me to doubt if that is still the current state under our examination was supposed to be set thru no fault of the
rules which is the general rule is English Rule and the Exception cross-examining party, we cannot continue anymore
will be the American rule with respect to the accused or hostile because the witness died.
witnesses.
What would be the effect?
Old Rule New Rule General Rule: The entire direct examination should be
“as to any matters stated in It is reduced by simply stricken off the record.
the direct examination, or stating that you can cross
connected therewith. examine “on any relevant Exception:
matter”. People v. Gorospe
Current Rule: Where the prosecution witness was extensively cross-

Instead of materiality that is being the standard in determining examined on the material points and thereafter failed
what questions can be asked during cross-examination it seems to appear and cannot be produced despite a warrant of
that there is no longer any reason to belabor the need to define arrest.
the scope of cross-examination as one following the English
Rule or one following the American Rule. The testimony on record can remain because there was
an extensive cross-examination on material points. It
The Rule on cross-examination, as it is now stands, is reduced should not be susceptible thru a motion to strike a
to most basic of evidentiary considerations, that of relevancy or testimony because the other party was only given the
whether the questions asked tend to have such a relation to the opportunity to extensively cross-examine.
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
F. EFFECT OF LACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
Note: If your questions are relevant, then you can ask it during The testimony of a witness who has not cross-examined is
cross-examination. technically hearsay. Being hearsay, it is not to be admissible.
E. DOCTRINE OF INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY Two concept of hearsay evidence:

Note: As stated earlier, cross-examination is not only a (1) Testifying not based on personal knowledge;
procedural device but it is also a procedural right—meaning (2) Where the other party was not given the opportunity to
you have to give the right to the adverse party to cross examine. cross-examine, technically it is hearsay.
As to the doctrine of incomplete testimony, it states that: What is the remedy?

When cross-examination cannot be done or completed due to In such a case, the remedy of the opponent is a motion to strike.
causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the
incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be Motion to strike
stricken from the record. It is a legal motion given by one party in a trial requesting the
presiding judge to order the removal of all or part of the
The cross-examination cannot be done or it will not be finished, opposing party’s pleading or of all or part of a trial witness’s
and the cause of that is the party who offered the witness. The testimony.
one who conducted the direct examination whether by judicial
affidavit or otherwise, the one who conducted direct G. WAIVER
examination. a. Cross-examination can be waived.
Waiver of the right to cross examine may be:
Situation: (1) Express; or
After the direct examination, the proponent or the party who (2) Implied.
offered the witness said: Your Honor, can we defer the cross
examination: b. On the matter of Implied waiver
FIRST
EXAM 187
Dela Paz v. IAC Again, ang kinahanglan lang nato timan'an is kay kinsa bang sala na
wala na conduct ang cross-examination in the first place.
Right of cross examination not an absolute right
The right of cross examination is not an absolute right If the cross-examination was deferred at the instance of the
which a party can demand at all times. proponent or the witness himself, meaning katong nag present sa
witness, the testimony on direct examination must be stricken out
The right is a personal one which may be waived because the failure to cross-examine was due to a cause not
expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a attributable to the opponent.
renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus,
where a party has had the opportunity to cross- What about if it is the court who had it deferred, e.g. for lack of time?
examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he What will happen to the testimony on direct examination?
necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the
testimony given on direct examination of the witness If the cross-examination was deferred at the instance of the court,
will be received or allowed to remain in the record. the testimony on direct examination must be stricken out because
the failure to cross-examine was again due to a cause not
Comment: This means that, you already waived your right attributable to the opponent. Why? kay kinsa man diay ng sala? Dili
to cross-examine whether expressly or impliedly by man sala sa opponent, or the person ready to cross-examine, it was
conduct amounting to renunciation of cross-examination. the fault of the court, so it has to be stricken off the record, otherwise
That testimony should remain in the record. there would be a denial of the right of due process.
The conduct of a party which may be construed as an However, if the deferment was due to a cause attributable to the
implied waiver of the right to cross-examine may take opponent (i.e., the cross-examiner), then the testimony on direct
various forms. examination would stand, may be used by the court in its
consideration of the controversy and is not susceptible to a motion
But the common basic principle underlying the application to strike. In this case, the conduct of the opponent himself amounts
of the rule on implied waiver is that the party was given to a waiver.
the opportunity to confront and cross-examine an
opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for Like the example I mentioned earlier, when I asked for the
reasons attributable to himself alone. postponement of the cross-examination at a later date since it was
the instruction of my superiors. So if ever, the witness cannot return
Example: I am the one who is supposed to cross examine (death, incapacity etc.), then the testimony should remain on the
after the completion of the direct examination of the record kay sala sa cross-examiner.
witness. I told the court: Your Honor, can I ask for the
postponement of the trial because I am not ready to cross- COMPLETE PICTURE IN RELATION TO CROSS-EXAMINATION
examine”
1. ADMISSIONS
You can do that in trial for as long as the opposing counsel The several rules in relation to extrajudicial admissions (i.e. self-
does not object. But actually, what I just want to do is to serving admissions, res inter alios acta rule) do not apply if the
let it be postponed today so that I can have time to get party who made the admission out of court is cross-examined.
the TSN so that I can prepare my cross-examination
ultimately. This happens a lot. Recall, when there is already a cross-examination you
can no longer apply the res inter alios acta rule, and
It is a procedural advantage. there is no such thing as a self-serving admission that
is made in open court and is subject to cross-
October 7 Part 2 | Amistad examination.
SUMMARY 2. HEARSAY
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial
What rule should be followed in case the failure to cross-examine is or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the
due to fortuitous causes such as the death or incapacity of the statement.
witness?
3. PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATIONS
It depends on the reason why cross-examination was not conducted Objections grounded on the privileged nature of the
after the completion of testimony on direct examination. communication or information are waived by the act of cross-
FIRST
EXAM 188
examining the witness on privileged matters. (e.g. marital allowed. However, it is allowed on cross-examination by way of
privilege communication rule) exception.
You know for a fact that the wife was testifying 8. HOSTILE WITNESSES
against the husband on privileged matters, but A hostile witness or a witness who is an adverse party may be
instead of objecting you cross-examined kay pagtuo impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such
nimo'g bakak ang gi ingun atong wife against your cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his or
client. Here, due to the fact that you cross-examined her examination-in-chief.
the wife then your objection based on the MPCR is
waived. You should not cross-examine, just maintain RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
your continuing objection on the privilege nature of Sec. 7. Re-direct examination, its purpose and extent. – After
that testimony. the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he or
she may be re-examined by the party calling him or her to explain
4. STATUTE OF FRAUDS or supplement his or her answers given during the cross-
The act of cross-examination on prohibited matters amount to examination. On re-direct examination, questions on matters not
a waiver of objections grounded on the Statute. dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the
court in its discretion. (7a)
When do you object when you use the Statute of
Frauds as the ground of your objection? Suppose the So supposedly this is the American Rule, kung unsa lang ang
opposing party wants to prove a contract that was covered during cross-examination mao lang na ang pwede nimo i-
orally made and that contract is within the purview of pangutana sa witness.
Art. 1403(2) of the Civil Code, if wala'y note or
memorandum on that agreement between the But this provision itself is confused
parties then it cannot be proved in court, it is Why? Because the first sentence tells you na limited lang na siya ang
unenforceable. You just object on the ground of scope sa questions or answers given during the cross-examination.
Statute of Frauds. But the second sentence tells you otherwise, that on re-direct
examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-
What if the Judge has forgotten about the Statute of examination may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
Frauds? or that the court allowed the testimony?
What would you do? Don't cross-examine, just have Meaning, the court can do anything, the court can exercise it's
your objection placed on the record, Why? because discretion however it pleases. With that dangerous discretion of the
the moment that you cross-examine, wala na, you court, pwede mangutana og mga butang na wala gi pangutana
cannot avail anymore of the objection grounded on during the cross-examination. You can even introduce new matters
the Statute of Frauds, you deemed to have waived it. if the court allows it, which should not be the case. You're done with
your examination-in-chief that's it. You should not be allowed to
5. TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT THE FORMER introduce new matters, unless mag rebuttal ka.
PROCEEDING
This is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The testimony To my mind, dili ni dapat siya pwede, dapat gi tanggal ni na sentence
or deposition of a witness deceased or otherwise unable to sa Supreme Court, because it leads to unnecessary delay. But the
testify, given in a former case or proceeding involving the same Supreme Court did not bother to change Sec. 7.
parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against
the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
him or her. Sec. 8. Re-cross examination. – Upon the conclusion of the re-
direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the
6. CHARACTER EVIDENCE witness on matters stated in his or her re-direct examination, and
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its
of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as discretion. (8a)
to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On
cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific Take note again of the second phrase, "and also on such other
instances of conduct. matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion." My
point being that, when you talk about re-direct examination and re-
7. LEADING QUESTIONS cross examination, you are actually allowing too much leeway or
A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the premium on the word judicial discretion, which should not be
answer which the examining party desires. It is generally not because Judges are humans and they have their own biases. So, why
FIRST
EXAM 189
can't we limit the scope on the matters stated in the re-direct

examination. That is only my opinion in order to prevent any delay. “After the examination of a witness by both sides has been
concluded”
October 7 Part 3 | Bahalla Meaning, the witness was already excused. Gipa-uli na with the
thanks of the court.
Let’s go back. Kabalo naman ta unsa ning Leading Questions diba.
It is a question which suggests already the answer which the party “the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court.”
desires. Meaning, all that the witness has to do will be to confirm or Meaning, pag nahuman na na, gi-excuse na na sa korte, di na nimo
to deny by saying “yes” or “no.” na siya pwede i-examine ug balik. But, again, the court will grant or
withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may
That is not allowed as a general rule. Why? Because when the require.
witness simply confirms or denies by saying “yes” or “no,” as the case
may be, the language that would be placed in the records of the General Rule:
case will not be the language of the witness. It will be the language Dili pwede tawagon ug balik ang witness na na-excuse na from the
of counsel. proceedings.
Exception: Judicial discretion.

“Were you at home at the time of the incident? Yes or no.” And you
do that during direct examination, and we know that that is not
Why is Leave of Court required?
allowed during direct examination. So, language na na sa counsel
Leave of court is required because recalling a witness is repugnant
asking the question. Dili na na siya language sa witness. Igo lang siya
to his fundamental right “not to be detained longer than the
nag-confirm or deny.
interests of justice require.” The court must be given the opportunity
to determine first whether or not the recall of the witness is
So, leading questions, take note, not allowed during direct
unnecessary or merely vexatious.
examination. Questions should be answered by a particular fact:
Who, What, Where, When, Why, How.
Meaning, wala lang. You’re going to try to conduct a belated fishing
expedition. Alright? Pabalikon nimo ang witness for whatever
Then, cross examination, allowed siya. Why? Diba naa kay sufficient
reason. So, dapat the court should know and should be able to
fullness and freedom to test the accuracy or truthfulness. So, pwede
decide. And the other party must be allowed to object or to
ikaw ang mag-control sa proceedings diha because that is your
comment or to oppose the Motion for Leave to Recall a Witness.
cross-examination as the adverse counsel or the opposing counsel.
What is this criteria for grant of leave? Thankfully, dili bitaw absolute
But take note, in re-direct examination, not allowed na na siya
ang discretion na ginahatag sa court. There has to be a criteria that
gihapon because you follow the rules on direct examination when
the court should look at in determining whether or not to grant
you conduct your re-direct examination. You cannot lead the
leave to recall a witness.
witness.
People vs. Rivera

But, once again, pag-abot sa re-cross examination, allowed napud
G.R. No. 98376, August 16, 1991
ang cross examination type questioning. Meaning, you can ask
leading questions because it is simply considered a continuation of
There must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete,
your cross examination.
substantial ground for the recall. There must be a satisfactory
showing on the movant’s part, for instance, that particularly
LEADING QUESTIONS
identified material points were not covered in the cross-
STAGE WHETHER ALLOWED OR
examination, or that particularly described vital documents were
NOT
not presented to the witness whose recall is prayed for, or that
Direct Examination NOT Allowed
the cross-examination was conducted in so inept a manner as to
Cross Examination Allowed
result in a virtual absence thereof.
Re-Direct Examination NOT Allowed
Re-cross Examination Allowed
So, you’re the lawyer asking for leave and then you’re supposed to
say that banga kaayo kag cross examination na vital documents, you
failed to present them to the witness, and your cross examination
Section 9. Recalling witness. – After the examination of a was so inept that it results in a virtual absence of cross-examination.
witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be Is that what the law is actually talking about in recalling a witness?
recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or No. Why? Because this situation actually refers to one where you are
withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may simply taking over the work of a former counsel. Meaning, the
require. (9) original client and lawyer, they already parted ways. Kay ngano? The
FIRST
EXAM 190
lawyer withdrew from the case or was fired by the client. It happens did to the witness during cross-examinaton: “ngano buhi
a lot. pa ka until now kung nilupad kag 50 meters? Patay na unta
ka.” (the curious case of a flying man in my book)
There was this one time where I had to take over the case from
another lawyer who is my friend. And so, the only lusot na makita (b) By showing bias, prejudice, and hostility;
nako to try to win an acquittal for my client wasto recall ang main (c) By prior inconsistent acts or conduct similar to prior
witness for the prosecution- katong private complainant. It was a inconsistent statements;
case for theft where the client maintains his innocence sa akoa. Gi- (d) By showing social connections, occupation and manner of
adto nako ang lawyer ug nananghid nga irecall nako ang witness. living;
Nakasabot man pud siya so I was able to recall the witness. (e) By showing interest in the outcome of the case
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness. – A Section 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime.
witness may be impeached by the party against whom he or she – For the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or
was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his or her she has been convicted by final judgment of a crime shall be
general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by admitted if
evidence that he or she has made at other times statements (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one (1)
inconsistent with his or her present testimony, but not by year; or
evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown (b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the
by the examination of the witness, or record of the judgment, that penalty.
he or she has been convicted of an offense. (11a) However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the
conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or annulment of
A very important provision. the conviction. (n)
So, under Section 11, a witness may be impeached by the opponent. Take note, pwede nimo i-impeach by conviction. Why? Because,
What do you mean impeached? Dauton nimo ang witness. How do anyway, it is already a public record that’s by final judgement. Its no
you do that? longer on appeal. Final na na siya. You’ve already been convicted.
Remember diba, when we were discussing the rights of a witness,
MODES OF IMPEACHMENT the witness must answer the questions even if it tends to establish a
A witness may be impeached by the opponent: claim against him except when right against self-incrimination
applies or the Right against Self-degradation applies. Exception to
1. By contradictory evidence the exception would be final conviction for an offense. You have to
By presenting contradictory evidence as to what the answer to your previous final conviction.
witness is saying, in effect, you are telling the court na “Uy,
namakak na siya. Dili tinood na iyahang gina-ingon.” Continuation lang sya ani kaning Section 12 to Section 11 na ang
conviction of a crime is a manner of impeachment.
2. By evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or
integrity is bad Again, Section 11 says that it may be shown by the examination of
So, in this particular situation, in essence, you are a witness or the record of judgment that he or she has been
presenting Character Evidence. Ingnon nimo ang korte “Ay convicted of an offense. Section 12 sets the parameters of
dili. Bakakon jud na siya. Tong elementary pa na, kusug impeachment. How do you do it kuntahay prior conviction of
kaayo na mangopya. Pareha pud atong highschool.” judgement ang manner nimo of impeachment? Remember na
You’re telling the court that the witness is not honest. allowed siya if the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of 1
year or the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
3. By evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present testimony October 7 Part 4 | Du
Evidence by prior inconsistent statements
However, the new rule provides that evidence of a conviction is not
4. By evidence of conviction of an offense admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or
annulment of the conviction.
OTHER MODES OF IMPEACHMENT
(from the book of Francisco, 1992 ed) Where a witness’ conviction had been annulled, take note
(a) By showing improbability or unreasonableness of testimony that the judgment is set aside or vacated.
I have this witness who is the victim in a vehicular accident. Furthermore, it is settled that amnesty looks backward and
Improbable kaayo nga nabanggan kag motor unya abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself. It so
nilupad kag 50 meters. This is what the opposing counsel overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is
FIRST
EXAM 191
charged that the person released by amnesty stands Impeach meaning to destroy the credibility of the witness or his
before the law precisely as though he had committed no testimony.
offense (People vs. Casido, G.R. No. 116512, March 7,
1997). Now, what happens when wala pa nadautan sa pikas ang testimony
sa imong witness, ang credibility sa imong witness, ginapahumot na
Ngano man? Diba, what happens when a conviction is annulled? The nimo pag-ayo karon ang imong witness? Mura bitawg ginaingnan
judgment is actually vacated, it is actually set aside. It is as if the nimo ang court na kani siya di gyud ni siya mamakak, grabe jud ni
witness was never convicted. siya kabuotan, santo jud kaayo ni akong witness. Take note that is
not allowed.
What about amnesty? Recall the case of People vs. Casido which was
cited in the recent case of Magdalo sa Pagbabago vs. COMELEC. So, When you raise the profile and try to impress upon the court that
there is another difference between pardon and amnesty, dili lang the witness is extra credible and extra honest, that is not allowed
kay private and public act. Ang pardon, it does not erase the fact because that is the process known as:
that you committed a crime. Ang amnesty, it is as if there is no crime
to speak of. That is the effect of an amnesty that is why dili pwede Bolstering
kung kintahay the conviction has been subject of an amnesty or The proponent of a witness may not attempt to build up the
annulment of the conviction. witness’s credibility prior to his being impeached. The rationale is
that the witness is presumed trustworthy. It also speeds up the
Section 13. Party may not impeach his or her own witness. – proceedings by not spending time bolstering when the other side
Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and may not even impeach the witness.
(e) of Section 10 of this Rule, the party presenting the witness is not
allowed to impeach his or her credibility. Hulata na iimpeach before ka mag-build up sa credibility sa witness.
As a general rule, we presume that the witness is trustworthy.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so
declared by the court upon adequate showing of his or her adverse Tanawa pagud, ipahumot nimo imong witness unya di man diay na
interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his or her having misled iimpeach sa pikas. So no need, it is a waste of time.
the party into calling him or her to the witness stand.
But rehabilitation, on the other hand, pwede nimo buhaton. It is like
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is bolstering pero your witness has already been impeached. So,
an adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him or pwede nimo i-rehabilitate karon.
her in all respects as if he or she had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his or her bad character. He or she may Rehabilitation
also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but When the character of a witness has been impeached, the proponent
such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his or can now present evidence of his good character. This is known as
her examination-in-chief. the process of rehabilitation.
[For this provision, you are implored to read pages 607 to 609 of How is rehabilitation done in cases where another mode of
Evidence Explained.] impeachment was made?
Character Evidence to Impeach a Witness What I’m trying to say here is that kung ang character of a witness
Prior to the amendment: is impeached by the adverse party, you can rehabilitate by
presenting evidence of his good character.
How do you do that? Because there are several rules on
Section 14. Evidence of good character of a witness. – Evidence
impeachment.
of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached.
Remember: The manner of rehabilitation should be germane to the
manner of impeachment.
Take note that this provision has already been deleted and is now
incorporated in Section 54, Rule 130:
The Rules are silent on this point. However, it is opined, for the sake
of fairness and judicial economy, that the proponent is confined to
“Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until
using the same techniques used by the opponent to impeach the
such character has been impeached.”
witness. That is, if the opponent impeached via bias, then
rehabilitation is limited to negating the claim of bias. If the opponent
Why is this still important? Because there are terms you need to
brought in a rebuttal witness who testified to the character of the
remember in relation to impeachment.
principal witness as that of a liar, rehabilitation is limited to a
FIRST
EXAM 192
character witness who testifies that the principal witness is a truthful And if he did make those statements, he has to be made to
person. explain because it could be that the witness made that
statement previously and that it is just taken in a different
The manner of rehabilitation should be the same as the manner context or out of context.
impeachment. So, kung kintahay ang impeachment is made by prior
inconsistent statements, how do you now rehabilitate? By 3. If the statement be in writing it must be shown to the
presenting evidence of prior consistent statements. witness before any question is put to him or her concerning
them.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
That’s all you need to remember, kana bitaw process of laying the
Section 14. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent predicate. Why am I emphasizing this?
statements. – Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that
he or she has made at other times statements inconsistent with his Take note:
or her present testimony, the statements must be related to him or
her, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons When inapplicable:
present, and he or she must be asked whether he or she made such Where the previous statements of a witness are offered as
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be evidence of an admission, and not merely to impeach him,
in writing, they must be shown to the witness before any question is the rule on laying the predicate does not apply.
put to him or her concerning them.
Unsa ba ni na admission atong ginahisgutan diri?
Take note that in the present case, the witness is testifying for a party Remember: Confesio facta in judicio omni probatione
but in a previous occasion he said something different from what he major est.
is stating right now. Admission during trial is stronger than all proof.
Either way, because there is that inconsistency, you can make the So when you are talking about judicial admissions, diba
case that the witness has lied at one time or another. Posible that you are not supposed to contradict it. So the witness is
the witness lied while testifying before the court. Mao na siya ang now contradicting the judicial admission in a subsequent
impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. statement in the same case before the same court. The rule
on laying the predicate does not apply. No need to lay the
The procedure laid down in Section 14 is also known as the process predicate in that situation.
of LAYING THE PREDICATE. It is done in the following manner:
Thus, if the prior inconsistent statement appears in a
1. The witness must be confronted with such statements with deposition of the adverse party, and not a mere witness,
the circumstances of the times, places and the persons that adverse party who testifies may be impeached
present in which they were made; without laying the predicate as such prior statements are
in the nature of admissions of said adverse party.
Example:
In a cross-examination: “Is it not a fact Mr. Witness that on June Even if it is not a judicial admission, pwede siya ma-take as
1, 2020, when you were speaking before your fellow barangay an extrajudicial admission. Admission against interest can
members, you mentioned this and that?” be taken against you.
And the point you are trying to make here is that lahi iyang Purpose of laying the predicate:
ginaingon niya karon na nagatestify siya sa katong ginaingon The purpose of which is to allow the witness to admit or deny the
niya katong nagstorya siya before mga kauban niya sa prior statement and afford him an opportunity to explain the same.
barangay. So you confront him with that. Non-compliance with the foundational elements for this mode of
“Yes, it is true naa ko ngadto.” impeachment will be a ground for an objection based on “improper
impeachment.” Over a timely objection, extrinsic evidence of a prior
2. The witness must be asked whether he or she made such inconsistent statement without the required foundation (or without
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them; and laying the predicate) is not admissible.
Example (continued): Pwede ka objectionan ana. Gidirecta lang nimo, gi-introduce lang
And then pangutanon na nimo karon whether giingon ba gyud nimo into evidence katong prior inconsistent statements without
niya ang statements. Is it true that you stated in that situation laying the predicate, then, that can be objected to on the ground of
that blah blah blah? improper impeachment. Again, the manner of rehabilitation should
be germane to the manner of impeachment.
FIRST
EXAM 193
REVIEW OF CONCEPTS October 7 Part 5 | Escritor

Voir dire
In the Philippine setting, voir dire is competency examination of a Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. – The court,
witness to determine whether competent siya as a witness or there motu proprio or upon motion shall order witnesses excluded so that
is a ground for incompetency that would lead the judge to believe they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. This rule does
that the presumption on the competency of a witness is not not authorize exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural person, (b) a
applicable. Naay facts stating otherwise. duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is a party
to the case, (c) a person whose presence is essential to the
Qualifying the witness presentation of the party’s cause, or (d) a person authorized by a
This is a process where if the adverse party does not admit to the statute to be present.
qualifications of an expert witness, you have to present or to or through intermediaries, until all shall have been examined.
introduce into evidence his credentials by asking preliminary
questions, to the effect that he is really an expert witness with
Pwede nimong i-exclude ang succeeding witness from the
respect to the subject of his testimony.
courtroom, so that ang witnesses will not hear the testimony of the
other witnesses. Para ma-ensure, supposedly, by the exclusion and
Laying the basis or foundation
separation of witnesses that dili bitaw magtake ug cue sa mga tubag
Ong Ching Po vs. CA: Execution, existence, loss, contents can be
sa other witness. Preventing concert of testimony, when no concert
changed according to the exigencies of the case, when we were
exists, noh?
talking about the Original Document Rule in Rule 130, Rules of
Admissibility of Documents.
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. xx The court
Laying the predicate may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented
Process of laying the predicate which should be followed when you from conversing with one another, directly or through
are going to impeach a witness for prior inconsistent statements. intermediaries, until all shall have been examined.
Laying the Predicate Laying the Basis In other words, i-quarantine sa ng mga witnesses nga na. Social
Refers only to impeachment of Refers to a situation where distancing sa mo. Ayaw pag-uban. Dili pwede na mag-uban mo kay
a witness through prior evidence which is otherwise basig magsabot mo kung unsa ang inyong i-testify sa korte.
inconsistent statements incompetent will be
introduced into evidence Now, what’s the main purpose of this rule?
because it falls under the rules That the witness should not be able to hear the testimony of other
of exclusion. witnesses. Thereby preventing untruthful, or again, unnatural
concert of testimony among them.
Prior to amendment:
This rule is intended to disallow a witness to shape his or her
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. – On any trial
testimony as to directly refute or corroborate another witness’
or hearing, the judge may excluded from the court any witness not
testimony. So, the law would assume na two separate people,
at the time under examination, so that he may not hear the
different na ang ilahang testimony. Imposible man pud na parya
testimony of other witnesses, The judge may also cause witnesses to
gyud kaayo in every material respect.
be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one
another until all shall have been examined.
Now, at the beginning of class, I told you that I will try as much as
possible to tell you how the Rules of Evidence work. And I will also
Amended provision:
tell you – I told you earlier, diba, how the rules do not work. And this
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. – The court,
is one of those situations.
motu proprio or upon motion shall order witnesses excluded so that
they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. This rule does
Kung i-exclude nimo, dili na sya makadungog. Now, what’s to stop
not authorize exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural person, (b) a
the lawyer from briefing the witnesses together? Naa bay law or
duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is a party
kana bitawng ethical rule that would prevent a lawyer from having
to the case, (c) a person whose presence is essential to the
what I call, a witness conference? I conduct a witness conference
presentation of the party’s cause, or (d) a person authorized by a
from time to time to ensure na I get the full story. And in doing so,
statute to be present.
I interview the witnesses together. And so, ingon ang witness A,
ingon-ani. Syempre, madunggan na ni witness B. Madunggan na ni
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be
witness C, etc.
prevented from conversing with one another, directly or through
intermediaries, until all shall have been examined.
FIRST
EXAM 194
Is there a rue preventing me from doing that? Kanang coaching my lang gyud gihapon. There’s no law that would disallow witnesses
witnesses? from reading the JA of the other witnesses in civil cases.
No. Wala may naga-ingon na bawal nako ipadungog ang contents But, take note however that, while information the other witness’
sa ilahang testimony sa sugod during discovery, or preparation as direct testimonies cannot be effectively withheld from the witness,
part of my work product. So, if the goal would be to ensure witnesses the rule on exclusion and separation might still ensure that he or she
will not hear the testimony of others to prevent unnatural concert of cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses during cross-
testimony, well, kining untruthful part, okay pwede nato ni i-prevent. examination and onwards. That’s what you can prevent. By not
Pero kaning unnatural, murag dali ra gud kaayo to ensure that allowing them to stay in the same place.
they’re testimonies are harmonious. And the Rules do not provide
anything to that effect. Exclusion and separation would ensure that the witnesses cannot
take hints from the questions asked and answers given during the
Now, it must be noted however that exclusion and separation of remaining stages in the examination of another witness, skillful
witnesses can be more effective in criminal cases than in civil cross-examination succeeds and casting doubt as to his or her
cases. accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from conflict of interest. You
gotta take hints. Pwede na sya masatisfy na sya by exclusion.
Remember that in criminal cases, there are cases where pwede na
ang ilahang testimony would be orally made. Oral lang. If the main WITNESSES WHO CANNOT BE EXCLUDED
evidence can be proved – or the evidence of guilt be proved by 1. A party who is a natural person, which means, the plaintiff
evidence that depends on the credibiltiy of the witnesses, mao na and the defendant in a civil case or the complainant and the
sya ang rule na nakabutang sa Rule on Continuous trial. accused in criminal cases, even if they happen to be
witnesses as well;
So, oral form. Wala’y judicial affidavits. And then remember, under Dili nimo na pwede i-exclude. The have the right to be
the Rule on Continuous Trial, as much as possible, you exhaust your there. With respect to the accused, remember, the witness
witnesses in one sitting. has the right to meet the witnesses against him, face to
face. Di gyud nimo sya pwede i-exclude.
If you have three witnesses, “Tara. Humanon na nato na dayon.” So,
the witnesses can be excluded and separated from one another in 2. A duly designated representative of a juridical entity which
that situation. Pwede mag motion ang pikas party. “Your Honor, we is a party to the case, as juridical persons prosecute and
defend through authorized representatives;
move for the exclusion of other witnesses who will testify after the
first intended witness.” Pwede na buhaton, okay? Para di sila
For example, diba you can only represent a corporation if there
kadungog – dili pud sila kadungog sa cross-examination. Alright.
is a Board Resolution, to the effect that “this particular person
That’s for criminal cases.
is authorized to represent XYZ Corporation in the prosecution
of this case before the proper courts of justice.” Mao na usually
But remember, ang sa civil cases, lahi. For, in criminal cases where
ang nakabutang sa Board Resolutions sa mga corporation. So,
ang demeanor of the witness is not essential, or offenses that are
that person designated to be its lawful representative, cannot
transactional in character, like estafa, unsa man ang atoang
be excluded.
testimony nila? Statements given to law enforcement officers,
affidavits or counter-affidavits during preliminary investigation, and
3. A person’s presence is essential to the presentation of a
in their absence, judicial affidavits.
party’s cause; and
Is there any law that prevents a prospective witness from reading, Kinsa man daw na? Naa ba ning mga persons whose presence
for example, the JA of his fellow witnesses? is essential to the facilitation of the party’s cause? We got to
that later.
Let us suppose that the lawyer can be constrained. The lawyer can
be prevented from giving a copy, for example, of the JA. Naa bay 4. A person authorized by statute to be present.
law na magcontrol sa conduct sa witness mismo na mangutana sya
or mangayo syag kopya sa JA sa iyahang fellow witnesses? We need to take note na kani sya, dili ni sya gikan na
Philippines. Gi-kopya ra ni nato sa Federal Rules. The this
There’s no law that will prevent them from doing that. So, if the exception contemplates such persons as an agent who handled
goal is absolutely to prevent them from knowing what the other the transaction, being litigated, or an expert needed to advise
witnesses will be testifying on, mali na ka. The rule does not work counsel in the management of litigation. In order to invoke the
that way because it can easily be circumvented. The rule, the way I exception, the proponent needs to show the trial counsel needs
see it, does not work. Civil cases, again, I told you already. Pwede the attendance to effectively function during trial or during
deposition. Further, the court should examine whether
FIRST
EXAM 195
permitting the witnesses to attend the trial or deposition would guardian ad litem? How do you now reconcile that to the
be contrary to the purpose of the rule like when it would allow guardian ad litem’s right to attend all hearings and
the witness to shape his testimony or directly refute or proceedings where naa tong bata? So, you cannot take the
corroborate witness’ testimony. The determination of whether guardian ad litem away from trial. he has to be there.
a witness is essential under the rule lies, again, in the discretion
of the court. (c) Interpreter under the Rule on Examination of Child
Witness.
Take note, gikopya lang nato ni sa America. In other words, wala
pa tay kaugalingon nato na jurisprudence on this matter. So, if It is possible that the interpreter is also a witness. Diba dili
we say for example, the chairman of your Bar examinations man magmatter diri kung kintahay qualified ba gyud ka na
would ask a question about this sub-paragraph or this third interpreter. It’s enough that you understand the language
paragraph here. You cannot be faulted for citing foreign of the child, if you’re an interpreter under the rule.
jurisprudence where our own rules seem to debase from
foreign rules which are counterparts of our own incumbent Take note lang na if you’re an interpreter, you have to be
rules. So, diha ra gyud ta kutob. Di gyud ko kahatag ug there kay ang bata mu-testify man. Kay mag-interpret man
Philippine jurisprudence on this matter. ka dapat sa iyahang testimony. Mu-testify ka ahead if you
are also an intended witness. The moment the interpreter
What about a person authorized by statute to be present? testifies ahead of the child, pwede na sya mu-attend karon
Again, considering that the new provision is taken from the sa testimony sa child mismo.
Rules of Procedure in the US, it might be difficult to pinpoint
certain statutes that specifically authorizes a person who is also (d) A support person under Section 11, who is required to
an intended witness to be present during trial or hearing. But I be present when the child testifies. If the support person
will try. I will still try to give you examples. Karon, ipakita nako be also an intended witness, and if the court allows his
sa inyoha possible examples lang gud. testimony, his testimony shall be presented ahead of the
testimony of the child. But, when the child testifies, the
(a) A rehabilitation receiver under RA 10142. support person should be there.
Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act. So, naa tay So, these are examples that I can think about.
rehabilitation receiver who is deemed an officer of the
court, and conceivably might also testify before the court Now, second paragraph ta.
on matters such as recommending a rehabilitation plan to Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. xx The court
the court. Because rehabilitation proceedings, insolvency may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented
proceedings that require a rehabilitation receiver – diba from conversing with one another, directly or through
remember, no action can be brought without the intermediaries, until all shall have been examined.
participation of this rehabilitation receiver? So, he is an
essential personnel, in other words. So, he has to be in And tawag ani, witness sequestration. Like, the process of jury
court. Sa akoang paglantaw. sequestration in the United States. Pero kadto, jury to sya. Kani,
witnesses. How do we do that?
(b) A guardian ad litem
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. xx The court
Although not strictly under a statute, but under an
may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented
issuance pursuant to the rule-making power of the SC.
from conversing with one another, directly or through
Take note that a guardian ad litem is allowed to attend all
intermediaries, until all shall have been examined.
interviews, depositions, hearings, and trial proceedings, in
which a child would participate. But it must be noted that
Kaya kaha ni sya na sila tanan will be examined in like, one day? So,
a person who is a witness in any proceeding involving the
you just have to keep them in a holding room; that they cannot talk
child, cannot be appointed as a guardian ad litem as
to one another. Pwede kaya? Or kintahay it would last for months
general rule.
ang trial. Naa ba tay kwarta na ibutang sila sa hotel? I-sequester sila,
i-quarantine. Murag i-quarantine. Murag i-social distancing, or mas
But the devil is in the exception; because a guardian ad
grabe pa? I don’t think we have the resources. In the US, when they
litem may testify in the proceeding if the court finds it
sequester a jury, they have the budget for that. So, I don’t know if
necessary to promote the best interests of the child. So,
we can do that.
pwedeng ipa-testify ang guardian ad litem. How do you
now reconcile that if you apply that exception to the
October 7 Part 6 | Estrosas
general rule that a witness cannot be appointed as a
FIRST
EXAM 196
Interestingly, the amended rule is not the first time this provision It’s a situation where a witness at the witness
appeared in Philippine judicial history. It appeared in Section 39 of stand may refer to something in writing to
General Orders No. 58 of the Office of the US Military Governor in help him in his testimony.
the Philippine Islands dated April 23, 1900. The said Section 39
provides: Prior Recollection Recorded
Section 39. While the witnesses shall be under Witnesses can testify to the accuracy of a recording or
examination, the magistrate may exclude all witnesses documentation of their own out-of-court statement based on their
who have not testified. He may also cause witnesses to recollection of the circumstances under which the statement was
be kept separate, and to be prevented from conversing recorded or documented – even though the witness does not
with one another until all shall have been examined. remember the events attested to in the statement. It is sufficient that
the witness is able to testify to having made the recording, and to
COMMENTS: It is not the first time that ‘witness sequestration’
having written an accurate statement at that time.
appears in Philippine Law. It was already in Section 39, General
Orders No. 58 of the US Military Governor in the Philippine Islands -
It’s like something happened to you a long time ago, and you
kadtong panahon after sa giyera or after Spanish liberation.
happened to remember writing something about it, or maybe
Philippines moved from one colonizer to another, from the
going to a police officer to have a blotter written about it. Pero
Spaniards to the Americans. At that time, it was the United States
nakalimot naka exactly unsay nahitabo atong panahona tuh.
that gave us our laws. The US Constitution was made applicable to
So, what can you do? Because you remember at that time when
the Philippines. They promulgated Rules of Procedure that would be
you made that recording, your statement is accurate (e.g. kay
made applicable to Philippine Courts. We were under the US
karon lang jud ka nakawatan, bag-o ra nahitabo ang subject
Supreme Court, so cases of the Philippines were brought all the way
matter sa recording na tuh, etc.) What can you do? Bring that
to the US Supreme Court. That’s the reason why we have ‘witness
recording in court to aid your recollection of facts. You simply
sequestration’ before or separation of witnesses. Hence, it is not first
testify to the court that kadtong mga nakabutang dadto are
time in our history that we have this provision.
seemed accurate, and you can even present that recording or
that note into evidence.
The efficacy of excluding or sequestering witnesses has long
been recognized as a means of discouraging and exposing
Present Memory Refreshed (Present Memory Revived)
fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion (6 Wigmore SS1837-1838).
A witness must testify from the basis of his current recollection, he
cannot ordinarily read from a document. However, if a witness
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. – A
forgets something he at one time knew and had personal
witness may be allowed to refresh his or her memory respecting
knowledge of, he may be shown a writing to refresh his memory.
a fact by anything written or recorded by himself or herself, or
under his or her direction, at the time when the fact occurred, or
Lawyer: Do you remember having executed a document on
immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was
blahblahblah?
fresh in his or her memory and he or she knew that the same was
correctly written or recorded; but in such case, the writing or
Witness: I don’t remember.
record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse
party, who may, if he or she chooses, cross-examine the witness
Lawyer: But if I show you a copy of that document which bears
upon it and may read it in evidence. A witness may also testify
your signature, would you be able to remember and identify it?
from such a writing or record, though he or she is able to swear
that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when
Witness: Yes, I might.
made; but such evidence must be received with caution.
(So, ipakita nimo dayun sa iyaha. Now, you refresh his memory.)
Sir JZE’s advice: It’s a very long provision, just read it. Nothing
much there, except I need to tell you that there’s a possible bar
The writing or document used by the witness to refresh his memory
examination question that can be taken from this provision, and
cannot be admitted as evidence, it can only be used to refresh the
that would be:
witness’s memory of something he once knew.
Distinction between recorded recollection and
refreshing recollection, (or in the transcript of Dean
Sir JZE’s advice: Section 16 talks about “kalimtanon witnesses”.
Inigo
In succession, that’s dementia. Mas trendy na term is Alzheimer’s
Distinction between past recollection recorded and
disease.
present memory refreshed (sometimes present
memory revived).
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given
in evidence, the remainder, the remainder admissible. – When
part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given
FIRST
EXAM 197
in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be 2. All other public documents that are not entries in public
inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, records made in the performance of a duty by a public
conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, officer.
declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence. All other public documents which are not entries in
public records made in the performance of a duty by a
Section 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. – public officer, are not prima facie evidence of the facts
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by stated. However, these other public documents are
the adverse party. evidence, even against a third person, of two facts,
namely:
Sir JZE’s advice: Just read those provisions; nothing monumental 1. The fact which gave rise to their execution; and
about it. 2. The date of the document.
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS AUTHENTICATION

With respect to object evidence, authentication is simply proving
Section 19. Classes of documents. – For the purpose of their that the object is what it purports to be. As applied to documents,
presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. authentication is a process of identifying the document, that there’s
a genuine and due execution of the document.
Public documents are:
Cross-reference
a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign
This is in consonance with a previous rule, Section 46, Rule 130.
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
Section 46. Entries in official records. – Entries in official
country;
records made in the performance of his or her duty by a public
b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public
officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of
except last wills and testaments;
a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
c) Documents that are considered public documents
facts therein stated.
under treaties and conventions which are in force
between the Philippines and the country of source; and
Examples.
d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
Civil Registrar in the books of registries,
documents required by law to be entered therein.
Register of Deeds in the entry books;
A ship captain in the ship’s logbook. (Republic v. Medida,
All other writings are private.
692 Phil. 454 (2012))
This classification into either public or private document only applies
What about certifications of the Regional Technical Director,
for purposes of authentication and proof, and not for any other
DENR regarding the area and technical description of land in a
purpose. case for correction of the certificate of title?
Public Documents Entries in Records REPUBLIC vs. GALENO

G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. – Documents
consisting of entries in public records made in the performance The CENRO and the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR,
of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts certifications do not fall within the class of public documents
therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132.
against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their The certifications do not reflect “entries in public records made
execution and of the date of the latter. in the performance of a duty by a public officer,” such as entries
made by the Civil Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship
Two Classes of Public Documents captain in the ship’s logbook. The certifications are not
1. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original
the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima official records in the legal custody of a government office.
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The certifications are not even records of public documents.
Note that entries in public records are prima facie
evidence of all the facts therein stated. This makes this Note: But the Supreme Court is not saying that they are
class of documents self-authenticating. not public documents.
FIRST
EXAM 198
As such, sans the testimonies of the public officers who issued Because you cannot bring the record itself, what you
such documentary evidence (non-authenticated public present is an official publication or a copy attested by the
documents) to confirm the veracity of its contents, the same are officer having legal custody. So, that’s a certified true
bereft of probative value and cannot, by their mere issuance, copy of the Register of Deeds or by his deputy. That will
prove the facts stated therein. At best, they may be considered be enough to prove that official record.
only as prima facie evidence of their due execution and date of
issuance but do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country,
stated therein. which is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which
the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public document
Comment: Now, we see. We go back to the provision. The provision under such treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of
is to the effect that “all other public documents are evidence, even Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the
against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to
and of the date of the latter”. In effect, the case is simply telling you reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the
what the codal provision is all about. They may not be public Philippines.
documents that are public records that fall within the purview of the
first sentence, but they fall within the purview of the second Example: Let’s say, you want to get a public record in
sentence. another country that you want to present in the
Philippines. Mu-agi jud ka sa mga consuls so on and so
What are they prima facie evidence of? forth. Kinahanglan ipa blue ribbon. Take note that these
Not of the facts stated therein but of their due execution are products of treaties or conventions where the
and date of issuance. Philippines is signatory too.
SUMMARY For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a

Entries in public records All other public documents contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next
Prima facie evidence of the Evidence, even against a third preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary
facts therein stated. person, of the fact which gave of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul,
rise to their execution and of or consular agent or by any office in the foreign service of the
the date of the latter. Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record
If uncontroverted, equivalent At best, they may be is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his or her office.
to proof of the facts therein considered as prima facie
stated already. evidence of their due Sir JZE’s advice: Just read that. Nothing much there if you ask
execution and date of issuance me.
only, not all the facts therein
stated. If uncontroverted, October 7 Part 8 | Fernandez
equivalent to of due execution
and date of issuance. A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent
may be presented in evidence without further proof, the
How are public documents under Section 19 proved? certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due
execution and genuineness of the document involved. The
Section 24. Proof of official record. – The record of public certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when between a foreign country and the Philippines has abolished the
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official requirement, or has exempted the document itself from this
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having formality. (24a)
the legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a SUMMARY
certificate that such officer has the custody.
The official record may be evidenced by:
Example: You want to present a Certificate of Title, but 1. An official publication thereof;
you are not the owner. You cannot present the owner’s 2. A copy of attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
duplicate certificate of title. Let’s say, you simply want to record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not
introduce into evidence the fact that an annotation is kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has
made at the back of the Torrens title. Who keeps the title? the custody.
The Register of Deeds. Remember, there is irremovability
of public record that we discussed under the Original If the record is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made
Document Rule. Dili nimo pwde hiramon ang title sa ROD. by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general,
FIRST
EXAM 199
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent by any officer in the by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the officer has the custody.
seal of his office (blue ribbon documents).
Examples:
For documents that are considered public documents under Forms accomplished by a private citizen and required by law to be
treaties and conventions which are in force between the submitted to a government office (i.e. tax returns).
Philippines and the country of source, if a treaty or
convention between the Philippines and a foreign country Illustration:
treats a document as a public document, Philippine courts 1. You go to the BIR and fill out the forms and submit it back. In
should be bound by such treatment or characterization and your hands, it is a private document considering that our
treat it accordingly as a public document. (Even if strictly taxation system is voluntary in a sense.
speaking and procedurally, it does not bear the whole marks of 2. The moment you submit it to the BIR it becomes a private
a public document. If the treaty or convention says it be a public document/record kept in a public office, making it a public
document then it should be treated as one.) record.
Section 30. Proof of Notarial Documents. — Every instrument PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law,
may be presented in evidence without further proof, the Section 20. Proof of Private Documents. — Before any private
certificate of acknowledgement being prima facie evidence of the document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution of the instrument or document involved. (30) execution and authenticity must be proved by any of the
following means:
FUNCTION OF NOTARIZATION
The notarization of a document carries considerable legal effect. (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
Notarization of a private document converts such document (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without handwriting of the maker; or
further proof of its authenticity. Thus, notarization is not an (c) By other evidence showing its due execution and
empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a authenticity.
substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires
preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as Any other private document need only be identified as that which
notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and it is claimed to be. (20)
administrative offices generally. (Villlafria v. Plazo, GR No 187524,
August 5. 2015) TAKE NOTE:
That if it is a private document follow Section 20.
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY (which makes it exempt from the Section 20 highlights the distinction between a public
Rule on Authentication as a general rule) document and a private document
Lazaro v. Agustin PUBLIC DOCUMENT PRIVATE DOCUMENT

GR No. 152364, April 15, 2010
Normally self-authenticating Requires authentication
A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred (anybody can testify about it in the manner provided
upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents and not just the notary for by Section 20
acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the public nor the custodian of
presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and the document) Cannot be admitted in
convincing evidence to the contrary. evidence if it has not
been duly authenticated
Moreover, not all notarized documents are exempted from the strictly following Section
rule on authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not automatically 20
become a public document just because it contains a notarial
jurat. The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can QUICK PRINCIPLE
be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the 1. If the document being presented in evidence is a private
notarization was regular. document, that is the only time you apply Section 20.
2. Section 20 does not apply at all to public documents.
Section 27. Public record of a private document — An 3. A public document can be identified and authenticated without
authorized public record of a private document may be proved following any of the means provided in Section 20 (a) to (c).
FIRST
EXAM 200
ILLUSTRATION USING EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

ANCIENT DOCUMENT
RECORDS OF REGUARLY ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document
CONDUCTED BUSINESS RECORDS (Section 46, Rule not necessary. – Where a private document is more than thirty years
ACITIVITY (Section 45, Rule 130) old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be
130) found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or
In either of these exceptions to the hearsay rule, even if the circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity
entrants are unavailable, the records or entries are admissible. need be given.
HOWEVER, take note that:
The records are private The records are public Comment: JZE talks about the private documents (dating back to
documents (journals, ledger, documents and prima facie 1970s) in the house of his great grandfather who used to be a
purchase receipts, invoices, or evidence of the facts therein surveyor. If presented in the courts, private documents do not need
any other internal documents stated. to be authenticated.
in a business)
With respect to authentication, an “ancient document” is one
Assume that the original entrants are unavailable to testify. that may be deemed authentic without a witness to attest to
How will you prove these documents? Who will testify? the circumstances of its creation because its age suggests that
it is unlikely to have been falsified in anticipation of litigation in
RECORDS OF REGUARLY ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL
which it is introduced.
CONDUCTED BUSINESS RECORDS (Section 46, Rule
ACITIVITY (Section 45, Rule 130)
130) JZE’s Advise for BAR: if asked “What are the requisites for private
document to be considered as an ancient document?” just
Apply Section 20. Due Apply Section 23.
Documents consisting of memorize Section 21.
execution and authenticity
must be proved by any of the entries in public records
following means: made in the performance of Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The
a duty by a public officer are handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes
(a)By anyone who saw the prima facie evidence of the it to be the handwriting of such person because he or she has seen
document executed or written; facts therein stated. the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his or hers
(anybody can present it in upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
(b)By evidence of the court; it doesn’t have to be acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
genuineness of the signature the person who saw the respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison,
or handwriting of the maker; document being executed as made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated
or opposed to Section 20) as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (22a)
(c)By other evidence showing All other public documents
its due execution and are evidence, even against a Comment: This is not the first time that we encountered the
authenticity. third person, of the fact provision that tends to establish how to prove handwriting. Under
which gave rise to their the Opinion Rule, the opinion of an ordinary witness may be
execution and of the date of received in evidence regarding a handwriting with which he or she
the latter has sufficient familiarity. Meaning you do not really have to know or
have personal knowledge that the person who made that
October 7 Part 9 | Jamero handwriting made that at that particular time for that particular
document. Kung familiar ka sa handwriting sa usa ka person, you
WHEN AUTHENTICATION IS DISPENSED WITH: can state your opinion: “I think that is the handwriting of the person
1. When the private document is an actionable document not in question.”
denied under oath by a party;
2. When the authenticity and due execution of the documents are Cross-refence:
otherwise admitted (i.e. during pre-trial or in a request for Rule 130, Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witness. – The opinion of
admission); a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
3. The writing is a notarial document acknowledged, proved or evidence regarding:
certified (Sec. 30); xxx
4. The writing is a public document on record (Sec. 19); (b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity;
5. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to xxx
the issue;
6. When the private document is an ancient document (Sec. 21).
FIRST
EXAM 201
From 2019 TSN: Summary of how to prove the genuineness of a

handwriting: Case to read:
1. By any witness who actually saw the person writing the
instrument; VITANGCOL vs. PEOPLE
2. By any person who is familiar and who has acquired knowledge GR. No. 207406 | January 13, 2016
of the handwriting of such person;
3. His opinion as to the handwriting being an exception to the
opinion rule by a comparison to the questioned handwriting Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record
from the admitted specimen's thereof through autoptic may be impeached by evidence of:
proference or by an expert witness. (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a (b) collusion between the parties, or
copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a proceedings. (29)
correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court producing a document as genuine which has been altered and
having a seal, under the seal of such court. (25a) appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material
to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He or she
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, may show that the alteration was made by another, without his or
an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be her concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties
removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a affected by it, or otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the
court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
determination of a pending case. instrument. If he or she fails to do that, the document shall not be
admissible in evidence. (31a)
From 2019 TSN: Sec. 26 – Exception to the best evidence rule when
the original of the document is in the custody of a public office. Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed
and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as
evidence is concerned.
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed
by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his or her
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. —
deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted
tenor is found to exist in the records of his or her office,
as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or
accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as
Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
evidence that the records of his or her office contain no such record
attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial.
or entry. (28a)
Comment:
Comment: one of the favorite provisions of JZE
Another proof that the official language of the Philippine Bar Exams
is not just English but also Filipino.
If you go to a government office to secure a copy of the birth
certificate of your grandmother/father, and because they were born
October 8 Part 1 | Macacua
at war or prior to war, all public records at that time were razed by
fire, only to get a certificate that the office (civil registry) has no OFFER AND OBJECTION
record of the birth of a certain person. Question: The fact na walay
record and civil registrar sa birth sa akoang lolo does it mean that Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no
my lolo does not exist? NO. Such certification (na wala sila’y record) evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
simply means that no record is found in the office, that’s it. which the evidence is offered must be specified.
Another example: a CNOMAR (Certificate of no marriage record). Republic vs Gimenez

The issuance of CNOMAR means that as far as this office is
concerned, there is no copy of marriage contract. A fraternity brod, Formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest
married in 1980s, na dugay na bulag sa iyang asawa wanted to annul their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon
his marriage under Art. 36. JZE advised him to go to NSO (now PSA) the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to
and secure a copy of his marriage contract and license. “Bro good enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which
news, we don’t have to file a case (shows a CNOMAR).” Remember, the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this
the fact na walay marriage record does not mean that he is not allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to
married.
FIRST
EXAM 202
its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate

court will not be required to review documents not previously MOTION TO STRIKE, REMEDY
scrutinized by the trial court. The remedy of the opponent would be to move from the striking off
of the evidence from the records, the court may also exclude the
Formal offer is the proponent of evidence (testimonial, same motu proprio. Ordinarily, it is done through the means of
documentary, object) to inform interested parties, which includes motion to strike.
opposing party and the court. Apart from showing evidence, it
allows parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. General Rule
Lack of formal offer, evidence is excluded.
Before, prior to JAR, when you present a witness, you should inform
the court what is the purpose of the testimony. Counsel would Exceptions
normally say, “Your honor, what the testimony would prove are the
following matters”. These are listed down. Witness would identify. 1. Substantial compliance
Technically speaking, we are not proving anything yet. What sets it Tiomico vs Court of Appeals
into motion, the act of proving anything, is the act of formal offer.
The absence of the words, “we are formally offering the
After the presentation of testimonial evidence of a witness for a testimony for the purpose of…” should be considered
party, that’s the time that party will make formal offer of merely as an excusable oversight. The purpose of the
documentary and object evidence. subject testimony was succinctly stated, the reason behind
the requirement for its formal offer has been substantially
For example, document already presented is formally marked as complied with.
Exhibit A, counsel must state its purpose so judge is informed. It is
not an empty ceremony. It is very important.
2. Relaxation of rules
Gumabon vs PNB
People vs Mate
Formal offer means that the offeror shall inform the court of the Mato vs Court of Appeals
purpose of introducing its exhibits into evidence. Without a
formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of this Supreme Court relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed
evidence even if this has been previously marked and identified. evidence not formally offered to be admitted and
considered by the trial court provided the following
Even if this exhibits are pre-marked, during trial or even preliminary requirements are present:
conference, and later on identified and authenticated by the witness. a. the same must have been duly identified by testimony
That is not enough. There should be formal offer of evidence. Formal duly recorded; and
offer simplifies everything. b. the same must have been incorporated in the records
of the case.
You’re offering this evidence to prove that X was born in 1977, you
want to prove his age or date of birth. Remember, a document 3. Formal offer of evidence is superfluous.
contains lot of entries. Birth certificate contains who the parents are,
place of birth, and so on. By making an offering, you are filtering Republic vs Gimenez
information to be appreciated by the judge. You’re telling the judge
that the purpose of the document is to prove date of birth. Where a separate formal offer of evidence is superfluous. In
cases jointly tried and a party makes a formal offer of
evidence in one of the cases, while omitting to make such
You are not obliged to prove everything, only those which is
offer in the other case previously declared that he is
advantageous to your cause. If the other party wishes to to use your
adopting the same evidence for both cases that are jointly
evidence, he must adopt it as his own.
heard.
EVIDENCE EXCLUDED, NO FORMAL OFFER
The proponent of a piece of evidence fails to make formal offer, the October 8 Part 2 | Maglinte
evidence is excluded. It is not considered. The rule on formal offer is
not a trivial matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a When to make offer under the Rules
Prior to amendment
considerable period of time, shall be deemed a waiver to submit it.
Consequently, evidence that are not offered shall be excluded and
rejected.
FIRST
EXAM 203
Sec. 35. When to make offer. – As regards the testimony of a naa ang judge: “your honor the testimony of this witness is offered
witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to to put the following: 1… 2.. 3… 4...” And then later on, there are some
testify. judges will expect you even in with the use of a judicial affidavit
where the purpose and testimonies of your witness is already
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the indicated. There are still judges that expect you to make a formal
presentation of the party’s testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be offer in open court so you just need to repeat what you said in your
done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. JA. Just ask around the preference of the judge if they prefer formal
offer orally in open court. Because if you don’t make a formal offer
The offer of testimony must be made when the witness is called to before the presentation of the witness in court, then you violate the
testify and not when you're already asking questions. rule on formal offer based on the JAR.
Under documentary and object evidence, tanang witness human na Under the JAR
and the party rests its case. So turno na pud sa pikas karon, whether Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. –
they are to present a countervailing evidence or rebuttal evidence. a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a
Since nag-rest na ka, kinahanglan naka mag-make ug formal offer party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his
of documentary or object evidence (after the presentation of the documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their
party’s testimonial evidence) and according to the language of the chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which
old rules such offer shall be done orally, unless allowed by the court he offers the particular exhibit. xxx
to be done in writing. The problem with this provision was that it led
to a lot of delays with respect to documentary and object evidence. So what was the effect, the promulgation of the judicial affidavit rule
The exception, became the general rule. with this section 8?
The general rule has always been, it should be done orally. But the It shows the Supreme Court wants to go back to what was in the
lawyer will always ask the court “your honor may we ask for a period previous dispensation, or what was its intention from the very na
of 10 days to submit our formal offer of documentary exhibits in dapat ang formal offer of documentary or object evidence should
writing” and the court will invariably allow that. When in fact after be done orally, dili gyud siya dapat in writing.
you are done with your last witness, you already prepared the
exhibits that have already presented and then formally offer them But in practice gina-allow man gihapon (na written), which leads to
into evidence and state the purpose why you need to present the some delay. Now let's look up as amended.
evidence.
Rule as amended
The problem is, the court will grant a number of days to the formal Sec. 35. When to make an offer. – All evidence must be offered
offer of evidence in writing, and also grant the same number of days orally.
to opposing counsel to submit their comments and opposition to
your formal offer of documentary exhibits. That will lead to a lot of The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be made at
delay. Just because it was initiated by the proponent asking for. time the time the witness is called to testify.
to submit a written formal offer documentary exhibits.
The offer of documentary and object evidence, shall be made after
And it was changed a little bit when you talk about the Judicial the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
Affidavit Rule.
Effect
Under the JAR It seems that, under the current iteration of the Rules on Evidence,
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial there is no more exception (i.e. unless allowed by the court to be
affidavit. – The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness done in writing) to the rule that formal offer of evidence must be
in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony done orally. The change in the rule addresses the delay that results
at the start of the presentation of the witness. xxx whenever the court allows the parties to make their formal offer of
evidence in writing.
Now, this seems to be the superfluous, a little bit because in practice,
in the judicial affidavit, we already state the a purpose. In fact, in my OBJECTIONS
own practice, I already include a paragraph in the judicial affidavit Remember you cannot object to evidence that has not yet formally
where I was supposedly making a formal offer in my document offered. You objection must not be premature.
exhibits.
Purpose of objections
Remember the JA is made ex parte, the judge is not present when it 1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm
is prepared but gibutang gihapon nako ngadto, nag-pretend ko ug to a client’s cause;
FIRST
EXAM 204
2. To protect the record i.e. to present the issue of

inadmissibility of the offered evidence in a way that if the UNDER THE JAR
trial court rules erroneously, the error can be relied upon When shall the objection be made?
as a ground for a future appeal;
3. To protect a witness from being embarrassed by the Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial
adverse counsel; affidavit. – xxx the adverse party may move to disqualify the
4. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics like his witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found
consistently asking of obvious leading questions; and in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule
5. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any
errors and at the same time warn the court that a ruling excluded answer by placing it in bracket under the initials of an
adverse to the objector may supply a reason to invoke a authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of
higher court’s appellate jurisdiction. (Riano, Evidence: A excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of
Restatement for the Bar, p. 462, 2009 ed.) Court.
October 8 Part 3 | Campaner So, the rules under the old rules and the judicial affidavit rule are not
the same. Under the JAR, makita na nimo dira kung asa sa mga
When to make objections answers ang inadmissible. Kung ang entire testimony ba sa witness
Prior to amendment would be inadmissible, di ba sya competent to testify? You can do
that ahead of time. Wait for the actual testimony of that witness. You
Section 36. Objection. – Objection to evidence offered orally can file a motion to strike already, the moment you see his judicial
must be made immediately after the offer is made. affidavit.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral But what about documentary and object evidence?
examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent. Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. – xxx
(b) after each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its admission,
(3) days after notice of the offer unless a different period is and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that
allowed by the court. exhibit.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. For example, the evidence offered is objectionable on the ground
that it violates the original document rule, kay photocopy ra sya.
If the evidence is offered orally, you object immediately after the That’s the time that you object to it under the present dispensation,
formal offer is made. How about if it is an offer of evidence in in civil cases at least. So mao na sya imong atimanan ha, the moment
writing? As a general rule, in writing within three days after notice of it is offered. Pa-isa isa man na siya i-offer, so if you have 10 exhibits,
the offer unless a different period is allowed by court. pagka-offer sa Exhibit A, object na dayun ka, and so and so forth
hantod sa mahurot.
So, the rule before particularly provides for what happens if it is an
offer of evidence in writing. Three days is the default period. Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. – xxx
(c) since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the
What about a question propounded in the course of the oral judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is
examination? It shall be made as soon as the grounds shall become sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings
reasonably apparent. during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with
the description of each exhibit.
For example, the question violates the parole evidence rule. “What
else did you agree upon that cannot be found in the agreement?” Now let’s go to the new rule because it simplifies everything.
Diba, this is prohibited by the parole evidence rule?
After amendment
So when the grounds for objectionability became apparent, Section 36. Objection – Objection to offer of evidence must be
meaning sa question pa lang daan, its already apparent that the made orally immediately after the offer is made.
answer will reveal information that violates the parole evidence rule,
object na dayon ka. “Objection your honor, the question asked Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer
necessitates an answer that violates the parole evidence rule.” must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. Objection
to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination
Take note that the grounds for objection must be specified.
FIRST
EXAM 205
of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefore Court: Atty. STI, your witness.
become reasonably apparent. Atty. STI: Your Honor, I move to strike the testimony of the witness.
There was no formal offer, Your Honor.
The grounds for the objections must be specified. Court: Motion to strike granted. Under the Rules, the court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
Walang nang in writing na objection, the moment that it is offered
into evidence, you object orally. It presupposes that this evidence, For the next few years, Atty STI succeeded in tormenting young and
tanan klase nga evidence, should also be offered orally as well, inexperienced lawyers who forgot to make a formal offer of the
because all objections can only be made orally. testimony of their witnesses when they are first presented.
Take note because this is new, objection to the testimony of a Fast forward to Year 2012
witness for lack of formal offer must be made as soon as the Era of the JA Rule
witness begins to testify.
Atty. SG, fresh from taking his oath, is handling a civil case also
Now, I’ll walk you through the evolution of this rule. against Atty. STI. Atty. SPK calls witness Margaux Marasigan to the
witness stand. Atty. SG immediately proceeds to ask the witness to
ILLUSTRATION testify and reaffirm the contents of the judicial affidavit. Atty. SG
Situation prior to JA Rule and Amended Rules then prays to have the JA admitted in place of Margaux’s testimony
on direct examination which the court grants. Then the following
Atty SPK, fresh from taking his oath, is handling a case against Atty. exchange took place:
STI (older lawyer who loves to grandstand). Atty. SPK calls witness
Lily Cruz to the witness stand. Lily Cruz takes her oath and states her Atty SG: For now, that would be all for this witness, Your Honor.
name and personal circumstances for the record. Court: Atty. STI, your witness.
Atty STI: Your Honor, I move to strike the testimony of the witness.
Atty. SPK immediately proceeds to ask his questions. There was no formal offer.
Court: Motion to strike granted. Under the JAR, the party presenting
Atty. STI then realizes something. Atty SPK did not make a formal the JA of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the
offer of the witness’ testimony! purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of the
witness.
Atty. STI remembers that he read something about this in the
transcripts of Dean Inigo’s lectures (Note: he was never Dean Inigo’s For the next few years, Atty STI continued to employ this tactic to
student. He just used the TSN to review for the bar). So, contrary to torment young and inexperience lawyers who clearly were not the
his nature which is to grandstand, he kept his mouth shut and students of JZE because they always forget to make a formal offer
allowed Lily Cruz to testify without interruption. of the testimony of their witnesses when they are first presented.
Why? Kay katong illustration sa transcripts ni Dean Inigo October 8 Part 4 | Rojo
was very simple. There was this young lawyer na
nagpresent ug witness and he forgot his formal offer. Dean Fast forward to Year 2020
Inigo did not do anything because the court shall not Era of the Amended Rules
consider evidence which has not been formally offered.
Maski unsa pa ang iingon sa witness diha, di man na Atty. SPMT, fresh from taking his oath, is handling a criminal case as
iconsider sa court, and therefore susceptible to a motion private prosecutor for a homicide case also against Atty. STI. Atty.
to strike. SPMT calls witness Camila Dela Torre to the witness stand. Atty.
SPMT takes her oath and states her name and personal
So ang gibuhat ni Dean Inigo, “move to strike the entire circumstances for the record. Atty. SPK immediately proceeds to ask
testimony, Your Honor for lack of formal offer” and it was his questions.
not admitted by the court. Ingon ana ka-fatal sauna. What
is your remedy? To move for the reconsideration of the Based sa criminal case for homicide under the Rule for continuous
court’s order or you have to ask the court to allow you to trial is a case where the culpability or the innocence of the accused
recall your witness. will be based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses. Meaning, wala ta
nag gamit diri ug judicial affidavit. Diba? Dili man ni siya preferred
After remembering Dean Inigo’s Lectures, this happened after the in the rule on continuous trial? So, oral presentation of witnesses ni
testimony: siya. Meaning testimony in open court ang direct testimony ani niya,
direct examination.
Atty SPK: That would be all for the direct examination, Your Honor.
FIRST
EXAM 206
Like the case against Atty. SPI and countless other neophyte lawyers, According to my opponents, a judicial affidavit is a document and,
contrary to his nature which is to grandstand, he kept his mouth shut being a document, it should be formally offered after the
and allowed Camila Dela Torre to testify without interruption. Then presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. Thus, because I
this happened after the testimony: omitted the Jas in my formal offer of exhibits, they posit that the Jas
should not be considered by the court in determining the outcome
Atty. SPMT not knowing that he forgot to make his formal offer said, of the case.
Atty. SPMT: That would be all for the direct examination, Your Q: Were my opponents correct?
Honor. A: Of course not!
Court: Atty. STI, your witness. Why: A judicial affidavit is not documentary evidence. It is
What do you expect with Atty. STI now? testimonial evidence in written, question and answer form. Thus, for
Atty STI: Your Honor, I object and move to strike the testimony of JAs, follow the rules on offers and objections that pertain to
the witness. There was no formal offer, Your Honor. testimonial evidence, not those that pertain to documents.
Q: The question is should the court sustain atty STI? Tam aba So, kung naka formal offer naka sa imong JA sa beginning sa
g’hapon siya? testimony sa witness, you don’t have to make a formal offer of
A: The answer is, OVERRULED. documentary exhibits ana imong JA for a simple reason na dili na
documentary exhibit ang JA.
Why: Motion is overruled. Under Section 36, Rule 132 of the
Amended Rules, objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of CONTINUING OBJECTIONS
a formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. –
Because you waited until the end of the objection, therefore, is not When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the
timely and is deemed waived. examination of a witness that the question being propounded are
of the same class as those to which objection has been made,
Look at now what the new rules is now making. Kung before pwede whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be
kaayo nimo buhaton mag move to strike, granted for lack of formal necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the
offer. Pero karun, the new rule requires na kung mag object ka on adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of
the ground of lack of formal offer, you do it in the beginning, do not questions.
wait until the end. Atty. STI cannot victimized young lawyers
anymore. What is its purpose? Take note that once you are overruled on a
particular objection based on a particular ground, it would be quite
Again, take note of the difference of the previous and new unlikely for the court to change course when you raise the same
dispensation. You wait until the end of the testimony to object on objection again.
the ground of lack of formal offer of the witness. Then waived na
because it is not a timely objection. That is the effect of phraseology Naa ba kay reasonable belief na ma utro ang ruling sa court? I will
of the amended rules. give you an example.
We are still on Judicial Affidavits, I will give you another example. In the direct examination of a witness, the witness wants to prove by
testimony something that changes, adds to or modifies a written
Around 2015, I handled a civil case in Manila where, after presenting agreement. Gusto niya mag testify na naa pay terms agreed to by
my witness via JA and rested my case, I was allowed to file my formal the parties which are not found in the written agreement. What will
offer of exhibits in writing. Thereafter, instead of filing a comment or that be violative of? Of course, the parole evidence rule, under
opposition thereto, counsel for the defendant (a big Manila law firm) section 10.
filed a Demurrer to the Evidence. According to the opposing
counsel, all my JAs should be stricken off the record lack of formal First question of adverse counsel,
offer. You mentioned Mr. Witness that there are several terms that you
agreed to with the defendant that is not found in the written
Ipa strike off the record nila. What is the effect of that? Meaning, I agreement, can you give us one such provision? What provision or
was not able to present any evidence because my documentary what terms or condition are not found in that written agreement?
evidence by object evidence, na wala man koy object evidence ato. So, ikaw mu ana ka,
And then my testimonial evidence, wala man g’formal offer. Diba, so
if stricken off the record, what will happen? Objection your honor, the question calls for an answer that tends to
violate parole evidence rule. / Objection your honor, it violates the
I cannot prove my case. Hence, a demurrer to evidence. parole evidence rule.
FIRST
EXAM 207
For some reason that is unknown to you, the court overruled your about kay dili kaayo siya familiar sa jurisprudence let’s say for that
objection. So, the court is interested to know what those terms and matter.
conditions are even if they are not in the written agreement. So, the
court in effect for that question at least, it is disregarding the parole So, the court can take the time to research. But, remember the ruling
evidence rule. Gusto niya ma dunggan. must be made during the trial to give the other party the
opportunity to meet the situation presented by the court’s ruling.
Tubag karun ang witness, the first term na wala sa agreement. Meaning, if the court sustains or if the court overrules, what will the
Next question, the adverse counsel wants to push his luck and says, other party do?
Other than that, which you mentioned Mr. Witness, what else? What The other party should be given the chance to meet the situation.
other conditions that are not found in that written agreement? And take note that the reason for sustaining or overruling an
What do you do? Again, you object! objection need not be stated.
Objection your honor, it violates the parole evidence rule.
October 8 Part 5 | Campaner
Then the court says,
Objection overruled, let the witness answer. For example.
Counsel: Objection your honor, leading question.
How many terms and conditions which are not found in the written Judge JZE: Overruled.
agreement? You have an idea of it when you studied the pleadings,
right? You have an idea of it when you look at the judicial affidavits. Do I have to explain nganong dili leading ang question? NO.
But what if there are 10 na gna allege niya na matters which cannot
be found in the written agreement? Will you object 10 times as well Section 38. Ruling – xx The reason for sustaining or overruling
based on the evidence rule? When in fact for the first 2 questions, an objection need not be stated. xx
the court already made it clear the court is not going to sustain your
objection, when apparently the court does not know about the Why? Understandable na sya, yes means yes and no means no. But
parole evidence rule for whatever reason. take note that the situation is different when we go to compound
objections.
So, in question number 3, what else pa ba ang wala dira na inyong
g’sabutan na wala sa document? What do you expect? The court will What is a compound objection?
now sustain you? An objection that is based on two or more grounds.
NO. So, in that situation what do you need to do? Section 38. Ruling – xx However, if the objection is based on
two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one
You need to register your continuing objection for the record. or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied
Your honor, we continue to object to the same questioning on the upon. xx
ground that the answers would violate the parole evidence rule.
You do not need to object every time; it will just cause a delay. You Why? Because the party needs to know what precisely is the reason
just manifest for the record your continuing objection. why gi-sustain or gi-overrule for the purposes of appellate
recourse.
WHEN TO RULE
Section 38. The ruling of the court must be given immediately For example.
after the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a We object to the presentation of that object your honor, number
reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but one it is inadmissible under the 1987 Constitution being a product
the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time of an illegal search and seizure, and second the witness is not
as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to competent to testify as to that object.
meet the situation presented by the ruling.
Let’s say the court sustains the objection, but he is only sustaining
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be the objection on one ground, that the witness is not competent to
stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more testify on the object. It means that the court finds nothing wrong
grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of with the object on a constitutional standpoint, and therefore, for
them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38) purposes of an appeal, all that a party needs to worry about is
meeting the objectionability of that object on the point of view of
Take note that the court must immediately rule about the objection. competency of the witness and not upon constitutional grounds.
Unless the court is not familiar with the issue presented, like it’s an That’s why if i-sustain sya on one or more grounds, pero dili tanan,
issue of law. The procedure that the court would want to inform itself the court has to state ngano niya gina-sustain or overrule ang
objection.
FIRST
EXAM 208
- Irrelevant. No relation to the fact in issue so as to induce

UNDER THE JAR belief or nonbelief in its existence or non existence
The court is required to rule immediately or promptly as soon as - Improper. Kanang, improper ra gyud sya, maybe couched
the objection is made. in an offensive language.
Striking out answer Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. – If documents or

Prior to amendment things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror
may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If
Section 39. Striking out answer. – Should a witness answer evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record
the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and
voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found the substance of the proposed testimony.
to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and
order the answer given to be stricken off the record. The situation here is that, you’re the lawyer presenting a client’s
evidence, but the problem is the evidence is either objected to or
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of not, the court decided not to admit the evidence. Meaning, if it is
answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise not admitted by the court, it should not be considered. But, for the
improper. sake of discussion, let’s say importante kaayo to sya. That the
evidence is to the effect that if it is included, if it was included in
After amendment the first place by the court, it would have changed the outcome of
Section 39. Striking out answer. – Should a witness answer the controversy.
the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same, or where a question is not Let’s say for example, you were charged with murder. But you have
objectionable, but the answer is not responsive, or where a this CCTV footage that shows that X shot the victim and not you.
witness testifies without a question being posed or testifies But the court, for some reason, did not admit that evidence. What
beyond limits set by the court, or when the witness does a would happen? You might be convicted.
narration instead of answering the question, and such objection
is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection So what are you going to do? You tender the excluded evidence or
and order such answer, testimony or narration to be stricken off also known as:
the record.
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE OR OFFER OF PROOF
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of
answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise Where a party is denied the right to introduce evidence because
improper. that evidence would be inflammatory, hearsay, or would lack
sufficient authentication, that party must make a proffer of what
Grounds for striking out answer the evidence would have shown had the court allowed it.
1. If a witness answers a question before the adverse party had
the opportunity to voice fully its objection on the question’ PURPOSE
2. Where a question is not objectionable, but the answer is not 1. To allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the
responsive; documentary evidence and convince the trial judge to permit
3. Where a witness testifies without a question being posed; the evidence or testimony; and
4. Where a witness testifies beyond limits set by the court; 2. To create and preserve a record for appeal. (Riano, Evidence: A
- Sometimes the court can limit the scope of the restatement for the Bar, p. 477, 2009 ed.)
testimony. For example, the court deems that the witness
is going to testify on possible trade secrets. Pero, gi-allow How do you do that?
gihapon sa court na mu-testify ang witness, pero naa’y
limitation, dili ka pwede magdivulge ug matter that If it is testimonial evidence.
might lead to a line of question relating to a protected “Your honor, we tender this excluded evidence as follows: We want
trade secret. to make it of record that the name of the witness is XYZ, he is a
5. Where the witness answers in a narrative form; banker by profession and had the court allowed the witness to
- Di ka pwede mag-story telling, it should just be question testify, he would have testified as follows: *substance of the
and answer. Inquiry then answered by a specific fact. testimony*”
6. If the answers of the witness are incompetent, irrelevant or
otherwise improper. If it is documentary or object evidence.
- Incompetent. Dili sya admissible or wala’y personal You just manifest for the record that you are tendering excluded
knowledge ang witness to testify on that. evidence and have it attached to or made a part of the record.
FIRST
EXAM 209
Take note, kung unsa imong gi-tender na excluded evidence, the comments and cases that appear in pages 678 to 683 of
court will not consider your excluded evidence. It is only for the Evidence Explained discuss the provisions but be mindful of
purposes of preserving a record for appeal. the new numbering.
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
This refers to the balance of evidence and in whose favor it tilts.
Distinguish: This refers to the indication of the greater between the parties. This
PROFFER OFFER depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by
Only resorted to if admission Refers to testimonial, the rules and by jurisprudence.
is refused by the court for documentary or object
purposes of review on appeal evidence that are presented or SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
offered in court by a party so Sufficiency refers to the adequacy of evidence, or such
that the court can consider his evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify
evidence when it comes to the judicial action demanded or prayed for by the parties.
preparation of the decision.
In going back to weight, we need to remember there’s this
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION procedural principle that evidence is weighed not counted. So
Distinguish the English Exchequer rule from the harmless error rule if it is the plaintiff that presents the weightier evidence to
support his case, he should win.
English Exchequer Rule – mentioned in:
Sufficiency of evidence therefore refers to the question of
People vs Teehankee whether the evidence meets the required quantum
GR no 111206-08, October 6, 1995 needed:
o To arrive at a decision in a civil, criminal or
English Exchequer Rule Harmless Error Rule administrative case; or
It provides that a trial court’s The appellate court will o To prove matters of defense or mitigation; or
error as to the admission of disregard an error in the o To overcome a prima facie case or a presumption
evidence was presumed to admission of evidence
have cause prejudice and unless, in its opinion, some REQUIRED QUANTUM OF PROOF
therefore, almost substantial wrong or According to the SC, there’s a hierarchy of evidentiary values.
automatically required new miscarriage of justice has
trial. been occasioned. Sps. Manalo vs Roldan-Confesor
GR No. 102358, November 19, 1992
What is followed in the Philippines?
We follow the harmless error rule, for in dealing with evidence Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, we find:
improperly admitted in the trial, courts examine its damaging 1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt at the highest level
quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the 2. Followed by clear and convincing evidence
impact is slight and insignificant, appellate courts disregard the 3. Preponderance of evidence and
error as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted 4. Substantial evidence, in that order.
evidence against the prejudiced part (People vs. Garcia, GR No
105805, Aug 16, 1994) Clear and convincing evidence does not have a statutory definition,
unlike that of the other evidentiary values enumerated above. So,
October 14 | Campaner we have to rely on jurisprudence.
PREPONDERANCE
RULE 133 Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. – In
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his
or her case by a preponderance of evidence.
Lecture Guide In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of

For Sections 1 to 4, the comments and cases appear in pages evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider:
659 to 678 of Evidence Explained.
Take note that the Supreme Court inserted a new Section 5, Nine factors to consider in determining preponderance
which means that the old Section 6 became the new Section 7 1. All the facts and circumstances of the case
and the old Section 7 became the new Section 8. The 2. The witnesses’ manner of testifying
FIRST
EXAM 210
3. Their intelligence than its nonexistence. In short, the rule requires the
4. Their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the cases,
they are testifying regardless of whether they are object, documentary, or
5. The nature of the facts to which they testify testimonial.
6. The probability or improbability of their testimony
7. Their interest or want of interest “More probable that its nonexistence ” Do you see the connection
8. Also, their personal credibility so far as the same may now? “Induce belief of its existence or non-existence” Diba, we’re
legitimately appear upon the trial talking here of relevancy. So in preponderance of evidence, the
9. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, same basic principles is also applicable. In short, the rule requires
though the preponderance is not necessarily with the the consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case,
greater number regardless of whether they are object, documentary or testimonial.
This is actually an interesting case, please read this.
NOTE: the last paragraph is an expression of the procedural truism
that EVIDENCE IS NOT COUNTED BUT WEIGHED. Preponderance of In connection to preponderance, you need to remember this
evidence only applies to civil cases. doctrine:
Falsus in uno, falusus in omnibus
Preponderance (False in one thing, false in everything)
The term literally means “greater in number, quantity or
importance” You don’t only present a witness to prove one thing, a witness
o But again, preponderance is not necessarily on the proves a lot of things. So, what would be the rule if the witness
greater number but on the importance or the falsifies a part of his testimony?
relevancy of the evidence you are going to present.
From the Latin praeponderare, which means “outweigh.” If the testimony of the witness on a material issue is willfully
o So when you talk about preponderance in civil cases, false and given with an intention to deceive, court may
the question you need to answer would be “does the disregard all the witness’ testimony. This principle, however, is
evidence presented by the plaintiff outweigh the not a mandatory rule of evidence.
evidence presented by the defendant?” So, whoever o The rule in the Philippines is you have to let the
outweighs the other would win the litigation. testimony stand, whether false sya in certain
respects or true sya in certain respects. Just kick out
Doctrinal definition the false and let the true remain.
BJDC Construction vs Lanuzo It deals only with the weight of evidence and not a positive
GR No 161151, March 24, 2014 rule of law
The witnesses’ false or exaggerated statements on other
By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence as a matters shall not preclude the acceptance of such evidence as
whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. It relieved from any such sign of falsehood
refers to the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence o It doesn’t mean na namali sya’g sturya on a
on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with particular matter in his testimony, na dili na nimo
the term “greater weight of evidence” or “greater weight of tuohan ang remainder sa iyang testimony.
the credible evidence.” It is evidence which is more convincing The court may accept and reject portions of the witness’
to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in testimony depending on the inherent credibility thereof
opposition thereto.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Again, we’re talking here of “asa ba nga ebidensya ang mas Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. – In a criminal
katuohan.” case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her
guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
Tabuada vs Tabuada reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof,
GR no. 1965210, September 12, 2018 excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
Although documentary evidence may be preferable as proof of produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
a legal relationship, other evidence of the relationship that are
competent and relevant may not be excluded. The So, the general rule therefore, if you base it on the first sentence -
preponderance of evidence, the rule that is applicable in civil would be for acquittal. By way of exception, kung na-prove iyang
cases, is also known as the greater weight of evidence. There is guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that’s the time that you convict.
a preponderance of evidence when the trier of facts is led to
find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable Definition
FIRST
EXAM 211
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is that degree of proof prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind, not of the course, that an accused must be acquitted.
absolute certainty but only the moral certainty that a crime has
been committed and that the accused is guilty thereof. Well entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction
of the accused must rest, not on the weakness of the defense,
It does not require absolute certainty, only moral certainty. Does but on the strength of the prosecution. The burden is on the
the court feel that it is morally upright to convict? If yes, then a prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the
verdict can be entered. accused to prove his innocence.
*Sir discusses morality and the death penalty, since morality is
relative daw. Cases to read:
Atty. Constantino vs. People
Rationale: GR no 225696, April 08, 2019
Amanquiton vs. People
GR No 186080, August 14, 2009 Here, the Court had the occasion to look at the issue of what
constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt against a notary
It lies in the fact the State is arrayed against the subject; it public who is indicted for falsifying a notarial will.
enters the contest with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands;
with unlimited means of command; with counsel usually of People vs. Manabat
authority and capacity, who are regarded as public officers, as GR no 242947, July 17, 2019
therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an attitude of
tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of defendant Proof beyond reasonable doubt vs presumption of regularity in
engaged in a perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if not a chain of custody case.
for life. These inequalities of position, the law strives to meet by
the rule that there is to be no conviction where there is Benito vs People
reasonable doubt of guilt. GR no 204644, February 11, 2015
“prior inculpatory finding in its hands” The fact of conspiracy “must be proven on the same quantum
This is the determination of probable cause to hold the accused for of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the
trial by the prosecutor’s office. Mura bitaw’g pagsulod pa lang parties,” that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
nimo sa litigation, if you’re the accused, naa nay officer of the law
na nag-ingon na probability guilty sya. Why must conspiracy be proven on the same quantum of proof?
Remember that in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. So, by
Basis: virtue of the conspiracy, everybody becomes the principal.
Macayan vs People
GR no 175842, March 18, 2015 When you are to impute that a person is a principal of an offense
by virtue of a conspiracy, all of them have the same criminal
Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only liability. In order to hold a person liable for that, you have to
in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in establish his cooperation by means of proof beyond reasonable
the right of an accused to be “presumed innocent until the doubt.
contrary is proved.”
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
People vs Que Section 6. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed before
GR no 212994, January 31, 2018 administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is ultimately a matter of amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
conscience. Though it does not demand absolutely impervious accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
certainty, it still charges the prosecution with the immense
responsibility of establishing moral certainty. Much as it ensues
If you can remember, this is from the case of Ang Tibay vs. CIR. The
from benevolence, it is not merely engendered by abstruse
seven cardinal requirements of due process in administrative cases.
ethics or esoteric values; it arises from a constitutional
Because administrative case lang sya, di kaayo need ug taas na
imperative.
quantum of proof. In fact, the Supreme Court stated that mao na
siya ang pinakaubos, reasonableness lang atong standard. I’m sure
Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence
you’ve discussed this in labor law. Memorize gyud dapat ninyo
that lays such burden upon the prosecution. Should the
nang seven cardinal requirements of due process.
FIRST
EXAM 212
CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF mistake, you are going up against all these presumptions.
This is not defined by the Rules of Court, however the Supreme Thus, you need to establish these facts by clear and
Court recognizes this in the hierarchy of evidence. convincing evidence
Definition. .Let’s go to other examples

Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by
a party during the trial is more probable to be true than not and Duty Free vs. Tria
the judge has a firm belief or conviction in it. A greater degree of GR no 174809, June 27, 2012
believability must be met than the standard of proof in civil actions
which is preponderance of evidence, which requires that the fact In illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove
more likely than not prove the issue for which they are asserted. just cause for terminating the employment of its employee with
clear and convincing evidence. This principle is designed to
So, when we talk about clear and convincing proof, we do not give flesh and blood to the guaranty of security of tenure
assign it to a particular kind of case. Kay kung proof beyond granted by the Constitution to employees under the Labor
reasonable doubt, that’s exclusive to criminal cases, preponderance Code.
of evidence exclusive to civil cases, substantial evidence exclusive
to administrative cases. Clear and convincing proof, it cuts across BUT TAKE NOTE THAT:
all these types of cases. It is a quantum of proof that would tend to A lesser quantum of proof is required if it is the employee who
establish or refute a fact specifically made applicable by the wishes to prove before the Labor Arbiter that he was illegally
exigencies of the case. dismissed. In fact, the Labor Arbiter’s finding that an employee was
illegally dismissed need only be supported by SUBSTANTIAL
CASE SURVEY EVIDENCE.
What must be proven by this quantum of proof?
So, if you’re the employer, at a disadvantage ka daan. The
Gatmaitan vs. Gonzales employer needs to prove just cause by clear and convincing
GR no 149226, June 26, 2006 evidence, while the employee only need to prove that he was
illegally dismissed by substantial evidence.
Bad faith can never be presumed; it must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. ANALYSIS
The law always tilts in favor of labor. In case of doubt, the
Fontana Resort vs Tan doubt is construed liberally in the employee’s favor and
GR no 154670, January 30, 2012 strictly against the employee.
If you go up against this bias (ie., guaranty of security of
The general rule is that he who alleges fraud or mistake in a tenure granted by the Constitution), you need to do so by
transaction must substantiate his allegation as the presumption clear and convincing evidence.
is that a person takes ordinary care for his concerns and that
private dealings have been entered into fairly and regularly. One People vs Gani
who alleges defect or lack of valid consent to a contract by GR no 195523, June 5, 2013
reason of fraud or undue influence must be established by full,
clear and convincing evidence such as specific acts that vitiated Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to
a party’s consent, otherwise, the latter’s presumed consent to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the
the contract prevails. appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he
was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time when the
So, we have here bad faith and defect or lack of valid consent to a crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for
contract by reason of fraud or undue influence. him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was
committed.
Why is there a need for clear and convincing evidence in these two
cases? It’s because they run against a presumption. Alibi must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. That is your
way to an acquittal. But remember, mas bug-at ang quantum of
ANALYSIS proof ni prosecution.
Remember that good faith is presumed. If you allege fraud or
bad faith, you are going up against this strong presumption. People vs Nieva
Similary, regularity is presumed. There are several GR no 179717, February 5, 2010
presumptions in Rule 131 that deal with regularity in private
and public transactions. If you allege fraud, bad faith or A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated
FIRST
EXAM 213
by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self- were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on
serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given the operation deserve faith and credit.
greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and
probable testimony on affirmative matters. This next case applies to a judge.
Webb vs People
In addition to alibi, you have the defense of denial. If you GR no 127262, July 24, 1997
remember our first or second meeting, the different types of
evidence (positive and negative evidence). Remember that in case A party has the right to seek the inhibition or disqualification of
of doubt, positive or affirmative evidence always prevails over a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested,
negative evidence such as alibi and denial. Because there is that impartial and independent in handling the case. Hence, to
disparity, you need to prove your denial by clear and convincing disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and prejudice, the
evidence. movant must prove the same by clear and convincing evidence.
People vs. Torres Lazaro vs Agustin

GR no 191730, June 5, 2013 GR no 152364, April 15, 2010
For the defense of denial to prosper, appellant must adduce Documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their
clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption favor the presumption of regularity. However, this presumption
that government officials have performed their duties in a is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing
regular and proper manner. evidence to the contrary.
Like in a buy bust operation. There’s this never ending struggle ANALYSIS:
between the presumption of innocence and the presumption of What is the common thread ani nila tanan? In the foregoing cases,
regularity. once again you go up against presumption of regularity.
People vs De la Cruz When you go against a presumption, you must do so by clear and
GR no 109119, August 16, 1994 convincing evidence.
The defense of frame-up must be supported by clear and SUMMARY

convincing evidence because it is in the same category as alibi. Doctrines on presumptions and quantum of proof in CRIMINAL
CASES
ANALYSIS 1. The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the
In defenses of denial such as alibi and frame-up, the pleader accused beyond reasonable doubt
does not address the elements of the offense. He simply says
that “I did not do it.” 2. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
Thus, if your defense is merely denial, during trial you have to cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in
wait until the prosecution is done presenting its evidence. If it favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will
meets the requirement of a prima facie case, you have to defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed
prove your negative defense with clear and convincing innocent. (People vs Manabat, GR no 242947, July 17, 2019)
evidence.
The prosecution therefore cannot simply rely on the
People vs Nieva presumption of regularity to prove its case. The statutory
GR no 179717, February 5, 2010 presumption (presumption of regularity) cannot overcome the
constitutional presumption (presumption of innocence).
Police officers are presumed to have acted regularly in the
performance of their official functions in the absence of clear 3. If the defense of the accused is alibi and/or frame-up and/or
and convincing proof to the contrary or proof that they were that the evidence is “planted”, the accused must prove such
moved by ill will. defense by clear and convincing evidence. But even if he
cannot do so, the prosecution is still not guaranteed a
People vs Lagos conviction because it must still prove the guilt of the accused
GR no 184658, March 6, 2013 beyond reasonable doubt.
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members Daghan na kaayo’g cases sa court na planted ra daw ang
of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or evidence. The accused needs to prove that by clear and
convincing evidence. Does it relieve the duty of the
FIRST
EXAM 214
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond GR no 238171, June 19, 2019
reasonable doubt? They cannot rely on the fact that the
presumption of regularity was not defeated by the accused. It is established that the qualifying circumstance of treachery
must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
4. The accused may secure an acquittal if he proves clearly and
convincingly that the presumption of regularity in the chain of Why?
custody, arrest and apprehension does not apply. He may do Treachery cannot be appreciated where the prosecution only
so by proving that the apprehending team was motivated by proved the events after the attack happened, but not the
improper motive or ill will. manner of how the attach commenced or how the act which
resulted in the victim’s death unfolded. In treachery, there must
So these are the four matters that you need to remember. be clear and convincing evidence on how the aggression was
made, how it began, and how it developed.
What else?
People vs Malicdem Where no particulars are known as to the manner in which the
GR no 184601, November 12, 2012 aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the
death of the victim began and developed, it cannot be
Self defense, under Art 11 (1) and accident under Art 12 (4) of established from suppositions drawn only from circumstances
the Revised Penal Code, are affirmative defenses which the prior to the very moment of aggression, that an accused
accused is burdened to prove, with clear and convincing perpetrated the killing with treachery. Accordingly, treachery
evidence. cannot be considered where the lone witness did not see the
commencement of the assault.
By admitting killing the victim in self-defense or by accident
without fault or without intention of causing it, the burden is You cannot prove treachery simply by the result. Just because ang
shifted to the accused to prove such affirmative defenses. He biktima gi-dunggab sa likod, it’s already treachery. So this rule
should rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the stands to reason.
weakness of that of the prosecution. If the accused fails to prove
his affirmative defense, he can no longer be acquitted. SUMMARY
Treachery Conspiracy
So makita nato sa trend so far na if it’s the accused trying to prove It is a circumstance that It is a circumstance that
something as a matter of defense, what does he have to prove it aggravates (Art 14, RPC) or affects criminal liability in that
by? It’s always clear and convincing evidence. But remember, mas qualifies (Art 248) criminal all conspirators are considered
bug-at lang dapat gihapon ang sa prosecution. liability principals
For treachery to be Direct proof is not essential to
ANALYSIS appreciated, there has to be prove conspiracy for it may be
When the accused pleads self-defense, for example, he is direct and independent proof deduced from the acts of the
saying that he committed the crime but he should not be held of how the attach was accused before, during and
liable because what he did was justified or that it was an commenced in addition to the after the commission of the
accident. events after the attack crime charged, from which it
o So when you do so, you need to prove the happened may be indicated that there is
justification by clear and convincing evidence. a common purpose to commit
This is contrary to the presumption that a criminal act was the crime.
done with unlawful intent. Treachery must be proved by The prosecution must
clear and convincing evidence. establish conspiracy beyond
SUMMARY reasonable doubt (People vs
GENERAL RULE: A party who wishes to defeat a presumption Jesalva, GR no 227306, June
or statutory bias, as a general rule, can only 19, 2017)
do so if he establishes facts by clear and
convincing evidence. Tupaz vs Deputy Ombudsman
EXCEPTION: Presumption of innocence GR no 212491-92, March 6, 2019
It is a constitutional presumption that
cannot be defeated by clear and Probable cause for the filing of an information is a matter which
convincing evidence. It has to be proof rests on likelihood rather than on certainty. It relies on common
beyond reasonable doubt. sense rather than on clear and convincing evidence. A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that
People vs Enriquez more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is
FIRST
EXAM 215
enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. Corpora Delicti in other crimes
It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, In robbery or theft, the fact of loss. (People vs. Niem, 75 Phil
neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 668)
In arson, the fact of burning, (People vs Marquez, 77 Phil 83;
So, clearly, probable cause is not equal to clear and convincing People vs Mones, 58 Phil 64)
evidence. Minimum kaayo nga standard ang probable cause. In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were heard, and a
bystander was killed by one of the shots constitute evidence
Is probable cause considered a quantum of proof? of corpus delicti, which is the violent death of a person,
Sir JZE submits that no. It’s not really a litigation. You only apply whether feloniously caused or not. (People vs. Nocum, 77 Phil
quantum of proof in litigation. When is there a finding of probable 1018)
cause? Two instances, probable cause to order search and seizure
and probable cause to hold the accused for trial, mao nang duha People vs. Villahermosa
ka klase nga probable cause. In either of those, di kinahanglan ug GR no 186465, June 1, 2011
absolute certainty, moral certainty or clear and convincing
evidence. Ang probable cause dinhi kay common sense. What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled
There’s another quantum of proof that is the least limitable of with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit
them all. In a proceeding that is akin to a criminal case. drug as evidence.
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS OF IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS That’s why we have the chain of custody in cases of illegal drugs.
If you recall impeachment trials before the Senate, the quantum of
proof to remove a Chief Justice by impeachment was only a CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
quantum of conscience. Which is the least limitable and you Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. –
cannot really quantify it. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION (b) The facts from which the inference is derived are proven;
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for and
conviction. – an extrajudicial confession made by an accused, (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.
We’ve already discussed this before when we were talking about
admissions. You make an admission in a criminal case, it can be a I’ve already discussed this during our first few meetings, this is the
confession when it is an admission of guilt in the commission of a opposite of direct evidence.
criminal offense without a qualification. But you have to remember
that confession can be judicial or extrajudicial. If the confession is Definition
judicial, no need for corroboration. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be
Corpus Delicti inferred according to reason and common experience (People vs.
In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the fact of death Broniola, GR no 211027, June 29, 2015)
(not the corpse!) which may be proved even circumstantially.
Conviction for murder proper even if victim’s body is not When did we discuss collateral facts? First would be in Rule 128, so
produced. In all crimes against persons in which the death of when you’re talking of collateral facts, you’re talking of
the victim is an essential element of the offense, there must circumstantial evidence. Second time would be when we were
be satisfactory evidence of the fact of death and the identity talking about the collateral facts rule as an exception to the
of the victim that a crime has been committed which is what Original Document Rule. The credit card imprint example na
corpus delicti really means. gibutang nako sa akong libro.
People vs Centeno, et al Viability as Basis for Conviction

130 SCRA 209 A finding of guilt is still possible despite the absence of direct
evidence. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence may
The failure of the prosecution to produce the body of the victim result if sufficient circumstances, proven and taken
does not imply the absence of corpus delicti for the term does together, create an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable
not refer to the body of the murdered person conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, was
FIRST
EXAM 216
the author of the crime (Almojuela vs. People, GR no 183202, o The facts must establish with certainty the guilt of
June 2, 2014) the accused so as to convince beyond reasonable
The circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, doubt that the accused was the perpetrator of the
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and, offense.
at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis
except that of guilt. Corollary thereto, a conviction based on Just try to remember the phraseology. In the bar, if there’s a
circumstantial evidence must exclude each and every question that necessitates answers coming from Rule 133, all you
hypothesis consistent with innocence (Candelaria vs. need to do is impress the examiner with language. They cannot
People, GR no 209386, December 8, 2014) expect you to rule upon the same since you are mere barristers,
The rules on evidence allow a trial court to rely on not judges.
circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. The
lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto bar the finding of “Inferences cannot be based on other inferences”
guilt against the appellant. As long as the prosecution This new addition was taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence.
establishes accused-appellant’s participation in the crime
through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence No inference can legitimately be based upon a fact the
that leads to the inescapable conclusion that he committed existence of which itself rests upon inference (Wellman, Admr.
the imputed crime, the latter should be convicted (Celodonio V. Wales, 98 VT. 437, 438 (Vt. 1925))
vs People, GR no 2019137, July 1, 2015) For example, the fingerprints of the accused were found all
over the locus criminis You can infer that, at one time or
What’s the take away here? another, the accused visited the crime scene. However, that he
Whether direct or circumstantial imong evidence, a conviction may was the one who killed the victim cannot be inferred from the
still be proper provided that you prove your case by proof beyond mere inference that he was there.
reasonable doubt.
WEIGHT OF EXPERT OPINION
Planteras vs. People Section 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness,
GR no 238889, October 3, 2018 how determined. – In any case where the opinion of an expert
witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide latitude of
The commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and discretion in determining the weight to be given to such
the finding of guilt may all be established by circumstantial opinion, and for that purpose may consider the following:
evidence. The circumstances must be considered as a whole and (a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
should create an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that (b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and
the accused authored the crime. methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and
The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is methods reliably to the facts of the case; and
sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a qualitative test not a (d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make
quantitative one. The proven circumstances must be consistent such determination
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused *This is an entirely new provision.
is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis
that he is innocent,, and with every other rational hypothesis Factors in giving evidentiary weight to expert opinion
except that of guilt. Save for paragraph (d) which states “such other factors as the court
may deem helpful to make such determination,” the factors stated
Guidelines in Convictions Based on Circumstantial Evidence in Section 5 are virtually identical to the factors mentioned under
In People vs. Galvez, GR no 157221, 548 Phil 436 (2007), Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The counterpart
the Supreme Court had the occasion to lay down the basic provision states:
guidelines that judges must observe when faced with merely
circumstantial evidence in deciding criminal cases. Rule 702.
The probative value of such circumstantial evidence must be Testimony by Expert Witnesses
distilled using the following:
o Circumstantial evidence should be acted upon with A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
caution; experience, training or education may testify in the form of an
o All the essential facts must be consistent with the opinion or otherwise if:
hypothesis of guilt; (a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
o The facts must exclude every other theory but that knowledge will help the trier of facts to understand the
of the guilt of the accused; and evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
FIRST
EXAM 217
(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and Section 7. Power of the court to stop further evidence. – The
methods; and court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any
(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that
to the facts of the case more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. This power shall be
FULL PICTURE RE: exercised with caution.
EXPERT OPINION
When may the court stop the introduction of further testimony on
Nature. a particular point?
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special When the evidence upon it is already so full that more
knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, which he witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to
or she is shown to possess, may be received in evidence (Rule be additionally persuasive.
130, Section 52).
Expert opinions, which are always offered as such, are not Rationale:
ordinarily conclusive or binding upon the court but are JUDICIAL ECONOMY. It will be a waste of the court’s time if
generally regarded as purely advisory. the parties are allowed to present superfluous, repetitive and
o The court is at liberty to believe the expert opinion unnecessary proof of a particular point in issue. Remember
or not. that evidence is weighed, not counted.
The use of the word “may” signifies that the use of expert
opinion is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the Why is this power to stop further evidence to be exercised by
courts. (Tabao vs People, GR no. 187246, July 20, 2011) the court with caution?
JUDICIAL INTEGRITY. Judges should not only be impartial
Uses. but also appear impartial. Litigants are entitled to nothing less
Aid in determining a relevant issue. than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge (Sison-Barias vs.
For example, expert testimony is required in medical Judge Ruba, AM no RTJ-14-2388, June 10, 2014)
negligence cases to establish what should have been the If the court prevents a party from presenting further evidence,
proper standard of care in the treatment of the Plaintiff. This it can be insinuated that the mind of the court is already set in
would then lead to the determination of whether the terms of which party should prevail in the case or that it is not
defendant was negligent or deviated from such standards. open to evidence presented by such party because it is
Interpretation. antagonistic to the latter.
When the characters in which an instrument is written are
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood Section 8. Evidence on motion. – When a motion is based on
by the court, the testimony of experts or interpreters is facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on
admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but
language (Rule 130, Sec 17). the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly
To establish an exception to the hearsay rule. A published on oral testimony or depositions.
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law,
science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a END OF EVIDENCE 😊
matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a
witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the
statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized
in his or her profession or calling as expert in the subject (Rule
130, Section 38 on Learned Treatises).
Appreciation.
In determining the weight to be given to expert evidence, the court
may consider:
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case; and
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make
such determination.

Evidence TSN - Manresa 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence TSN - Manresa 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence TSN - Manresa 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021

FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO

3. FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO if it is based on the unwritten contract.

The Rules of Evidence is PROCEDURAL in character July 2 Part 1 | Acevedo

Q: Are there vested rights under the Rules of Evidence?

While Jurisprudence is replete of examples where the Supreme

jurisdiction on the part of any instrumentality of the

detention places, solitary incommunicado, or other similar forms of GENERAL RULE:

Theories on Curative Admissibility

Discussion: Answer of the witness:

Question: Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial

July 2 Part 6 | Maglinte Our defense

And then we normally refer to an agreement to be one that is

DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE

IMPORTANCE OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ORDINARY EVIDENCE

TENOR OF TESTIMONY July 8 Part 1 | Acevedo

1. When conclusive presumption applies, no proof is

Example: Under torts and damages: b. Rationale for judicial notice

as the cases decided by the Supreme Court. Courts should take

It is termed discretionary because it depends on the judgment of ISSUE:

Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon

So, if upon motion of the party, it means the taking of

c) Incurability Who is imputing the admission against you?

CHANGES and COMMENTS ADOLFO vs. ADOLFO

1. Proper when an answer fails 1. Proper when there is no

Palpable mistakes are mistakes that are obvious to all

ATILLO III VS CA RULE 130

When we are talking about forms of evidence, there is such thing as

case] and is therefore an ineffectual means of committing

Process of Authentication Authentication—Specific Objects

Ruling: In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before

CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

July 22 Part 4 | Bahalla

PEOPLE v. BRECINIO Now, let’s look at that Chain of Custody Requirement.

Object Evidence Documentary Evidence WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, PHOTOGRAPHS

authentication of photographs. We mentioned that the

We do not look at it according to the nature but we look at it

testimonial evidence. But when it comes to documents, there’s a

What would be particularly wrong in making a premature

the gravestone because that will be

4. The Belief that Parol Evidence is Prone to Fabrication

Is it required that the agreement should be in a public instrument

REQUISITE 1: MARQUEZ v ESPEJO

Take note of the exceptions. Chances are, if it is going to be asked

INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY, MISTAKE OR IMPERFECTION 2. Intrinsic Ambiguity

KINDS OF AMBIGUITY Intrinsic Ambiguity, on the other hand, can be proved by

3. Intermediate Ambiguity MISTAKE

In the case of Palanca vs Fred Wilson & Co., A Chinese

August 5 Part 3 | Maglinte FAILURE OF THE AGREEMENT TO REFLECT THE TRUE

Why is this an exception? evidenced by the writing (Rule

What is Maja’s evidence? August 5 Part 4 | Ugdang

How did the SC rule? ABELLA v. ABELLA

To overcome the presumption that the written agreement

When exactly should a party object?

Q: When do you object?

FOR THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE:

Example: Note: Cohabitation or live in is not allowed. It must be a valid

So, even if there is no rule specifically saying that the Marital

Presumption: Common law relationships and other cohabitations, not covered.

confidence to the other When should you raise your objection?