2019 RULES OF EVIDENCE Rule 130

Based on the Lecture of Justice Singh and the Lectures of Atty. Admissibility/Kinds of Evidence
Torregosa  Object evidence- Evidence addressed to the senses of the
Horeb Felix B. Villa, with the kind help of Adrian Jeremiah C.
court.
Vargas and Marla Angelie B. So., JDNT-4, EH 404  Physical Evidence ranks higher in the hierarchy of trustworthy
evidence (SPO1 Ocampo v. People, G.R. 194129, June 15,
2015).
Rule 128
 Object evidence needs testimonial evidence to for
General Provisions
authentication.
 Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of  Documentary Evidence- Consists of writings, recordings,
ascertaining in a offerrespecting a matter of fact. photographs, or any material containing letters, words, sounds,
 Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issue and not numbers, figures, or their equivalent offered as proof of their
excluded by the Constitution, law, or the Rules. (Competence) contents.
 Relevant- evidence having rational probative value to the issue  Documentary evidence also needs authentication of its
in controversy. genuineness and due execution.
 Evidence is material if it is offered to prove an issue in issue or  Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-
the fact subject of the controversy. ray films. Motion pictures or videos
 Relevant+Competent=Admissible  Photographs are considered as documentary evidece under
 Admissibility NOT EQUAL to weight. the 2019 Rules.
 Factum Probans- The evidentiary facts. It is the fact by which  The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when
the factum probandum is to be established. These are the presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer
materials evidencing the proposition. as to its production and testified as to the circumstances
 Factum Probandum- The ultimate fact sought to be proven. under which they were produced. The value of this kind of
These are the facts that are sought to be established. The evidence lies in its being a correct representation or
proposition that is to be proven by the factum probans. reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is
 One must adduce during trial the factum probans or the determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time
evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum or the of the crime. The photographer, however, is not the only
ulitmate facts can be established (De la Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The
182356, December 4, 2013). correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of
the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the
Rule 129 testimony of the person who made it or by other competent
What need not be proved witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to
impeachment as to its accuracy. (Sison v. People, G.R. No.
 Judicial Notice, when mandatory: 108280-83, November 16, 1995).
1. The existence and territorial extent of states,  These amendments were made to be consistent with the rules
2. Their political history, forms of government and symbols of on Electronic Evidence.
nationality,  “Ephemeral electronic communication- refers to telephone
3. The law of nations, conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
4. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
5. The political constitution and history of the National Government communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
of the Philippines, retained.
6. The official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments  Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person
of the Philippines, who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of
7. The laws of nature, them (People v. Enojas, G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014).
8. The measure of time, 
9. Geographical divisions.
Original Document Rule (ODR)
 During pre-trial and trial, the court motu propio or upon  Formerly the Best Evidence Rule.
motion can hear the parties on the propriety of taking Judicial  Original Document-Original Document must be presented.
Notice on a particular matter.  This ODR applies only when the contents of the document are
 This remedy is also available on appeal. in issue.

Judicial Adimissions Original Document, defined:

 May be oral or written 1. document itself
 Made by a party 2. any counterpart intended to have same effect by person
 In the course of the proceedings executing/issuing it
 May be contradicted if made by palpable mistake or that the -- refers to 2 kinds of orig documents in the old rules
imputed admission was in fact not made. --ex. copies of the original in the same transaction; repeated
 Judicial Admisssions may be made in the pleadings. entries in ordinary course of business copied from another
 When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading 3. duplicate - accurate reproduction of original
supersedes the pleading it amended. (Rule 10, Sec. 8). RULE ON ADMISSIBILTY:
Therefore, any adimission made in a superseded pleading, and -duplicate admissible to the same extent as the original;
not incorporated in the amended pleading must be offered in functional equivalent of original
evidence for the court to consider such admission. - no need to account for original
 Result of a judicial admission is that the fact admitted is EXC:
deemed established w/o need of evidence. 1. genuine issue to authenticity of orginal
2. unjust under the circumstances to admit duplicate
Page 1 of 19
 TN: PP v Lamsen 4. When the original is with a public officer
 Contents may be proved by a certified true copy of the
When secondary evidence allowed (Exceptions to the ODR): document.
A. When original is lost or destroyed, or it cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror. 5. When the original is not closely related to a controlling issue.
B. When the original is in the hands of the adverse party and it Atty JRT: This is the collateral fact doctrine, laid down in by the
cannot be obtained by judicial processes (EDSA Shangrila v. BF Supreme Court in Air France v. Carrascoso, (G.R. No. L-21438,
Corporation, G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008). September 28, 1966). It has now been incorporated under the 2019
C. Numerous or voluminous accounts and the intention is just to Amended Rules.
offer the general result of the whole, and the court cannot Atty JRT: In this exception, there is no secondary evidence because
examine the voluminous records without great loss of time you do not need to prove the document. You just need to prove the
D. When the original is with a public officer fact in issue.
E. When the original is not closely related to a controlling issue.
(Collateral Fact rule; Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438,
Parol Evidence Rule (PER)
September 28, 1966).
 When the terms of an agreement are reduced into writing, no
 Original Document- The document itself or any counterpart other evidence is admissible as between the parties, their
intended to have the same effect by the person executing it. privies, or their successors-in-interest, other than the contents
 Photograph- may be a negative or printout. of the written agreement.
 Computer data- any printout or any output readable by sight  PER only applies if the agreement partakes of a contract. If
or other means shown to reflect data. the written agreement is not a contract but a mere receipt,
 Duplicate- counterpart produced by the same impression as PER is not applicable (Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79962,
the original from the same matrix or photography or by re- December 10, 1990).
recording, chemical reproduction, or other equivalent  PER does not also apply if one of the parties to the suit is not a
techniques which accurately reproduce the original. party, or a privy or a successor-in-interest to the written
 GR: Duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original. agreement (Victoria Lechugas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
 Atty JRT: Because of this amendment, it is submitted that a 39972, August 6, 1986; Heirs of Parces v. Heirs of Ygona, G.R.
photocopy can be considered as a duplicate, and thus, No. 174719, May 5, 2010).
admissible to the same extent as the original because it can be  If the agreement is independent of the written agreement,
considered a photograph, or it was produced by chemical PER does not apply and evidence aliunde may be admitted to
reproduction, or other equivalent techniques which accurately prove the other agreement (Collateral agreement rule)
reproduce the original. (Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos, G.R. No. 26173, July 13, 1927).
 GR: With respect to written agreements, no other evidence is
 XPNS: admissible as between the parties, their privies, or their
1. Genuine question is raised as the the authenticity of the successors-in-interest, other than the contents of the written
document. agreement.
2. It would be unjust to admit duplicate in lieu of the original. Exceptions: Parties may present evidence to modify, explain or add
to the terms of a written agreement if such is placed in a VERIFIED
 Kinds of original documents: pleading: (The 2019 Amended Rules now require that if parties seek
1. Documents where the contents are the subject of the inquiry to invoke an exception to the PER, that their arguments should be
2. Duplicate original. placed in a verified pleading)
1. Intrinsic Ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
 When original document is unavailable: Secondary evidence agreement (Palanca v. Wilson & Co., 37 Phil. 506 [1918]).
may be admitted. 2. The failure of the agreement to express the true intent of the
Instances: parties (Ramos v. Enriquez, G.R. No. L-18077, September 29, 1962).
1. When lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court. 3. The validity of the written agreement. Take note: The operation
of the PER is founded on an existing, valid contract. So if the written
Offereror must prove: agreement is alleged to be invalid, PER will not apply and
A. Existence and due execution of the original; extraneous evidence tending to prove the invalidity of the written
B. Loss or destruction of the original; agreement is admissible. (Ureta v. Ureta, G.R. No. 165748,
C. Absence of bad faith (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez, G.R. No. September 14, 2011).
170604, September 2, 2013; De Vera v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 83377, 4. The existence of other terms agreed upon the parties and their
February 9, 1993). successors-in-interest subsequent to the written agreement (Canuto
2. When the original is in the hands of the adverse party and it v. Mariano, 37 Phil. 840 [1918]).
cannot be obtained by judicial processes (EDSA Shangrila v. BF
Corporation, G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008) Testimonial Evidence
3. Numerous or voluminous accounts which the court cannot
examine without great loss of time.  Witness- all persons who can perceive and make his/her
Requisites: perception known to others.
A.When the contents of the documents are so numerous and  Testimony should be confined to firsthand knowledge which is
cannot be examined without great loss of time. a person’s own perception.
B. The fact to be established is the general result of the whole.  A witness can only testify as to the fact of his personal
C. Contents may be proved by a chart, summary, or a calculation. knowledge or from his/her perception.
D. The originals must be made available to the adverse party for  (Justice Singh: Under the 2019 Amended Rules, the proper
inspection or examination. The Court may order the production of objection for a witness testifying on matters not of his/her
the originals (Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers, G.R. No. L- own perception is that THE WITNESS HAS NO FIRSTHAND
28999, May 24, 1977). KNOWLEDGE OF THE THINGS HE/SHE IS TESTIFYING TO. The
objection that the testimony of a witness is hearsay is no
Page 2 of 19
 longer accurate under the 2019 Amended Rules because ORDINARY WITNESS cannot refuse to take witness stand. Can only
under the Amended Rules, hearsay now has a different invoke right when question is asked to witness
meaning.)
 Witness must be presented in OPEN COURT.
 Because of the pandemic, now virtual testimony is now
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
allowed.
 Religious, political beliefs, interest in the outcome of the case,
When witness’ presence is dispensed with: conviction of a crime does not disqualify witnesses.
1. Rules on Summary Procedure  But be that as it may, that these qualifications do not
2. When the testimony is a deposition. disqualify a person from becoming a witness, these may also
3. Testimony in prior case/proceeding (Exception to the hearsay affect the weight and credibility of their testimonies.
rule.) Disqualification by reason of incapacity or immaturity, as well as
4. Evidence of witness is in Judicial Affidavit form. Dead Man’s Statute DELETED under the 2019 Amended Rules.
 By jurisprudence, a conviction of a crime is not a ground to dq
 Witness must take an oath or affirmation. Refusal to take oath a witness. There are only to instances where it is a ground:
is a ground for disqualification of a witness. (1)crime involving falsification/dishonesty

OATH - AFFIRMATION Atty JRT: This applies only in proceeding involving probate of a will. If
-has reference to God or -undertaking on anther proceeding, then may still allow testification regardless of
Supreme Being. the part of a conviction of aforementioned crimes
witness to tell the
truth, the whole (2)crime involves moral turpitude
truth and nothing
but the truth with Take Note of jurisprudence a party declared in default may not be
foreknowledge of disqualified for testifying if called by other parties not declared in
the adverse default
consequences
should the witness -There is no rule that requires witness who is an employee of the
resort to party to obtain any form of authorization for witness to testify (AFP
falsehood. Retirement and Seperation Benefits v Republic, G.R. No. 180086, July
-no reference to 2, 2014).
God or Supreme
Being. Atty JRT: This must be diffrentiatied from authority to institute
This is to ensure that witnesses will testify truthfully. action. when employee iniitaties action on behalf of juridical entity,
they must be duly authorized w necessary borad reso/SPA. But for
 The whole trial/proceedings is recorded by stenographers. pruposes of presenting witness in court, they are presumed to be
 Answers must be made orally, except if answer cannot be qualified. Qualification is presumed so burden of proof is on the one
done orally (e.g. demonstration, reenaction) claiming otherwise.

DUTIES OF WITNESS WHEN TO OBJECT:

 Make himself available and answer all questions (1)Before witness testifies; objection is determined right then and
 Effect if witness unjustifiably refuses to answer: direct there and must be interposed by adverse party
contempt of court as it is done in the presence of court. (2)When ground for dq becomes manifest in course of testimony;
QUESTION: objection is raised when ground is manifest
Witness can appear virtually. Does viatory right still apply? Not a self operating mechanism. Must be invoked by proper party at
Atty JRT: With a virtual trial, that may not be applicable at all times. proper time otherwise it is a waiver
But if witness has no adequate facility, then right may still be used.
RIGHTS OF WITNESS
(1)Protected from irrelevant/insulting question  Marital Disqualification Rule (also called spousal immunity)-
-only asked questions w/c are pertinent to case spouses may not testify for or against each other without the
-witness must be competent to answer the questions consent of the other spouse.
(2)Protected from disrespectful demeanor Requisites:
(3)Witness may not be detained longer than interest of justice 1. Existence of a valid marriage
requires. 2. The other spouse is a party to the case.
TN: ONE DAY EXAMINATION RULE 3. Applies only if the testimony is against the other spouse.
-Admits to some reasonable exceptions such as if testimony of 4. Affected spouse must object to the other spouse’s testimony.
witness is lengthy XPNS:
(4)Right against self-incrimination 1. Civil Case against the other
(5)Right against self-degradation 2. Criminal case committed by one spouse against the other.
- right to not answer questions w/c degrade his or her reputation 3. Criminal case committed against the other spouse’s direct
unless it is the very issue of the case descendants or ascendants.
TN: The witness may be compelled to answer a question re: final 4. When the preservation of the marriage between the spouses is
conviction of a crime as it will not expose witness to possible no longer an interest the State aims to protect. (Alvarez v. Ramirez,
prosecution/liability G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).
ACCUSED may refuse altogether to take the witness stand. The only Duration of the Marital Disqualification rule is co-terminous of the
conceivable reason to take witness stand is to incriminate him or marriage.
her. Can refuse to obey subpoena.

Page 3 of 19
 (1)Furtherance of criminal cause
Privileged Communication Rule
Made in furtherance of crime or fraud. This is an offshoot of People
1. Husband and wife- for any communication made during the v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115439-41, July 16, 1997, where
marriage without the consent of the other spouse. Congressman Paredes w lawyer suggested they falsify some court
 Purpose is to encourage open communication between the records. Laywerr became state witness. Objected to on the ground
spouses without interference. of private communication.
 Covers not only written or spoken words, but also conduct SC said that it only involnves legitimate professional engagement.
communicative in nature. Only future crime or fraud.
 Holder of the communication is the spouse whose RECKONING DATE: look at date communication was made. Not the
communication is offered in evidence. date the law was called to testify
 Survives the dissolution of the marriage, still applies even after (2)claimants thru same deceased client
the death of the spouse. Atty JRT: Lawyer used to have a client who then died. After death a
 Requitistes: dispute arises some transactions/acts of client and other parties are
A.Existence of a valid marriage involved. Disputing parties assert claims through deceased client.
B. Confidential communication Any communication of dead client to lawyer is not under the
C. Offered during the marriage privilege.
D. Affected spouse does not consent. (3)case between lawyer and client
Exceptions: Atty JRT: If client sues lawyer, client can discoles info between them.
1. Civil Case against the other If client is the one who breachers, Can lawyer disclose? Yes even if he
2. Criminal case committed by one spouse against the other. is not the privilege holder
3. Criminal case committed against the other spouse’s direct Based on principle of self defense
descendants or ascendants. (4)Client sues lawyer
4. When communication is not intended to be confidential. If client sues lawyer, client can disclose information between them.
This amounts to a waiver to invoke privileged communication.
Even if priveous communication survives communication between Lawyer now has all the right to defend himself
parties, it must be received during marriage. It applies even after If client is the one who breaches, the lawyer can disclose even if he is
dissolution of marriage. not the privilege holder. This is based on principle of self defense
If info is received before marriage it is still availed of for as long as (5)Document attested by lawyer
asked to tesify during marriage. Atty JRT: Some writers comment that this is not an exception. There
is no legal service done.
Q. Does info have to be consciously given by one spouse to (6)joint clients
another? Identity of client is not confidential. Lawyer may be compelled to
disclose identity
Atty. JRT: Confidentiality is to be determined by source of XPN:
information. IF source would not have disclosed if they were not Regala v Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1997)
married, then it is confidential in nature. -if identity will provide link to incriminate client

Q. There is a case where wife is called to testify where is husband 3. Physician-Patient Privilege-
is not a party. Then husband is admitted as a third party complaint.  Done for professional advancement
Can he strike out complaint?  The scope does not only cover info relayed by patient to client
but also reciprocal advice, prescription administered by
Atty JRT: For me, to be consistent with the dq rule, the husband may physician to patient.
move for the testimony of the wife to stricken off the record.  Includes those reasonable believed to be patient
 Includes psychotherapy
Q. Husband murdered someone then wife saw the marks of the Q:Confession may open liability
husband. Is this under priveous communication?  With regard to degree of participation, what if I just tagged
along and I listened about the treatment.
Atty JRT: Classify if murder weapon is communicative in nature or  There is a catch all phrase that all info shall remain
not. If communicative, then it is allowed. confidential provided they exercised reasonable precautionary
XPN: measure
A. When communication is not intended to be confidential  Curative or preventive treatment of patient. So autopsy is not
B. Communication comes in the hands of a third party considered a preventive or curative treatment

2. Attorney-client:
 Concept of extended privilege communication If you look at textual language rule, it speaks of physician,
 Survives death and relationship obstetrician w/o consent of the patient. What is covered is a
 Take note that the privilege extends to any person who may situation where physican is called to make statement or oral
have assisted in professional service testimony. It does not cover records. SC said this is worng. It
 Amendment does not only cover person licensed to practice includes disclosure of med records or hospital records (Chan v. Chan,
law. Extend to any person reasonable believed to practice law G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013).
 Communication must be given in confidence. Includes
reciprocally. Advice given by lawyer is also covered. 4. Priest-Penitent privilege- Now, not only includes priests of the
 If advice is for illegit prupose, the privilege no longer applies. Roman Catholic Church, but also ministers of other religions
 Not requried that relationship must be perfected and regarding communications or advice given to the person given in
consummated for this to apply. Includes any preliminary info professional capacity.
given.

XPNS:
Page 4 of 19
 Privilege also applies to a person reasonably beleived by the  Children cannot be compelled to testify against their parents
person to be a priest or minister. except in crimes against the person or by one parent against
the other.
5. Public Officials cannot be examined as to confidential  This privilege does not apply to step-parents and step children
communications made by him/her in official duty, even after such (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010).
official’s tenure.  Distinguish the one in the Family Code and ROC
-The communication may be disclosed if disclosure will protect  ROC: Person cannot be compelled to testify against
public interest ascendants and descendants. Applies in any proceeding.
GR: info may be disclosed  FC: Person cannot be compelled to testify against ascendants
XPN: Will adversely affect public interest only. Applies in criminal cases only. XPN: testimony is
REQUISITES: indispensable to the crime.
(1)Communication made to pub officer
(2)Made in official interest
(3)Will harm pub interest 3. NEWSMAN’S PRIVILEGE
 Any newspaper may not be compelled to disclose identity of
 It is intended for the protection of general public not public sources but subject to civil or criminal liabiiltiy. W/o prejudice
officers. to civil or criminal liability.

 The New Rules also included a very significant addition to the

privileged communication rule. It states that communication
ADMISSIONS
shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person,
provided that the original parties to the communication took  Any statement made by a party against his interest.
reasonable precautions to protect its confidentiality.  Two kinds: Judicial and Extrajudicial.
 PEOPLE v CARLOS ; LEYTE ASPHALT v BARTOB, no longer Requisites:
applicable under the 2019 Amended Rules  It must involve matters of fact
 The Supreme Court in these cases ruled that communication  It must be categorical and definite
otherwise privileged when it comes to hand pf 3rd party, this  It must be knowingly made by the party.
party can testify.  It must be adverse to the admitter’s interests.
 Amendment now provides that if otherwise confidential and
falls into hands of 3rd party remains to be confidential (Judicial Adimissions, discussed in Rule 129. )
provided party exercised reasonable precaution to protect Extrajudicial admission
confidentiality.  Made in the course of proceeding of another case or outside
the court.
Other privileged matters:  Any act declaration or omission of party may be made in
 Journalist-source: Journalists cannot be compelled to divulge evidence against him. Extra jud admission made by a party is a
their sources kind of admission is adverse to interest of admitter. Does not
(Justice Singh: The framers of the 2019 Amended Rules of Evidence include self-serving statements of admitter
wanted to include this to the list of privileged communications, but TYPES:
the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to include this, as there (1)Admission made by a party
are already laws passed by Congress protecting the communications Any act declaration or omission or party as to relevant fact may be
between journalists and their sources). given in evidence against him. Requires presentation of 3rd party as
 Voters cannot be asked or examined as to who they voted for. to admission. The third party has no personal knowledge as to truth
 Trade secrets- A person cannot be compelled to testify about or falsity of admission. This is admissible hearsay. TN of Estrada v
any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud Disierto. Based on presumption that no one will declare anything
or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the against himself unless he believes it to be true.
court shall take such protective measures as the interest of
the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the (2)Admission made by a third party
furtherance of justice may require.
 Information on tax census ADMISSIONS MADE BY A PARTY
 Bank Deposits- Pursuant to the Back Secrecy Act. OFFER OF EXTRAJUDICIAL EVIDENCE
 Matters of national security and intelligence gathering (1)Independent Evidence
 Criminal Matters. Ex. present witness to the witness stand

(2)Way of Impeaching Testimony of a Witness

TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGES Ex. defendant testifies that she already paid loan. She may be cross
examined and confronted with the EJA made to the 3rd party
1. EXECUTIVE PRIVELEGE
 If there is presidential privilege there is also judicial privilege. SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS
This is confidentiality of sme specific court records or actions. -not admissible because of inherent untrustworthiness of
 Atty JRT: This include records of deliberation relating to a case. declaration.
Cannot be compelled by subpoena. Invoked during the case of
Atty Gadon requested for copy of SALN of justice Leonen and Offers of compromise
SC denied this. Based on judicial privilege. Because they cannot Depends on kind or proceeding
get SALN form SC, they initiated complaint for impeachement CIVIL CASES
 not an admission of liability.
2. PARENTAL-FILIAL PRIVILEGE XPN:
 Where offer is made out of recognition of liability.

Page 5 of 19
 Not only is offer inadmissible but all other statements made (4) Admission by Privies
during compromise is inadmissible unless offered for another Admission by the predecessor binding upon the successor where
purpose other than to establish liability such as: one derives title from the other. The act or declaration made by
(1)proving bias the former while holding title relating to the property is admissible
(2) to negate any allegation of undue delay against the former.
(3)to prove that the other party exerted efforts to obstruct criminal
investigation/prosecution In other words, the admission made by the predecessor while he
was still holding title to the property and relates to the said
CRIMINAL CASE property, is admissible against the successor in interest. (City of
GR: Any offer of compromise is an evidence of guilt Manila v. Jacinto Del Rosario, 5 Phil. 227 [1905]).
XPN: (5)Admission made by joint owner
1. plea of guilty later withdrawn If there is a party under a state of co-ownership, the admission
2. tax cases allowed to be compromised made by any of the co-owners is admissible against the other co
Tax cases allowed in rules to be compromise it is not admissible to owners since the law considers them as one and the same.
compromise. Settlement is specifically allowed by law. (6) Admission made by joint debtor
3. where good samaritan rule applies The admission made by one debtor is admissible against the other
-offer or actual payment of medical dues is inadmissible as evidence joint debtors. On the same premise that in law, they are
in both civil and criminal cases. considered as one and the same party.
 Plea of guilty that is later withdrawn. Plea shall not be (7) Admission made by a person not a partner, agent, joint debtor,
considered admissible in evidence. joint owner but a person who is jointly interested with a party.
 If made in context of buying peace but not in the context of So long as the interests of both party are JOINT, meaning they have
liability then it is not admitted by court the same interests, any admission made by any party who is jointly
EXAMPLES OF ADMISSION OF GUILT interested in a transaction is binding on the other party. (Narra
1. Asking for forgiveness Nickel v. Redmont, G.R. No. 195580, April 21, 2014).
2. Restituting victim of property stolen
Q. Do you really need authority to bind in order for agent’s
There is no requirement that the case be filed first. With regard to statements
Kalalo, SC said that it was never the intention that the criminal case -It states that agent/admitter is specifically authorized/statement is
must be filed first before the admission of guilt is taken note of. It is made based on his or her function. So if you re a partner not
peculiar because she offered to pay but disputed the liability. (San assigned to make statements on the partnership, then you need
Miguel v. Kalalo, G.R. No. 185522, June 13, 2012). specific authority.

Res inter alios acta Rule SECOND BRANCH: (PREVIOUS OR SIMILAR CONDUCT RULE)
FIRST BRANCH: admission made by another person is not admissible Evidence that one did or did not do a similar thing is not admissible
against a party, but is admissible against the person himself to prove that he did or did not do a similar thing at another time
If source of information takes the stand and reiterates earlier Ex. H charged with acts of lasciviousness before. Previous conviction
admission made outside the court the RIAA Rule does not apply. The cannot be used as direct evidence to prove that he committed acts
moment the source of info takes the stand, it is now converted into of lasciviousness in the present case.
judicial admission. -But if offered to prove circumstantial evidence to establish other
WHY IS THIS INADMISSIBLE? facts relevant then it is admissible.
It is hearsay. There is an absence of cross-examination
US V PINEDA
Ex. Case of adultery. Chezka (BFF of wife) during a conversation with
RR (her boyfriend), said that it is true that the husband is cheating Person was charged with violating Pharmacy Law for dispensing
on the wife. Suppose the wife and her paramour are prosecuted for
poisonous substance. To confirm this, another purchase was made
adultery. Suppose husband is the bff of RR. Husband calls RR as
on the accused and it was proven that the medicine was
witness to testify what Chezka told him. Can RR testify?
poisonous.
No. Because wife is deprived of opportunity to cross-examine
Chezka. But if they ask Chezka to take the witness stand then that is PP V IRANG
allowed as they can cross-examine the source of information. It is
not an extrajudicial admission and is not covered by the RIAA Rule. -witness was presented in second robbery and said accused had
pock marks. SC said it is allowed because offered circumstantially
XPN: admission made by and not as direct evidence
(1)co-partner
This is based on identity of interest. Where on party makes an OTHER RULES THAT DEAL WITH SIMILAR OR PREVIOUS ACTIONS
admission on matters they are duly authorized to do, it is admissible RULE
against all partners. All partners are treated as one and the same RAPE SHIELD RULE
personality. -opinion on past sexual conduct is inadmissible
Also admissible to prove identity in the vicinity where the crime took XPN: Relevant and material to case
place. But there must be independent evidence of the partnership CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE
other than the act or declaration. -excluded evidence alleging child engage in previous sexual behavior
(2)co-conspirator XPN: evidence consists of specific instances of sexual behavior of
The act of one is the act of all so admission by one conspirator is victim that another is the source of semen
admissible against all conspirator. But there must be independent
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
evidence of conspiracy other than the act or declaration.
(3) admission by silence

Page 6 of 19
-Depends on whose character is being proved  Atty JRT: You can invoke both rules. When witness testifies not
CRIMINAL CASE bases on personal knowledge may raise:
Prosecution cannot prove bad moral character UNLESS in rebuttal, (1)Personal Knowledge Rule
but accused is always available to prove good moral character (2)Hearsay Evidence Rule
-moral character must be related to the offense charged
-must tend to establish probability or improbability of offense PEOPLE V PADIT
charged. (G.R. No. 202978, February 1, 2016).
Recall that SC said that hearsay evidence are inadmissible because:
CIVIL CASE 1. Statement not given under oath/affirmation,
Civil Cases 2. Source is not the one in court thus no opportunity to cross
-character of both parties can always be proved as long as relevant examine and denied opportunity to observe demeanor of client.
to moral trait involved in the case
Ex. moral seduction. character is deception. good character to be Because of these factors, a statement made by someone who is not
proved is righteousness and honesty. made in court, this is inadmissible. SC said that if problem is due to
absence of cross-examination, evil sought to be avoided is negated
How to prove Character? when declarant is present in court and subjected to cross
Proof depends on 2 situations: examination in court. So any person can now appear in court for as
long declarant was presented in court.
1. if character is an element of the offense or element of
offense/defense CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHERE STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE EVEN IF
a. by testimony of witness to prove character by reputation DECLARANT IS NOT THE ONE PRESENT IN COURT:
Ex. libel case where H is a child molester. The defense is truth and (a) Inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given
absence of malice. Accused can prove the truth of the allegedly under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial hearing, or
libelous artice. Truth is an essential element of the defense. other proceeding, or in a deposition;
Reporter can prove truth by presenting witness that belong to same Ex. Collection of sum of money. During trial L testified that N owed
community as H who can testify as to reputation NOT specific 1M and failed to pay. When L was cross-examined, the lawyer asked
previous acts. L as to if L would confirm that obligation was extinguished by
b. testimony of witness as to their opinion of the party subsequent payment but L insists that N never paid. To rebut, N
-personal opinion of the individual witness presented R the bff of L to testify that L told R that N obtained a loan
c. evidence of specific wrongful conduct and paid the obligation plus interest. The testimony of R is to relay
-may present children who say they were molested. This is allowed what she heard from L. This is inconstant with L’s statement. But, R’s
as truth is essential element of defense testimony is hearsay. But because L already testified and was cross-
examined and statement made by L is inconsistent with statement to
2. if character is circumstantially relevant to an issue in the case R is still admissible.
a. testimony of witness as to reputation Q. Riguera states that prior statement should be made under oath.
b. testimony of witness of opinion as to character Is this how we construct this first exception?
c. by cross examining a witness on the specific acts or conduct That is one way to look at it. So if statement is made to a police
relating to the accusation charged statement and not under oath, then it is still hearsay. We will go
with Riguera in this concept.
GR: if character is not element of offense or defense, evidence of
specific wrong conduct is not allowed (b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to
XPN: upon cross examination of party rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent
fabrication or improper influence or motive; or
Reason: possibility of unfair surprise, possibility of delay L can provide witness in order to prove that she is not lying. Suppose
R will testify for L. Even if R is testifying on statement made by L, it is
Q: Is it required that the one being crossed is the offended party? admissible as L actually testified in court.
Or are character witness allowed to be cross examined as to (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or
specific wrongful conduct. her.
A: Rule does not specify. It can be the accused or any witness who
can be cross examined as to the specific wrongful conduct of the ELEMENTS:
accused. But it must be done during CROSS EXAMINATION. You 1. out of court statement whether oral, written or conduct
cannot provide your own witness to prove specific wrongful conduct. Ex. N is charged with acts of lasciviousness by L. N interposed
defense of consent and presented R who said she was present when
HEARSAY the act was committed and saw that L gave a thumbs up
 Atty. JRT: Hearsay before the amendments was only
understood as lack of personal knowledge. Now, it refers to Remember Hearsay is inadmissible when used to prove the truth of
statement other than the one made by declarant in court the statement. When not, it is an independently relevant statement
during a hearing.
 The focus of the recent concept of hearsay is not on absence INSTANCES OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS
of personal knowledge but on fact that is made by someone 1. making of statement that is the very fact or issue of the case (ex.
else and is attributed to declarant not testifying the statement. libel/grave threats)
It no longer requires absence of personal knowledge. 2. circumstancial evidence of a fact in issue
 Personal knowledge rule and hearsay evidence rule are 3. physical condition of declarant
intertwined. The difference is that personal knowledge rule -When offered to establish circumstance such as date and place
focuses on testimony based on personal knowledge. On the -Serves to rebut testimony of client
other hand, the hearsay evidence rule talks about out of court -Destroy credibility of client
statements subject to certain exceptions.

Page 7 of 19
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE CASES DISCUSSED THAT NO LONGER APPLY
DMS applies only imposed upon party or assignor of a party or a
person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. (Saint Claire Realty v.
A. Dying Declaration
Guerrero, G.R NO. L-58164, September 2, 1983)

- statement of a person stated to the declarant under impending -DMS is not applicable where a company employee is testifying as
death. the employee who was a witness and was not a party or a person in
Basis: whose behalf a case is prosecuted. (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf, 84 Phil.
 Necessity - due to declarant’s death 330 [1949])
 Trustworthiness- the law presumes that dying people would
not concur a falsehood in the face of impending death.
C. Declaration against interest
Requisites:
1. Declaration must concern the cause and circumstances of The mere absence absence or unvailability of the declarant is not
declarant’s death enough. The witness must have exercised reasonable diligence to
2. At the time of declaration, defendant is conscious of impending produce the declarant in court for this exception to apply (Fuentes v.
death Court of Appeals, G.R. No.111692, February 9, 1996).
3. Declarant was a competent witness
Even if declarant survived he should be competent to testify BASIS OF THIS EXCEPTION:
4. The statement must be complete in itself. (DOCTRINE OF 1. Necessity
COMPLETENESS) (People v. De Joya, G.R. No. 75028, November 8, Because declarant is dead or unable to testify
1991). 2. Trustworthiness
5. The death must be the subject of inquiry. - The law presumes that no person would make a declaration
Atty JRT: It is not required that the death happen immediately after adverse to his/her own interests unless it was true.
the statement is uttered; the death may occur later. Dying -If Declaration of interest is to exculpate a person from liability, it is
declarations are admissible in all cases, whether civil, criminal, or not admissible unless there are other circumstances present to
special proceedings, as long as the death is the subject of inquiry. indicate its trustworthiness
Such as case for insurance proceedings.
The kind of declaration involve:
TN: DMS and Person of Unsound Mind are no longer considered (1)pecuniary interest
hearsay (2)proprietary interest
(3)penal interest
So long as adverse to declarant
B. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind.
DECLARATION AGAINST ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST
INTEREST
Statement is admissible when made by deceased before death or (1)secondary evidence (1)primary evidence
before they when insane when made by party or an assignor of a (2)admissible only if declarant (2)No need that declarant is
party or person on whose behalf an action is prosecuted. is dead/unable to testify dead/unable to testify
(3)contrary (3)adverse nature of
REQUIREMENTS: (4)Has to be a party declaration can be determined
1. Action involves claim against estate (5)Made before controversy at time such adverse nature is
2. Witness is party or an assignor of a party or person on whose arose apparent
behalf an action is prosecuted (6)admissible against (4)Can be 3rd party
3. Witness is testifying on statement made before death or insanity declarant, successors in (5)can be made at any time
4. Statement made under these circumstances: interest and 3rd parties even during pendency
A. made by declarant who had personal knowledge of (6)Admissible only against
subject matter of statement admitter/declarant
B. made at a time that the matter of the statement was
recently perceived by the declarant
C. made by declarant while his recollection was clear
D. Acts or declarations about pedigree
XPN: statement made under circumstances indicating lack of
trustworthiness, then statement of deceased/unsound mind is -Under the old rules, the declarant must be related by blood, birth
inadmissible or marriage to the person whose pedigree is in issue.
-Now includes adoption as among the relationships enumerated.
Q. If one party presents a statement, administrator can provide -Also now includes people intimately associated with the family (e.g.
rebuttal on statement of the deceased? So there are two long-time servant, long-time family friend, etc.) Only in the absence
conflicting statements of the deceased. of declarant.
Atty JRT: That is allowed but not under this provision. But this is
subject to the rule on self-serving admission. It is inadmissible ELEMENTS:
because the one testifying who heard the statement of the deceased 1. Declarant is dead or unable to testify
before he died. Thus, it is an extrajudicial admission but the tenor of 2. Made by a person related to the family or had an intimate
the statement is favorable to the interest of the state. As stated in connection to the family
the law, it only refers to party or assignor of a party or a person in 3. Other evidence of the relationship other than the declaration is
whose behalf a case is prosecuted. “Persons on whose behalf an shown. (Tison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997).
action is prosecuted” refers to the claimants of the estate. 4. Act was made before the controversy arose

Page 8 of 19
REQUIREMENT OF INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE OF PEDIGREE 2 FORMS:
TISON V CA 1. SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT
Action by niece and nephew against husband of aunt. They claim to - there is a startling occurrence and statements are made before,
share in the title of aunt. One of them testified as to declaration during or after
that the aunt recognized the plaintiffs as her niece and nephew. Is 2. VERBAL ACTS
such declaration enough or is there a need to adduce independent -startling occurrence is the equivocal act and res gestae is the
evidence? statement accompanying equivocal act
SC: Qualify. When one seeks to recover from a party common to -statement accompanying the act gives it legal significance; must be
relative and declarant, but not declarant himself, the claim shall be done simultaneous or contemporaneous
established by independent evidence of pedigree
Ex. 3 parties. Claimant, declarant, and relative in common against H. Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity
which the claim is directed. This requires independent evidence of
pedigree.
Differences w/ old Rule:
If party claiming seeks to recover from estate of declarant himself.
-no requirement that the entrant of records must be dead or unable
Requirement of independent evidence no longer applies because
to testify
declaration was made against person whom the claim was directed.
This was demonstrated in Tison.
BASIS: Trustworthiness

HOW TO PROVE: Presented by custodian or competent person

E. Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree -doesn’t have to have personal knowledge on records.

-includes adoption as basis for relationship to fall under this REQUISITES:

exception 1. Data compilation, report, memorandum, etc.
2. Made in writing by a person with personal knowledge
Requisites: 3. Made and kept in the regular course of business
1. Statement must be made by a family member (includes adoptive 4. Such was regular practice
relationship). 5. May be testified by custodian or other qualified witness
Unlike Acts or declarations about pedigree which does not have to 6. It is no longer needed that the person who made the entry be
be a family member dead or unable to testify.
2. About the reputation of the pedigree of a family member
3. Act was made before the controversy arose. -Entries in official records made by a public officer done in official
duties is exempt from hearsay rule.
2 KIND OF EVIDENCE:
1. testimony of a family member TAKE NOTE OF THE DIFFERENCE:
2. family possessions which contain declarations involving pedigrees (1)BUSINESS RECORD- entrant must have personal knowledge
of members of the family (2)OFFICIAL RECORD-it is enough that entrant learned facts via
--how done: get someone who can testify as to the family official information. It cannot be information taken from bystanders.
possessions Hence they are not official records. TN of CALTEX CASE
--ex. family diary (Ynchausti Case)
I. Commercial lists and the like
JISON v CA
Ordinary letter is not a family possession.
 Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation contained in a list, periodical, or
F. Common Reputation other published compilation.
 Admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant
 No more 30 year requirement matter so stated.
 Emphasis of history, through the consensus of the community.  If such compilation is published for use by such persons
engaged in such occupation and is regularly used by them.
WHAT CAN BE PROVEN THROUGH COMMON REPUTATION:
(1)Land Boundaries
(2)Customs affecting lands of the community J. Learned Treatises
(3)Events of general history important to the people
(4)Marriage or non-marriage
 A published treatise tending to prove the truth of a matter
(5)Moral Character
stated therein.
 The court may take judicial notice or let an expert on the
-No longer includes matters of general and public interest.
subject testify on the matter.

G. Res Gestae
K. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

ADDED STATEMENT: made by a person under the stress of

 Must be a testimony or deposition of a witness
excitement caused by the occurrence or under startling
 Witness must be dead, outside of the Philippines, or otherwise
circumstances.
unable to testify due to incapacity
-There must be no time for the declarant to invent a lie or concut a
 Given in a former proceeding
falsehood.
 It must involve the same parties and the same subject matter.

Page 9 of 19
 Adverse party must have had the opportunity to cross-  Presumptions: 2 kinds:
examine the witness. 1. Conclusive
 Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or
Q: Are auditors considered as qualified witnesses in Business omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to
Records? believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he
A: Yes so long as he can prove compiling of records is done as a or she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration,
regular business activity act or omission, be permitted to falsify it (Estoppel by
TN: Rule is all-encompassing to any person who is competent. deed/pais).
 The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her
L. Residual Exception landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them.
 The conclusive presumption between landlord and tenant
 This exception comes from the US case of Dallas County v.
applies only if what is being denied is the relationship at the
Commercial Union Assurance Company, 286 F.2d 388 (5th Cir.
commencement, not the relationship that existed after the
1961)
commencement (Ermitano v. Paglas, G.R. No. 174436, January
23, 2013).
Dallas County vs. Commercial Union
This is an insurance claim, and the evidence here is hearsay, but
2. Disputable presumptions
allowed under this exception. The hearsay evidence consisted in an
old newspaper, but it was admitted by the court on the ground that
that old newspaper possesses the circumstantial guarantees of (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
trustworthiness. (1) No reason for reporter to lie; (2) Given nature
of news reporting, it can be checked. That’s the operative fact: (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his or her
 Statements not specifically covered by any of the foregoing voluntary act;
exceptions as long as there are guarantees of trustworthiness.
(e.g. dying declaration offered in a proceeding where the
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns;
subject of the inquiry is not the death of the declarant)
 Catchall exception
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
RESIDUAL EXCEPTION IS ADMISSIBLE IF:
1. Offered as evidence of a fact  For this presumption to apply the Resuppression must be
2. Statement is more probative than other evidence willful, meaning it maliciously done not when it is done
3. The general purpose of the Rules of Court and justice will be pursuant to the exercise of a right. Here the patient was
served by the introduction of the evidence. merely exercising her right, referring to the confidential nature
of the medical record. She cannot be faulted for exercising her
REQUISITES FOR RESIDUAL EXCEPTION: right. That can hardly constitute willful suppression (Blue Cross
1. Proponent makes known the intention to avail of the residual v. Olivares, G.R. No. 169737, February 12, 2008).
excpetion in advance  This presumption does not apply if the evidence supposedly
2. Adverse party has fair opportunity to meet it suppressed is equally available at the disposal of all the parties
3. The Proponent must offer the particulars of such statement, (People v. Padiernos, G.R. No. L-37284, February 27, 1976).
including the names and addresses of the declarant/s.
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
Opinion Rule:
 GR: Not admissible
 XPN: (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
1. Expert witness- witness with special knowledge, skill and
education. (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
2. Ordinary witness- An ordinary witness can give his/her opinion as
to: (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for
A. The identity of a person with whom he/she has adequate the later one is produced;
knowledge
B. Handwriting of a person with whom he/she has sufficient
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of
familiarity
a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act;
C. Mental state of a person with whom he/she is sufficiently
otherwise, that things which a person possess, or exercises acts of
acquianted with.
ownership over, are owned by him or her;
D. The impressions of emotions or the behavior of a person.

 One in possession of the stolen item is presumed to be the

Rule 131 taker as the doer of the entire thing. (People v. Newmann, G.R.
Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence, Presumptions No. L-45354, July 26, 1988)
 Burden of proof- duty of a party to present evidence to  TAKE NOTE: There is also a presumption of ownership. As
establish a claim or a defense. between the two, the presumption of ownership prevails. The
 Burden of evidence- duty of a party to present evidence to possessor is not required to file an action for replevin as she
establish or rebut a fact in issue or to establish a prima facie could have stood her ground and refuse turning it over to the
case. police consistent with the presumption of ownership. (Edu v.
 Burden of proof never shifts, Burden of evidence may shift. Gomez, G.R. No. L-33397, June 22, 1984).

Page 10 of 19
  Presumption of simultaneity in death- When two or more
 TAKE NOTE: Disputable presumptions may be overcome by persons who are called to succeed each other, die, they shall
contrary evidence, but if notcontroverted and if allowed to be presumed to have died at the same time.
stand uncontroverted, it may be sufficient to support a  Presumption of Survivorship- In survivorship, when two
conclusion. In criminal cases, it may be sufficient to support a persons perish in a calamity, like wreck, conflagration, or
conviction. battle, and it cannot be determined as to who of them died
first, from the circumstances; the survivorship is determined
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the by the probabilities arising from the ages and the sexes of the
payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the parties subject to the following rules:
money or delivered the thing accordingly;  Both <15: Older
 Both >60: Younger
 One is < 15, other is >60: The one < 15
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or
 Both >15 or Both >60, of different sexes: The male. If of the
elected to it;
same sexes, the older person.
 <15 or >60 and a person between those ages of 15-60: The
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed; person between 15-60.

(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines  TAKE NOTE: Ages are relevant only if the purpose is other
or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction; than succession because the rule applicable is presumption of
survivorship.
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid
before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all  So, if the issue as to who died first arises from contract, apply
matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration survivorship; the ages of the parties matter. But if the issue is
were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them; about succession, whether one can inherit from the other, the
rule applicable is simultaneity in death; the ages of the parties
are irrelevant.
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
 In other words,these ages are irrelevant if what is being talked
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed; about is successional right. Apply simultaneity of deaths.

(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract; (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration; (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of
nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before
the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument  Normalcy is presumed, things happen normally in the course
is dated; of nature. You don’t need to presume that something is
normal because normalcy is presumed. It is incumbentupon
(u) That a writing is truly dated; the party who claims otherwise to prove abnormality. (Reyes v.
BPI, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008; Atienza v. Board of
Medicine, G.R. No. 177407, February 9, 2011).
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular
course of the mail;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of
copartneship;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether
or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes,
except for those of succession. (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and
wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his or her succession until after an absence of ten years. If (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are
he or she disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each
absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his or her other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under
succession may be opened. void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the
division of the estate among the heirs: (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are
not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire properly
through their actual joint contribution of money, property or
 This presumption must yield to preponderance of evidence. If
industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares
the heirs of the deceased can prove by preponderance of
including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.
evidence that a person has already died, this presumption
cannot apply (Eastern Shipping Lines v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-
60101, August 31, 1983; Victoria Shipping v. Workmen’s (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted
Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-9268, November 28, another marriage within three hundred days after such termination
1959). of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of
proof to the contrary:

Page 11 of 19
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual -destroy credibility of witness/ testimony
with things of the nature;
(2)CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION
(ff) That the law has been obeyed; -allowed to ask question not taken up but also matters bearing issue
in the case. May ask question w/c support claims of client.
XPN: when cross-examination is done on hostile/adverse party
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or
witness. It will be only matters in direct examination.
published by public authority, was so printed or published;
QUESTION:
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of What if the accused will be the one called to the witness stand?
cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is What rules will prevail? Under Crim Pro the accused can only be
published, contains correct reports of such cases; asked on matters asked during direct examination.
Atty JRT: In your example accuses is called by witness stand by own
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real counsel. He can now be cross-examined by prosecution.
property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him or I think that rule limiting scope of cross examination has something
her when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such to do with self-incrimination. When he takes the stand voluntarily,
person or his or her successor in interest; he may now be cross-examined. But he may refuse to answer
question if it will incriminate the accused of an offense other than
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish the one in the present case. Extent of waiver is limited to matters
in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it dealt with in direct examination. Always resolve doubts in favor of
is not shown who died first, and there are no particular the accused.
circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and  Cross examination is an absolute right. If witness dies before
the age of the sexes, according to the following rules: cross-examination, it shall be stricken off the record. If only
partial, the portion which was not yet examined will be the
only one stricken off.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who  But if witness was not cross-examined due to fault of party
are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, entitled to cross examination, it will not be stricken off the
whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the record as it was due to own fault or negligence. This is a
same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died waiver.
at the same time.
3. REDIRECT EXAMINATION
 Presumptions in civil cases- Presumption imposes on a party SCOPE: deals on matters taken up during cross examination only. If
the burden of presenting evidence to rebut the presumptions. question is asked in direct then proper ground for objection is to
 Presumptions cannot be based on another presumption. object as it is not proper matters taken up during direct examination.
There must be facts to derive to form such a presumption. It may however be allowed by court in the interest of justice.
 If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption with PURPOSE:
weightier policy considerations shall apply.  Allow witness to explain/supplement answers given during
 Presumptions in criminal cases- The existence of the basic fact cross.
consisting the presumption must be proved beyond  Rehabilitate statements rendered doubtful in cross
reasonable doubt. examination.
 If cross could barely destroy testimony of witness, the best
RULE 132 cause of action to take is never ask redirect.
Presentation of Evidence
4. RECROSS EXAMINATION
SCOPE: Limited to matters in redirect
(Justice Singh: There are no significant changes in this Rule other PURPOSE:
than in the conduct of cross-examination)  Destroy testimony of witness given in redirect
 Rehabilitate statements in redirect
PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES
RECALLING OF A WITNESS
 After examination is completed by both parties, this requires
1. DIRECT EXAMINATION
leave of court.
Atty JRT: Scope of questions will include all relevant matters in the
 Failure to ask witness matters which party deemed relevant or
issue of case. Purpose is to illicit facts on clients cause of action or
vital but omitted during direct or recross is not ground to
defense
recall witness. That is negligence on the part of the party.
 May recall for events that transpired after being called to
2. CROSS EXAMINATION
witness stand
SCOPE:
GR: Court does not consider evidence not formally offered. Purpose
2 schools of thought:
must be specified.
(1)American Rule - limited to matters enquired into during direct
XPN: if evidence not formally offered has been duly identified by
examination
testimony of witness duly recorded, and evidence not formally
(2)English Rule- adopted in the Phiippines. Scope will cover all
offered but identified by witness is INCORPORATED in records.
matters bearing upon the issue.

PURPOSES: TYPES OF QUESTIONS DURING TRIAL

(1)DESTRUCTIVE CROSS EXAMINATION 1. LEADING QUESTION
Page 12 of 19
-suggests to witness an answer desired by conducting party. Ex. present the one who witness made the statement to
-Not allowed in direct examination. May be reformed. However if QUESTION:
adverse party fails to object then it will be allowed. Does first statement have to be under oath?
Ex. Ask Jin did u have meeting w defendant? Did he borrow money Atty JRT: Prior inconsistent statement doesn’t have to be under oath
from you? as long as witness confirms that statement was made.
It is however advantageous in cross examination. 3. Evidence of bad character
Allowed during: Reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad. Must be general.
(1)Preliminary Matters - example establish personal circumstance Not all character reputation is allowed. Must be done to destroy
(2)When direct examiner is conducting examination on one who has credibility for truth, honesty and integrity. Ex. accused of rape
difficulty giving intelligible answers/child of tender years Defense can’t impeach witness by proving that witness is a rapist
(3)Hostile Witness/Adverse Witness because he was previously accused of rape because
(1)doesn’t refer to reputation for truth, honesty and integrity
QUESTION: (2)deals with specific evidence of conduct
How to object leading question in JA? XPN:
Atty JRT: You may object in writing to be decided during trial or you 1. examining witness himself
may do so during trial when offered by proponent. 2. evidence of copy or final judgement convicting witness
JA is offered as direct testimony. That is testimonial evidence. This is of crime with penalty of 1 year or crime of moral turpitude
objected when witness is called to the stand and asked to identify JA.
Pretrial is not the time to non-admissibility of other party’s evidence.
EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES
Also in JDR or CAM.
 The court may, motu propio or upon motion, exclude
If there is difficulty in getting answers, how to establish they are witnesses from the courtroom.
ignorant or feeble minded?  A court may not exclude:
1. A party to the case
Atty JRT: You just state so. This is still subject to observation of the 2. A representative of a juridical entity which is a party to the case
court. Ask questions that are not leading and court will observe 3. Person whose presence is indispesable to a party’s cause
difficulty of witness. Then state so and proceed with leading 4. Person authorized by a statute to be present. (e.g. In Rule of
questions. JA is not documentary evidence. If affidavit is offered in Examination of Child Witnesses, a psychologist, religious minister,
lieu of testimony. The proper time to offer is when they are called to etc. may accompany the child in his/her testimony).
the witness stand.
CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
What if questions are objected and sustained by court? Can lawyer
just ask question orally? 1. Public
Atty JRT: Yes. You can reform through an oral question. But it will 2. Private
depend on the court. What are public documents:

2. MISLEADING QUESTION (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
-question that assumes as true a fact which is not yet testified by a sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
witness or even contrary to what the witness has testified. It is officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
absolutely prohibited. But if not objected to, the witness can answer
a misleading question. (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except
-only invoked by adverse party such as during cross-examination. last wills and testaments;
But if you are the one asking misleading question to your own
witness, the adverse party shall object that the witness lacks
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under
foundation to answer the question.
treatises and conventions which are in force between the
Philippines and the country of source; and
Other types of questions not allowed:
1. vague or indefinite questions
2. argumentative questions (d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
3. questions is asking opinion required by law to the entered therein (Section 19, Rule 132).
4. question is repetitive
 Any document not falling within these four is a private
IMPEACHING WITNESS OF ADVERSE PARTY document.

1. By introducing contrary evidence

 Public documents now include those considered to be public
Presented by witness in the same case.
documents under treaties and conventions between the
2. Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement
Philippines and the country of source.
-refers to statements made by witness at some other time.
(Justice Singh: This is pursuant to the Apostille Convention which
Ex. witness testified PI is inconsistent with testimony during trial.
took effect in May of 2019.)
REQ:
 Private Documents may be proved by evidence showing its
(1)laying of the predicate
due execution and authenticity.
- proponent/ impeaching party shall relay to witness time,
 Public documents are admissible without proof of genuineness
place and person present during prior testimony
and due execution.
(2) must afford witness opportunity to explain
-only when witness can’t explain that witness is
 Private documents- To be admissible, one must show due
impeached
execution and authenticity by:
What if witness denies the prior statement?
A. Anyone who saw the document executed or written
Atty JRT: Resort to first mode, contradictor evidence.
Page 13 of 19
B. Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or the handwriting
of the maker. PRESENTATION OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENT:
C. Other evidence showing its due execution or authenticity  May be presented without further proof of authentication.
D. Doctrine of self-authentication – applies when private document Acknowledgement shall serve as proof.
contains facts and writings which could have been known only by  If kept in foreign country no need certification
the maker or the one who wrote the private document.
E. Reply-Communication Rule: a letter is sent and received by the PRESENTATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT:
recipient, and the recipient wrote back the sender in the form of a (1)Present original record
reply. (2)If not available, submit certified true copy of public doc attested
by leg custodian and ACCOMPANIED BY certificate that legal
INSTANCES WHERE PRIVATE DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED W/O custodian is in custody of original document.
AUTHENTICATION
Offer and objection
1. Ancient document
(1)more than thirty years old GR: Court does not consider evidence not formally offered. Purpose
(2)is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if must be specified.
genuine, and One exception: if evidence not formally offered has been duly
(3)is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, identified by testimony of witness duly recorded, and evidence not
no other evidence of its authenticity need be given formally offered but identified by witness is INCORPORATED in
2. When not presented as an authentic document records.
GR: must always be offered orally
XPN: duly identified by testimony of witness and duly recorded. It
PRESENTATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT
shall then be incorporated in the record.
-Depends on kind of public document.
-The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, WHY MUST OFFER BE SPECIFIC?
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Atty JRT: Admissibility depends on purpose for which it is offered.
Philippines, or of a foreign country; Remember Multiple Admissibility.
(1)an official publication thereof or
WHEN TO MAKE FORMAL OFFER
(2)by a copy attested by the officer having the legal  Objection and offer is always done orally except when not
custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and done due to practicable reasons (ex. Very lengthy)
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,  The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be
with a certificate that such officer has the custody. made at the time the witness is called to testify.
 The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made
If document is in a foreign country:
after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
 If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign
country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or OBJECTION OF OFFER
convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or
SECTION 36. Objection. — Objection to offer of evidence must be
considered a public document under such treaty or made orally immediately after the offer is made.
convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer
hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify.
prescribed by such treaty or convention
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
subject to reciprocity granted to public documents examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds
originating from the Philippines. therefor become reasonably apparent.
 For documents originating from a foreign country which is The grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
not a contracting party to a treaty or convention
referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate  Objection to documentary evidence must be done before it is
may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, presented before court.
consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by  If basis for objection is lack of formal offer, should be done
any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines before witness to testify otherwise he is barred forever.
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept,  This rule is an offshoot of Catuira v CA. Adverse party kept
and authenticated by the seal of his or her office. silent w/o formal offer. The Supreme Court ruled that the
A document that is accompanied by a certificate or failure of the prosecution to object at the time the witness
its equivalent may be presented in evidence without further testified without a formal offer constituted a waiver of such
proof, objection.

the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence

of the due execution and genuineness of the document SECTION 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given
involved. immediately after the objection is made, unless the court
desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question
 The certificate shall not be required when a treaty or
convention between a foreign country and the Philippines has presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial
and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made
abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document
an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
itself from this formality.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be
CERTIFICATION - consular authentication stated.
There are 2 distinct certification

Page 14 of 19
However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds,
Substantial Evidence
a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must
 Burden of proof in administrative and quasi-judicial
specify the ground or grounds relied upon
proceedings.
 It is defined as relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
STRIKING OUT OF ANSWER might accept to justify a conclusion.
Should a witness answer the question:
Evidence on Motion
(1) before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its  When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record.
objection to the same, or  The Court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions
presented by the respective parties.
(2)where a question is not objectionable, but the answer is not
 The court may also direct that the matter be heard wholly or
responsive, or
partly on oral testimony or depositions.
(3)where a witness testifies without a question being posed or
testifies beyond limits set by the court, or ADDITIONAL NOTES RELEVANT TO EVIDENCE
(4)when the witness does a narration instead of
answering the question, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, 1. The Cybercrime Prevention Law of 2012 (Republic Act No.
10175):
the court shall sustain the objection and (In relation to exclusionary rules of evidence)
order such answer, testimony or narration to be stricken
off the record.
Cybercrime Warrants- Under Section 2.2 of A.M. 17-11-03-SC, July 3,
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of 2018 otherwise known as the “Rule on Cybercrime Warrants”, an
answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise application for a cybercrime warrant concerning a violation of
improper. cybercrime offenses under Section 4, shall be filed by law
enforcement authorities before any designated cybercrime court of
TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE the province or city:
If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded A. Where is offense or any of its elements, has been committed, is
by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made being committed, or is about to be committed, or
part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror B. Where any part of the computer system is situated; or
may state for the record the name and other personal C. Where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person
circumstances of the witness and the substance took place.
of the proposed testimony. (40)
However, the cybercrime courts in Quezon City, City of Manila, Pasig
-Court cannot prevent you from doing this as this is fo the City, Iloilo City, Davao City or Cagayan de Oro City shall have special
consideration of higher court. If evidence is document/object it is authority to act on applications and issue warrants that is
formed part of record of case enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

But if the application of the warrant is under Section 6 (crimes

RULE 133 penalized by RPC and other special laws committed through
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence computer systems) shall be filed in the REGULAR COURT within its
Preponderance of Evidence territorial jurisdiction.
 Burden of proof in civil cases
 Concerned with the greater weight of evidence. Four types of Cybercrime Warrants:
1. Warrant to Disclose Computer Data- Authorizes law enforcement
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt authorities to direct the owner of computer data to disclose it and
 Burden of proof in criminal cases. submit it to authorities.
 What is required is only MORAL certainty, not ABSOLUTE 2. Warrant to intercept- Enables authorities to INTERCEPT the
certainty. computer data and monitor the flow of communications.
 Circumstancial evidence may warrant a convicition. 3. Warrant to seize and examine computer data-Enables
Requisites: authorities to seize and examine computer data that are believed to
1. There is more than 1 circumstance; be used for the commission of cybercrimes.
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; 4. Warrant to examine computer data- Authorities were for one
3. Combination of all circumstances can produce conviction beyond reason or another already in possession of some computer device
reasonable doubt. that contains incriminating data. (e.g. computers seized as a result
 Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. The facts of a lawful search, another warrant is needed in order to examine
from which the inferences must be duly proved beyond the contents of such computer).
reasonable doubt.

 How to give weight to the testimony of an expert witness: Crimes covered by the Cybercrime Warrant:
 Whether or not the claims of the witness are based on A. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of
sufficient fact or data; computer data and systems:
 Whether or not it is a product of reliable principles or methods; 1. Illegal access- The access of the whole or any part of the
 Reliable application of principles or methods to the facts of computer system without right.
the case; 2. Illegal interception- Interception of any computer system or any
 Other factors to help the court make such determination. part thereof without any right.

Page 15 of 19
3. Data interference- The intentional or reckless alteration, (2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined
damaging, deletion, or deterioration of computer data, electronic and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child
document, or electronic data message without right, including the Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system:
introduction or transmission of viruses. Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree
higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
4. System Interference. — The intentional alteration or reckless (3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The transmission of
hindering or interference with the functioning of a computer or commercial electronic communication with the use of computer
computer network by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and
deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program, services are prohibited unless: (i) There is prior affirmative consent
electronic document, or electronic data message, without right or from the recipient; or (ii) The primary intent of the communication
authority, including the introduction or transmission of viruses. is for service and/or administrative announcements from the sender
5. Misuse of Devices. (i) The use, production, sale, procurement, to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or
importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without (iii) The following conditions are present:
right, of: (aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple,
valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject. receipt of further
(aa) A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source;
primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under (bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely
this Act; or disguise the source of the electronic message; and
(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely
(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the include misleading information in any part of the message in order
whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed to induce the recipients to read the message.
with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the 4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in
offenses under this Act. Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may
(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i) (aa) or be devised in the future.
(bb) above with intent to use said devices for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under this section. Other Offenses enumerated under Section 5, as follows:
(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any
6. (a) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over the person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the
internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and offenses enumerated in the Act shall be held liable.
deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain name is: (b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who
(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in the
registered with the appropriate government agency at the time of Act shall be held liable. 3. All crimes defined and penalized by the
the domain name registration: Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by,
(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other through and with the use of information and communications
than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and technologies (ICT) shall be covered by the relevant provisions of the
Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1)
(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as
it. amended, and special laws, as the case may be (Section 6).

(b) Computer-related Offenses: (1) Computer-related Forgery. — (i)

2. The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173) (In
The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right relation to exclusionary rules evidence)
resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or
acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless
whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible; or Kinds of Information under Data Privacy Act:
1. Personal Information- Information from which the identity of
(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product an individual is apparent, which if considered with other
of computer-related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of information, directly identifies an individual.
perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.
2. Sensitive Personal Information- Information about an
(2) Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized input, alteration, individual, particularly:
or deletion of computer data or program or interference in the A. Race
functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby with B. Ethnic Origin
fraudulent intent. C. Age
D. Religious and Political Affiliation
(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, E. Eduacation
use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of F. Health Education
identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or G. Sex Life
juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been H. Sexual Preference
caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower. I. Information issued by government agencies (e.g. SSS No. TIN, etc.)
J. Any information which covers an executive order that is
Content-related Offenses: considered as classified.
(1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or
operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual 3. Privileged Information- Information which are privileged under
organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for the Rules of Court and Special Laws
favor or consideration. e.g. Lawyer-client; physician-patient; priest-penitent; journalist-
sources.

Page 16 of 19
Not covered under the Data Privacy Act: inventory (People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21,
1. Information on a government official or employee regarding his 2018).
official functions.
2. Information on an individual who rendered services to the 4. Photograph of the seized items
government under a government contract The law only requires the photographs of the seized item. But to
3. Information necessary to perform a public function make sure that the seized items are the very items photographed, a
4. Information necessary for journalistic, artistic, scientific, research particular police operation and recovered from that particular
purposes. suspect, the practice is, to include everyone present in the
5. Information necessary for processing of banking institutions, in photograph. You have the photo of the seized items and photos that
compliance with bank-related matters (e.g. Anti-Money Laundering show the presence of those people during the operation.
Act).
GR: Sec. 21 of RA 9565 should be strictly complied with.
Instances when Processing of SPI is allowed:
1. Consent of Data holder XPN: If not strictly complied with, apply the substantial compliance
2. When processing of SPI is prescribed by law rule
3. When necessary to protect the health and life of the data holder Requisites:
or any person. 1. The police officer of the prosecution shalladmit that there is non-
4. Processing of SPI is necessary for medical purpose. compliance;
5. Processing of SPI is necessary to carry out the legitimate non- 2. They should offer a justifiable reason for the non- compliance.
business or non-commercial objective of a public corporation or
association.  Links in the Chain of Custody involving illegal drugs:
6. When the processing of any SPI is necessary to protect the rights 1. Seizure of the apprehending or seizing officer;
and interests of any person in a court proceeding. 2. Turnover of the illegal drugs by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer ;
3. Turnover of the illegal drugs by the investigating officer to the
3. Chain of Custody Requirement in Drug Cases (In relation to
authentication of object evidence): chemist/crime laboratory to determine the contents of the
substance;
The whole process of authenticating illegal drugs rests in Sec 21 RA 4. Turnover or submission of the illegal drugs by the chemist to the
6425 as amended by RA 10640. court.

1. Seizure and marking If the illegal drugs come to the hands of people who are not
 The seizing or the apprehending officer is required to mark the mentioned above, the link is broken.
seized illegal drugs at the place of seizure immediately after
the seizure. The rule employs the terminology “immediately Illustration:
after the seizure” which means place of seizure itself. Accused to Apprehending officer; Apprehending officer to
 XPN: For justifiable reasons, marking may be done somewhere Investigating Officer; Investigating Officer to Forensic Chemist;
else: nearest police station or at the nearest office of the Forensic Chemist to Court.
apprehending officer, whichever is most practicable.
Remember, not just anywhere.  Effect if section 21 which requires the process of
2. Required witnesses during seizure, marking, inventory and authentication is not sufficiently complied with:
photographing Jurisprudence has said it that failure to comply with section 21
 The witnesses required are: which is a process of authentication merely affects the weight and
1) the accused or his representative or counsel; sufficiency of the evidence. So, it is a concern of the test of weight
2) elected public official; and sufficiency.
3) Representative from DOJ OR media.
4. Rules on DNA Evidence (In relation authentication of object
 The rule now is, that three third party witnesses should be
present not only during the inventory and photograph taking evidence)
but also during the seizure and marking of the seized illegal
drugs. The reason why the presence of the third-party  This Rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence, as defined in
witnesses is needed under the law is to prevent planting, Section 3 hereof, is offered, used, or proposed to be offered or
substitution and contamination of illegal used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as well as
Drugs (People v. Larry Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014; special proceedings.
People v. Joshua Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018).  “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of
molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. The
3. Physical Inventory totality of an individual’s DNA is unique for the individual,
 The received physical inventory should be documented, there except identical twins;
has to be a physical inventory sheet detailing all the seized  “DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles,
illegal drugs recovered from the suspect, describing them in results and other genetic information directly generated from
details, like the marking trace of each and every sachet of DNA testing of biological samples;
shabu, kilos of shabu, and the likes. So, the physical inventory  The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an
sheet will prove that an inventory of the seized illegal drug is association exists between the evidence sample and the
actually made. The 3 witnesses required must be required to reference sample. It may yield either of 3 results:
sign the inventory AND they must also receive a copy of such
inventory. 1. Exclusion- Samples are different and are therefore from different
sources (Not matching).
 Recording of barangay blotter is not enough and is not a
substitute for the conduct and giving of copy of the physical
Page 17 of 19
2. Inconclusive- It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably
the test, whether the samples have similar DNA types. (Not sure). with "electronic data message".
3. Inclusion- The samples are similar, and could have originated  "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark,
from the same source (Matching). characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing
the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated
 DNA Testing does not violate the right against self- with the electronic data message or electronic document or
incrimination (Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005) any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a
 The court may order DNA testing to be done motu propio or person and executed or adopted by such person with the
upon motion. intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic
 Requisites for the court to order DNA testing: data message or electronic document. For purposes of these
Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures.
 "Digital signature" refers to an electronic signature consisting
1. A sample exists;
of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic
2. The sample was not subjected to previous tests;
data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem
3. The methods used in testing are scientifically valid;
such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic
4. The results have potential to produce new information relevant
document and the signer's public key can accurately
to the case;
determine:
5. There exisists other factors that would affect the integrity and
accuracy of the DNA testing.
i. whether the transformation was created using the private key that
corresponds to the signer's public key; and
 Before DNA testing is allowed, the proponent should establish
prima facie impossibility of paternity. So, DNA testing cannot
be obtained without first establishing reasonable possibility of ii. whether the initial electronic document had been altered after
paternity. So in other words, what the court wanted to avoid the transformation was made
in requiring this condition is to prevent unscrupulous parties
from using DNA testing as a tool for harassment. (Lucas v.  "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone
Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011). conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
 DNA Testing may be availed of as a post-conviction remedy if communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
the testing would probably result in the reversal or retained.
modification of the conviction (Lejano v. People, G.R. No.  To be considered ephemeral, the message or communication
176864, December 14, 2010). must not be retained or recorded (fading message)
 The remedy if the results of the DNA testing is favorable to the
accused is to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If the  Ephemeral communication includes text messages (People v.
court finds the petition to be meritorious, then it shall reverse Enojas, G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014).
or modify the conviction of the accused.  Factors to consider in assessing the evidentiary weight of
 Factors to consider in the probative value of DNA tests: electronic evidence:

1. The chain of custody; 1. Reliability of storage;

2. Testing methodology; 2. Reliability of identification of originator;
3. The testing laboratory’s reputation; 3. Integrity of information;
4. The reliability of the ensuing result. 4. Familiarity of witnesses who made the entry;
5. Nature and quality of the information;
Interpretation of DNA Results: 6. Other factors affecting the integrity of the evidence.

If result is < 99.9%- CORROBORATIVE evidence of paternity.  In authentication of electronic documents as evidence, the
burden of proof is on the person seeking to introduce
electronic evidence to prove its authenticity.
If >= to 99.9%- DISPUTABLE presumption of paternity.
 Manner of authentication of private electronic evidence
offered as authentic:
5. Rules on Electronic Evidence (in relation to Documentary
Evidence) A. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by such person;
B. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or
devices were applied for authentication;
 The Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01 SC) shall C. By other evidence showing the preservation of the integrity
apply whenever an electronic document or electronic data and reliability of the electronic evidence to the satisfaction of
message is offered or used in evidence. the judge.
 “Electronic document" refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression, described or however  The hearsay rule does not apply to electronic documents as
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation long as the documents were duly testified to by the custodian
extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, or other qualified witnesses.
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,  Exception: The presumption may be overcome by evidence of
retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed the untrustworthiness of the source of the information or the
documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or method and circumstances of the preparation, transmission,or
other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data storage thereof.
message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules,
Page 18 of 19
 How to authenticate audio, photographic, video, and need written authority by the ATC to detain subject for 14
ephemeral evidence: days to conduct custodial investigation
 may be extended by 10 days
1. The audio, photograph, video, or ephemeral evidence must be  if no written authority of ATC, law enforcement agents shall
presented in court; comply with period in Art. 125Arrests
2. The document shall be identified, explained or authenticated
by the person who made the recording or by some other person Arrest
competent to testify on the accuracy thereof (People v. Navarro,
G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999).  Most controversial provision;
 The law itself: Law enforcement agents can arrest anyone
3 .Ephemeral electronic communications, proved by the testimony suspected… the only requirement: authority from the ATC
of:  The law does not provide the parameters for a warrantless
arrest
A. A person who was a party to the same;  However, if you look at the IRR again, the IRR provides that
B. A person who has personal knowledge thereof (People v. Enojas, persons suspected of being terrorists… may be arrested
G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014). without warrant, provided, Sec. 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure (warrantless arrests) are met
2. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other
competent evidence may be admitted.

6. The Anti-Terror Law of 2020 (provisions related to Evidence)

 Requirement for judicial authorization from the Court of

Appeals before law enforcement authorities may wiretap
suspected terrorists.
 Judicial authorization is good for 60 days, extendible for
another 30 days if justice requires. NO FURTHER EXTENSION
ALLOWED.
 Communications that cannot be intercepted via wiretapping:

1. Lawyer-client
2. Doctor-patient
3. Journalist-Source
4. Business correspondence

 Atty JRT: Noticeably absent is the priest-penitent

communication. I don’t know why it was not included.
 Any communication obtained through illegal surveillance is
inadmissible against anybody in any kind of proceeding
Note: The same phraseology in the Human Security Act making
any illegal materials obtained inadmissible against any person
which was interpreted to mean that these illegally obtained
materials cannot even be used against the law enforcement
agent who obtained the materials illegally
-The IRR provides that illegally-seized or intercepted surveilled
materials or communication may be used against the law
enforcement agents responsible for the illegal surveillance for
the purpose of establishing the illegal surveillance (this is
something provided by the IRR, but not in the substantive law
itself. It is only in the IRR);
 The IRR, the evidence illegally obtained may be used against
the law enforcement officers for the purpose of establishing
the illegality of the surveillance.

 Any law enforcement personnel who violates the provisions of

this Act (such as illegal surveillance) shall be criminally liable
for imprisonment for up to 10 years.
 Written authority from the ATC is needed for law enforcement
authorities to detain terrorism suspects for an initial 14 days,
extendible for another 10 days, if necessary to preserve the
evidence or to complete the investigation, or to prevent
another terrorist attack.
 - a person detained for being suspected as a terrorist or
member of terrorist org, the law enforcement agents only

Page 19 of 19