Law On Evidence Powerhauz

LAW
LAWON
ONEVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
ATTY. RONEY JONE. GANDEZA
Professor of Law
University of the Cordilleras
Baguio City
CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE
• Evidence is the means sanctioned by the Rules of
Court of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1, Rule 128)
• To be considered evidence, a circumstance must be
sanctioned or allowed by law or by the Rules of
Court.
EXAMPLE:
Coerced extrajudicial confession.
SCOPE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
The rules of evidence contemplate an action filed in

court. (Sec. 2, Rule 128)
The rules of evidence do not apply to:
• Cadastral Cases
• Land Registration Cases
• Insolvency
• Naturalization Proceedings, and
• Election Cases
except suppletorily. (Sec. 4, Rule 1, ROC)
QUESTION:
In point of time, what law determines the admissibility

of evidence?
ANSWER:
• Whether a circumstance is admissible or not is

determined in accordance with the law in force at the
time the evidence is offered.
• Evidence otherwise inadmissible under the law at the
time the action accrued may be received in evidence, if
it is admissible under the law in force during the trial.
• There is no vested right of evidence.
CLASSIFICATION
CLASSIFICATIONOF
OFEVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
DIRECT EVIDENCE
Evidence which proves a fact in dispute directly

without the aid of any inference or
presumption.
It includes testimony of what is heard, what is

seen or whatever is perceived by the five senses.
EXAMPLE:
Witness testifies that he saw the accused hack

the victim with a bolo.
OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Evidence furnished by things or physical objects

on view or inspection, as distinguished from
description thereof by witnesses. (e.g. scars,
marks, photos).
Sometimes called “autoptic proference.”
EXAMPLE:
Rape victim identifies the undergarment she was

wearing at the time of the rape.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
• also known as indirect evidence.
• arises from direct evidence, or a combination of

direct and real evidence.
• consists of inferences logically drawn from known

facts.
• main fact is arrived at through a process of simple

deduction based on the common experience of
mankind.
EXAMPLE:
• witness testifies that he saw the accused running
away from the place where the victim was found
with stab wounds.
• another witness testifies that the clothing of the
accused was stained with blood when the accused
arrived home.
• another witness testifies that the accused had a bolo
stained with blood.
PROBLEM:
A police investigator finds a footprint from a left-foot shoe at
a murder scene. The print is appropriately preserved as
evidence. It is observed that it has very distinctive tread
marks and an unusual wear pattern on the sole. It also has a
swoosh mark on the heel bottom that indicates the brand was
a Nike shoe.
The investigator, armed with a proper search warrant,
searches a suspect’s apartment, where he finds a shoe to a
right foot that is the same size, and has a similar wear pattern
and the same swoosh mark as the shoeprint found at the
scene.
The shoe for the left foot is not found but the shoe for the
right foot is seized from the suspect’s closet and offered as
evidence at trial.
What type of evidence is the shoe?
ANSWER:
The shoe is circumstantial evidence.
It is circumstantial because it requires one or more inferences to
be made in order to conclude that it is the suspect’s shoeprint at
the scene.
Direct evidence would be where a witness saw the suspect
commit the murder. No inference is required -- one just have to
believe the credibility of the witness.

NOTE:
Circumstantial evidence arises from direct evidence, or a
combination of direct and real evidence. It consists of inferences
logically drawn from known facts; the main fact is arrived at
through a process of simple deduction based on the common
experience of mankind.
ADMISSIBILITY
ADMISSIBILITYOF
OFEVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
KINDS
KINDSOF
OFADMISSIBILITY
ADMISSIBILITY
OF
OFEVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY:
If a fact is offered for one purpose and is admissible
insofar as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when
offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some
other rule which would be applicable to it if offered
for another purpose does not exclude it.
EXAMPLE:
The declaration of a DYING PERSON person
regarding the circumstances of his death may not be
admissible as a dying declaration but may be received
as part of the res gestae.
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
• When two or more evidentiary facts are so connected

under the issues that the relevancy of one depends
upon another not yet evidenced, and the party is
unable to introduce them both at the same moment,
the offering party may be required by the court, as a
condition precedent, to state the supposed
connecting facts and to produce them later.
• If the promise is not fulfilled, such fact already

received will be stricken off the record at the
initiative of the other party.
EXAMPLE:
Peter v. Dante for recovery of land.

At trial, Peter offers a series of deeds of sale from
Abe to Ben, from Ben to Cal, and from Cal to David.
On objection to the relevancy of the deeds, Peter
states that his title from David depends on an
heirship between him and David, and that he will
later produce evidence of this heirship.
The deeds are admissible, conditionally, on later
production of evidence of heirship.
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
An eye for an eye rule on evidence.

Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by
one party and received without objection, and
the opponent afterwards, for the purpose of
counteracting it, offers a fact similarly
inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves
to remove an unfair effect upon the court which
might otherwise ensue from the original fact.
EXAMPLE:
P vs. D for a breach of contract action.

At trial, P presents a letter in which he
charged D with having swindled him in an
earlier contract of the same nature. This is
irrelevant and should not have been
admitted.
If D offers evidence to explain that the
former transaction was perfectly honest on
his part, the evidence is admissible.
PROBLEM:

In a suit by Pam against Dawn for damages, the

judge allowed Pam to testify that Dawn was not
well-liked in her neighbourhood, a fact of no
consequence to the case.
Dawn seeks to testify in response that she actually

was well-liked by her neighbours.
Should the court allow Dawn to so testify?

ANSWER:
Yes, because Pam’s testimony opened the door to a

subject that was otherwise irrelevant and inadmissible.
Once in issue, Dawn should be allowed to respond
whether or not she had objected to the previous
testimony.
Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one

party and received without objection, and the opponent
afterwards, for the purpose of counteracting it, offers a
fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it
serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which
might otherwise ensue from the original fact.

ADMISSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTSOF EVIDENCE
FOR
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
RELEVANCY
Evidence is relevant if it has such a relation to
the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence
or non-existence.
COMPETENCY
Evidence is competent if it is not excluded by law
or by the rules.
QUESTION:
When is evidence relevant?
ANSWER:
• Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation
to the fact in issue as to induce a belief as to its
existence or non-existence or its probability or
improbability.
• The tendency of relevant evidence is its essential
quality of persuasiveness.
PROBLEM:

The accused, a short man with long dark

hair, is on trial for robbery. The
prosecution offers a surveillance tape of
the robbery, which shows that the robber
is short with long dark hair but which
does not show enough detail to
demonstrate that the robber is or is not
the accused.
Is the tape relevant?

ANSWER:
Yes, the tape is relevant. Evidence is relevant

if it tends to prove the probability or
improbability of a fact in issue. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
Here, the tape tends to show that the robber

was a short man with long dark hair and this
fact makes it more likely than not that the
robber is the accused than would be the case
if the tape is not in evidence.
PROBLEM:
P sues D for injuries in a car accident. D’s
answer admits he was involved in the accident,
but claims he did not drive negligently. D also
claims that, even if he is liable, P suffered only
minor injuries. These are the only issues in the
case.
At trial, P calls W to testify that one of the
parties involved in the accident resembles D.
Is W’s testimony admissible?
ANSWER:
W’s testimony is inadmissible because it is irrelevant.

The testimony is irrelevant because the involvement of
D is not at issue.
Relevant evidence tends to make the existence of any

fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable than it would be without the
evidence. If evidence is irrelevant, it is inadmissible.
Here, D had already admitted his involvement in the

accident; thus, his involvement is no longer at issue.
Because W’s testimony is offered as proof for a
proposition that is not at issue, the testimony is
irrelevant. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
PROBLEM:
Several men were arrested and prosecuted for
selling prohibited drugs.
In pre-trial proceedings, they objected to the
introduction of several high-powered guns
which were found in the bedroom of a two-
storey house during a warranted search. They
were in the drawers of a cabinet that had drug
packaging materials and a weighing scale on top
of it.
The men argued that the guns were irrelevant
to the issue of whether they had sold prohibited
drugs.
How would a court rule on the objection?
ANSWER:
The court would most likely deny defendants’

motion.
Guns are considered generally to be tools of the

drug trade, and in this case their admission was
relevant.
If the guns were hunting rifles found in another

room, such fact would then be strongly argued to
be irrelevant; but guns that are configured for
violent use that are placed near to the drug
operations are relevant to prove the defendants’
participation in drug activities.
PROBLEM:
In a prosecution for theft, the prosecution asks the
defendant’s character witness the following question
on cross-examination, “Isn’t it true that you do not have
custody of your children?”
Is the testimony that the question seeks to illicit
relevant?
ANSWER:
No. The question would not illicit any testimony that

would make an issue in the theft case more or less
likely. Whether or not the defense witness has custody
of her children is completely irrelevant to the criminal
prosecution. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
PROBLEM:

The accused, a short man with long dark hair, is

on trial for robbery. The prosecution offers a
surveillance tape of the robbery, which shows that
the robber is short with long dark hair but which
does not show enough detail to demonstrate that
the robber is or is not the accused.
Is the tape relevant?

ANSWER:
The tape is relevant.
Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove the

probability or improbability of a fact in issue. (Sec.
4, Rule 128)
Here, the tape tends to show that the robber was a

short man with long dark hair and this fact makes it
more likely than not that the robber is the accused
than would be the case if the tape is not in evidence.
PROBLEM:

Abe is charged with selling prohibited drugs. At

trial, the prosecutor seeks to open the case by
introducing testimony from Wally, Abe’s
neighbour, that Abe is a neighbourhood drug
addict.
Is Wally’s testimony relevant?

ANSWER:
The evidence is irrelevant. The fact that Abe may be a
neighbourhood drug addict does not make any issue in the
case more or less probable. (Sec. 4, Rule 128, ROC)
Besides, the testimony is inadmissible character evidence
because there is every indication that this evidence is being
introduced solely to suggest that Abe, being a drug addict, is
more likely to be guilty of selling prohibited drugs than if he
wasn’t an addict. (Sec. 51 (a) (2), Rule 130)
NOTE:
Character is never an issue in a criminal case, unless the
accused elects to make it one. Only after the accused has
introduced evidence of his good character may the
prosecution rebut such claims by introducing evidence of his
bad character.
PROBLEM:
Abe sues Ben for damages for injuries he claims
were caused when Ben’s car hit Abe’s car one
night when Abe was on his way home. Abe was
knocked unconscious in the accident, and Ben
claims it was not his car that hit Abe. Except for
damages, the main issue in the suit is whether it
was Ben’s car that hit Abe.

Abe’s lawyer asked Ben, “Is it true you spent

P40,000 to put speed equipment on your car?”
Should the court admit this question?
ANSWER:
The court should exclude the question. Evidence
is relevant if it helps decide an issue in dispute.
Because the issue is whether it was Ben’s car
that hit Abe, the fact that Ben had speed
equipment on his car would be considered
irrelevant to the fact in issue.
The testimony would not even be regarded as
circumstantial to the issue of which car hit Abe’s
car. (Sec. 4, Rule 128, ROC)
QUESTION:
When is evidence competent?
ANSWER:
Evidence is competent when it is not
excluded by law in particular case.
EXAMPLE:
Statute of Frauds.
Extrajudicial confession.
Fruit of the poison tree.
FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE
• All evidence (the fruit) derived from an illegal
search (the poisonous tree) must be suppressed.
• Also known as the BUT FOR test or TAINT

DOCTRINE which means that the evidence
would not have come to light “but for” the
illegal action of the police.
COLLATERAL MATTER
• A matter outside the controversy or is

not directly connected with the principal
matter or issue in dispute.
• A term which connotes an absence of a

direct connection between the evidence
and the matter in dispute.
RULE ON COLLATERAL MATTERS
Collateral matters are not allowed because they

draw away the mind of the court from the point
at issue, and excite prejudice and mislead. (Sec. 4,
Rule 128)
EXAMPLE:
The motive of a person may be considered

collateral in a homicide case because a very
strong motive does not ipso facto make it
relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence of a
person.
A person with absolutely no motive to kill could
be the culprit.
ADMISSIBLE
ADMISSIBLECOLLATERAL
COLLATERALMATTER
MATTER
A collateral matter may be admitted in evidence if it
tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (Sec.
4, Rule 128)
EXAMPLE:
When it is disputed whether a person did or did not
do an act, the fact that he had a motive or reason for
doing it emphasizes the likelihood that he did do it.
Also, evidence that the accused owns a handgun
with which the slaying was accomplished would be
persuasive that he was the killer.
PROBLEM:
Abe is on trial for the murder of his wife. The
prosecution’s first piece of evidence is that Abe was
the sole beneficiary of his wife’s life insurance policy.
Is this evidence relevant?
ANSWER:
Yes, it is relevant evidence because of its probative
value. (Sec. 4, Rule 128) It could be concluded that
someone who stands to gain financially from another
person’s death is at least somewhat more likely to
murder that person than someone with nothing to
gain.
MOTIVE IS RELEVANT:
• when the identity of the assailant is in question;
• to determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the

sanity of the accused;
• to determine from which side the unlawful aggression
started, as where the accused invoked self-defense;
• to determine whether a shooting was intentional or
accidental, the fact that the accused had personal motives
to shoot the victim being weighty; and
• accused contends that he acted in defense of a stranger.
For such defense to prosper, the accused was not induced
by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. (Regalado, Vol.
II, pp. 893-894, 2008 ed.)
JUDICIAL NOTICE
JUDICIAL NOTICE
CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
Judicial notice takes the place of proof. What is
known need not be proved.
Judicial notice is a judicial shortcut, based upon
convenience and expediency to save time,
trouble and expense otherwise lost in
establishing facts already known.
EXAMPLE:
Complainant testifies that he was assaulted in
Quezon City.
It would be ridiculous to require the
prosecution to prove that a place called Quezon
City exists.
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
• The matter must be one of common and

general knowledge.
• It must be well and authoritatively settled and
not doubtful or uncertain.
• It must be one which is not subject to a
reasonable dispute. (Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
No. 152392, May 26, 2005).
TWO KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
No motion or hearing is necessary for the court
to take judicial notice of a fact.
This is a matter which a court must take
judicial notice of.
DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

A hearing is necessary before judicial notice is
taken of a certain matter.
This is a matter which the court may or may
not take judicial notice of.
QUESTION:
What is discretionary notice?
ANSWER:
A court may take judicial notice of matters
which are:
• of public knowledge;
• capable of unquestionable demonstration;
• ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.
REQUIREMENTS OF DISCRETIONARY
JUDICIAL NOTICE
• Matter must be one of common knowledge.

Facebook is a social networking site.
• Matter must be beyond reasonable doubt.

The Philippines is predominantly a Christian country
• The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of

the court.
Ilocano is widely spoken in Baguio City.
PROBLEM:
In a vehicular collision case, plaintiff argues that the
highway was slippery on the bridge where the accident
occurred. He testifies that the other driver was going too fast
for the slippery conditions.
The defendant driver denies that the bridge was slippery and
claims that the accident happened when he had to veer his
car to escape a pothole. The plaintiff denies that there were
potholes on the bridge. Defendant admits that it had been
raining at some point prior to the accident.
The judge, being familiar with the bridge, took judicial
notice that its surface always gets slippery when there is
rain, and that there are no potholes on it. The plaintiff wins,
and the defendant faults the court for taking judicial notice
of disputed facts.
What will the appellate court say?
ANSWER:
The appellate court would most likely hold that it is
reversible error for the court to take judicial notice of
disputed facts on the basis of the judge’s personal beliefs
regarding the issue.
A judge cannot use judicial notice to enforce personal
beliefs. Official weather records of rain, time and amount of
rain, for example, could be a subject of judicial notice, but
where there is a dispute about the slipperiness of a surface
based on each driver’s testimony, it is up to the judge to
decide that based on established facts.
Judicial notice may be employed only if the facts in question
are not subject to reasonable dispute, and if they are
capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
(Sec. 2, Rule 129)
MCQ:
Which of the following would the court least

likely to take judicial notice of?
a. The birthdate of the plaintiff is October 25, 1988.
b. Ilocano is widely spoken in Baguio City.
c. It rained in the city in which the parties reside on

March 1, 2015.
d. Christmas day is December 25, and it is a regular

holiday.

The court would least likely take judicial notice of
event in (A).
A birthdate (other than that of a famous person

such as Jose Rizal) is not the type of fact that a
court will recognize as true without formal
presentation of evidence (e.g., presentation of a
certified copy of birth certificate).
A court may take judicial notice of matters which

are: (a) of public knowledge; (b) capable of
unquestionable demonstration; and (c) ought to be
known to judges because of their judicial functions.
(Sec. 2, Rule 129)
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
• Existence and territorial extent of states.

U.S. has 50 states.
• Political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality of states.
The U.S Flag has 50 stars.
• Law of nations.
Treaty establishing the European Union.
• Admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals.
• The political constitution and history of the
Philippines.
1987 Constitution.
• The official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines.
Laws are passed after three readings.
• The laws of nature.
Survival of the fittest.
• The measure of time.
24 hours in a day.
• The geographical divisions.

Location of political subdivisions.
QUESTION:
May the RTC on its own take judicial notice that

the street name of metamphetamine
hydrochloride is shabu?
ANSWER:
Yes, because the chemical composition of shabu

is the same as metamphetamine hydrochloride, a
fact which is of unquestionable demonstration.
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
A JUDICIAL ADMISSION is an admission, verbal or

written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, which does not require
proof.
ELEMENTS:
• It must be made by a party to the case or his

counsel.
• It must be made in the course of the proceedings in
the same case. and
• It can be verbal or written admission. There is no
particular form required.
JUDICIAL/EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS:
Those made in the course of the proceedings in the

same case.
EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS:
Those made out of court or in a judicial proceeding

other than the one under consideration.
They do not require proof and may be contradicted

only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made.
They are regarded as evidence and must be offered

as such, otherwise the court will not consider it in
deciding the case.
Need not be offered in evidence because it is not
evidence. It is superior to evidence and shall be
considered by the court as established.
Require formal offer for it to be considered.
Conclusive upon the admitter.
Rebuttable.
QUESTION:
What remedy is available to a party who gives a
judicial admission?
ANSWER:
IF THE ADMISSION IS IN WRITING:
File a motion to withdraw the pleading or any
written instrument containing the admission.
IF THE ADMISSION IS ORAL:
The counsel of the party may move for the
exclusion of the admission.
QUESTION:
Suppose an admission is made in a pleading which
has been withdrawn or amended by a party, is the
admission still binding on the party who made such
admission?
ANSWER:
Admissions in a pleading which had been
withdrawn or superseded by an amended pleading,
are considered as extrajudicial admissions.
The original must be proved by the party who relies

on the original by formally offering it in evidence.
(Torres v. CA, G.R. Nos. L-37420-21, 7-31-84)
QUESTION:
What are the legal purposes of

authentication of object evidence?
ANSWER:
• prevent the introduction of an object

different from the one testified about.
• ensure that there has been no significant
changes in the object’s condition.
QUESTION:
What does object evidence include?
ANSWER:
• any article or object which may be known or
perceived by the senses.
• examination of the anatomy of a person or of
any substance taken therefrom.
• conduct of tests, demonstrations or
experiments.
• examination of representative portrayals of the
object in question. (e.g. maps, diagrams)
PROBLEM:
In a trial for murder, the prosecution offers in
evidence photographs showing the accused mauling
the victim when the victim was with his friends.
Although the person who took the photograph was

not presented as a witness, the prosecution
presented the companions of the victim who
identified themselves in the photographs.
The defense objects to the admission of the

photographs because the person who took the
photographs was not presented as witness.
Is the objection tenable?
ANSWER:
The objection is not tenable.

When presented in evidence, photographs
must be identified by the photographer as to
its production and testify to the circumstances
under which the photos were produced.
The value of this kind of evidence lies in its

being a correct representation or
reproduction of the original, and its
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in
portraying the scene at the time of the crime.
But the photographer is not the only witness
who can identify the pictures taken.
The correctness of the photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can also
be proved by other competent witnesses who
can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
Here, the photographs are admissible as

evidence because the correctness of the
photographs is testified to by the companions
of the victim. (Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, 11-16-
95)
PROBLEM:
In a trial for bank robbery, a teller has identified

the defendant as one of the robbers. Defense
counsel offers into evidence a still frame from a
video taken by the bank security camera the day
after the robbery to show that a column
obstructed the teller’s view of the defendant.
Is the still frame admissible?

ANSWER:
Yes. The photo should be admitted in evidence upon
testimony that it is an accurate representation of the
scene it depicts.
To be admissible, real or demonstrative (object) evidence

must not only be relevant but must also be authenticated,
i.e., identified as being what the proponent claims it to
be. For a photograph used as demonstrative evidence,
authentication is by testimony that the photo is a faithful
reproduction of the object or scene depicted.
Here, testimony by a bank employee that the still frame

from the video accurately portrays the setting where the
robbery took place is sufficient for admissibility.
PROBLEM:
The police set up an undercover “sting” operation in

which they posed as fences of stolen property and bought
and sold the property to anyone who came into their
downtown warehouse.
Abe is prosecuted for receiving stolen property in

connection with his arrest by police operatives, and the
prosecution attempts to introduce a videotape showing
Abe offering to sell a television set to one of the police
officers.
What would be the most likely reason to hold the

videotape inadmissible as evidence?
ANSWER:
Videotape evidence is treated the same way as a

photographic and tape-recorded evidence. If it
is properly authenticated, it is admissible, but
may not be properly admitted without the
proper foundation first being established. This
would most likely be the best reason to hold the
tape inadmissible.
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
FOR AUTHENTICATION PURPOSES
UNIQUE OBJECTS:
Those that have readily identifiable marks.
a caliber 38 gun with serial number.
OBJECTS MADE UNIQUE:

Those that are readily identifiable.
a bolo knife used to hack a victim which could be
identified by a witness in court.
NON-UNIQUE OBJECTS:
Those which have no identifying marks and cannot be
marked.
footprints left at a crime scene.
DNA EVIDENCE RULE
(A.M. NO. 06-11-5-SC)
QUESTION:
In what cases do the rules on DNA Evidence

apply?
ANSWER:
The DNA Evidence Rule applies whenever DNA

evidence is offered, used, or proposed to be
offered or used as evidence in all criminal and
civil actions as well as special proceedings. (Sec. 1)
QUESTION:
May DNA test be conducted without a prior

court order?
ANSWER:
Yes. The Rules on DNA Evidence do not

preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior
court order, at the behest of any party,
including law enforcement agencies, before a
suit or proceeding is commenced. (Sec. 4)
QUESTION:
Is an order granting a DNA test appealable?
ANSWER:
No. An order granting a DNA test is final,
immediately executory, and not appealable.
Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom

will not, in any way, stay the implementation
of the order, unless a higher court issues an
injunctive order. (Sec. 5)
PROBLEM:
During A’s trial for rape, the prosecution seeks to

introduce DNA evidence against him, based on
forensic laboratory matching of the materials
found at the crime scene and A’s hair and blood
samples.
A’s counsel objects on the ground that the DNA
evidence is inadmissible because the materials
taken from A are in violation of his constitutional
right against self-incrimination as well as his right
of privacy and personal integrity.
Should the DNA evidence be admitted?
ANSWER:
The DNA evidence should be admitted because it is

not in violation of A’s constitutional right against self-
incrimination or his right of privacy and personal
integrity.
The right against self-incrimination is applicable only

to testimonial evidence. Extracting a blood sample
and cutting a strand from the hair of the accused are
purely mechanical acts that do not involve his
discretion nor require his intelligence. (2004 Bar Question)
QUESTION:
Is the result of a DNA test automatically

admissible in evidence in the case in which it
was sought for?
ANSWER:
No. The grant of a DNA testing application is

not to be construed as an automatic admission
into evidence of any component of the DNA
evidence that may be obtained as a result
thereof. (Sec. 5)
POST-CONVICTION
DNA TEST REMEDY
QUESTION:
Who may avail of a post-conviction DNA

testing?
ANSWER:
Post-conviction DNA testing may be availed of,

without need of prior court order, by the
prosecution or any person convicted by final
judgment of any crime.
QUESTION:
What is the remedy of the convicted person if the
result of the post-conviction DNA testing is
favorable to him?
ANSWER:
The convict or the prosecution may file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin.
In case the court, after due hearing, finds the
petition to be meritorious, it must reverse or
modify the judgment of conviction and order the
release of the convict, unless continued detention
is justified for a lawful cause. (Sec. 10)
DOCUMENTARY
DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Documents as evidence consist of writings or

any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of
written expressions, offered as proof of their
contents. (Sec. 2, Rule 130)
QUESTION:
May a private document be offered and admitted

both as documentary evidence and object
evidence?
ANSWER:
Yes. A private document is considered as object

evidence when it is addressed to the senses of the
court or when it is presented to establish certain
physical evidence or characteristics that are visible
on the paper or writings that comprise the
document.
It is considered as documentary evidence when it is
offered as proof of its contents.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
STATEMENT OF THE RULE:
When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of

a document, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself. (Sec. 3, Rule 130)
APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE:
The rule will come into play only “when the

subject of inquiry is the contents of a document.”
PROBLEM:
Pam sues Dan for breach of contract. The terms of

the contract are in dispute. Pam’s counsel calls her to
the witness stand to elicit testimony that Pam and Dan
met in a restaurant on a certain date and reached an
agreement that was reduced to writing. Pam then
proposes to testify, “The agreement provided that Dan
would buy the items from me for P400,000.”
Is the quoted testimony admissible?

ANSWER:
No. The testimony violates the best evidence rule.
When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a

document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself. This rule comes into play
“when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document.”
Here, the best evidence to prove the agreement between

Pam and Dan is their written agreement. (Sec. 3, Rule 130)
PROBLEM:
X is on trial for the murder of Y, a member of the Baguio
Country Club. Y was found dead near the locker room
inside the club. X allegedly entered the club, killed Y, and
left before anyone discovered the body.
At trial, the prosecution called the club doorman who
testified that, although he could not identify X by sight, he
remembered admitting a member the day of the murder
who showed a membership card bearing the name of Y.
The prosecution then sought to admit the testimony of a
police officer that a membership card to the Baguio
Country Club bearing the name of Y was found on X’s
person at the time of his arrest.

What would be X’s best argument in seeking to exclude

the police officer’s testimony?

ANSWER:
Y would most likely argue that the membership card is a
writing within the meaning of the best evidence rule. As
secondary evidence, the card’s existence could only be
introduced if the original is shown to have been lost or
destroyed, unobtainable, or in the custody of the adverse
party.

NOTE:
When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself. (Sec. 3, Rule 130)
The rule will come into play only “when the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document”)
EXCEPTIONS:
• When the original has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror.
• When the original is in the custody or under

the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice.
• When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time
and the fact sought to be established from
them is only the general result of the whole.
PROBLEM:
At Abe’s trial for violation of the Dangerous Drugs

Act, the prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy
of the marked P1,000 bill used in the “buy-bust”
operation.
Abe objects to the introduction of the photocopy

on the ground that the best evidence rule prohibits
the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of
the original.
Is the photocopy a real (object) evidence or a

documentary evidence?
ANSWER:
The photocopy is object evidence; the marked bills

are treated as objects for the court’s examination.
It is admissible because the best evidence rule does

not apply to object or real evidence.
The best evidence rule is inapplicable since such

secondary evidence is only intended to establish the
existence of a transaction and not the contents of
the document.
PROBLEM:
Defendant seeks to escape liability from a

promissory note by showing that it is a forgery.
Defendant calls an expert witness to prove that

his signature in the promissory note is forged.
Plaintiff objects to the presentation of the

expert witness on grounds that the finding of
the witness is based on a mere photocopy of the
promissory note.
Is the objection tenable?

ANSWER:
Yes. The best evidence of a forged signature in

an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting
the alleged forged signature.
Forgery can only be established by a comparison

between the alleged forged signature and the
genuine signature of the person whose signature
is forged. Without the original document
containing the alleged forged signature, one
cannot make a definitive comparison.
A comparison based on a mere photocopy cannot

produce reliable results. (Heirs of Gregorio v. CA, Dec. 29,
1998)
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Secondary evidence is that which shows that
better or primary evidence exists as to the
proof of the fact in question.
It is the class of evidence that is relevant to

the fact in issue, it being first shown that the
primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable.
It performs the same functions as that of

primary evidence. (Francisco, p. 68, 1992 ed.)
NOTE:
All originals must be accounted for before one can

resort to secondary evidence. It must appear that all of
them have been lost or destroyed or cannot be
produced in court.
The non-production of the original document, unless it

falls under any of the exceptions in Sec. 3, Rule 130,
gives rise to the presumption of suppression of
evidence.
QUESTION:
When may secondary evidence be admitted?
ANSWER:
It may be admitted only by laying the basis for its
production and compliance with the following:
• offeror must prove the due execution and

existence of the original document;
• offeror must show the cause of its
unavailability. and
• offeror must show that the unavailability was
not due to his bad faith.
QUESTION:
What is the effect of not offering a document in

evidence after calling for its production and
inspection?
ANSWER:
If the party who calls for the production of a

document does not offer the document in evidence,
no unfavorable inference may be drawn from such
failure.
REASON:
A party who calls for the production of a
document is not required to offer it. (Sec. 8, Rule 130)
PAROL EVIDENCE
• Parol evidence is any evidence aliunde
(extrinsic evidence) which is intended or
tends to vary or contradict a complete and
enforceable agreement embodied in a
document. (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 730, 2008 ed.)
• Parol evidence may refer to testimonial, real,

or documentary evidence.
REQUISITES FOR APPLICATION
OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
• There must be a valid contract.
• The terms of the agreement must be reduced
to writing.
• The dispute is between the parties or their
successors-in-interest. and
• There is dispute as to the terms of the
agreement.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add

to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue
in his pleadings the following:
• intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the
written agreement.
• failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent of the parties thereto.
• validity of the written agreement.
• existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
PAROL EVIDENCE VS. BEST EVIDENCE
PAROL:
Presupposes that the original document is available in
court.
BEST:
Presupposes that the original document is not available or
there is a dispute as to whether said writing is original.
PAROL:
Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement.
BEST::
Prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of
the original document regardless of whether or not it
varies the contents of the original.
PAROL:
Applies only to documents which are contractual in
nature, except wills.
BEST:
Applies to all kinds of writings.
PAROL:
Can be invoked only when the controversy is between
the parties to the written agreement, their privies, or
any party affected thereby like a cestui que trust.
BEST:
Can be invoked by any party to an action whether he
has participated or not in the writing involved.
AUTHENTICATION AND
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
AUTHENTICATION NOT REQUIRED:
• The writing is an ancient document.
• The writing is a public document or record.
• The writing is a notarial document acknowledged,

proved or certified.
• The authenticity and due execution of the

document has been admitted or impliedly admitted
by failure to deny the same under oath.
• When genuineness and due execution are

immaterial to the issue.
MCQ:
Abe, the surviving husband of a passenger on board a

plane, sued the airlines for damages. Abe alleged that his
wife, and all others on board the plane died as a result of
the defendants’ negligence.
After the cash, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), as law

requires, investigated to determine the cause of the crash.
The CAB report indicated that the plane crashed because
of human error. Specifically, it cited the pilot’s negligence.
Abe wishes to introduce the CAB report into evidence.
Should the judge admit the report?
ANSWER:
a. No, because it determines fault and the due

process requirement.
b. No, because it constitutes hearsay.
c. No, because it falls outside the business

record exception.
d. Yes, because it is a public record.

PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
PUBLIC:
Admissible even without need of further proof
of its genuineness and due execution.
PRIVATE:
Admissible only if their due execution and
authenticity are proved either:
• by anyone who saw the document executed or
written.
• by evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
ANCIENT DOCUMENT RULE
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS are exempt from proof
of due execution and authenticity provided:
• The private document be more than 30 years old.
• That it be produced from a custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine.
• That it is unblemished by any alteration or
circumstances of suspicion.
NOTE:
This rule applies only if there are no other witnesses
to determine authenticity.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
QUESTION:
What is the rule on the competency

of a witness?
ANSWER:
GENERAL RULE:
A person who takes the witness stand is

presumed to possess the qualifications of a
witness.
EXCEPTIONS:
There is prima facie evidence of incompetency in the
following cases:
The fact that a person has been recently found of
unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
That a person is an inmate of an asylum for the insane.
QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
ALL PERSONS WHO:
can perceive and perceiving
can make known their perception to others (Sec. 20,

Rule 130)
must take either an oath or an affirmation (Sec. 1,

Rule 132)
must not possess the disqualifications imposed by
law or by the rules (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the
Bar, p. 246, 2009 ed.)
PROBLEM:
In a damage suit, the plaintiff seeks to present W to testify
as to what he saw during the incident complained of. The
defendant objects to the presentation of W because of W’s
various convictions for perjury. Rule on the objection.
ANSWER:
Objection overruled.
Section 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court does not
disqualify W as a witness because of his convictions in
various perjury cases.
Being an eyewitness to the occurrence, assuming that W is
not disqualified under any other rule of evidence, W must
be allowed to testify on facts acquired through his
perception.
PROBLEM:
W is called as a witness in a property dispute

between P and D. W takes his oath and testifies.
During cross-examination, David’s attorney asked

W this question: “Isn’t it true that even though you
took an oath to tell the truth so help you God, you
are an atheist and don’t even believe in God?”
Upon proper objection, will the judge require W

to answer this question?
ANSWER:
While it is true that W could have requested a

different type of oath, possibly an affirmation, the
law nevertheless prohibits this type of question.
Lack of religious belief is not a basis for

disqualification and would not constitute an attack
on the witness’s competency. A witness’s religious
beliefs or opinions are not admissible to show that
the witness‘s credibility is thereby impaired or
enhanced.
OPINION OF AN ORDINARY WITNESS
QUESTION:
What is an opinion?
ANSWER:
An opinion is an inference or conclusion based or

drawn from the facts established.
The opinion of a witness is not admissible. Witnesses

must testify to facts within their knowledge and may
not state their opinion even on their examination.
PROBLEM:
In the trial of Abe for the rape of Tessie, Abe denies that
he had sexual intercourse with Tessie. At trial, Abe
offers the testimony of Sue, Tessie’s roommate, that she
believes Tessie is a nymphomaniac.
What would be the best argument to exclude this
testimony?
ANSWER:
The opinion of a witness is not admissible. This would
be the best argument to exclude Sue’s testimony.
Witnesses must testify to facts within their personal
knowledge and may not state their opinion even on their
examination. Therefore, the testimonial evidence will be
inadmissible for that reason. (Secs. 36 & 50, Rule 130)
PROBLEM:
Abe sues Ben for damages for injuries he claims were

caused when Ben’s car hit Abe’s car one night when
Abe was on his way home. Abe was knocked
unconscious in the accident, and Ben claims it was not
his car that hit Abe. Except for damages, the main
issue in the suit is whether it was Ben’s car that hit
Abe.
At trial, Ben’s own lawyer asked him, “Could Abe
have mistaken your car for another?”
Is this question proper?

ANSWER:
No. Ben’s answer could only reflect his opinion of

what Abe did or thought, and is thus impermissible
opinion evidence.
A witness’s opinion is admissible if it is rationally
based on the perception of the witness and helpful to
a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony on
the determination of the fact in issue. Ben’s opinion
does not meet those requirements. (Sec. 50, Rule 130)
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
mental incapacity or immaturity.
by reason of marriage.
death or insanity of adverse party.
privileged communication.
NOTE:
The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are
determined as of the time they are produced for
examination in court or at the taking of the depositions.
MENTAL INCAPACITY
OR IMMATURITY
MENTAL INCAPACITY:
Persons whose mental condition, at the time of their

production for examination, are incapable of
intelligently making known their perception to others,
are not qualified to take the witness stand; but they
can still be witnesses during their lucid interval.
MENTAL IMMATURITY:
Children whose mental maturity is such as to render

them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting
which they are examined and of relating them
truthfully are not qualified as witnesses.
QUESTION:
Does mental unsoundness of a witness at the time the
fact to be testified occurred affect his competency?
ANSWER:
No, because it will only affect his credibility.
As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or
signs and can give sufficiently intelligent answers to
questions propounded, he is a competent witness even
if he is feeble-minded (Peo. v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-39087,
Apr. 27, 1984) or a mental retardate (Peo. v. Gerones, G.R.
No. 91116, Jan. 24, 1991) or a schizophrenic. (People v.
Baid, G.R. No. 129667, July 31, 2000)
QUESTION:
Are deaf-mutes competent to testify in court?
ANSWER:
Yes, provided:
they understand and appreciate the sanctity of
an oath.
they comprehend the facts they are going to
testify on.
they can communicate their ideas through a
qualified interpreter. (People v. Tuangco, G.R. No.
130331, Nov. 22, 2001)
DISQUALIFICATION BY
REASON OF MARRIAGE
(SPOUSAL IMMUNITY)
CONCEPT:
A husband cannot be examined for or against
his wife without her consent; nor a wife for or
against her husband without his consent,
except in a civil case by one against the other
or the latter’s ascendants or descendants.
PURPOSE OF THE RULE:
The rule is intended to preserve the marriage
relation as one of full confidence and
affection.
A marriage relation is regarded as more
important to the public welfare than the
exigencies of lawsuits.
MCQ:
Harry is charged with conspiracy to embezzle
P10 million from his employer, a bank.
At trial, the prosecutor calls Harry’s wife,

Wilma, and asks her to testify about a meeting
between Harry and Abe, Harry’s co-accused,
three weeks prior to her marriage to Harry.
Which of the following is the most accurate

statement of the applicable rule concerning
whether Wilma may testify.
ANSWER:
a. The choice is Wilma’s.
b. The choice is Harry’s.
c. Wilma is permitted to testify only if she

and Harry agree.
d. Wilma may be compelled to testify, even if

she and Harry object.
THINGS TO REMEMBER:
 The right to object to the competency of one spouse
pertains solely to the spouse-party and not to the
witness-spouse.
 No unfavorable inference may be drawn from the fact
that a party-spouse invokes the privilege to prevent the
witness-spouse from testifying against him or her.
 To allow the inference to be drawn would undermine
the immunity.
 The privilege may be waived as in the case of other

witnesses generally.
OF SPOUSAL IMMUNITY
The spouse for or against whom the testimony
is offered is a party to the case.
The spouses are validly married. (If the

marriage is legally dissolved, the privilege no
longer applies)
The testimony is one that is offered during the

existence of the marriage.
The case is not one of the exceptions provided

in the rule. (Herrera, Vol. V, p. 302, 1999 ed.)
QUESTION:
What are the exceptions to the spousal

immunity rule?
ANSWER:
civil case by one against the other.
criminal case for a crime committed by one

against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants.
testimony was made outside the marriage.
PROBLEM:
Harry is on trial for physical injuries on

complaint of his stepson, Sam, the son of his
wife, Winda, by Winda’s previous marriage.
At trial, the prosecution called Winda to

testify as an eyewitness. Harry’s counsel
objected under the spousal immunity rule.
Is the objection valid?

ANSWER:
Objection is not valid.
The spousal immunity rule does not apply when

the spouse is to testify against the other in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct ascendants
or descendants. (Sec. 22, Rule 130).
Since Sam is Winda’s direct descendant, she is
competent to testify against her husband.
QUESTION:
Suppose Winda’s testimony is offered in a civil

case for recovery of property filed by Sam against
Harry, is Winda competent to testify?
ANSWER:
No, because the spousal immunity rule applies this

time.
The exception provided by the rule refers to a

civil case filed by one against the other. The case
here involves a case by Sam for recovery of
property against Winda’s spouse, Harry.
SCOPE OF SPOUSAL IMMUNITY
The prohibition extends not only to testimony
adverse to the spouse, but also to a testimony in
favor of the spouse. (Sec. 22, Rule 130; Riano,
Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 265, 2009 ed.)
NOTE:
The spousal immunity rule does not apply in the
case of estranged spouses where the marital and
domestic relations are so strained that there is no
more harmony to be preserved nor peace and
tranquility which may be disturbed. (Alvarez vs.
Ramirez, October 14, 2005)
PROBLEM:
H and W, a married couple, has been estranged for

over a year already. Upon their separation, W went
to live with her sister. For unknown reason, the
house of W’s sister is burned, killing the latter. W
survived.
W saw H in the vicinity of the house during the

incident. H is later charged with arson.
The prosecutor calls W to the witness stand and

offers her testimony to prove that H committed
arson.
Can W testify over the objection of her husband on

the ground of spousal immunity?
ANSWER:
Yes. Where the marital and domestic relations are so

strained that there is no more harmony to be
preserved nor peace which may be disturbed, the
marital disqualification rule no longer applies.
The act of H in setting fire to the house of his sister-

in-law, knowing that his wife is there, is an act totally
alien to the harmony of marital relation which the
disqualification primarily seeks to protect. The
criminal act complained of had the effect of directly
and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. (Alvarez v.
Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, Oct. 14, 2005; 2006 Bar Question)
QUESTION:
If the accused marries the prosecution witness
for the sole purpose of sealing the lips of the
witness, will the prohibition apply?
ANSWER:
Yes. As long as a valid marriage exists at the

time of the trial, the witness-spouse cannot be
compelled to testify even where the crime
charged is against the person of the witness, and
even though the marriage was entered into for
the express purpose of suppressing the
testimony.
FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE
No descendant can be compelled, in a criminal

case, to testify against his parents and ascendants.
BASIS:
The rule is in consideration of the solidarity of the

Filipino family and the traditional family respect
for elders.
SCOPE:
It is the descendant-witness and not the accused-
ascendant who may invoke the privilege.
NOTE:
A descendant may not be compelled to testify
against his parents notwithstanding Article 215 of
the Family Code which allows the compulsion of a
descendant to testify against his parents when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime against the
descendant or by one against the other.
Any conflict between the two provisions should be
resolved in favor of the Rules of Court because
although found in a substantive law, the Family
Code provision is essentially procedural in nature.
SURVIVING PARTIES RULE
DEAD MAN’S STATUTE
Parties, or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in

whose behalf a case is prosecuted
against an executor, or administrator, or other

representative of a deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind,
upon a claim or demand against the estate of such

deceased person or against such person of unsound
mind,
cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before

the death of such deceased person or before such
person became of unsound mind.
ELEMENTS OF DEAD
MAN’S STATUTE
The defendant in the case is the executor or

administrator or representative of a deceased
person or a person of unsound mind.
The subject matter of the action is a claim or

demand against the estate of a deceased person or
a person of unsound mind.
The testimony pertains to any matter of fact

occurring before the death of such deceased person
or before such person became of unsound mind.
PROBLEM:
In 1995, A signed a promissory note in favor of

B. The note was signed in the presence of C.
A died in 1996. The following year, C sues A’s

administrator to collect the amount due on the
note. It appears that B had previously assigned
the note to C who now brings the action.
May C (the new creditor) and B (the old

creditor) testify on the execution of the note?
ANSWER:
Both are disqualified to testify on the execution of the

note which is a matter occurring before the death of
A.
REASON:
C (the new creditor) is a party against the estate of a

deceased person (A); while B is an assignor of C, a
party to the case.
QUESTION:
What is the scope of the disqualification by
reason of death or insanity of the adverse party?
ANSWER:
A witness is prohibited from testifying as to any
matter of fact occurring before the death or
insanity of a party to the transaction.
IN OTHER WORDS:
It is only parties who assert claims against an
estate who are rendered incompetent to testify.
QUESTION:
What is the reason underlying the adoption of the

dead man’s statute?
ANSWER:
To guard against the temptation to give false

testimony in regard to the transaction in question
on the part of the surviving party and to discourage
perjury.
To protect the estate from fictitious claims, and to

discourage perjury.
PROBLEM:
Upon the death of T, P filed a claim against T’s
estate, represented by T’s executor, for the sum of
P1 million.
At the trial, P appeared as a witness and was asked

certain questions concerning an open account
existing between him and T prior to T’s death.
Should P be allowed to testify?

ANSWER:
P’s testimony should not be allowed.
P is a party to the action against an executor or

administrator of a deceased person. Therefore, P
is absolutely prohibited from being a witness in
the action to give testimony concerning the
claim or demand.
If P’s testimony is allowed, then all sorts of

fictitious claims might be presented and allowed
by deigning persons without any protection
whatever on the part of a deceased person.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
PRIVILIGED COMMUNICATION is used to
designate any information which one person
derives from another because of a confidential
relationship existing between the parties.
Upon grounds of public policy, the parties to such
privileged communications are made incompetent,
by law, to testify to such communications.
RELATIONSHIPS COVERED:
• Husband and Wife/Attorney and Client
• Physician and Patient/Priest and Penitent
• Public officer and Public Interest
HUSBAND AND WIFE
[MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE]
The husband or the wife during the marriage or
afterwards, cannot be examined without the consent of
the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage.
NOTE:
Letters from the husband to the wife should be
considered as included within the rule, as there exists
no difference between verbal and written
communications.
REQUISITES FOR
APPLICATION OF PRIVILEGE:
• There is a valid marriage.

• The privilege is invoked with respect to a
confidential communication between the spouses
during their marriage.
• The spouse against whom such evidence is being

offered has not given his consent to such testimony.
PROBLEM:
Carla brings an action against Harry for the
recovery of money lost belonging to Carla, which
was found and kept by Harry.
At the trial, Winda, the former wife of Harry

(their marriage having been annulled), is
presented as a witness to testify that at the time of
the finding of the money, she was the wife of
Harry and she saw him count the money and put
it in his pocket.
Is Winda’s testimony regarding Harry’s act, in

relation to the lost money, admissible?
ANSWER:
No. Harry’s act, in relation to the lost money, done

in the presence of the witness, Harry’s wife, during
the marriage, was confidential communication to
her by her husband, the defendant, within the
meaning of the statute.
It was not necessary that the defendant‘s

communication to his wife, the witness, in relation
to the money, should be expressed in words.
PROBLEM:
While driving home one night, H struck M, a pre-
schooler who was playing in the street near the curb. M
was seriously injured.
After being questioned by the police and released, H
went home and, while in bed that night, told his wife,
W, what had happened. During this conversation, H
stated:
“Between you and me, just before all this happened, I
checked the back seat to see if I brought my briefcase
home with me. If I had kept my eyes on the road, I never
would’ve hit the kid.”
Unknown to the couple, their neighbour, N,
overheard this conversation through their open
window.
M’s parents filed a lawsuit on his behalf against
H. Shortly before trial, the marriage of H and W
is annulled. Embittered by their failed
marriage, W agreed to testify to the statement
made to her by H on the night he struck M.
Should W be permitted to testify against H over
H’s objection?
ANSWER:
No. H’s statement to W was made in reliance upon the

intimacy of what was at that time their marital
relationship. H has a right to refuse, and to prevent W
from disclosing, a confidential communication made
between them while they were married. The annulment
of their marriage does not terminate this privilege.
Given that the statement essentially constituted an
admission of liability by H, that he prefaced it with
“between you and me,” and that he made the statement
in the privacy of the marital bedroom, the statement
was made in confidentiality and in reliance upon the
intimacy of the marital relationship. (Sec. 24 (a), Rule
130)
Thus, W will not be permitted to so testify.

QUESTION:
When is the privilege NOT applicable?
ANSWER:
• in a civil case by one against the other.

• in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct ascendants
or descendants.
QUESTION:
Are third persons who overhear the communication

between the spouses bound by the privilege?
ANSWER:
GENERAL RULE:
Third persons who, without the knowledge of the
spouses, overhear the communication are not disqualified
to testify.
EXCEPTION:
When there is collusion and voluntary disclosure to a
third party, that third party becomes an agent and
cannot testify.
SPOUSAL IMMUNITY vs.
MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE
SI: Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a
party to the action.
MPR: Can be claimed whether or not the spouse is
a party to the action.
SI: Applies only if the marriage is existing at the
time the testimony is offered.
MPR: Can be claimed even after the marriage has
been dissolved.
SI: Constitutes a total prohibition against the
spouse of the witness.
MPR::Applicable only to confidential or privileged
communications between the spouses.
PROBLEM:
Abe and Bea had been married for ten years. In

2002, Bea obtained an annulment from Abe.
Following the annulment, Abe was arrested and
charged with embezzling funds from his employer
during a two-year period from 1999 to 2001. In
preparing for trial, the prosecutor interviewed Bea,
who stated that during their marriage Abe
admitted committing the embezzlement.

At Abe's trial, Bea is called to testify regarding the

statements Abe made to her during their marriage
regarding the commission of the crime.
Should the court allow Bea to testify?

ANSWER:
No. While Bea’s testimony may be admitted under the
marital disqualification rule, the testimony may not be
admitted under the marital privilege rule.

Under the marital disqualification rule (also known as

spousal immunity), a husband cannot be examined for or
against his wife without her consent; nor a wife for or
against her husband without his consent, except in a civil
case by one against the other or the latter’s ascendants or
descendants.
For this rule to apply, the spouses are validly married. If the
marriage is legally dissolved, the privilege no longer applies.
Here, Abe and Bea were no longer married at the time of
trial, thus, the disqualification no longer applies so Bea
should be allowed to testify.
Under the marital privilege rule, the husband or
the wife during the marriage or afterwards,
cannot be examined without the consent of the
other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the
marriage. Although their marriage has been
dissolved, Bea is still bound by the confidentiality
of the communication made to her by Abe.

Here, although Bea may be allowed to testify, she

cannot disclose the statements made to her by
Abe during their marriage because the
statements are privileged.
LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
REQUISITES:
• existence of attorney-client relation.

• the privilege is invoked with respect to a
confidential communication between them in
the course of professional employment.
• the client has not given his consent to the
attorney’s testimony; or if the attorney’s
secretary, stenographer or clerk is sought to be
examined, both the client and the attorney have
not given their consent. (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 749, 2008
ed.)
QUESTION:
When is the lawyer-client privilege NOT applicable?
ANSWER:
The privilege does not apply to communications:
• intended to be made public.
• intended to be communicated to others.
• intended for an unlawful purpose.
• received from third persons not acting in behalf or as
agents of the client.
• made in the presence of third parties who are
strangers to the attorney-client relationship. (Regalado,
Vol. II, p. 750, 2008 ed.)
QUESTION:
What is the true test in applying the attorney-
client privilege?
ANSWER:
The test is whether the communication made is
with the view of obtaining from the lawyer his
professional assistance or advice regardless of
the existence or absence of a pending litigation.
PROBLEM:
Pedro received a subpoena to testify in a criminal
case. He approached a judge for advice and the
latter told him to tell the truth. Pedro thereupon
proceeded to make statements to the judge.
Is the judge competent to testify on Pedro’s

statements?
ANSWER:
No, he cannot. The principle which regards as

confidential communications between attorney and
client is not affected by the fact that the attorney
was also a judge.
PROBLEM:
Abe is the owner of a business establishment who is
facing a suit for breach of contract. In his answer, Abe
claims that he acted upon advice of his former lawyer to
return the truckload of goods that were delivered by the
plaintiff. He later repeats and restates the contention at
the mediation conference, but refused to elaborate on the
details because of attorney-client privilege.
At trial, the plaintiff called Abe’s former lawyer to
question him on what advice he gave Abe regarding the
goods and refusing to perform on the contract. Abe
objected on the basis that the conversations with his
former lawyer were privileged.
Should the court admit the lawyer’s testimony?
ANSWER:
The testimony should be admitted because Abe’s answer

raised the advice of his former counsel and thus placed the
subject matter of that advice in issue; that is, a waiver of
the privilege.
A waiver has occurred where a party raises a claim or

defense that puts privileged communications in issue. It is
considered to be “fair play” to allow the other party to
probe into the details of the advice given. (Sec. 24 (b), Rule 130)
QUESTION:
Who may claim the privilege?
ANSWER:
To the client belongs the privilege and therefore

he alone can invoke it. And he may claim it not
only when his attorney is called upon to disclose
professional communications, but also when he
himself is asked to make the disclosure.
The client cannot be compelled to reveal
confidential communications made by him to his
attorney or the advice given by the latter to him.
Otherwise, the privilege could easily be defeated.
DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE
A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery

or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, be examined as to any
information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in professional capacity,
which information was necessary to enable him to
act in that capacity, and which would blacken the
character of the patient.
REQUISITES:
• The action involves a CIVIL case.
• The relation of doctor and patient existed between
the person claiming the privilege or his legal
representative and the doctor.
• The advice or treatment given by him or any
information was acquired by the physician while
professionally attending to the patient.
• The information was necessary for the

performance of his professional duty.
• The disclosure of the information would tend to
blacken the reputation of the patient.
PROBLEM:
P v. D for partition of property.
P seeks to offer in evidence the testimony of a

doctor to prove that D is not the illegitimate
son of X because the latter was sterile.
D objects to the admission of the testimony on

grounds that it is covered by the physician-
patient privilege because the testimony would
blacken the reputation of X.
It is alleged that X became sterile because he
contracted gonorrhea. P argues that X is long dead
and, as such, the privilege may not be invoked.
Is the testimony of the doctor covered by the
physician-patient privilege?
ANSWER:
Yes. X's sterility arose when he contracted
gonorrhea, a fact which most assuredly would
blacken his reputation.
In fact, given that society holds virility at a

premium, sterility alone, without the attendant
embarrassment of contracting a sexually-
transmitted disease, would be sufficient to blacken
the reputation of any patient. (Gonzales v. CA, G.R. No.
117740, Oct. 30, 1998).
QUESTION:
Does the fact that X is long dead bar the application of
the physician-patient privilege?
ANSWER:
No. The privilege of secrecy is not abolished or terminated
because of death. The purpose of the law would be
thwarted and the policy intended to be promoted thereby
would be defeated, if death removes the seal of secrecy,
from the communications and disclosures which a patient
should make to his physician.
After one has gone to his grave, the living are not
permitted to impair his name and disgrace his memory by
dragging to light communications and disclosures made
under the seal of the statute (Gonzales v. CA, G.R. No.
117740, Oct. 30, 1998)
QUESTION:
Against whom may the privilege be claimed?
ANSWER:
The privilege may be claimed against those who are duly

authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or obstetrics.
The privilege cannot be extended by construction to
persons employing other curative processes not coming
within the ordinary meaning of the terms “practice of
medicine, surgery or obstetrics.”
Therefore, communications made by a patient to
dentists, pharmacists, and nurses who are not acting as
agents of physicians, surgeons or obstetricians, are not
privileged.
PROBLEM:
In a homicide case, the physician who performed an
autopsy on the body of the deceased was called to testify.
Is the physician competent to testify?
ANSWER:
Yes. The testimony of the physician does not fall within

the inhibition of the law.
A dead man is not a patient capable of sustaining the

relation of confidence toward his physician which is the
foundation of the rule given in the statute, but is a mere
piece of senseless clay which has passed beyond the reach
of human prescription, medical or otherwise. Moreover,
the deceased had not in life been the patient of the
physician.
PROBLEM:
In an annulment case, the physician of an insane asylum

testified that the defendant-wife was a patient in the
asylum, and stayed there for a certain length of time. The
physician further testified that the defendant came to the
asylum without a baby and left with one.
Does this testimony involve privilege communication?
ANSWER:
No, because the same is not an information necessary for
the proper treatment of the patient. The matters stated
are nothing but casual informations of the witnesses,
which are not included in the privilege.
PRIEST AND PENITENT
REQUISITES OF PRIVILEGE:
The confession must have been made to the priest

or minister in his professional capacity according to
the discipline of the church to which the priest or
minister belongs.
The communication made must be confidential and

must be penitential in character. e.g., under the seal
of the confessional. (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 752, 2008 ed.)
QUESTION:
When is the privilege inapplicable?
ANSWER:
When the communication is not penitential in

character as when what is divulged is the plan
to commit a crime.
PUBLIC OFFICERS
STATEMENT OF THE RULE
A public officer cannot be examined during

his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
OF PRIVILEGE:
The communication must have been made to a
public officer.
The communication was given to the public

officer in official confidence.
The public interest would suffer by the

disclosure of the communication. (Regalado, Vol.
II, p. 752, 2008 ed.)
QUESTION:
When is the privilege inapplicable?

ANSWER:
The privilege is NOT applicable if what is asked:

is useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an
accused.
lessen the risk of false testimony.
is essential to the proper disposition of the litigation.
the benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the

litigation was greater than any injury which could
inure to the relation by a disclosure of the information.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE refers to certain types of

information like military, diplomatic, and other
national security matters which may be withheld from
the public because of their sensitive nature.
OTHER PRIVILEGED MATTERS
The guardian ad litem may not testify in any
proceeding concerning any information,
statement, or opinion received from the child
in the course of serving as a guardian ad
litem, unless the court finds it necessary to
promote the best interests of the child. [Sec. 5
(e), Rule on Examination of a Child Witness]
Voters may not be compelled to disclose for

whom they voted.
Editors, publishers, or duly accredited reporters
of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of
general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any news report or any
information given to them in confidence, unless a
court or the Congress or a committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded
for State security. (R.A. 1477)
Trade secrets cannot be disclosed although this

is not absolute as the court may compel
disclosure where it is indispensable for doing
justice (Francisco, p. 335, 1992 ed.)
Bank deposits are absolutely confidential in
nature, except upon written permission of the
depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon
lawful order of a competent court. (RA 1405;
Francisco, p. 335, 1992 ed.)
Conciliators, mediators and similar officials shall
not testify in any court or body regarding any
matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings
conducted by them. (Art. 233, Labor Code)
Informers, for the protection of their identity,
cannot be compelled to testify by the prosecutor
when their testimony would merely be cumulative
and corroborative. (Herrera, Vol. V, p. 353, 1999 ed.)
EXAMINATION
EXAMINATIONOF
OFWITNESSES
WITNESSES
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
OF A WITNESS
• To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor.
• Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice

require.
• Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent
to the issue.
• Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to
a penalty for an offense. (right against self-
incrimination)
MCQ:
In a homicide action, Prosecution calls
Bystander to testify.
Claiming the privilege against self-

incrimination, Bystander refuses to answer
a question on whether he was at the scene
when the crime was committed.
Prosecution moves that Bystander be

ordered to answer the question.
The judge should allow Bystander to

remain SILENT only if:
a. The judge is convinced that he will incriminate
himself.
b. There is clear and convincing evidence that he
will incriminate himself.
c. There is preponderance of evidence that he will
incriminate himself.
d. The judge believes that there is some reasonable
possibility that he will incriminate himself.
(d) is correct because the law requires only some
reasonable possibility of self-incrimination.
KINDS OF IMMUNITY
USE IMMUNITY
Prohibits the use of the witness'
compelled testimony and its fruits in any
manner in connection with the criminal
prosecution of the witness.
TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY
Grants immunity to the witness from
prosecution for an offense to which his
compelled testimony relates.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION:
The right pertains only to natural persons and with
respect to testimonial compulsion only.
The right may be invoked in all kinds of proceedings
where testimony is to be taken, including investigation
by legislative bodies.
The right is a prohibition against the use of physical or
moral compulsion to extort communications from the
accused.
It is simply a prohibition against legal process to
extract from the accused’s own lips, against his will,
admission of his guilt. (Ong v. Sandiganbayan & Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 126858, Sept. 16, 2005)
PROBLEM:
Abe is arrested for driving a car while
intoxicated.
As part of a new program adopted by the
government, the police take a videotape of Abe
as he attempts to walk a straight line and touch
his nose at the time of the arrest.
The prosecution seeks to introduce this tape at

Abe’s trial. Abe objects on grounds that the
videotape is irrelevant, immaterial, and violates
his right against self-incrimination. Decide.
ANSWER:
The videotape is admissible as relevant evidence

not excluded by any rule.
The videotape is relevant evidence because it

tends to establish the likelihood that Abe was
intoxicated at the time of his arrest.
More importantly, the videotape does not violate

Abe’s right against self-incrimination because
the right against self-incrimination applies only
to testimonial evidence. Abe in the problem was
not made to testify against his will.
QUESTION:
Distinguish the right against self-incrimination of the
accused from that of an ordinary witness.
ANSWER:
ACCUSED:
Cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the
criminal case in which he is the accused or one of the
accused; he cannot be compelled to do so even by
subpoena or other process or order of the court. He
cannot be required to testify either for the prosecution, for
his co-accused or even for himself.
ORDINARY WITNESS:
May be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the
right to refuse to answer a particular incriminating
question at the time it is put to him.
QUESTION:
Pedro, a government official, is invited by the

Senate to appear as a resource person in a
public hearing in one of its committees. Because
Pedro declined the invitation, the Senate places
him under arrest for contempt and detains him.
Pedro claims that his arrest and detention
violate his right against self-incrimination.
Is Pedro correct?
ANSWER:
No. The right against self-incrimination may only

be invoked when the incriminating question is
being asked because Pedro has no way of
knowing in advance the nature or effect of the
questions to be asked.
That this right may possibly be violated or

abused is no ground for denying the Senate
committees their power of inquiry. (In Re: Sabio,
G.R. No. 174340, Oct. 17, 2006)
PROBLEM:
Rey, owner of a jewelry store, employs Abe and Bea as sales
clerks. One day, Abe reported to Rey that he saw Bea stealing
pieces of jewelry from the store. Rey then discharged Bea
and brought an action against her for the value of various
pieces of jewelry missing from the store.
At trial, Rey calls Abe as his first witness. Abe testifies that
he “does not remember” either having seen Bea take
anything from the store or having told Rey that she had done
so. Rey then takes the witness stand and proposes to testify to
what Abe had told him about seeing Bea stealing pieces of
jewelry from the store.
Rey then calls Bea as a hostile witness, and asks her one
question -- if it is true that she has stolen jewelry from his
store. Bea refuses to answer, claiming a privilege against self-
incrimination. Can Bea be compelled to answer the question?
ANSWER:
No. Bea is privileged to refuse to answer the question posed
by Rey because a witness may refuse to answer any
question the answer to which might tend to incriminate her.
Testimony is incriminating if it ties a witness to the
commission of a crime or would furnish a lead to evidence
tying the witness to a crime. The privilege against
compelled self-incrimination can be claimed at any
proceeding, whether civil or criminal, at which the
witness’s appearance and testimony are compelled.
Here, Bea’s answer to a question whether she stole jewelry
from the store might tend to incriminate her by tying her to
the commission of a crime (e.g., theft). (Sec. 17, Art. III,
1987 Const.)
PROBLEM:
Abe, a married person, is a witness in a murder
case. At trial, he is asked by the defense counsel
about his whereabouts a few hours before the
murder incident. Abe was actually with his
mistress in a motel during that time; and
revealing his whereabouts in court would result
in domestic turbulence.
Can Abe rightfully invoke the privilege against
self-incrimination?
ANSWER:
No. Abe can invoke the privilege only if there is

a possibility of a criminal prosecution
against him, but not in cases of possible
embarrassment.
It is, therefore, Abe’s civic duty and obligation
to answer the question asked, even if by doing
so it would possibly embarrass him.
QUESTION:
Is the right against self-incrimination available to
a witness who has been admitted to the WPP?
ANSWER:
No. A witness admitted under the witness
program CANNOT refuse to testify or give
evidence for the prosecution of the offense or
offenses for which he has been admitted into the
program on the ground of constitutional right
against self-incrimination.
However, he enjoys immunity from criminal
prosecution and cannot be subjected to any
penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter
or thing concerning his compelled testimony or
evidence. (Sec. 14, R.A. 6981)
STATE WITNESS:
Any person who has participated in the
commission of a crime and desires to be a witness
for the State, may apply and may be admitted
into the witness protection program if the
following circumstances are present:
the offense in which his testimony will be used

is a grave felony as defined under the Revised
Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws.
there is absolute necessity for the testimony.

there is no other direct evidence available
for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed.
his testimony can be substantially
corroborated on its material points.
he does not appear to be the most guilty.
he has not at any time been convicted of

any crime involving moral turpitude.
ORDER
ORDER IN
IN THE
THE
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
QUESTION:
What is the order in the examination of an

individual witness? What are the purposes
of each stage of the examination?
ANSWER:
 DIRECT EXAMINATION
 CROSS EXAMINATION
 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
Examination in chief of a witness by a

party presenting him on the facts relevant
to the issue.
PURPOSE:
To elicit facts about the client’s cause of

action or defense.
CROSS EXAMINATION:
Examination by the adverse party as to any
matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and
freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom from interest, or bias, or the reverse,
and to elicit all facts bearing upon the issue.
PURPOSE:
To impeach the credibility of the testimony; to
impeach the credibility of the witness; to elicit
admissions; and to clarify certain matters.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION:
Re-examination by the party presenting the

witness to explain or supplement his answers
given on cross-examination. Questions on
matters not dealt with during the cross-
examination may be allowed by the court in
its discretion.
PURPOSE:
To allow the witness to explain or amplify his

testimony during cross-examination; and to
explain any apparent contradiction or
inconsistency in his statements.
SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
ENGLISH RULE:
If a witness is called to testify to a particular fact,
he becomes a witness for all purposes and may be
fully cross-examined upon all matters material to
the issue, the examination not being confined to the
matters inquired about in the direct examination.
AMERICAN RULE:
Cross-examination is restricted to facts and
circumstances which are connected with the
matters that have been stated in the direct
examination of the witness.
QUESTION:
What rule is observed in our jurisdiction?
ANSWER:
GENERAL RULE:
English rule.
EXCEPTION:
The American rule is observed with respect to
cross-examination of an accused or a hostile
witness.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION:
Re-examination by the adverse party on the
witness on matters stated in his re-direct
examination, and also on such other matters
as may be allowed by the court in its
discretion.
PURPOSE:
To rebut damaging evidence brought out
during cross-examination.
• If the witness was partially cross-examined, but
died before the completion of his cross-
examination, his testimony on direct may be
stricken out but only with respect to the
testimony not covered by the cross-examination.
(People v. Señeris, G.R. No. L-48883, Aug. 6, 1980)
• The absence of a witness is not sufficient to

warrant the striking out of his testimony for
failure to appear for further cross-examination
where the witness has already been sufficiently
cross-examined, and the matter on which cross-
examination is sought is not in controversy. (Ibid.)
QUESTION :
Is the party who offered the testimony of a
witness bound by the testimony?
ANSWER:
GENERAL RULE:
Yes.
EXCEPTIONS:
When the witness is the:
adverse party;
hostile witness;
unwilling witness; or
a forced witness.
QUESTION:
Who is a hostile witness?
ANSWER:
A witness may be considered as unwilling or
hostile only if so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his adverse interest,
unjustified reluctance to testify or his having
misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand. (Sec. 12)
LEADING/MISLEADING QUESTIONS
QUESTION:
What is a leading question?
ANSWER:
A leading question is one which suggests to
the witness the answer which the examining
party desires. It is not allowed except:
• On cross-examination.
• On preliminary matters.
• When there is difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble
mind or a deaf-mute.
• To unwilling witness or hostile witness.
• Witness is an adverse party or an officer,

director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party.
PROBLEM:
On direct examination, Atty. Abe asks his

witness this question: “State whether anything
transpired between you and the defendants on
the 17th of May 2008.”
Is this a leading question?
ANSWER:
No, it is not. A question that merely suggests a

subject without suggesting an answer or a
specific thing is not a leading question.
MCQ:
Abe is new to the practice of law and at his first
trial, he had terrible problems deciding when to
object and when to keep his mouth shut. He tried to
remember the basics about direct and cross-
examination that he had learned in law school. But
at trial the questions came too fast and furious; it
was hard for him to keep up.
Which question below should have gotten Abe off

his chair and to his feet to object that opposing
counsel was leading the witness?
a. On direct examination, the opposing counsel
asked his client: “You reside at 22 ABC St.,
Baguio City, don’t you?”
b. On direct examination, the opposing counsel

asked his client: “Isn’t it true that you were born
on August 23, 1980?”
c. On cross-examination of Abe’s client, the
opposing counsel asked Abe’s client: “You used
illegal drugs in college, didn’t you?”
d. On direct examination, the opposing counsel

asked his client: “Isn’t it true that you saw that
the defendant did not slow down at the
intersection?”
PROBLEM:
A damage suit depended on whether the defendant was actually
the man driving the identified vehicle at the time of the accident.
It was established that others had access to the vehicle so that it
was important to identify the person driving at that time.
The plaintiff’s lawyer asked a witness on direct examination if
he saw the driver in the courtroom, and while asking that
question the lawyer pointed, almost instinctively, to the area
where the defendant was seated and to the defendant. The
witness agreed with the pointing, and said, “Yes, that’s him!”
The defendant vehemently objected and moved that the
testimony be excluded, claiming that this was unfair leading of
the witness into answering the ultimate issue of identity. The
trial court denied the objection.
How would the appellate court rule on the issue?
ANSWER:
The appellate court would most likely exclude the

testimony.
The plaintiff's attorney manipulated the witness's testimony

on the ultimate issue of who was driving the car by
impermissibly leading the witness to identify the opposing
party.
A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the

answer which the examining party desires. It is not allowed
except on cross-examination and on preliminary matters.
Here, the pointing by counsel to the defendant as the driver

of the vehicle in question amounted to a leading question.
(Sec. 10, Rule 132)
QUESTION:
What is misleading question?
ANSWER:
A misleading question is one which
assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by
the witness, or contrary to that which he
has previously stated. It is not allowed,
unless it is validly waived or when asking
hypothetical questions to an expert witness.
IMPEACHMENT OF
ADVERSE PARTY
QUESTION:
What is impeachment of a witness?
ANSWER:
It is a technique employed usually as
part of cross-examination to discredit a
witness’ testimony by attacking his
credibility. (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the
Bar, p. 323, 2009 ed.)
QUESTION:
What are the methods to impeach the adverse

party’s witness?
ANSWER:
• By contradictory evidence
• By evidence that the witness’ general reputation

for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad.
• By prior inconsistent statements. (“laying the

predicate“)
BY CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
Refers to the prior testimony of the same witness or other
evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the
testimony of other witnesses.
BY EVIDENCE THAT THE WITNESS’ GENERAL
REPUTATION FOR TRUTH, HONESTY, OR
INTEGRITY IS BAD.
Since the weight of the witness’ testimony depends on his
credibility, he may be impeached by impairing his
credibility by showing his not pleasing reputation but only
as regards his reputation for truth, honesty or integrity
BY PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.
Statements, oral or documentary, made by the witness
sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in
which he is testifying
QUESTION:
What are the other modes of impeachment?
ANSWER:
• By showing the improbability or the
unreasonableness of the testimony;
• By showing bias, prejudice, and hostility;
• By prior inconsistent acts or conduct;
• By showing social connections, occupation, and
manner of living; or
• By showing interest. (Francisco, pp. 480-481, 1992
ed.)
QUESTION:
May a witness be impeached by evidence of

particular wrongful acts?
ANSWER:
GENERAL RULE:
A witness may not be impeached by evidence of
particular wrongful acts.
EXCEPTION:
If it may be shown by the examination of the
witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense.
PROBLEM:
Susan is on trial for the murder of her husband.
She is accused of pushing him from the window of
their high-rise condominium unit. Susan claims he
committed suicide. Mary, Susan’s friend, is called
to testify that Susan had told her that she pushed
her husband from the window.
Susan takes the stand to testify on her own behalf.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks her,
“Isn’t it true that you were convicted of estafa six
years ago?”
Is the question proper?
ANSWER:
Yes. A criminal defendant who takes the stand

puts her credibility in issue the same as any other
witness; thus, she may be impeached by proof of
prior conviction of a crime.
Susan cannot even invoke the right against self-

incrimination because the question is not even
directed to any matter on which she can be
incriminated. (Sec. 11, Rule 132)

QUESTION:
May a party impeach his own witness?
ANSWER:
As a general rule, no may not.
EXCEPTION:
The witness is an:
• unwilling or adverse witness so
declared by the court;
• adverse party; or
• officer of the adverse party who is a
juridical person.
IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF
IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF
PRIOR
PRIORINCONSISTENT
INCONSISTENTSTATEMENTS
STATEMENTS
QUESTION:
What is the procedure for impeaching a witness by

evidence of prior inconsistent statements?
ANSWER:
• The witness must be confronted with such

statements with the circumstances of the time,
place, and persons present in which they were
made;
• The witness must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them; and
• If the statement is in writing, it must be
shown to the witness before any question
is put to him concerning them.
NOTE:
• This procedure is also called the rule on
LAYING THE PREDICATE.
• If the previous statements of a witness
are offered as evidence of an admission,
and not merely to impeach him, the rule
on laying the predicate does not apply.
QUESTION:
What is the purpose of laying the predicate?
ANSWER:
The purpose is to allow the witness to admit or deny the
prior statement and afford him an opportunity to explain
it.
Non-compliance with the foundational elements for this

mode of impeachment will be a ground for an objection
based on “improper impeachment.”
Over a timely objection, extrinsic evidence of a prior

inconsistent statement without the required foundation is
not admissible.
LAYING THE PREDICATE vs.
LAYING THE FOUNDATION
LAYING THE PREDICATE:
Refers only to impeachment of a witness through prior
inconsistent statements.
LAYING THE FOUNDATION:
Refers to a situation where evidence which is otherwise
incompetent will be introduced into evidence because it
falls under the rules of exclusion.
EXAMPLE:
Under the best evidence rule, a party must first prove
that a writing was duly executed and that the original
has been lost or destroyed. Without first laying the
foundation, secondary evidence will not be admitted by
the court.
QUESTION:
Is evidence of good character of a witness
admissible?
ANSWER:
GENERAL RULE:
No, it is not.
EXCEPTION:
Unless such character has been impeached.
PRESUMPTIONS
PRESUMPTIONS
AND INFERENCES
AND INFERENCES
PRESUMPTION
An assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law
which requires such fact to be assumed from another
fact or group of facts found or Established in the case.
A presumption is not evidence. It merely affects the
burden of offering evidence.
EXAMPLE:
D is indebted to C in an amount payable in
instalments. If evidence is introduced that the
instalment payment for December has been received
by the creditor, a presumption arises that previous
instalments have been paid. (Art. 1176, CC)
INFERENCE vs. PRESUMPTION
An INFERENCE is a factual conclusion that
can rationally be drawn from other facts. It is
a result of reasoning process. It need not have
a legal effect because it is not mandated by
law.
A PRESUMPTION is mandated by law and

establishes a legal relation between or among
the facts.
KINDS OF PRESUMPTION
PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW:
Those which the law requires to be drawn from the
existence of established facts in the absence of contrary
evidence.
EXAMPLE:
When a crime is charged, the accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty.
PRESUMPTIONS OF FACT:
Those which the experience of mankind has shown to be
valid, founded on general knowledge and information;
inferences which naturally arise in common experience
from particular circumstances or known fact.
EXAMPLE:
A person in possession of a forged document is presumed
to be the forger.
ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS
CONCEPT OF ADMISSION
The acknowledgment of facts or of

circumstances from which guilt may be
inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker,
but not sufficient to establish his guilt.
ADMISSION is sometimes referred to as the

“little brother of confession.”
EXAMPLE:
In a homicide case, the accused invokes self-
defense.
PROBLEM:
Pam sues Dawn for damages for injuries as a result of

the mauling of Pam by Dawn. Dawn defends that it is
a case of mistaken identity. Dawn admits that Pam was
beaten up, but claims she had nothing to do with
Pam’s injuries.
At trial, Dawn testified in her own behalf that on the
date that Pam suffered her injuries, Dawn was on an
extended vacation in New York. Pam’s attorney did
not cross-examine Dawn regarding that testimony.
In rebuttal, Pam’s attorney calls Wally, who is willing
to testify that one week after the mauling of Pam,
Dawn said to Wally, ”I haven’t been out of the country
in ten years.”
Is Wally’s testimony admissible?
ANSWER:
Yes. Dawn’s statement is an admission -- an out-of-court
statement by a party (Dawn) being offered into evidence by
an opposing party (Pam). Since the statement is not
considered hearsay evidence, and is obviously relevant to
the underlying question of who committed the assault
against Pam, it would be admissible. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)
NOTE:
It is wrong to say that Dawn’s statement is a “declaration
against interest” because Dawn’s out-of-court statement (“I
haven’t been out of the country in five years”) is admissible
only if it is against the declarant’s interest when made.
Dawn’s out-of-court statement was not clearly against her
interest; and besides, Dawn is still available to testify.
PROBLEM:
Susan is on trial for the murder of her husband. She

is accused of pushing him from the window of their
high-rise condominium unit. Susan claims he
committed suicide.
Mary, Susan’s friend, is called to testify that Susan

had told her that she pushed her husband from the
window. Susan objects to the question on hearsay
grounds.
How should the court rule?

ANSWER:
Objection overruled. Susan’s statement is

an admission and not hearsay.
Admission is an act, declaration, or

omission of a party as to a relevant fact
which may be given in evidence against
her. It is any statement of fact made by a
party against her interest or unfavorable
to the conclusion for which she contends
or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by
her. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)
KINDS OF ADMISSION
JUDICIAL: one made in a judicial proceeding.
EXTRAJUDICIAL: one made out of court.
EXPRESS: one made in a definite, certain and

unequivocal language.
IMPLIED: those which may be inferred from the acts,

declarations or omissions of a party.
ADOPTIVE: It is a party’s reaction to a statement or

action by another person when it is reasonable to treat
the party’s reaction as an admission of something
stated or implied by the other person. A third person’s
statement becomes the admission of the party
embracing or espousing it.
EXPRESS ADMISSION:
• Accused defends that he killed the victim in self-
defense.
• A man executes an affidavit that a parcel of land
belongs to his wife.
IMPLIED ADMISSION:
• Payment of interest of a debt is an implied
admission of the existence of the debt.
• The immediate flight of the accused and his lengthy
sojourn in another province under an assumed
name are admissible to show consciousness of guilt.
“The wicked fleeth, even when no man pursueth;
but the righteous are as bold as a lion”
ADMISSION OF A PARTY
ADMISSION is an act, declaration, or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact which
may be given in evidence against him. (Sec. 26,
Rule 130)
It is any statement of fact made by a party

against his interest or unfavorable to the
conclusion for which he contends or is
inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.
(Regalado, Vol. II, p. 754, 2008 ed.)
QUESTION:
What are the requisites for an admission to be
admissible?
ANSWER:
• must involve matters of fact, not of law.
• must be categorical and definite.
• must have been knowingly and voluntarily
made.
• must be adverse to the admitter’s interests.
PROBLEM:
Abe was feeding a beautiful dog when a friend came and
asked, “Is that your dog? Its cute.” Abe answered, “Mine, of
course.”
Three months later, a damage suit was filed against Abe
because the dog he was feeding and claimed as his own had
bitten a boy. Abe disowned the dog saying it was his
neighbor’s dog.
Can the plaintiff present Abe’s statement, “Mine, of
course,” to show ownership of the dog?
ANSWER:
Yes, Abe’s statement is an admission which is relevant to
the fact in issue: the ownership of the dog. Consequently,
the admission is admissible in evidence against him.
PROBLEM:
Abe had just purchased a new Porsche from a car

dealer. As Abe was carefully driving the car home,
within the posted speed limit, Amy, aged 11, suddenly
darted into the street in front of his car. Although Abe
immediately applied his brakes and swerved to avoid
Amy, the car hit the girl fracturing her legs.
As Amy was lying in the street awaiting an ambulance,

Abe rushed over to her and said, "I'm terribly sorry.
This is the first time I ever drove this car. I don't know
what happened, but it must have been my fault. Send
me all your hospital bills. I'll pay for everything."

After Amy’s discharge from the hospital, her
parents met with Abe to discuss their
daughter’s medical condition. When asked to
pay the hospital bills, Abe refused to pay
anything. Abe told Amy's parents, "Since
your daughter ran into the street, it was her
fault. I wouldn’t have hit her if she did not
cross the street. I have several witnesses who
saw what she did.”
Is Abe’s statement admissible?

ANSWER:
Abe's statement regarding his operation of the
Porsche (“This is the first time I ever drove this car.
I don't know what happened, but it must have been
my fault”) is admissible on the issue of Abe’s
negligence. The statement is an admission of Abe as
to a relevant fact which may be given in evidence
against him. (Sec. 26, Rule 120)
But Abe’s statement concerning payment of the
hospital bills is not admissible. An offer of payment
of medical, hospital, or other expenses occasioned by
an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of
civil or criminal liability for the injury. (Sec. 27, Rule
130)
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA literally means
“things done between strangers ought not to
injure those who are not parties to it.”
It has two branches:
• The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by

an act, declaration, or omission of another.
• Evidence that one did or did not do a certain

thing at one time is not admissible to prove
that he did or did not do the same or similar
thing at another time.
QUESTION:
What are the exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule
(first branch)?
ANSWER:
• Admission by a co-partner or agent.
• Admission by a co-conspirator.
• Admission by privies (Sec. 29, 30, 31, Rule 130)
QUESTION:
What does the rule prohibit? (second branch)
ANSWER:
The rule prohibits the admission of the so-called
“propensity evidence” which is evidence that one did or
did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing
at another time.
PROBLEM:

At a road intersection, a delivery truck owned by XYZ

Bazaar collided with a car driven by Rey. At the time of
the accident, Abe, the truck driver, said to Rey, “The
accident was my fault. I wasn’t paying any attention. Don’t
worry, my employer will make it right.”
The subsequent investigation of the accident by XYZ
Bazaar revealed that Abe had been drinking on the day of
the accident. Abe was fired.
Rey brings appropriate action against XYZ for damages
resulting from the accident. Abe has disappeared. Rey
seeks to testify as to what Abe said at the time of the
accident.
Is Rey’s testimony admissible?
ANSWER:
This question raises the issue of whether an employee’s out-
of-court statement (“The accident was my fault. I wasn’t
paying any attention. Don’t worry, my employer will make
it right.”) will be attributed to the employer, and thus
considered an admission when the employer is a party.
The answer is yes, provided the statement was made while
the person was employed by the employer and provided the
statement related to the employment.
Here, Abe’s statement was made while he was employed by
XYZ, and it related to his employment in that it pertained
to an accident that occurred when he was driving XYZ’s
truck, presumably in the course of employment. (Sec. 29,
Rule 130)
ADMISSION AND CONFESSION
ADMISSION: A statement of fact which does not

involve an acknowledgment of guilt or liability.
CONFESSION: A statement of fact which involves an
acknowledgment of guilt or liability.
ADMISSION: May be made by third persons and, in

certain cases, are admissible against a party.
CONFESSION: Can be made only by the party
himself and, in some instances, are admissible against
his co-accused.
ADMISSION: May be express or implied.

CONFESSION: Always express.
INTRODUCTION OF ADMISSION
AS INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE:
Admissions are original evidence and no foundation

is necessary for their introduction in evidence.
IF MADE ORALLY, it may be proved by any
competent witness who heard them or by the
declarant himself. It is not necessary the exact words
be repeated.
IF MADE IN A PRIVATE WRITING, there must be

some proof of the authenticity or identity of the
writing.
IF MADE IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, no need
of identification because of the rule that public
documents are evidence of the fact that gave rise
to their execution and of the date of the latter.
EXAMPLE:
P v. D for sum of money. P’s claim is for 100,000.
D disputes the amount and offers a demand letter
sent to him by P stating “Balance due: 75,000.”
The letter may be marked in evidence.
AS IMPEACHING EVIDENCE:
A proper foundation must be laid for the

impeaching questions, by calling the attention of
such party to his former statement so as to give
hive him an opportunity to explain before such
admissions are offered in evidence.
EXAMPLE:
A witness in a homicide case testified that he

saw the accused wearing a white shirt at the
time of the incident. He may be confronted on
cross-examination with his sworn statement
where he said he saw the accused wearing a
dark shirt.
ADMISSION OF A PARTY
AS TO A RELEVANT FACT
RULE:
The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant

fact may be given in evidence against him. This rule is
based upon the presumption that no man would declare
anything against himself, unless such declaration were true.
EXAMPLE:
H and W are husband and wife. When W died, W’s heirs

sought to partition a parcel of land registered in the name
of W. H claims the land to be conjugal.
The heirs of W may present in evidence an affidavit

previously executed by H attesting that the land is his wife’s
paraphernal property.
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
DOCTRINE OF ACQUIESCENCE
Any act or declaration made in the presence and
within the observation of a party who does or
says nothing when the act or declaration is such
as naturally to call for action or comment if not
true, may be given in evidence against him.
SILENCE MEANS CONSENT.
EXAMPLE:
He who stands, at the sale of his property by
another person, without objecting will be
precluded from contesting the buyer’s title.
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
IN CRIMINAL CASES
• accusations or statements in the presence of

the accused are competent only when the
accused hears them and fully comprehends
their effect.
• accusations or statements are not in evidence

against the accused, where he remains silent
when they are uttered in the course of judicial
proceedings. His silence cannot be admitted as
an admission of their truth.
• accusations or statements made when
the accused is under custody or when
the accused is under threat are not
admissible.
• failure of refusal of the accused to

testify may not be taken against him; he
may even refuse to answer any
incriminating question.
OFFER OF COMPROMISE
IN CIVIL CASES:
Not admissible. The court shall endeavor to

persuade the litigants to agree upon a fair
compromise.
IN CRIMINAL CASES:
Since criminal cases are not allowed to be

compromised, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
PROBLEM:
Abe was driving along a busy street when his car was
struck by Rey's car. At the time of the accident, Rey
had momentarily taken his eyes off the road while he
placed a USB in his dashboard player.
Two days following the collision, which resulted in
Abe's car being damaged, Abe demanded that Rey
pay for the repair work. In reply, Rey said to Abe, "If
you will take P10,000, I will pay you now." Abe
refused Rey's offer and sued him for damages.
At trial, Abe seeks to testify to Rey's statement. Rey
objects. Should the court admit Abe’s testimony?
ANSWER:
No. Rey’s statement ("If you will take P10,000, I will
pay you now") was made in conjunction with
settlement negotiations.
Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules

of Court, an offer of compromise in civil cases is not
an admission of liability, and is not admissible against
the offeror.
ADMISSION BY
CO-CONSPIRATOR
QUESTION:
When is there a conspiracy:
ANSWER:
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Two requisites for conspiracy to exist:
• Determination or decision to commit a crime.
• Agreement of two or more persons.
QUESTION:
May the admission of a co-conspirator be received in

evidence against his co-conspirators?
ANSWER:
Yes, if the following requisites are complied with:

• That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other
than the admission itself.
• That the admission relates to the common object.
• That it has been made while the declarant was engaged
in carrying out the conspiracy.
EXAMPLE:
After the formation but before the consummation of the

alleged conspiracy between A and his five co-accused, A
borrowed a gun from a friend, stating that he and his co-
accused were going to kill B.
This act or declaration of A could not be given in evidence

against his co-accused, unless the conspiracy be proven
first.
The testimony of A’s friend that A borrowed his gun and A

told him that he and his co-accused were going to kill B
would be admissible against A, but not against his co-
accused, unless the conspiracy between them be proved
first.
Without proof of conspiracy:
The act or declaration of A is not admissible
against his co-accused because such act or
declaration of A is res inter alios as to his co-
accused, and so it cannot affect them.
If there is conspiracy:
Each conspirator is privy to the acts of the others;
the act of one conspirator is the act of all the co-
conspirators.
NOTE:
The above rules apply only to extrajudicial
declarations of a conspirator, not to his testimony
by way of direct evidence.
PROBLEM:
Abe and Rey discussed how to set up a drug network over
their cellular phones. The conversation was inadvertently
tape-recorded by Rey. Rey said on the tape that he had
already communicated with his “contacts” to ratchet up the
place for starting up the drug business. The conspiracy
continued from that point and Rey became a full-fledged
drug trafficking player within several years after that.
Abe and Rey were later arrested for drug dealing and
charged with conspiracy. The tape recording was found in
Rey’s belongings.
The police attempted to introduce the tape at the trial of
Abe, who had never possessed or seen the tape. Abe
objected on the basis the tape was hearsay and should be
excluded.
What will the court say?
ANSWER:
The court will most likely hold that the tape recording is
admissible, it being an admission of a non-hearsay statement by
a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
Out-of-court statements are not considered hearsay if they were
made by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in
furtherance of the conspiracy. The determination of whether a
statement was made during the course and in furtherance of a
conspiracy is a determination of fact that will be disturbed only
if clearly erroneous.
The tape is admissible upon compliance with the following
requisites: a)that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence
other than the admission itself; b) that the admission relates to
the common object; and c) that it has been made while the
declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. (Sec. 30,
Rule 130)

CONFESSION
CONFESSION is the acknowledgment in
express words, by the accused in a criminal
case, of the truth of the offense charged, or of
some essential part thereof.
JUDICIAL CONFESSION:
Plea of guilty made by an accused in a fit state
of mind be fore a court of competent
jurisdiction.
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION:
Those made by ANY person outside of the

sitting of the court.
QUESTION:
May the extra-judicial confession of an accused

be admitted in evidence against his co-accused?
ANSWER:
GENERAL RULE:
An extrajudicial confession is not admissible

against the confessor’s co-accused. The
confession is hearsay evidence and violative of
the res inter alios acta rule.
EXCEPTIONS:
The confession may be admitted in evidence against

his co-accused in the following cases:
1. In case of implied acquiescence of the co-accused

to the extrajudicial confession;
2. In case of interlocking confessions;
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the

confessant after being apprised of such confession;
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime

which was confessed by one of the accused and said
confession is used only as corroborating evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial
evidence to show the probability of
participation by the co-conspirator;
6. When the confessant testified for his co-

defendant; and
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial

confession is corroborated by other evidence of
record.
QUESTION:
What is the doctrine of interlocking confessions?
ANSWER:
The doctrine enunciates the settled rule that
extrajudicial confessions independently made
without collusion which are identical with each
other in their essential details and corroborated
by other evidence against the persons implicated,
are admissible to show the probability of the
latter’s actual participation in the commission of
the crime.
CHARACTER
CHARACTEREVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL CASES
• Character is never an issue in a criminal case
unless the accused elects to make it one.
• Only after the accused has introduced evidence

of his good character may the prosecution rebut
such claims by introducing evidence of his bad
character.
• When character evidence is introduced into a

criminal case, it must be limited to the traits
and characteristics involved in the type of
offense charged.
EXAMPLES:
In case of armed robbery, the accused may introduce

evidence that he has a good reputation as an honest,
peaceful citizen since the qualities of honesty and
peacefulness are those which the prosecution must
disprove in establishing that the accused performed a
ruthless, dishonest act with force.
Thus, the accused may not prove that he is a good driver.
The accused is allowed to prove his good moral

character to show the improbability that he committed
the crime charged.
PROBLEM:
Abe is on trial for the murder of Larry. At trial, Abe calls Rey
to testify to Abe’s reputation in the community as a quiet and
peace-loving man. Is Rey’s testimony admissible?

ANSWER:
Yes. Character is never an issue in a criminal case, unless the
accused elects to make it one. Only after the accused has
introduced evidence of his good character may the prosecution
rebut such claims.
When character evidence is introduced into a criminal case, it
must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the
type of offense charged. Here, Abe’s reputation of being a
peace-loving man is relevant evidence to prove the
improbability of his commission of the crime charged. (Sec. 4,
Rule 128; Sec. 51 (a) (1), Rule 130)
PROBLEM:
Susan is on trial for the murder of her husband.

She is accused of pushing him from the window
of their high-rise condominium unit. Susan
claims he committed suicide. Mary, Susan’s
friend, is called to testify that Susan had told her
that she pushed her husband from the window.

Susan calls Rey, a neighbour, to testify that

Susan had a reputation of being a “good and
loving person who would never hurt anyone.”
Is the evidence admissible?

ANSWER:
Yes. Because this is a criminal matter, Susan is

permitted to introduce evidence of her good character
in support of the probability that she did not commit
the crime alleged.
Character is never an issue in a criminal case, unless

the accused elects to make it one. Only after the
accused has introduced evidence of her good
character may the prosecution rebut such claims by
introducing evidence of her bad character.
When character evidence is introduced into a criminal

case, it must be limited to the traits and
characteristics involved in the type of the offense
charged. (Sec. 51 (a) (1), Rule 130)
PROBLEM:
Abe is on trial for estafa because he had
swindled a widow out of her retirement
money. The prosecutor wants to show that
Abe owed money to other people and
always failed to pay these people even when
he had money to do so.
Is this evidence admissible?

ANSWER:
The evidence is improper evidence of other bad acts

which is offered to show that Abe is a bad character
who has the propensity to do bad things. This is
irrelevant to show that it was more or less likely that
Abe committed fraud.
If Abe takes the stand, however, this information might

be used in the cross-examination of Abe for his
impeachment because it is a prior bad act that is
probative of the truthfulness or untruthfulness of Abe.
(Sec. 11, Rule 132)
CHARACTER OF OFFENDED
PERSON IN CRIMINAL CASES
The good or bad moral character of the offended person

may be proved if it may establish in any reasonable
degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
EXAMPLE:
P is charged with the rape of W, a woman sales agent who

had stopped at his house to induce him to buy her
product. P alleges W’s consent, and calls witnesses from
neighbouring towns to tell of lascivious acts of the woman
when visiting other lone men in quest of sales.
This is admissible to evidence W’s character as making
more probable her consent.
CHARACTER
CHARACTEROFOFTHE
THEDECEASED
DECEASED
IN
INHOMICIDE
HOMICIDECASES
CASES
GENERAL RULE:
Evidence of the bad character of the deceased in
homicide cases is irrelevant.
EXCEPTION:
When the issue of self-defense is raised and the
character of the slaying is doubtful, evidence of
the violent and dangerous character of the
deceased is competent for the purpose of
determining whether the deceased or the accused
was the aggressor.
CHARACTER
CHARACTEROF
OFTHE
THEDECEASED
DECEASED
IN
INMURDER
MURDERCASES
CASES
RULE:
The good or bad moral character of the

deceased in murder cases is not admissible.
REASON:
The killing is committed with treachery or

evident premeditation.
CHARACTER OF A
PARTY IN CIVIL CASES
Evidence of the good or bad moral character of
either the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil case is
not admissible, unless the issue involved in the case
is the character of a party.
EXAMPLE:
P v D for damages arising from a breach of promise
of marriage. D may justify the breach of the
promise by evidence that he discovered P to be of
unchaste character, and therefore, he refused to
marry her.
PROBLEM:

Pam was injured in an automobile accident when her car

was hit by the pickup truck driven by Dan.
In her complaint for damages, Pam alleges that Dan was
driving on the wrong side of the road and that he was
driving in excess of the speed limit. Dan denies liability
for the accident.
At trial, Pam seeks to introduce evidence that Dan has a
reputation in the community for being a daredevil and for
being somewhat irresponsible. In fact, Pam’s witness would
testify that Dan is known by all his friends as “Dennis the
Menace.”
Is the proffered testimony admissible?

ANSWER:
No. Evidence of the good or bad moral
character of either plaintiff or defendant in a
civil case is not admissible, unless character
is in issue (e.g. in a defamation action).
Character is not directly in issue here. (Sec.
51 (b), Rule 130, ROC)
Therefore, testimony that Dan is known as a
daredevil and is known by all his friends as
“Dennis the Menace” is inadmissible.
PROBLEM:
Abe sues Ben for defamation, asserting in his
complaint that Ben had called Abe “a thief” in front of
his friends. Abe calls a witness to the stand and
testifies that he heard Ben refer to Abe as a “thief” in
front of Abe’s friends. Abe does not take the stand
himself.
Ben pleads truth of the statement as a defense and
calls Wendy to the stand. Wendy is prepared to testify
that she was a co-worker of Abe when Abe waited on
tables at a local restaurant. Wendy will testify that she
saw Abe take a P1,000 bill from the club’s cash register
and pocketed the money. Abe’s lawyer objects.
Is Wendy’s testimony admissible?

ANSWER:
Yes. Wendy’s testimony is admissible character evidence
because Abe’s character is directly in issue in the case.
As a general rule, evidence of character to prove the

conduct of a person in a suit is not admissible in a civil
case. However, where a person’s character itself is one
of the issues in the case, character evidence is admissible
because it is the best method of proving the issue. (Sec. 51
(b), Rule 130, ROC)
Here, character is an issue in Abe’s defamation action

because Ben has pleaded as a defense that his statement
claiming that Abe is a “thief” is the truth. Wendy’s
testimony that she saw Abe take the money from the
cash register is relevant because it tends to show that
Ben spoke the truth.
PROBLEM:
A man is injured in an automobile accident. He sues the

other driver, claiming that the driver was driving in the
middle of the road coming toward him. He claims that
he had to swerve into a ditch to avoid a collision.
The defendant driver defends that the plaintiff was the

one who was speeding and driving in the middle of the
road prior to losing control of his vehicle and going off
the road.
To prove his contention, the defendant driver seeks to

introduce evidence of several prior speeding violations
the plaintiff had in the past. The plaintiff objects.
Should the court admit into evidence plaintiff’s
speeding violations?
ANSWER:
No. The evidence of plaintiff’s speeding violations

violates the rule against propensity evidence,
which is evidence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another time. (Sec. 24, Rule 130)
NOTE:
Evidence of the good or bad moral character of

either the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil case
is not admissible, unless the issue involved in the
case is the character of a party)
PROBLEM:
While Abe was driving Ben’s car, he hit Cesar in a
pedestrian lane. Cesar sued both Abe and Ben, alleging
that Abe had negligently driven the car and that Ben
had negligently permitted an unfit driver to use his
car.
At trial, Cesar calls Walter as his first witness. Walter
testifies that within the last several months he is aware
of three instances in which Abe has engaged in reckless
driving. Both Abe and Ben object to the admission of
this evidence.
How should the court rule on the objection?
ANSWER:
The court should overrule the objection as to Ben, but
sustain the objection as to Abe. Walter’s testimony of
three instances of reckless driving by Abe would be
considered character evidence.
Character evidence is not admissible if offered to show

that a party probably acted in conformity with that
character. However, character evidence is admissible
in a civil case when the character of a person is an
issue in the case.
Cesar is suing Ben on the basis that he negligently

permitted an unfit driver to use his car, and thus Abe’s
character as a safe driver is in issue in the case against
Ben, but not in the case against Abe. (Sec. 51 (b), Rule 130)
FOLLOW UP QUESTION:
Ben calls his wife, Wilma, to testify for him.
Wilma offers testimony that Ben rarely loans his car
to anybody, but that when he does loan it, Ben
invariably checks to see whether the driver is
careful and law-abiding.
Cesar objects to the testimony. How should the
court rule?
ANSWER:
Wilma’s testimony is a classic example of evidence
regarding habit, and Ben’s habit is relevant to the
issue of his alleged negligence in permitting an unfit
driver to use his car. (Sec. 34, Rule 130)
CHARACTER OF WITNESS
Evidence of good character of a witness may not be given

in evidence until such character has been impeached.
The character of a witness must be attacked or

impeached before the testimony sustaining his character
may properly be admitted.
It is not necessary that there shall be a successful

impeachment of the witness. A mere attempt to impeach
such witness is enough to warrant introduction of his
good character.
MCQ:
At Abe’s trial for rape, he calls Willy as defense
witness. Willy testifies that he was at his yard
grilling steaks at the time of the incident and
saw the culprit run from the victim’s house. He
further testifies that the person who ran from
the victim’s house was not Abe.
On cross-examination by the trial prosecutor,

which of the following questions would a
defense objection most likely be sustained?
a. Weren’t you convicted of falsification of public
document three years ago?
b. Weren’t you under the influence of liquor at the
time you were grilling those steaks?
c. Haven’t you and Abe known each other since
grade school?
d. Weren’t you fired from your job last week
because they discovered you were embezzling
funds?
HEARSAY RULE AND
ITS EXCEPTIONS
• Hearsay evidence signifies all evidence which
is not founded upon the personal knowledge
of the witness from whom it is elicited.
• It is information received from another

person to the witness before it reaches the
ears of the court.
• It is mere repetition of what the witness has

heard other say – hear say.
EXAMPLE:
• In a case involving a vehicular collision, the

police investigator testifies:
“According to the statements of witnesses at the
scene, defendant failed to stop at the stop sign
and collided with the plaintiff at the
intersection.”
• The testimony would be objectionable since what
the officer has related about the case is what the
bystanders told him – hear say.
NOTE:
A statement otherwise objectionable as hearsay does not
become competent merely because it was reduced to
writing.
EXAMPLE:
Even though the investigating officer should take the
precaution of having the witnesses make written
statements giving their version of the occurrence, such
statements would be rejected for the same reasons his
second-hand repetition of their stories would be ruled out;
they are hearsay.
NOTE:
Composite sketches are hearsay because the sketch is
drawn by a police artist based on what he has been told
by a victim or witness.
INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS
It is important to note that the hearsay rule

bars information relayed from one person to
another when offered to prove the truth of the
matter asserted therein.
Consequently, the hearsay rule does not apply

to independently relevant statements, or those
statements which are relevant independently of
whether they are true or not true.
PROBLEM:
In a child molestation case, the prosecution calls a doctor to

testify to statements made by the child victim regarding the
abuse. She told the doctor during the medical examination
after an extended period of abuse that she was slapped, hit,
and spanked by the defendant who was her mother’s
boyfriend. She also reported that he also penetrated her
with his fingers.
At trial, the prosecution puts the doctor on the stand to

testify, among others, to those statements of the child. The
defense objects on the basis of hearsay.
Should the court admit the child’s statements to the

doctor?
ANSWER:
Yes. The statements are admissible in evidence as exceptions to

the hearsay rule in that they were given by the declarant for
the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. The hearsay
rule bars information relayed from one person to another
when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.
It is doctrinal that a declarant’s statement may have relevance

to an issue in a case from the mere fact that the words were
spoken or written, irrespective of the truth or falsity of the
assertion.
This category of a non-hearsay out-of-court statement is

known as “independently relevant statements.” They are so-
called because the statements are admissible for some relevant
reason independent of their truth or falsity. (Feria v. CA, 325 SCRA
525)
PROBLEM:

In a criminal trial, the prosecution wanted to prove that the

defendant lived with his wife at a specified address.
During a police search of the premises, the wife stated to the

police officers that her husband would “never come home
while the police are still here.”
The prosecution offered that statement into evidence at trial

to prove that the defendant lived at that address. The
defendant objected to the admission of the statement
because it is hearsay.
Should the court exclude the statement under the hearsay

rule?
ANSWER:
The statement is not hearsay because it is not offered
to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Specifically,
the statement falls under the term “independently
relevant statement.”
The assertion by the wife that the husband would not

come home as long as the police were there, was not a
contention in issue. The statement was offered to prove
that the defendant lived there. Whether he would come
home and, if not, why not, was not in issue.
Therefore, the statement was not offered to prove the

truth of the matter asserted and, by definition, was not
hearsay.
CLASSES OF INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS
FIRST:
Statements which are the very fact in issue in a case.
The testimony of witnesses thereto is not hearsay.
EXAMPLE:
In a prosecution for slander, a witness may testify
that he heard the accused say, “Magnanakaw ka!”
The making of the statement is the principal fact in

issue, and the witness is called upon to testify as to a
matter within his personal knowledge.
SECOND:
Statements of a party which are circumstantial

evidence of the facts in issue.
EXAMPLE:
Statement of a person showing his state of mind.
e.g. While a person in attacking another, his
statement “I will kill you!” may show his intention to
kill.
e.g. If a man called another a liar, such statement may
be proved by the testimony of a witness who heard
such statement as evidence of the excited mental
statement of the declarant.
PROBLEM:
William is a prosecution witness in a murder trial.

He testifies that Sam had told him that Sam saw
the accused kill the victim. Sam is not testifying at
trial. The statement is offered to show that the
accused killed the victim.
Is William’s testimony admissible?

ANSWER:
William’s testimony is inadmissible hearsay. It is a
statement offered into evidence made by an out-of-court
declarant (Sam) and is being offered to prove the matter of
what it asserts (that the accused killed the victim).
The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who

merely recites what someone else has told him, whether
orally or in writing, and not on what he knows of his
personal knowledge. (Sec. 36, Rule 130)

NOTE:
Hearsay evidence signifies all evidence which is not founded
upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is
elicited. It is information received from another person to
the witness before it reaches the ears of the court -- hear say.
PROBLEM:
Joe is a witness testifying for the prosecution

in a murder trial. As the prosecution’s first
witness, Joe testifies that Sheila told him
that she saw the defendant kill the victim.
Sheila is not testifying at trial. The statement
is being offered to show that the defendant
killed the victim.
Hearsay?
ANSWER:
Yes, this is inadmissible hearsay that does not

fall under any recognized exception to the
hearsay rule.
It is a statement offered into evidence made by

an out of court declarant (Sheila) that is being
offered to prove the matter of what it asserts
(that the defendant killed the victim).
PROBLEM:
Abe is walking along a sidewalk with Ana along

Session Road. Rey walks up behind them and
says, “Look! can you believe how fast that guy on
the skateboard is moving?” The guy on the
skateboard, the defendant, Larry, runs right into
Ana and Ana falls backward, cracks her head on
the pavement and dies.
Rey is unavailable to testify at trial. The statement

is offered by the prosecution during the testimony
of Abe in a prosecution for the negligent homicide
of Ana. It is offered to show the guy of the
skateboard was going really fast.
Hearsay?
ANSWER:
Yes, this is hearsay because it is an out-of-court

statement offered to prove the matter it asserts--
that the guy on the skate board was going too fast.
However, it is admissible under the present sense

impression exception to the hearsay rule.
PROBLEM:
Abe is arrested for possession of shabu, which

the prosecution asserts was contained in the
“salt shaker” on Abe’s kitchen table. The
prosecutor offers as evidence a lab report
stating, “The salt in the shaker is 90% shabu.”
Is the report hearsay?

ANSWER:
Yes, the report is inadmissible hearsay,

because it is an out-of-court statement being
offered to prove that the “salt” is shabu.
A statement need not be spoken to be hearsay;

a document offered to prove the truth of an
assertion in its contents can also be hearsay.
The “statement” here is the lab report’s
sentence, “the ‘salt’ in the salt shaker is 90%
cocaine.”
Since the report is being offered to show that

the ‘salt’ was shabu, it is hearsay.
PROBLEM:
Carla enters Jill’s living room and says, “I am
marrying Jack.” Jack has been Jill’s boyfriend for
five years. Jill takes a paper weight and smashes it on
Carla’s head, killing her. At Jill’s trial for murder,
Carla’s statement is offered by Jill’s attorney to show
that the killing was provoked. Hearsay?
ANSWER:
No, this is not hearsay. It is an out of court statement,
but it is not being offered to prove the truth of what it
asserts, that Carla was marrying Jack, but that Jill
was provoked by Carla—In other words, it is being
offered to show its effect on the listener.
PROBLEM:
In a suit for damages, a nurse at the treating hospital
testified that the plaintiff failed or refused to take his
prescribed medications on different occasions during his
hospital stay.
On cross-examination, it became clear that the nurse’s

testimony was not based on personal knowledge as she
was not at work during several of the instances she
mentioned. In these instances, the sole basis for her
testimony was what she read in the medical charts,
which were not in evidence at the trial. The defense
objects to the evidence.
What will the court say?

ANSWER:
The court would most likely exclude the

evidence. The testimony was based on
unauthenticated medical records not entered
into evidence.
Therefore, the testimony is inadmissible

hearsay, and not based on the witness's
personal knowledge or perception. (Sec. 36, Rule
130)
PROBLEM:
R, owner of a jewelry store, employs S and T as sales

clerks. One day, S reported to R that he saw T stealing
pieces of jewelry from the store. R then discharged T
and brought an action against her for the value of
various pieces of jewelry missing from the store.
At trial, R calls S as his first witness. S testifies that he
“does not remember” either having seen T take
anything from the store or having told R that she had
done so.
R then takes the witness stand and proposes to testify to
what S had told him about seeing T stealing pieces of
jewelry from the store.
Assuming appropriate objection by T, should R’s

testimony be admitted?
ANSWER:
If offered to prove that T stole the jewelry, R’s testimony

would be hearsay and, thus, inadmissible.
Hearsay is a statement, other than the one made by the

declarant while testifying at the trial, offered in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted. A hearsay statement,
to which no exception is applicable, must be excluded upon
appropriate objection.
Here, R’s proffered testimony relates to a statement made by

S other than while testifying at the trial. Therefore, if S’s
out-of-court statement is offered to prove that T stole the
pieces of jewelry, the statement is hearsay. Since no
exceptions to the hearsay rule apply, the statement is
inadmissible. (Sec. 36, Rule 130)
EXCEPTIONS
EXCEPTIONSTO
TOHEARSAY
HEARSAYRULE
RULE
• dying declaration
• declaration against interest
• act or declaration about pedigree
• family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
• common reputation
• part of the res gestae
• entries in the course of business
• entries in official records
• commercial lists and the like
• learned treatises
• testimony at a former trial
DYING DECLARATION
A declaration made by a victim of a

homicide while about to die, and without
any hope of recovery, concerning the facts
and circumstances under which the fatal
injury was inflicted, and offered in evidence
at the trial of the person charged with
having caused the death of the declarant.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
FIRST:
The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death. A dying
declaration is inadmissible as evidence if it concerns or
makes reference to the cause and circumstances
surrounding another person’s death.
EXAMPLE:
A husband and wife were killed at the same time. The wife
in her dying declaration related the cause and
circumstances attending the injury which resulted in the
death of both spouses.
The dying declaration is admissible insofar as it concerned
the wife’s death and inadmissible as to the husband’s
death.
SECOND:
At the time the declaration was made, the declarant
was under a consciousness of an impending death.
(death was imminent; no hope of recovery)
THIRD:
The declaration must have been made freely and
voluntarily.
FOURTH:
Declarant must have been competent to testify as a
witness if he had been called upon to give
testimony.
FIFTH:
The declaration is offered in a criminal case in
which the death of the declarant is the subject of
REASON FOR ADMISSIBILITY:
NECESSITY:
Because the declarant’s death renders impossible his
taking the witness stand.
TRUSTWORTHINESS:
Because the declaration is made “in extremity” when
the party is at the point of death and every hope of this
world is gone; when every motive for falsehood is gone.
NOTE:
Dying declarations are admissible only in criminal
prosecutions for homicide, murder or parricide. They
are not admissible in civil actions, and this is true even
in civil actions to recover damages for the death caused
by the wrongful act.
PROBLEM:

Abe, owner of a sari-sari store, heard several gunshots and

rushed out in the street. He found Rey lying on the sidewalk,
bleeding profusely. Abe immediately dialed police assistance
and asked for an ambulance and the police to come to the
scene. He returned to Rey and put a blanket over him. Rey
gasped to Abe, “I’m going to die. Larry shot me.”
Rey lapsed into unconsciousness and an ambulance arrived
three minutes later. Although first aid was applied and Rey
was given blood plasma, he died on the way to the hospital
without uttering another word. Larry was arrested and
charged with the murder of Rey.
At Larry’s trial, the prosecution seeks to have Abe testify on
Rey’s statement.
Is Abe allowed to testify on the statement?
ANSWER:
Abe’s testimony about Rey’s statement (“I’m going

to die. Larry shot me.”) is hearsay evidence.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in

evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted
in the statement. Since it appears that Rey’s
statement is offered to establish that Larry did the
shooting, it is hearsay,
Nevertheless, it is admissible as a dying

declaration, a recognized exception to the hearsay
rule (Sec. 37, Rule 130)
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
The declaration made by a person deceased, or

outside of the Philippines, or unable to testify,
against the interest of the declarant, if the fact
asserted in the declaration was at the time it
was made so far contrary to declarant’s own
interest, pecuniary or moral, that a reasonable
man in his position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true,
maybe received in evidence against himself or
his successors in interest, and against third
persons.
EXAMPLE:
During his lifetime, A executed an affidavit

admitting that he is the father of B.
This affidavit may be received in evidence

against the estate of A if B later seeks to
claim a portion of A’s estate.
The affidavit is a declaration of A against his

own pecuniary and moral interest.
ACT OR DECLARATION
ABOUT PEDIGREE
• Pedigree is the history of family descent which is
transmitted from one generation to another by both
oral and written declarations and traditions.
• A person’s pedigree may be proved by the act or
declaration of a relative of him, by birth or marriage,
who is deceased or outside of the Philippines or
unable to testify, or by the reputation or tradition
existing in the family in respect to the pedigree of
such person.
• Declarations as to pedigree are not admissible unless
the declarant is dead, or outside of the Philippines, or
unable to testify.
THE RULE OF RES GESTAE
• “Things Done.”
• Statements made by a person while a startling

occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof. It may be given in
evidence as a part of the res gestae.
• So, also statements accompanying an equivocal

act material to the issue, and giving it legal
significance may be received as part of the res
gestae.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
• The principal act is a startling occurrence;
• The statement is spontaneous or was made

before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise, and the statement is made during the
occurrence or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto; and
• The statement made must concern the
occurrence in question and it’s immediately
attending circumstances. (Capila v. People, G.R.
No. 146161, July 17, 2006)
EXAMPLES:
• statement of a victim within minutes after
an alleged assault.
• testimony of a police officer as to what the
victim told him not more than 30 minutes
after the commission of the alleged crime.
• The rape victim told her mother, “Mommy,
mommy, I have been raped. All of them
raped me.”
• The accused was named by the deceased
after he was shot.
REASON FOR RES GESTAE:
The reason for the rule is human experience. It has

been shown that under certain external
circumstances of physical or mental shock, the state
of nervous excitement which occurs in a spectator
may produce a spontaneous and sincere response to
the actual sensations and perceptions produced by
the external shock.
As the statements or utterances are made under the

immediate and uncontrolled domination of the
senses, rather than reason and reflection, such
statements or utterances may be taken as expressing
the real belief of the speaker as to the facts he just
observed.
PROBLEM:
Abe is on trial for the murder of Larry, whose

body was found in a vacant lot near Abe’s house.
The prosecutor calls Wally, Abe’s neighbour, to
testify that on the night before Larry’s body was
found, he heard Abe’s wife scream, “You killed
him! You killed him!”
Is Wally’s testimony admissible?

ANSWER:
Yes. Wally’s testimony is admissible hearsay being a

part of the res gestae.
The statement of Abe’s wife is definitely a
spontaneous statement because it relates to a
startling event (murder), and made while the
declarant (Abe’s wife) was under the stress of the
excitement caused by the event.
Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof may be given in evidence as a
part of the res gestae. (Sec. 42, Rule 130)
PROBLEM:

Larry was inside a convenience store when it

was robbed. The robber escapes from the scene
just as the police arrive. Larry runs up to the
police and exclaims in a highly excited state,
”Abe robbed the store!” Larry’s statement is
offered by the police officer to show that Abe
robbed the store. Larry died ten days later.
Is the police officer’s testimony admissible?

ANSWER:
No. The police officer’s testimony recounting Abe’s

statement is hearsay, an out-of-court statement offered to
prove the matter it asserts (that Abe robbed the store). The
statement, however, may still be admitted in evidence as
part of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.
Larry’s statement is definitely a spontaneous statement
because it relates to a startling event (robbery), and made
while the declarant (Larry) was under the stress of the
excitement caused by the event.
Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto
with respect to the circumstances thereof may be given in
evidence as a part of the res gestae. (Sec. 42, Rule 130)
PROBLEM:
Amy fell on a sidewalk that was splattered with mud.

The sidewalk was part of an apartment compound
where she resided. A resident of the compound
witnessed Amy falling and violently landing on her
neck. Amy’s neighbour immediately said in a loud and
agitated voice, “I already told Abe to clean this spot but
he did nothing.” Abe owns the apartment complex.
At trial, Amy’s brother offered testimony that he

heard the neighbour make the statement about
informing Abe to clean the sidewalk up, thus proving
notice and knowledge by Abe of the sidewalk’s
slippery condition. Abe objected on hearsay grounds.
How would you rule on the objection?
ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I would overrule Abe’s objection

because the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule applies
to the statement. (Sec. 42, Rule 130)
The statement of Amy’s neighbour is definitely a

spontaneous statement which was made while the
declarant (Amy’s neighbour) was under the stress of the
excitement caused by Amy’s fall.
Res gestae refers to excited utterances which are made
within a very slight passage of time after the incident. It
relates to a startling occurrence or condition. The
declarant must still be under the stress caused by the
incident when she makes the statement.
QUESTION:
What are the two types of res gestae?
ANSWER:
VERBAL ACTS
Utterances which accompany some act or
conduct to which it is desired to give legal
effect.
The res gestae is the equivocal act material to

the issue, and giving it legal significance. It
must be contemporaneous with or must
accompany the equivocal act in order to be
admissible.
REQUISITES:
• The fact or occurrence characterized must be

equivocal;
• The verbal acts must characterize or explain

the equivocal act;
• The equivocal act must be relevant to the

issue; and
• The verbal acts must be contemporaneous with
the equivocal act.
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS:
Statements or exclamations made immediately

after some exciting occasion by a participant
or spectator and asserting the circumstances
of that occasion as it is observed by him.
The res gestae is the startling occurrence. It

may be prior to or simultaneously with, or
subsequent with the startling occurrence.
QUESTION:
Abe raped Tessie and then fled. Tessie rushed to

the police station and told SPO1 Rey what had
happened. Abe was charged with rape.
During the trial, Tessie can no longer be located. If

the prosecution presents SPO1 Rey to testify on
what Melissa had told him.
Would such testimony of Rey be hearsay? Explain.

ANSWER:
No, it is not hearsay because it is part of

the res gestae. Besides, it is also an
independently relevant statement.
Rey is to testify on his personal

knowledge; that is, he will testify to the
fact that Tessie told him that she was
raped by Abe and not to the truth of
Tessie’s statement (People v. Gaddi, G.R. No.
74065, Feb. 27, 1989).

Law On Evidence Powerhauz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law On Evidence Powerhauz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law On Evidence Powerhauz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the concept of evidence according to the document?

What is the concept of evidence according to the document?

What are the scope and applicability of the rules of evidence?

What are the scope and applicability of the rules of evidence?

LAW

The rules of evidence contemplate an action filed in

In point of time, what law determines the admissibility

• Whether a circumstance is admissible or not is

Evidence which proves a fact in dispute directly

It includes testimony of what is heard, what is

Witness testifies that he saw the accused hack

Evidence furnished by things or physical objects

Rape victim identifies the undergarment she was

• also known as indirect evidence.

• arises from direct evidence, or a combination of

• consists of inferences logically drawn from known

• main fact is arrived at through a process of simple

• When two or more evidentiary facts are so connected

• If the promise is not fulfilled, such fact already

Peter v. Dante for recovery of land.

An eye for an eye rule on evidence.

P vs. D for a breach of contract action.

In a suit by Pam against Dawn for damages, the

Dawn seeks to testify in response that she actually

Should the court allow Dawn to so testify?

Yes, because Pam’s testimony opened the door to a

Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one

The accused, a short man with long dark

Is the tape relevant?

Yes, the tape is relevant. Evidence is relevant

Here, the tape tends to show that the robber

W’s testimony is inadmissible because it is irrelevant.

Relevant evidence tends to make the existence of any

Here, D had already admitted his involvement in the

The court would most likely deny defendants’

Guns are considered generally to be tools of the

If the guns were hunting rifles found in another

No. The question would not illicit any testimony that

The accused, a short man with long dark hair, is

Is the tape relevant?

The tape is relevant.

Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove the

Here, the tape tends to show that the robber was a

Abe is charged with selling prohibited drugs. At

Is Wally’s testimony relevant?

Abe’s lawyer asked Ben, “Is it true you spent

• Also known as the BUT FOR test or TAINT

• A matter outside the controversy or is

• A term which connotes an absence of a

Collateral matters are not allowed because they

The motive of a person may be considered

• to determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the

• The matter must be one of common and

DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

• Matter must be one of common knowledge.

• Matter must be beyond reasonable doubt.

• The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of

Which of the following would the court least