EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE ATTY. PLARIDEL J. BOHOL II EVIDENCE: RULE 132, Secs. 22-24 Example: Section 22.

. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
2)

Anyone in whose presence the document was signed

Your Honor, this witness is going to establish the due execution and authenticity of the document. Counsel: Whose signature is this appearing in the document? Witness: That is the signature of Mr. X Counsel: How did you know that? Witness: I was present when that was written.

By any witness who is familiar with the handwriting of such person (Sec. 22; Rule 130, Sec. 50 [b]);

Sections 20, 21 and 22 are the Rules on the Authentication of Private Documents.

A witness who can give his opinion, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule An ordinary witness, because he has seen the person

Before any private document can be received in evidence, indeed even before a question can be asked on what it contains, its due execution and authenticity must first be established. This means that the document must be shown not to be fake or spurious, that it was really executed and signed by those whose names appear in the document or by those who claim to have executed it. (General Enterprises, Inc. vs. Lianga Bay Logging Co., 11 SCRA 733)

write and is familiar with his handwriting

Example: Your Honor, this witness is going to establish the due execution and authenticity of the document. Counsel: Mr. Witness, I am showing to you a letter. Whose signature appears here? Witness: That is my boss signature.

Ways of proving that a particular handwriting is the handwriting of a person:

1)

Counsel: How did you know that? Witness: I have been his secretary for the past 25 years.

By any witness who has seen the person write (Rule 130, Sec. 2 [a]); Anyone who saw the document while being written Refers to signatories and instrumental witnesses
3)

By making a comparison with a genuine handwriting of such person (Sec. 22);

Prepared by: DEUS E. DULAY 3F

Page 1

EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE ATTY. PLARIDEL J. BOHOL II A comparison in writing is a rational method of investigation. (Jones on Evidence) When a writing in issue is claimed on the one hand and denied upon the other to be the writing of a particular person, any other writing of that person may be admitted in evidence for the purpose of Ruling: Yes. It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its own independent Since the parties, however, agreed to dispense with the trial so that no witnesses were presented to prove or disprove the alleged forgery, is the decision correct?

comparison with the writing in dispute. (People vs. Pagpaguitan, G.R. No. 116599. September 27, 1999) Where a comparison is permissible, it may be made by the court, with or without the aid of expert witnesses. (Barnes vs. U.S., 166 Fed. 113) The court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, order a party to write or sign his signature as a basis for comparison. (Hickory vs. U.S., 151 US 303, 14 S. Ct. 334, 28 L. Ed. 170)

examination of the documentary evidence at hand. This the trial court judge can do without necessarily resorting to experts, especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by visual comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. Sec. 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence explicitly authorizes the court, by

Sps. Leon and Lolita Estacio vs. Dr. Ernesto Jaranilla 417 SCRA 250, December 8, 2003 First Division: Azcuna, J.

itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting, with the writing admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

Facts: The trial court nullified a deed of sale and the title issued based on it on the ground that the Special Power of Attorney of the alleged attorney-in-fact who sold the land was highly questionable, spurious and self-evidently fabricated. Issue:
4)

By an expert witness (Rule 130, Sec. 49); and The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, may be received in evidence. (Rule 130, Sec. 49) Due to the technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of forged documents, the expertise of questioned document examiners is usually helpful.

Prepared by: DEUS E. DULAY 3F

Page 2

EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE ATTY. PLARIDEL J. BOHOL II (Heirs of Severa Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117609. December 29, 1998) Handwriting experts are not mandatory It depends upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writings which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer. (U.S. v. Rosel, 24 Phil. 594) This section should be correlated with Sec. 44 of Rule 130, which states that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie
5)

Section 23. Public documents as evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.

By the author himself (Herrera, 1999 edition, p. 277; Jones on Evidence, p. 1121). Doctrine of Self-Authentication where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer (Regalado)

evidence of the facts therein stated.

Rationale: The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes that they will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity; and therefore, whatever acts they do in discharge of

Sec. 22 of this Rule merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to a particular method. (Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. L-31494, Jan 23, 1978).

their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as to the nature and circumstances of each case may appear to require. (Antillon vs. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148)

Authentication of a document is not required when:

1) 2) 3)

The writing is an Ancient Document; (Sec. 21) The writing is a public document or record; (Sec. 19) It is a notarial document acknowledged, proved or certified in accordance with Sec. 30; or

Public Documents as Evidence:

1)

Entries in public records PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of facts stated therein.

2)

Made in the performance of a duty by public officer PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of facts stated therein

4)

When the authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly or impliedly admitted by a failure to deny the same under oath (Actionable Documents). (Regalado)
3)

All other public documents Evidence even against a 3 person of the: FACT which gave rise to their execution; and DATE of execution.
rd

Prepared by: DEUS E. DULAY 3F

Page 3

EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE ATTY. PLARIDEL J. BOHOL II deed was registered only on July 1991 because she was seriously Prima Facie Evidence - evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue which it supports. RTC ruled in favor of Siguan. CA reversed holding that the Deed of Donation, which was executed and acknowledged before a notary To contradict the facts contained in a notarial document and presumption of regularity in its favor, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. public, appears on its face to have been executed on August 10, 1989. The CA explained that under Sec. 23 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence, the Deed of Donation, being a public document, is evidence of the fact which gave rise to its execution and of the Illustrative case: date thereof. ill.

Maria Antonia Siguan vs. Rosa Lim 318 SCRA 725, November 19, 1999 First Division: Davide, Jr., C.J.

Issue: Whether or not the CA is correct in reversing the RTC.

Ruling: Facts: On August 1990, Lim issued 2 checks to Siguan, payable to cash. Upon presentment with the drawee bank, the checks were dishonored for the reason that the account has been closed. Demands to make good the checks proved futile. We are not convinced with the allegation of the petitioner that the questioned deed was antedated to make it appear that it was made On July 1991, Lim registered a Deed of Donation conveying certain parcels of land in favor of her children. The said deed was purportedly executed on August 1989. prior to petitioners credit. Notably, that deed is a public document, it having been acknowledged before a notary public. As such, it is evidence of the fact which gave rise to its execution and of its date, pursuant to Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Siguan filed an accion pauliana against Lim to rescind the deed. Siguan claimed that through an antedated Deed of Donation, Lim fraudulently transferred all her real property to her children in bad faith and in defraud of creditors. Lim maintained that the deed was not antedated but was made in good faith. She alleged that the Petitioners contention that the public documents referred to in said Section 23 are only those entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer does not hold water. Yes. In the instant case, the alleged debt of Lim in favor of petitioner was incurred in August 1990, while the deed of donation was purportedly executed on 10 August 1989.

Prepared by: DEUS E. DULAY 3F

Page 4

EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE ATTY. PLARIDEL J. BOHOL II The phrase all other public documents in the second sentence of Section 23 means those public documents other than the entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer. And these include notarial documents, like the subject deed of donation. It bears repeating that notarial documents, except last wills and testaments, are public documents and are evidence of the facts that gave rise to their execution and of their date. All public records such as all legislative acts, all resolutions of a public nature of Congress, all executive orders, decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court published in the Official Gazette, Philippine Reports and Appellate Court Reports are prima facie evidence of their authenticity. (See Secs. 21, 22 The fact that the questioned Deed was registered only on 2 July 1991 is not enough to overcome the presumption as to the truthfulness of the statement of the date in the questioned deed, which is 10 August 1989. Petitioners claim against Lim was constituted only in August 1990, or a year after the questioned alienation. Section 24. Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. What are considered Official Records (Rule 132, Sec. 19 [a]) If it is a FOREIGN RECORD, it is evidenced by:
1) 2)

The written official acts, or records of the official acts of:

1) 2) 3)

The sovereign authority; Official bodies and tribunals; and Public officers

and 35 of the Administrative Code)

What may be presented in evidence to prove official records? If it is a DOMESTIC RECORD, it is evidenced by:
1) 2)

An official publication, or A copy thereof, attested by the officer having custody of the record or his deputy, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.

(Sec. 24 lays down the requirements for the admissibility in evidence of a foreign public document or record)

An official publication, or A copy thereof, attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record or his deputy, and accompanied by a certificate by: secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,

Prepared by: DEUS E. DULAY 3F

Page 5

EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE ATTY. PLARIDEL J. BOHOL II vice consul, or consular agent or foreign service officer laws as printed in Gazeta Oficial and the Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No. 1 de Orinoco.

with the seal of his office. Issue: Example: A document was notarized in California, USA; it is a public document. But if the same document is offered in evidence in the Philippines, it must be authenticated by an official of the Philippine embassy in California. It must be guaranteed as authentic by an official in the embassy, or notarized or authenticated by the consul. 1. Illustrative case: It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and Ruling: No. For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are mandatory: Whether or not the copies of the laws produced by Wildvalley is admissible in evidence.

Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals 342 SCRA 213, October 6, 2000 Second Division: Buena, J.

2.

It must be accompanied by a certificate by the secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.

Facts: President Roxas, a vessel owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc., ran aground while navigating through Orinoco River in Venezuela. As a consequence, it obstructed the ingress and egress of other vessels, including Malandrinon. The owner of the latter vessel, Wildvalley Shipping Company, Ltd., sued President Lines for damages in the RTC of Manila. It is not enough that the Gaceta Oficial, or a book published by the Ministerio Comunicaciones of Venezuela, was presented with Monzon attesting it. It is also required by the Rules of Court that a certificate that Monzon, who attested the documents, is the officer who had legal custody of those records made by diplomatic or consular officials in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in Venezuela, and authenticated by the seal of his office. With To prove Venezuela law, Wildvalley presented Capt. Oscar Leon Monzon, the Assistant Harbor Master and Chief of Pilots at Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, as well as the rules governing the navigation on Orinoco River. The witness produced in court photocopies of the respect to proof of written laws, parol proof is objectionable, for the written law itself is the best evidence.

Prepared by: DEUS E. DULAY 3F

Page 6

EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE ATTY. PLARIDEL J. BOHOL II References: Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 11 Regalado Perspectives of Evidence by Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. Evidence: A Lawyers Companion by Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Gil A. De La Banda Evidence in Action by Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. Lectures of Hildegardo F. Iigo Compendium on Evidence by Jose Agaton R. Sibal and Jaime N. Salazar Evidence (the Bar Lecture Series) by Willard B. Riano
th

Edition by Florenz D.

Prepared by: DEUS E. DULAY 3F

Page 7