Reviewer in Evidence Quickie Notes Parts 1 and 2

RULES ON EVIDENCE (1)
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Evidence defined ........................................................................................................... 4

Scope.............................................................................................................................. 4
Admissibility of evidence ............................................................................................. 4
Relevancy; collateral matters ....................................................................................... 4
Sample problem............................................................................................................. 4
Rule on alibi ................................................................................................................... 5
Factum probandum v. Factum probans ...................................................................... 5
Judicial notice; when mandatory ................................................................................. 6
Judicial notice; when discretionary ............................................................................. 9
Judicial notice; when hearing necessary .................................................................... 9
Judicial admissions .................................................................................................... 11
OBJECT EVIDENCE
Object evidence ........................................................................................................... 13

Chain of custody ......................................................................................................... 13
Drug cases ................................................................................................................... 13
Documentary evidence ............................................................................................... 15
Electronic document ................................................................................................... 15
Best Evidence Rule ..................................................................................................... 15
Original Document ...................................................................................................... 16
Original Document under the Best Evidence Rule ................................................... 17
How to present secondary evidence ......................................................................... 19
Party who calls for document not bound to present it............................................. 20
Parol Evidence Rule .................................................................................................... 20
Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule ..................................................................... 21
Interpretation of documents ....................................................................................... 23
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Qualification of witnesses .......................................................................................... 25

Disqualification by reason of marriage ..................................................................... 27
Marital privilege ........................................................................................................... 30
Dead mans statue; Survivorship disqualification.................................................... 32
Lawyer-client privilege ................................................................................................ 35
Name of client .............................................................................................................. 35
Physician-patient privilege ......................................................................................... 37
Priest-penitent privilege.............................................................................................. 39
Public officer ................................................................................................................ 39
Parental privilege and filial privilege ......................................................................... 39
ADMISSIONS
Admissions .................................................................................................................. 41
Offer of compromise ................................................................................................... 41
Plea of guilt .................................................................................................................. 42
PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
Res inter alios acta (type 1) ........................................................................................ 44

Admission by silence .................................................................................................. 45
Confession ................................................................................................................... 46
RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Evidence defined
SECTION 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned
by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.(1)
Scope
SEC. 2. Scope.The rules of evidence shall be the same in all
courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by
law or these rules.(2a)
Admissibility of evidence
SEC. 3. Admissibility of evidence.Evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules.(3a
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE:
An electronic document is admissible

in evidence if it complied with the rules of admissibility prescribed by
the Rules of Court and is authenticated as prescribed by the REE.
[2003 BAR Q]
Relevancy; collateral matters
SEC. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters.Evidence must have such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except
when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.(4a)
Sample problem
During trial, plaintiff offered evidence that appeared irrelevant at that
time but he said he was eventually going to relate to the issue in the
case by some future evidence. The defendant objected. Should the
trial court reject the evidence in question on ground of irrelevance?
A. No, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is shown.
B. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently present the
4
RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS

evidence anew.
C. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
D. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is shown.
ANSWER: D. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is
shown.
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY:
Where evidence at the time of its offer

appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with
the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be
received, provided that the other facts will be proved thereafter;
otherwise, the evidence already given shall be stricken out.
Rule on alibi
For an ailibi to prevail, the defense must establish positive, clear and
satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to
have been at the scene of the crime at the time of the comision and
not merely that the accused was somewhere else.
Factum probandum v. Factum probans

Factum Probandum
Factum Probans
fact or proposition to be
established
facts evidencing the fact or

proposition
to
be
established
RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Judicial notice; when mandatory
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory1.A court shall take
judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence
F
Forms of government
nationality of states
and
symbols
of
Law of nations
Official acts if the legislative, executive, and

judicial departments of government
Political history of states
Laws of nature
Existence and territorial extent of states
Geographical divisions
Measure of time
Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and

their seals
Political constitution and history of the

Philippines
1997 Bar Q
Give three instances when a Philippine court can take judicial notice of a foreign
law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. when the Philippine courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law
(Moran. Vol. 5, p. 34, 1980 edition);
2. when the foreign law refers to the law of nations (Sec. 1 of Rule 129)
1
When the matter is subject to mandatory judicial, no motion or hearing is

necessary for the court to take judicial notice.
6

3. when it refers to a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the subject
of law if the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert on the subject (Sec. 46.
Rule 130).
Sample problems
Which of the following matters is NOT A PROPER SUBJECT of
judicial notice?
A. Persons have killed even without motive.
B. Municipal ordinances in the municipalities where the MCTC sits.
C. Teleconferencing is now a way of conducting business
transactions.
D. British law on succession personally known to the presiding
judge.
ANSWER: D. British law on succession personally known to the
presiding judge.
NOTES: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any
other fact, they must be alleged and proved. In the absence of
evidence of the law of the foreign country, Phil. Laws should be
applied under the doctrine of processual presumption.
PCIB v. Escolinforeign law is within the actual knowledge of the
court:
1. when the law is generally well-known
2. had been ruled upon in previous cases before it
3. and none of the parties claim otherwise
Which of the following is not subject of mandatory judicial notice?

A. Political history of the Philippines
B. The laws of nature
C. Political constitution of states
D. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world

ANSWER: C. Political constitution of states
P
Political history of states
Political constitution and history of the

Philippines

Judicial notice; when discretionary
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.A court may take
judicial notice of matters which
1. are of public knowledge, or
2. are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or
3. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions2.(1a)
Judicial notice; when hearing necessary
SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the trial,
the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce
its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties
to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal3, the proper court, on
its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of
any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case.(n)
As a rule, "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents
of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are
pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may
have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge." Be that as it
may, Section 2, Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters
ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. In this case, the
Court notes that a copy of the Decision in CTA Case No. 4897 was attached to
the Petition for Review filed before this Court. Significantly, respondents do not
claim at all that the said Decision was fraudulent or nonexistent. Indeed, they do
not even dispute the contents of the said Decision, claiming merely that the Court
cannot take judicial notice thereof. (BPI Savings v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R.
No. 122480, April 12, 2000)
3
The court can take judicial notice of a fact during or after trial; judicial
may also be taken on appeal.
9

2005 Bar Q
Explain briefly whether the RTC may, motu proprio,take judicial notice
of:
1.
The street name of methamphetamine hydro-chloride is
shabu.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The RTC may motu proprio take judicial
notice of the street name of methamphetamine hydrochloride is
shabu, considering the chemical composition of shabu. (People v.
Macasling, GM, No. 90342, May 27,1993)
2.
Ordinances approved by municipalities under its territorial
jurisdiction;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the absence of statutory authority, the
RTC may not take judicial notice of ordinances approved by
municipalities under their territorial jurisdiction, except on appeal
from the municipal trial courts, which took judicial notice of the
ordinance in question. (U.S. v. Blanco, G.R, No. 12435,
November9,1917; U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699, August
26,1915)
3.
Foreign laws;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The RTC may not generally take judicial

notice of foreign laws (In re Estate of Johnson, G.R. No. 12767,
November 16, 1918; Fluemer v. Hix, G.R. No. 32636, March 17,
1930), which must be proved like any other matter of fact (Sy Joe
Lieng v. Sy Quia, G.R. No. 4718, March 19, 1910) except in a few
instances, the court in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion,
may take notice of foreign laws when Philippine courts are evidently
familiar with them, such as the Spanish Civil Code, which had taken
effect in the Philippines, and other allied legislation. (Pardo v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-2248 January 23, 1950; Delgado v. Republic,
G.R. No. L-2546, January .28, 1950)
10

4.
Rules and Regulations issued by quasi-judicial bodies
implementing statutes;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The RTC may take judicial notice of Rules
and Regulations issued by quasi-judicial bodies implementing
statutes, because they are capable of unquestionable demonstration
(Chattamal v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 16347, November
3,1920), unless the law itself considers such rules as an integral part
of the statute, in which case judicial notice becomes mandatory.
Judicial admissions
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions.
1. admission, verbal or written4
2. made by a party5
3. in the course of the proceedings in the same case
It does not require proof. It may be contradicted only by6 showing that
it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
made.(2a)
4
It is settled that judicial admissions may be made:

1. in the pleadings filed by the parties;
2. in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations; or
3. in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.
A written statement is nonetheless competent as an admission even if it is

contained in a document which is not itself effective for the purpose for which it is
made, either by reason of illegality, or incompetency of party thereto, or by
reason of not being signed, executed or delivered. Accordingly, contracts have
been held as competent evidence of admissions, although they may be
unenforceable. [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 2003]
5
Not just any witness
cf. Retraction of pre-trial stipulations in Criminal Proceedings. After

pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken,
facts stipulated, and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit
trial to matters not disposed of, and control the course of the action during
trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. [R 118.4]
11
the
the
the
the

Sample problems
Which of the following admissions made by a party in the course of
judicial proceedings is a judicial admission?
A. Admissions made in a pleading signed by the party and his
counsel intended to be filed.
B. An admission made in a pleading in another case between the
same parties.
C. Admission made by counsel in open court.
D. Admissions made in a complaint superseded by an amended
complaint.
ANSWER: C. Admission made by counsel in open court.
NOTES: Effect of amendment [R10.8]:
1. supersedes original
2. admissions in superseded pleading may be received in
evidence against the pleader
3. claims or defenses alleged therein must be incorporated in
the amended pleading waived
12
RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

Object evidence
SECTION 1. Object as evidence.Objects as evidence are those
addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to
the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court.(1a)
1994 Bar Q
At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the
prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00
bills used in the buy-bust operation. Ace 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 real (object) evidence or documentary evidence?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The photocopy of the marked bills is real
(object) evidence not documentary evidence, because the marked
bills are real evidence.
Chain of custody
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard
because it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain of
custody, it becomes indispensable and essential when the item of
real evidence is not distinctive and not readily identifiable, or when its
condition at the time of testing or trial is critical or when a witness has
failed to observe its uniqueness.
The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is
susceptible of alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange.
Drug cases
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall immediately after seizure and confiscation:
1. physically inventory; and
13

2. photograph the same
In the presence of:
1. the accused or his/her rep or counsel
2. a rep from the media and the DOJ, and
3. any elected public official
Non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer, shall not render
void and invalid such seizure of and custody over the same items.
14

Documentary evidence
SEC. 2. 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.(n)
Rule 1, REE, SECTION 1. Electronic Documents as functional
equivalent of paper-based documents. Whenever a rule of
evidence refers to the term writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be
deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules.
[2003 BAR Q]
Electronic document
Electronic document refers to:
information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or
however represented
by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or
by which a fact may be proved and affirmed
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
retrieved or produced electronically.7
It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output,
readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic document.
Best Evidence Rule
SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions.When
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document8, no evidence
7
As rightly pointed out in defendant Wallems Reply to the Comment of

Plaintiff, the Xerox copies do not constitute the electronic evidence defined in
Section 1 of Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The information in those
Xerox or photocopies was not received, recorded, retrieved or produced
electronically. [NPC v. Codilla, G.R. No. 170491, 3 April 2007]
15

shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in
the certain cases9: LCNP
Original Document
SEC. 4. Original of document.
1
one, the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
when a document is in two or more copies executed at

or about the same time, with identical contents, all
such copies are equally regarded as originals
when an entry is repeated in the regular course of

business, one being copied from another at or near the
time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals.(3a)
1997 Bar Q
When A loaned a sum of money to B, A typed a single copy of the
promissory note, which they both signed A made two photo
(xeroxed) copies of the promissory note, giving one copy to B and
retaining the other copy. A entrusted the typewritten copy to his
counsel for safekeeping. The copy with A's counsel was
destroyed when the law office was burned. In an action to collect
on the promissory note, which is deemed to be the "original" copy for
the purpose of the "Best Evidence Rule"? Can the photocopies in the
hands of the parties be considered "duplicate original copies"?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The copy that was signed and lost is the only "original" copy for
purposes of the Best Evidence Rule. (Sec. 4 [b] of Rule 130).
b. No. They are not duplicate original copies because there are
8
There is no reason to apply the best evidence rule when the issue does
not involve the contents the document. Thus, where the issue is the execution or
the existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution,
the Best Evidence Rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
9
LCNP: Lost-Custody-Numerous accounts-Public record
16

photocopies which were not signed (Mahilum v. Court of
Appeals,
17
SCRA
482),
they constitute secondary
evidence. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130).
Sample Problem
Is a carbon copy of a document regarded as original document under
the Best Evidence Rule?
A. Yes. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near the time of
the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.
B. Yes. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are
equally regarded as originals
C. Yes, if the original document has been lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court
D. Yes, if the original document is in the custody or under the
control of the adverse party and fails to produce it despite
reasonable notice.
ANSWER: B. Yes. When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all
such copies are equally regarded as originals
Original Document under the Best Evidence Rule

SECTION 1. Original of an Electronic Document. An electronic
document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means shown to reflect the data
accurately.
SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. The following copies
or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
1. document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time with identical contents
17

2. document is a counterpart produced:
by the same impression as the original; or
by other equivalent techniques which
reproduces the original
accurately
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be

admissible to the same extent as the original if:
a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original; or
in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit
the copy in lieu of the original.
2001 Bar Q
Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of
money based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his
complaint, Pedro alleged that although the promissory note says
that it is payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is payable
immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may, upon
request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the note. During
the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that the agreement
between him and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety
days time. Also, since the original note was with Lucio and the latter
would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a
place about one days trip from where he received the notice to
produce the note and in spite of such notice to produce the same
within six hours from receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so.
Pedro presented a copy of the note which was executed at the
same time as the original and with identical contents. Over the
objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true
agreement or contents of the promissory note? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is
a duplicate original and with identical contents. [Sec. 4 (b) of Rule
130]. Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce the original of the note
is excusable because he was not given reasonable notice, as
requirement under the Rules before secondary evidence may be
presented. (Sec. 6 of Rule 130, Rules of Court)
18

How to present secondary evidence
original has been Lost or destroyed, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
or cannot be produced in court, and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith
without bad faith on the part of the on his part10
offeror;
may prove its contents by (in the order stated):
1. a copy; or
2. by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document; or
3. by the testimony of witnesses
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
the adverse party must have reasonable notice to

produce it; If after such notice and after satisfactory
proof of its existence, he fails to produce the
document, secondary evidence may be presented
as in the case of its loss.
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
original is a Public record in the
custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office
10
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued

by the public officer in custody thereof.
TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and

contents. At the sound discretion of the court, this order may be changed
if necessary.
2. Finally, when more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of
them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before
secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be
used without accounting for the other originals. [Citibank v. Efren
Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905, 23 September 2003]
19

Party who calls for document not bound to present it
Ajax Power Corporation, a utility company, sued in the RTC to
enforce a supposed right of way over a property owned by Simplicio.
At the ensuing trial, Ajax presented its retired field auditor who
testified that he know for a fact that a certain sum of money was
periodically paid to Simplicio for some time as consideration for a
right of way pursuant to a written contract. The original contract was
not presented. Instead, a purported copy, identified by the retired field
auditor as such, was formally offered as part of his testimony.
Rejected by the trial court, it was finally made the subject of an offer
of proof by Ajax. Can Ajax validly claim that it had sufficiently met its
burden of proving the existence of the contract establishing its right of
way? Explain,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Ajax had not sufficiently met the
burden of proving the existence of the written contract because. It
had not laid the basis for the admission of a purported copy
thereof as secondary evidence. Ajax should have first proven the
execution of the original document and its loss or destruction. (Sec. 5
of Rule 130)
Party who calls for document not bound to present it
SEC. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.A party
who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is
not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)11
Parol Evidence Rule

SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements.When the terms of an
agreement (including wills) have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
11
If the party who calls for the production of a document does not offer the
same in evidence, no unfavourable inference may be drawn from such failure.
20

between the parties and their successors in interest12, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule
SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements.A party may present
evidence to Modify, Explain or Add13 to the terms of the written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
F
Failure of the written agreement to express the true

intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
Intrinsic ambiguity14, mistake or imperfection in the

written agreement;
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.
12
A total stranger to the writing is not bound by its terms and is allowed to
introduce extrinsic or parol evidence against the efficacy of the writing
13
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract,

it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless
there has been fraud or mistake. Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal
agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation
of a valid contract. [Ortanez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107372, 23 January
1997]
14
LATENT OR INTRINSIC AMBIGUITYOne where the writing upon its face

appears clear, but there is some collateral matter which may be raised by
extrinsic evidence making the meaning uncertain.
The exception obtains only where "the written contract is so ambiguous or

obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be
understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic
evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to
each other, and of the facts and circumstances surrounding them when they
entered into the contract may be received to enable the court to make a proper
interpretation of the instrument." [Seaoil Petroleum v. Autocorp Group, G.R.
No. 164326, 17 October 2008]
21

2001 Bar Q
Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of
money based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his
complaint, Pedro alleged that although the promissory note says
that it is payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is payable
immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may, upon
request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the note. During
the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that the agreement
between him and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety
days time. Also, since the original note was with Lucio and the latter
would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a
place about one days trip from where he received the notice to
produce the note and in spite of such notice to produce the same
within six hours from receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so.
Pedro presented a copy of the note which was executed at the
same time as the original and with identical contents. Over the
objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true
agreement or contents of the promissory note? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his
complaint that the promissory note does not express the true intent
and agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the parol
evidence rule. [Sec. 9(b) of Rule 130, Rules of Court]
22

Interpretation of documents
SEC. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning.
The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal
meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties
intended otherwise.(8)
SEC. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all
provisions.In the construction of an instrument where there are
several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to
be adopted as will give effect to all.(9)
SEC. 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular
provisions.In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the
parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular
provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a
particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with
it.(10)
SEC.13. Interpretation according to circumstances.For the proper
construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was
made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties
to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position
of those whose language he is to interpret.(11)
SEC. 14. Peculiar signification of terms.The terms of a writing are
presumed to have been used in their primary and general
acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a
local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used
and understood, in the particular instance, in which case the
agreement must be construed accordingly.(12)
SEC. 15. Written words control printed.When an instrument
consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the
two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter.(13)
SEC. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain
writings.When the characters in which an instrument is written are
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the
23

court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters,
or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the
characters or the meaning of the language.(14)
SEC. 17. Of two constructions, which preferred.When the terms of
an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different
parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he
supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of
a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is
the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision is
made.(15)
SEC. 18. Construction in favor of natural right.When an instrument
is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural
right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted.(16)
SEC. 19. Interpretation according to usage.An instrument may be
construed according to usage, in order to determine its true
character.(17)
24

Qualification of witnesses
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses.15
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case16, or
conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a
ground for disqualification.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for

examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known
their perception to others. [R130.21]17
2. Those who have been convicted of falsification of document, perjury or
false testimony are disqualified from being witnesses to a will
15
It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if
he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of
relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined.
The requirements then of a child's competency as a witness are the: (a) capacity of
observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. In
ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing
requirements, it is settled that the trial court is called upon to make such determination.
The decision of this question rests primarily with the trial judge, who sees the proposed
witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and may
resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as
well as his understanding of the obligations of an oath. As many of these matters cannot
be photographed into the record, the decision of the trial judge will not be disturbed on
review unless from that which is preserved it is clear that it was erroneous. [People v.
Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, 22 Feberiary 1996]
16
Interest in the outcome of the case, which also includes close relationship, is
not a ground to disqualify a witness.
17
Under the rules, 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 is included as an exception. To avoid confusion, no need to include this
in the enumeration. Note that under the Rule on Examination of Child Witnesses:
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
25

Sample problem
Considering the qualifications required of a would-be witness, who among the
following is INCOMPETENT to testify?
A. A person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked to testify
on took place.
B. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting witness to a
will.
C. A deaf and dumb.
D. A mental retardate.
ANSWER: B. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting
witness to a will.
NOTES: Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who
can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may
be witnesses. [R130.20] Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently
making known their perception to others. [R130.21] Those who have been
convicted of falsification of document, perjury or false testimony are
disqualified from being witnesses to a will
26

Disqualification by reason of marriage
SEC. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage.During their marriage18,
neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against19 the other
without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.(20a)
1989 Bar Q
Ody sued spouses Cesar and Baby for a sum of money and
damages. At the trial, Ody called Baby as his first witness. Baby objected,
joined by Cesar, on the ground that she may not be compelled to testify
against her husband. Ody insisted and contended that after all, she would
just be questioned about a conference they had with the barangay
captain, a matter which is not confidential in nature. The trial court ruled in
favor of Ody. Was the ruling proper? Will your answer be the same if the
matters to be testified on were known to Baby or acquired by her prior to
her marriage to Cesar? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Under the Rules on Evidence, a wife cannot
be examined for or against her husband without his consent, except in civil
cases by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other. Since the case was filed by Ody against the
spouses Cesar and Baby, Baby cannot be compelled to testify for or
against Cesar without his consent. (Lezama vs. Rodriguez, 23 SCRA
1166).
18
If the testimony for or against the other spouse is offered during the existence
of the marriage, it does not matter if the facts subject of the testimony occurred or came
to knowledge of the witness-spouse before the marriage.
19
TAKE NOTE OF THE FF:

1. The prohibition extends not only to testimony adverse to the spouse but also
to a testimony in favour of the spouse.
2. The disqualification is between husband and wife, but the rule does not
preclude the wife from testifying when it involves other parties or accused.
Hence, the wife could testify in the murder against the brothers who were
jointly tried with husbands of the witness.
27

The answer would be the same if the matters to be testified on were known
to Baby or acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar, because the
marital disqualification rule may be invoked with respect to testimony on
any fact. It is immaterial whether such matters were known to Baby
before or after her marriage to Cesar.
2000 Bar Q
Vida and Romeo are legally married. Romeo is charged to court with the
crime of serious physical injuries committed against Selmo, son of Vida,
step- son of Romeo. Vida witnessed the infliction of the injuries on Selmo
by Romeo. The public prosecutor called Vida to the witness stand and
offered her testimony as an eyewitness. Counsel for Romeo objected on
the ground of the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of Court.
1. Is the objection valid? (3%)
2. Will your answer be the same if Vidas testimony is offered in a civil
case for recovery of personal property filed by Selmo against
Romeo? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, one
exception is if the testimony of the spouse is in a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or the latters direct
descendants or ascendants. (Sec, 22, Rule 130). The case falls
under this exception because Selma is the direct descendant of the
spouse Vide.
No. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. The exception
provided by the rules is in a civil case by one spouse against the other. The
case here involves a case by Selmo for the recovery of personal property
against Vidas spouse, Romeo.
2006 Bar Q
Leticia was estranged from her husband Paul for more than a year due
to his suspicion that she was having an affair with Manuel their neighbor.
She was temporarily living with her sister in Pasig City. For unknown
reasons, the house of Leticia's sister was burned, killing the latter. Leticia
survived. She saw her husband in the vicinity during the incident. Later
28

he was charged with arson in Information filed with the Regional Trial
Court, Pasig City. During the trial, the prosecutor called Leticia to the
witness stand and offered her testimony to prove that her husband
committed arson. Can Leticia testify over the objection of her
husband on the ground of marital privilege? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Leticia cannot testify over the objection of
her husband, not under marital privilege which is inapplicable and
which can be waived, but she would be barred under Sec. 22 of Rule 130,
which prohibits her from testifying and which cannot be waived
(Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).
29

Marital privilege
SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.The
following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
following cases: The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage20,
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during the
marriage21 except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants;22
1998 Bar Q
C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife W for judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. In the
trial, the following testified over the objection of W: C, H and D, a doctor of
medicine who used to treat W. Rule on W's objections which are the
following: H cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital
privilege; [1%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in
the annulment case under Rule 36 of the Family Code because it is a civil
case filed by one against the other.
20
When the marital privileged communication rule applies, the spouse affected
by the disclosure of the information or testimony may object even after the dissolution
of the marriage.
21
Information received by a spouse before the marriage, even if received

confidentially, will not fall squarely with the provisions of R130.24(a); but divulging the
same may be objected under R130.22 upon proper objection as long as the information
sought is to be released during the marriage thru a testimony for or against the affected
spouse.
22
Where a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into the
hands of a third party, whether legally or not, without collusion and voluntary disclosure
on the part of either of the spouses, the privilege is thereby extinguished and the
communication, if otherwise comeptent, becomes admissible. [People v. Carlos, 1925]
30

Sample problem
X took part in a robbery. He admitted this to his wife in confidence. Subsequently,
their marriage was annulled. Xs wife testified in court and revealed Xs
admission to her.
A. The evidence of Xs wife is relevant, therefore, admissible in evidence
B. The evidence of Xs wife is both relevant and competent as the marriage
had already been terminated
C. The testimony of the wife is excluded by the rules
ANSWER: C. The testimony of the wife is excluded by the rules
NOTES: The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be
examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received
in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants [R130.24]
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants.[R130.22]
31

Dead mans statue; Survivorship disqualification
SEC. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party.
ELEMENTS FOR APPLICATION: [DEFENDANT-CLAIM-WITNESS]
the defendant23 in the case is the executor or
administrator or a representative of the deceased or the person of
unsound mind.24
2. CLAIM: the suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of
said deceased or person of unsound mind
3. WITNESS: the witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or a
person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted25
4. TIME SUBJECT OF TESTIMONY OCCURRED: the subject of the testimony is
as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound mind.
1.
DEFENDANT:
23
The rule will not apply where the plaintiff is the executor or administrator as
representative of the deceased or if the plaintiff is the person of unsound mind.
24
In the instant case, the testimony excluded by the appellate court is that of the
defendant (petitioner herein) to the affect that the late Juan Chuidian, (the father of
private respondent Vicente Chuidian, the administrator of the estate of Juan Chuidian)
and the defendant agreed in the lifetime of Juan Chuidian that the 1,500 shares of stock
in E. Razon, Inc. are actually owned by the defendant unless the deceased Juan
Chuidian opted to pay the same which never happened. The case was filed by
the administrator of the estate of the late Juan Chuidian to recover shares of stock in E.
Razon, Inc. allegedly owned by the late Juan T. Chuidian. It is clear, therefore, that the
testimony of the petitioner is not within the prohibition of the rule. The case was not
filed against the administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims against the
estate. [Razon v. IAC, G.R. No. 74306, 16 March 1992]
1. when a counterclaim is set-up by the administrator of the estate, the case is

removed from the operation of the dead mans statute.
2. since a claim or demand against the estate implies a claim adverse to the estate,
a testimony beneficial to such estate should not be excluded.
25
The rule is intended to be exclusive and does not prohibit a testimony by a

mere witness to the transaction between the plaintiff and the deceased who had no
interest in such transaction.
32

2001 Bar Q
Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the administrator of the estate of
deceased Juan, for the recovery of a car which is part of the latters estate.
During the trial, Maximo presented witness Mariano who testified that he
was present when Maximo and Juan agreed that the latter would pay a
rental of P20,000.00 for the use of Maximos car for one month after which
Juan should immediately return the car to Maximo. Pedro objected to the
admission of Marianos testimony. If you were the judge, would you sustain
Pedros objection? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the testimony is admissible in evidence
because witness Mariano who testified as to what Maximo and Juan, the
deceased person agreed upon, is not disqualified to testify on the
agreement. Those disqualified are parties or assignors of parties to a case,
or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against the administrator
or Juans estate, upon a claim or demand against his estate as to any
matter of fact occurring before Juans death. (Sec. 23 of Rule 130)
Sample problems
Which is NOT a requisite in order for the Dead Mans Statute to be applicable?
A. the witness is a party or an assignor of a party
B. the action is against an executor or administrator if an estate
C. the testimony should refer to any matter of fact which occurred after the
death of the deceased
D. the subject matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of
a deceased person
ANSWER: C. the testimony should refer to any matter of fact which occurred
after the death of the deceased
A statement made by Willard before he died to the effect that he owes Florenz a
sum of money, in a suit filed by Florenz against the estate of Willard, is:
A. admissible because it is a dying declaration
B. admissible because it is declaration against interest
33

C. inadmissible because it is hearsay
D. inadmissible because of the deadmans statute
ANSWER: D. inadmissible because of the deadmans statute
34

Lawyer-client privilege
SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. An
attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication26 made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in
the course of, or with a view to, professional employment27, nor can an
attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge
of which has been acquired in such capacity;28
Name of client
As a matter of public policy, a clients identity should not be shrouded in
mystery. Under this premise, the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as
in the United States is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse
to divulge the name or identity of his client. The reasons advanced for the
general rule are well established.
1. First, the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged
information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
26
21, CPRA lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his
client even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.
2. Where a person consults an attorney not as a lawyer but as a friend or
participant in a business transaction, the consultation would not be one made
in the course of professional employment or with a view to professional
employment.
1.
CANON
27
The privilege is extended to communications for the purpose of securing the

services of counsel even if the counsel later refuses the professional relationship.
28
A distinction must be made between confidential communications relating to

past crimes already committed and future crimes intented to be commited by the client.
If the client seeks his lawyers advice with respect to a crime that the former has
heretofore committed, he is given the protection of a virtual confessional seal which the
attorney-client privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney without the clients
consent. The same privileged confidentiality, however, does not attach with regard to a
crime which a client intends to commit thereafter or in the future and for purposes of
which he seeks the lawyers advice. [People v. Sandiganbayan, 1997]
35

2. Second, the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client
relationship has been established. The attorney-client privilege does
not attach until there is a client.
3. Third, the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the
relationship.
4. Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing party
should, as a general rule, know his adversary. A party suing or sued
is entitled to know who his opponent is. He cannot be obliged to
grope in the dark against unknown forces.
Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule is however qualified
by some important exceptions.
1. Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the clients name would implicate that client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyers advice.
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is
privileged.
3. Where the governments lawyers have no case against an attorneys
client unless, by revealing the clients name, the said name would
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary
to convict an individual of a crime, the clients name is privileged.
Apart from these principal exceptions, there exist other situations which
could qualify as exceptions to the general rule. For example, the content of
any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant
to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal
assistance. Moreover, where the nature of the attorney-client relationship
has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be
confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since
such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure of the entire
transaction.
Summarizing these exceptions, information relating to the identity of a
client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the clients name
itself has an independent significance, such that disclosure would
then reveal client confidences.
The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at
bench, therefore, clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least two
36

exceptions to the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged client's name
would lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of
the case, which is privileged information, because the privilege, as stated
earlier, protects the subject matter or the substance (without which there
would be no attorney-client relationship). Furthermore, under the third main
exception, revelation of the client's name would obviously provide the
necessary link for the prosecution to build its case, where none otherwise
exists. [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, 20 September 1996]
Physician-patient privilege
SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. A
person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics29 cannot in a
civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to the
following:
1. advice given to patient
2. treatment given to patient
3. any information acquired in attending to such patient
made under the following circumstances:
1. made or acquired in a professional capacity
2. information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity
3. information would blacken the reputation of the patient
1998 Bar Q
29
In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient's
husband who wishes to testify on a document executed by medical practitioners. Plainly
and clearly, this does not fall within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his testimony be
considered a circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the
force and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the patient and
executed the report. [Krohn v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108854, 14 June 1994]
37

following: D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged
communication between patient and physician. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is
disqualified to testify against W over her objection as to any advice or
treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired
in his professional capacity. (Sec. 24 [c], Rule 130. Rules of Court.)
38

Priest-penitent privilege
minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the
confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given
by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by
the church to which the minister or priest belongs;
Public officer
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. (21a)30
Parental privilege and filial privilege
SEC. 25. Parental and filial privilege.No person may be compelled to
testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants.(20a)
ART.
215, FAMILY CODENo descendant shall be compelled in a criminal

case to testify against his parents and grandparent, except when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime, against the descendant or by one
parent against the other.
30
But this privilege, as this Court notes, is intended not for the protection of public
officers but for the protection of public interest (Vogel vs. Gruaz 110 U.S. 311 cited in
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 Ed. Vol. 5, p. 211). Where there is no
public interest that would be prejudiced, this invoked rule will not be applicable.
The rule that a public officer cannot be examined as to communications made to him in
official confidence does not apply when there is nothing to show that the public interest
would suffer by the disclosure question. ... ,( Agnew vs. Agnew,'52 SD 472, cited in
Martin Rules of Court of the Philippines, Third Edition, Vol. 5, p. 199). [Banco Filipino
v. Monetary Board, G.R. No. 70054, 8 July 1986]
39

1998 Bar Q
following: C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine on parental
privilege; and [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The doctrine of parental privilege cannot
likewise be invoked by W as against the testimony of C, their child. C may
not be compelled to testify but is free to testify against her. (Sec. 25. Rule
130. Rules of Court; Art. 215, Family Code.)
40

Admissions
SEC. 26. Admissions of a party.The act, declaration or omission of a
party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.(22)
Offer of compromise
CIVIL CASES
CRIMINAL CASES
not an admission of any liability
implied admission of guilt31
not admissible in evidence against the

offeror
may be received in evidence as an implied

admission of guilt.
Offer to pay or the payment of medical,

hospital, or other expenses occasioned by
an injury is not admissible as proof of civil
liability for the injury
EXCEPTIONS:
1. those
involving
quasi-offenses
(criminal negligence)
2. those allowed by law to be
compromised
3. offer to pay or the payment of
medical, hospital, or other expenses
occasioned by an injury is not
admissible as proof of criminal liability
for the injury
1998 Bar Q
A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of the following
31
1. To be an implied admission of guilt, the offer must be an offer of compromise by

the accused (or his representative) .
2. An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first held before
the offer can be received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is that
after committing the crime, the accused or his representative makes an offer to
compromise and such offer is proved. [People v. Yparriguere, 1997]
3. It has long been held, however, that in such cases the accused is permitted to show
that the offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the
inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which could justify a claim
by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth an admission of guilt or
an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom.
Also, it has been held that where the accused was not present at the time the offer
for monetary consideration was made (or where the accused did not take part in any
of the negotiations and the effort to settle the case), such offer would not save the
day for the prosectution. xxx. [People v. Godoy, 1997]
41

pieces of evidence: an offer of A to marry X [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as
an Implied admission of guilt because rape cases are not allowed to be
compromised. (Sec. 27 of Rule 13O; People vs. Domingo, 226 SCRA
156.)
1997 Bar Q
A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the hospital and offered to
pay for his hospitalization expenses after the filing of the criminal case
against A for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. The
offer was rejected because B considered the amount offered as
inadequate. Is the offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B
admissible in evidence?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The offer by A to pay the hospitalization
expenses of B is not admissible in evidence to prove his guilt in both the
civil and criminal cases. (Rule 130, Sec. 27, fourth par.).
Sample problem
An offer to pay for the payment of medical, hospital and other expenses
occasioned by an injury:
A.
B.
C.
D.
is admissible as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury

is not admissible as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury
is admissible as proof of liability only in civil cases
is admissible as proof of liability only in criminal cases
ANSWER: B. is not admissible as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury
Plea of guilt
SEC. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. A plea of guilty later
withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is
not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
42
43

Res inter alios acta (type 1)
SEC. 28. Admission by third party.The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.(25a)32
EXCEPTIONS
CO-PARTNER/
AGENT33
The act or declaration:

1. is within the scope of authority;
2. and during the existence of the
partnership or agency.
3. The partnership is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration
CONSPIRATOR

1. relates to the conspiracy
2. was made during the existence of the
conspiracy
3. The conspiracy is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration
PRIVIES

1. was made by a person while holding title
to property
2. was in relation to the property
3. The statement may be received in
evidence against one who derives title to
property from said person.
32
The res inter alios acta rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An extrajudicial confession is binding
only upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused. The
reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's
own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct
and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly
unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a
party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct
be used as evidence against him.
33
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested with the party.(26a)
44

Sample problem 1
Henry testified that a month after the robbery Asiong, one of the accused,
told him that Carlos was one of those who committed the crime with him. Is
Henrys testimony regarding what Asiong told him admissible in evidence
against Carlos?
A.
B.
C.
D.
No, since it is hearsay.

No, since Asiong did not make the statement during the conspiracy.
Yes, since it constitutes admission against a co-conspirator.
Yes, since it part of the res gestae.
ANSWER: B. No, since Asiong did not make the statement during the
conspiracy.
Admission by silence
SEC. 32. Admission by silence.REQUISITES:
1. there is an act or declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a party
2. the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or
comment if not true, and when proper
3. the said party does or says nothing, even if possible for him to do so34
34
Petitioner argues that by not responding to the above letter which expressly urged
them to reply if the statements therein contained are untrue, respondents in effect
admitted the matters stated therein, pursuant to the rule on admission by silence in Sec.
32, Rule 130, and the disputable presumption that acquiescence resulted from a belief
that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. Petitioners argument
lacks merit. One cannot prove his claim by placing the burden of proof on the other
party. Indeed, "(a) man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing
the statements that he wishes to prove. He does not make the letter evidence by
sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts [stated therein]. He no
more can impose a duty to answer a charge than he can impose a duty to pay by
sending goods. Therefore a failure to answer such adverse assertions in the absence of
further circumstances making an answer requisite or natural has no effect as an
admission."
Moreover, the rule on admission by silence applies to adverse statements in writing if
the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant. However, if there
was no such mutual correspondence, the rule is relaxed on the theory that while the
party would have immediately reacted by a denial if the statements were orally made in
45

Confession
SEC. 33. Confession.The declaration of an accused acknowledging his
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein,
may be given in evidence against him.(29a)
TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES:
The custodial interrogation of accused-appellant was violative of Section 12, Article

III of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that "Any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this section or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible
against him." Section 17, Article III provides: "No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself." Any confession, including a re-enactment without
admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the
accused is inadmissible in evidence. [People v. Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959, 14
November 1996]
At the outset, the Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well
as on the plastic bags containing shabu, are inadmissible in evidence. A careful
study of the records reveals that accused were never informed of their fundamental
rights during the entire time that they were under investigation. Specifically, accused
were not informed of their Miranda rights i.e. that they had the right to remain silent
and to counsel and any statement they might make could be used against them,
when they were made to affix their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while
they were at the NAIA and again, on the plastic bags when they were already taken
in custody at Camp Crame. By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen
Cereals and on the plastic bags, accused in effect made a tacit admission of the
crime charged for mere possession of shabu is punished by law. These signatures
of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not
sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section 12 [1][3], Article III, 1987
Constitution). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission
wrung from the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible
against them. [People v. Wong Chuen Ming, G.R. Nos. 112801-11, 12 April 1996]
his presence, such prompt response can generally not be expected if the party still has
to resort to a written reply. In the same manner, we also cannot assume an admission
by silence on the part of Balaguer by virtue of his failure to protest or disclaim the
attribution to him by the newspapers that he is the source of the articles. As explained
above, the rule on admission by silence is relaxed when the statement is not made
orally in ones presence or when one still has to resort to a written reply, or when there
is no mutual correspondence between the parties. [Villanueva v. Balaguer, G.R. No.
180197, 23 June 2009]
46

Whether or not accused Alemans extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.
Confession to be admissible must be
1. voluntary;
2. made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel
3. express; and
4. in writing.
47
RULES ON EVIDENCE (2)
PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
Previous conduct as evidence (Res inter alios acta type 2) ............................................... 4

Character evidence............................................................................................................................... 6
Character evidence in child abuse cases ................................................................................... 7
Unaccepted offer ................................................................................................................................... 9
HEARSAY
Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge ......................................................... 9

Hearsay ....................................................................................................................................................10
Dying declaration ................................................................................................................................10
Declaration against interest ............................................................................................................14
Act or declaration about pedigree ...............................................................................................16
Family reputation ................................................................................................................................17
Common reputation ...........................................................................................................................17
Res gestae ..............................................................................................................................................17
Entries in the course of business ................................................................................................19
Entries in official records.................................................................................................................20
Commercial lists ..................................................................................................................................21
Learned treatises .................................................................................................................................21
Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding ..................................................................21
Child hearsay exception ...................................................................................................................22
OPINION
Opinion rule ...........................................................................................................................................23

BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
Burden of proof and presumptions .............................................................................................26

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
How examination to be done ..........................................................................................................31

Recording of proceedings ...............................................................................................................31
Rights and obligations of a witness ............................................................................................31
Order of examination .........................................................................................................................33
Direct examination ..............................................................................................................................33
Cross examination ..............................................................................................................................33
Re-direct examination .......................................................................................................................34
Re-cross examination........................................................................................................................34
Recalling witnesses ...........................................................................................................................35
Leading questions ..............................................................................................................................36
Impeachment of witness ..................................................................................................................37
Party may not impeach own witness ..........................................................................................37

Hostile witness .....................................................................................................................................37
How to impeach hostile witness ...................................................................................................38
Good character evidence .................................................................................................................38
Exclusion of other witnesses .........................................................................................................38
Reference to memorandum ............................................................................................................39
Part of transaction, writing, record given in evidence ........................................................39
Right to inspect writing shown to witness ...............................................................................40
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Classes of documents.......................................................................................................................41
Public documents as evidence ..................................................................................................... 42
Irremovability of public record ......................................................................................................42
Proof of public documents ..............................................................................................................43
Proof of lack of record ......................................................................................................................44
Impeachment of judicial record..................................................................................................... 45
Proof of private documents ............................................................................................................45
Ancient documents ............................................................................................................................45
Genuineness of handwriting ..........................................................................................................46
Alterations ..............................................................................................................................................46
Documents in an unofficial language .........................................................................................47
Proof of private electronic document .........................................................................................47
OFFER AND OBJECTION
Offer of evidence .................................................................................................................................48

When to make offer ............................................................................................................................48
Objection .................................................................................................................................................48
Continuing objection .........................................................................................................................49
Ruling ....................................................................................................................................................... 49
Striking out answer ............................................................................................................................49
Tender of excluded evidence .........................................................................................................49
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Preponderance of evidence ............................................................................................................51

Proof beyond reasonable doubt ...................................................................................................51
Extrajudicial confession ...................................................................................................................51
Corpus delicti ........................................................................................................................................51
Circumstantial evidence ...................................................................................................................52
Substantial evidence..........................................................................................................................52
Preponderance of evidence ............................................................................................................52
Evidence on motion ...........................................................................................................................52
RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY VSF2012

Previous conduct as evidence (Res inter alios acta type 2)
SEC. 34. Similar acts as evidence.1Evidence that one did or did
not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he
did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it
may be received to prove a
Specific intent
Knowledge
Identity
Plan
Custom
Usage
Scheme
Habit
Rule for witnesses: [R132.11]:

1. A witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts;
2. But it may be shown that he was previously convicted of an offense.

Sample question 1
Ben testified that Jaime, charged with robbery, has committed bagsnatching three times on the same street in the last six months. Can the
court admit this testimony as evidence against Jaime?
A. No, since there is no showing that Ben witnessed the past three
robberies.
B. Yes, as evidence of his past propensity for committing robbery.
C. Yes, as evidence of a pattern of criminal behavior proving his guilt of
the present offense.
D. No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt of
a present crime.
ANSWER: D. No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence
of guilt of a present crime.
X is arrested for carjacking. An informaton is subsequently filed against
him. The prosecution sought to introduce the fact that X has two other
pending cases for carjacking against him and one pending case for estafa.
X objects to the admission of these other pending cases. The court should:
A. admit these because they tend to show the criminal disposition of X
B. admit only the fact of the two other carjacking cases since te Estafa
case does not prove Xs predisposition to carnapping
C. reject the other pending cases for being irrelevant
D. reject the other pending ases for being hearsay
NOTES: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is
not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar
thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and
the like. [R130.34]

Character evidence
SEC.51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:
CRIMINAL CASES
ACCUSED
OFFENDED PARTY
may prove his good moral

character which is pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the
offense charged
The good or bad moral

character of the offended party
may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable
degree the probability or
improbability of the offense
charged.
Unless
in
rebuttal,
the
prosecution may not prove his
bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait
involved
in
the
offense
charged2.
CIVIL CASES The good or bad moral character of the offended party may
be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability

or improbability of the offense charged.
The claim that the trial court also erred in not allowing the defense to prove
that the deceased had a violent, quarrelsome, or provocative character cannot
also deserve consideration. While good or bad moral character may be availed of
as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an
offense, such is not necessary in the crime of murder where the killing is
committed through treachery or premeditation. The proof of such character may
only be allowed in homicide cases to show that it has produced a reasonable
belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction
that a prompt defensive action was necessary. [People v. Soliman, 1957]

RULE ON WITNESSES
ORDINARY
UNWILLING , HOSTILE, ADVERSE PARTY
Evidence of the good moral character of

a witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached
A witness may be impeached by the
party against whom he was called:
1. by contradictory evidence
2. by evidence that his general
reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity is bad, or
3. by evidence that he has made at
other times statements inconsistent
with his present testimony
The unwilling or hostile witness so

declared or the witness who is an adverse
party may be impeached by the party
presenting him in all respects as if he
had been called by the adverse part,
except by evidence of his bad character
but not by evidence of particular

wrongful acts, except that it may be
shown by the examination of the witness,
or the record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense. [R132.11]
2002 Bar Q
D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V to death
with an iron pipe. May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had
a good reputation for peacefulness and non- violence? Why? (2%)
May D introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V? Why? (3%)
Character evidence in child abuse cases
The following are inadmissible:
1. evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in
other sexual behaviour
2. evidence to prove the sexual predisposition of the victim
EXCEPTIONEvidence
of specific instances of sexual behaviour by the

alleged victim is admissible to prove that a person other than the
accused was the source of semen, injury or other physical evidence.

Sample question 1
Which of the following is NOT correct? A party against whom a
witness testified may impeach the latter by:
A. contradictory evidence
B. evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty or
integrity is bad
C. evidence that he has made at other time statements
inconsistent with his present testimony
D. evidence of particular wrongful acts committed by the witness
ANSWER: D. evidence of particular wrongful acts committed by the
witness
NOTES: A witness may be impeached by the party against whom
he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his
general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by
evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent
with his present testimony, but not by evidence of particular
wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of
the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been
convicted of an offense. [R132.11]
A witness may be impeached by evidence of:

A. his bad moral character
B. his bad reputation
C. his propensity to lie
An adverse partys witness may NOT be impeached by:

A. evidence that in the community where he resides, his general
reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad
B. a prior inconsistent statement
C. particular instances of immoral or wrongful acts, or improper or
unlawful conduct that the witness may have committed
D. evidence of a prior conviction of an offense which may be proved by

eliciting an admission from the witness or by a record of his
conviction
ANSWER: C. particular instances of immoral or wrongful acts, or
improper or unlawful conduct that the witness may have committed
NOTES: The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who
is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in
all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by
evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and crossexamined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only
be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. [R132.12]
Impeachment of adverse party's witness (not adverse party
witness): A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he
was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general
reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it
may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the
judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense. [R132.11]
Unaccepted offer
SEC. 35. Unaccepted offer.An offer in writing to pay a particular
sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal
property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual
production and tender of the money, instrument, or property.(49a)
Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge
SEC. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge;
hearsay excluded.A witness can testify only to those facts which
he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from
his own perception3, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
(30a)
While the testimony of a witness regarding the statement made by another

person, if intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted in the statement, is
clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in

Hearsay
ELEMENTS
1. out-of-court statement; not made by the declarant in the hearing

or trial
2. out-of-court statement is repeated and offered by a witness in
court to prove the truth of the matters asserted by the
statement.
Evidence is hearsay when its probative value depends, in

whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of some
persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce
it.
If the affiants of affidavits do not take the witness stand to affirm
their averments in their affidavits, such affidavits must be
excluded from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible
hearsay.
Dying declaration
SEC. 37. Dying declaration.The declaration of a dying person4,
made under the consciousness of an impending death5, may be
received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death.(31a) [1998 BAR Q]
1999 Bar Q
The accused was charged with robbery and homicide. The victim
the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the
tenor of such statement. [People v. Gaddi, 1998]
4
The declarant should be competent as a witness had s/he survived.

[People v. Macandog, 2001]
5
True, Payla made no express statement showing that he was conscious

of his impending death. The law, however, does not require the declarant to state
explicitly a perception of the inevitability of death. The foreboding may be
gleaned from surrounding circumstances. [People v. Latayda, 2004]

suffered several stab wounds. It appears that eleven (11) hours
after the crime, while the victim was being brought to the hospital
in a jeep, with his brother and a policeman as companions, the
victim was asked certain questions which he answered, pointing to
the accused as his assailant. His answers were put down in writing,
but since he was a in a critical condition, his brother and the
policeman signed the statement. Is the statement admissible as a
dying declaration? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. The statement is admissible as
a dying declaration if the victim subsequently died and his answers
were made under the consciousness of impending death (Sec. 37 of
Rule 130). The fact that he did not sign the statement point to the
accused as his assailant, because he was in critical condition, does
not affect its admissibility as a dying declaration. A dying
declaration need not be in writing (People v. Viovicente, 286 SCRA
1)
Sample problems
Which of the following is NOT a requisite for the admissibility of a
dying declaration?
A. The declaration relates to the facts or circumstances pertaining
to the fatal injury or death
B. The declarant is dead
C. The declaration is made in connection with a startling
occurrence
D. The declarant would have been competent to testify had he
survived.
ANSWER: C. The declaration is made in connection with a startling
occurrence
A dying declaration:
A. is admissible only in criminal cases wherein the death of the
declarant is the subject of the inquiry, as evidence of the cause

and surrounding circumstances of such death
B. is admissible in civil and criminal cases wherein the death of
the declarant is the subject of the inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death
C. is admissible in any case wherein the death of the declarant is
the subject of the inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death
D. is not admissible in any case brought for being hearsay
ANSWER: C. is admissible in any case wherein the death of the
declarant is the subject of the inquiry, as evidence of the cause
and surrounding circumstances of such death
NOTES: The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any
case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. [R130.37]
The declarant should be competent as a witness had s/he
survived. [People v. Macandog, 2001] The law, however, does
not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of the
inevitability of death. The foreboding may be gleaned from
surrounding circumstances. [People v. Latayda, 2004]
X is shot in the leg. In his mind, he believes that he will die. Thus,
when the police arrive a few minutes after the shooting, he tells the
police, I am in serious condition. I beg you to arrest Y. He shot me.
An Information for homicide is filed against Y. Two weeks later, X
gets run over by a train and dies. During trial, the prosecution calls
the police officer who arrived at the scene of the shooting and offers
to prove Xs statement thru the police officer. Counsel for Y objects.
The court should:
A. deny the police officers testimony on the ground that it is
hearsay and consequently Y will not be able to cross-examine
the declarant X
B. admit the police officers testimony on the ground that Y made
his declaration under consciousness of impending death

C. admit the police officers testimony on the ground that the while
the leg wound was not serious, Ys declaration is nevertheless
admissible since admissibility and weight of evidence are
different issues
D. deny the police officers testimony on the ground that the leg
wound is not serious
NOTES: A dying declaration is admissible as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of the death of the
declarant, not merely the cause of his injuries. Also, a dying
declaration is offered in evidence in any case wherein his death
is the subject of inquiry.
Y asked X, who was dying and bloodied, with a knife still planted on
his back, if he (X) was the one who killed Z. X said no and pointed to
B as the killer. X died.
A. Xs statement is admissible as a dying declaration in a
prosecution against B for the death of Z
B. Xs statement is not admissible as a dying declaration in the
prosecution against B for the death of Z
C. Xs statement is admissible as part of res gestae
ANSWER: B. Xs statement is not admissible as a dying declaration
in the prosecution against B for the death of Z
NOTES: Out-of-court statement was not about the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the declarants death.

Declaration against interest
SEC. 38. Declaration against interest.6The declaration made by a
person deceased, 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, that a reasonable
man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or
his successors in interest and against third persons.(32a)
Sample problem
A guy casually strolling in the park was suddenly clubbed by a man
from behind. The hapless guys head was split open by the blow. An
elderly lady who witnessed the event let out a high-pitched streak and
screamed I owe my neighbor money. Which of the following is true?
A. The declaration is a dying declaration if the elderly lady, who
turns out to be inflicted with cancer, subsequently suffers from a
heart attack and dies.
B. The declaration would be inadmissible as proof of the elderly
womans liability to her neighbor if presented by a witness other
than the elderly woman.
C. The declaration is part of the res gestae since it was made
under the stress of excitement of the startling event.
6
While he explicitly declared that the subject property belonged to Quintin,

at the same time he was remarkably silent about his claim that he acquired onehalf thereof during the lifetime of Quintin. He asserted his claim to the subject
property quite belatedly. Thus, the statement and the accompanying silence may
be appreciated in more than one context. It is a declaration against interest and a
judicial admission combined. [Heirs of Miguel Franco v. Court of Appeals,
2003]
Furthermore, Sembranos testimony on behalf of petitioners is about an alleged
declaration against interest of a person who is dead in an action that is in effect a
claim against the estate. Such a testimony, if coming from a party would be
barred by the surviving parties rule, or the dead mans statute, in the Rules of
Court. [Hko Ah Pao v. Ting, 2006]

D. The declaration is admissible as a declaration against interest if
the elderly woman subsequently suffers from a heart attack and
dies.
ANSWER: D. The declaration is admissible as a declaration against
interest if the elderly woman subsequently suffers from a heart
attack and dies.
NOTES: The out-of-court statement is not part of res gestae as it
does not relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence
(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 is not a dying declaration as it was not made under the
consciousness of an impending death.
The declaration made by a person deceased, 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, that a reasonable man in his position
would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be
true, may be received in evidence against himself or his
successors in interest and against third persons. [R130.38]
Which of the following is NOT REQUIRED of a declaration against

interest as an exception to the hearsay rule?
A. The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such
declaration to be true.
B. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
C. The declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the
declarant.
D. At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that the
same was contrary to his aforesaid interest.
ANSWER: D. At the time he made said declaration he was unaware
that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest.

NOTES: The declaration made by a person deceased, 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, that a reasonable man in his position would not have
made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be
received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and
against third persons. [R130.38]
Act or declaration about pedigree

SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree7.
1. the declarant is dead or unable to testify
2. the declarant is related to the person whose pedigree8 is the
subject of the inquiry by birth or marriage
3. such relationship is shown by evidence other than the
declaration
4. the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only
before the commencement of the suit involving the subject
matter of the declaration, but before any controversy has
arisen.
Sample problem
For pedigree evidence to be admissible:
A.
B.
C.
D.
it is essential that the declarant is deceased or unable to testify

it is not essential that the declarant is deceased or unable to testify
it is essential only that the decalarant is deceased
it is essential only that the declarant is unable to testify
7
EXAMPLE: A declaration made by Jose, already dead, prior to his death

and prior to any controversy that Juan is his illegitimate son, is a declaration
about pedigree.
8
The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,

marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and
the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.

ANSWER: A. it is essential that the declarant is deceased or unable to
testify
Family reputation
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. The
reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy,
in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be
received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a
member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries
in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on rings,
family portraits and the like,9 may be received as evidence of
pedigree.(34a)
Common reputation
SEC. 41. Common reputation.Common reputation existing
previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general
interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or moral
character, may be given in evidence, Monuments and inscriptions in
public places may be received as evidence of common
reputation.(35)
Res gestae
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 part of the res
gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material
9
Private letters and notes do not fall under the phrase and the like.In light of the
rule of esjudem genris, the enumeration contained in the second portion of the
provision is limited to objects which are commonly known as family
possessions, or those articles which represent, in effect, a familys statement of
its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been described as objects
openly exhibited and well known to the family, or those which, if preserved in a
family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition.[Jison v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 124583, 1998]

to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as
part of the res gestae.(36a)
Sample problems
To prove that Susan stabbed her husband Elmer, Rico testified that
he heard Leon running down the street, shouting excitedly,
Sinasaksak daw ni Susan ang asawa niya! (I heard that Susan is
stabbing her husband!) Is Leon's statement as narrated by Rico
admissible?
A. No, since the startling event had passed.
B. Yes, as part of the res gestae.
C. No, since the excited statement is itself hearsay.
D. Yes, as an independently relevant statement.
ANSWER:C. No, since the excited statement is itself hearsay.
To prove payment of a debt, Bong testified that he heard Ambo say,

as the latter was handing over money to Tessie, that it was in
payment of debt. Is Bongs testimony admissible in evidence?
A. Yes, since what Ambo said and did is an independently
relevant statement.
B. No, since what Ambo said and did was not in response to a
startling occurrence.
C. No, since Bongs testimony of what Ambo said and did is
hearsay.
D. Yes, since Ambos statement and action, subject of Bongs
testimony, constitutes a verbal act.
ANSWER: D. Yes, since Ambos statement and action, subject of
Bongs testimony, constitutes a verbal act.
NOTES: So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be
received as part of the res gestae. [R130.42]

Entries in the course of business
SEC. 43. Entries in the course of business.ELEMENTS
1. Entries were made at or near the time of the transactions
referred to
2. Such entries were made in the regular course of business
3. The person making the entries was in a position to know10 the
facts stated in the entries
4. The person making the entries did so in his professional
capacity, or in preference of duty and in the regular course of
business
5. The person making the entry is now dead or unable to testify
RULE 8, Rules on Electronic EvidenceA memorandum, report,
record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other similar means
1. at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of
information
2. by a person with knowledge thereof, and
3. kept in the regular course or conduct of a business
activity, and
4. such was the regular practice to make the memorandum,
report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or
similar means,
5. all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian
or other qualified witnesses,
is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence
10
Section 43, Rule 130 does not apply to this case because it does not
involve entries made in the course of business. Furthermore, Rayos testified on a
statement of account she prepared on the basis of invoices and delivery orders
which she, however, knew nothing about. She had no personal knowledge of the
facts on which the accounts were based since, admittedly, she was not involved
in the delivery of goods and was merely in charge of the records and documents
of all accounts receivable as part of her duties as credit and collection manager.
[Nestle Phil. V. FY Sons, 2006]

Sample problem
The plaintiff wants to introduce an entry made by one his delivery men in a
receipt to prove that he was able to deliver 100 TV sets to the defendant.
The delivery man is already dead. Which of the following is true?
A.
B.
C.
D.
The entry is hearsay, but admissible.

The entry is not hearsay, hence admissible.
The entry is hearsay, hence not admissible.
The entry is not hearsay, but inadmissible.
ANSWER: A. The entry is hearsay, but admissible.
NOTES: Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to

which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who
was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received
as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his
professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the
ordinary or regular course of business or duty. [R130.43]
Entries in official records
SEC. 44. Entries in official records.
1. the entry was made by a public officer, or by another person
specially enjoined to do so
2. it was made by the public officer in the performance of his
duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law
3. the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of
the facts stated by him, which must have been acquired by him
personally or through official information.
Entries in official records are only prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. They are not conclusive. [People v. Gabriel, 1996]

Commercial lists
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in
an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other
published compilations admissible as tending to prove the truth of any
relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by
persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied
upon by them therein.(39)
Learned treatises
SEC. 46. Learned treatises.A published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes
judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the
writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.(40a)
Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
SEC. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.
1. The witness is dead or unable to testify11
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties
or those representing the same interests
3. The former case involved the same subject matter as that in the
present case, although on different causes of action
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the
same issue involved in the present case
5. The adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine him.
11
The exception does not apply in this case. The witnesses are not dead.
They are not outside the Philippines. Here, the witnesses in question are
available. Only, they refused to testify. [Tan v. Court of Appeals, 1967]

Child hearsay exception
SEC. 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. A statement
made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse,
not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in
evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the
following rules:
1. Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent
shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer
such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair
opportunity to object.
2. If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the
adverse party, require the child to be present at the
presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by
the adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of
such circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
3. In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the
court shall consider the time, content and circumstances
thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability.

Opinion rule
SEC. 48. General rule.The opinion of a witness is not admissible.
EXCEPTIONS:
1.
SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness.The

opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may
be received in evidence.(43a)12
2.
IHMI: SEC.
EXPERT WITNESS:
50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses.The opinion of a

witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding:
12
Identity of a person
whom he
knowledge
has
adequate
Handwriting
with which he has sufficient

familiarity
Mental sanity of a
person
with whom he is sufficiently

acquainted
witness may also

testify on his
Impressions of the
emotion, behavior,
condition or
appearance of a
person.
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. They are generally

regarded as purely advisory in character. [Bacalso v. Padigos]

1994 Bar Q
At Nolans trial for possession and use of the prohibited drug,
known as shabu:, his girlfriend Kim, testified that on a particular
day, he would see Nolan very prim and proper, alert and sharp, but
that three days after, he would appear haggard, tired and overly
nervous at the slightest sound he would hear. Nolan objects to the
admissibility of Kims testimony on the ground that Kim merely
stated her opinion without having been first qualified as expert
witness. Should you, as judge, exclude the testimony of Kim?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The testimony of Kim should not be
excluded. Even though Kim is not an expert witness, Kim may testify
on her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person. (Sec. 50, last par., Rule 130).
Sample problem
In a case, the prosecutor asked the medical expert the question,
Assuming that the assailant was behind the deceased before he attacked
him, would you say that treachery attended the killing? Is this hypothetical
question permissible?
A. No, since it asks for his legal opinion.
B. Yes, but conditionally, subject to subsequent proof that the
assailant was indeed behind the deceased at that time.
C. Yes, since hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert
witness.
D. No, since the medical expert has no personal knowledge of the fact.
ANSWER: A. No, since it asks for his legal opinion.

The testimony of a lay witness that the accused appeared nervous:
A.
B.
C.
D.
is inadmissible for being an opinion of an ordinary witness

is admissible under the rule on impression testimony
is admissible as an exception to the opinion rule
is inadmissible under any rule of evidence
ANSWER: B. is admissible under the rule on impression testimony
RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

Burden of proof and presumptions
SECTION 1. Burden of proof.Burden of proof is the duty of a party
to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.13(1a, 2a)
[2004 BAR Q]
SEC. 2. Conclusive presumptions.The following are instances of
conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a
particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it:
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them.(3a)
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions.The following presumptions
are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act;
(d) That a person take ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later ones is produced;
13
Burden of evidence: Duty of a party to go forward with evidence to

overthrow any prima facie presumption against him.
EVIDENCE 26

(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for
the payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid
the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly
appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of
jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were
laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner
that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for
arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by
them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration;
(t) That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was
made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where
the instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
regular course of the mail;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for
all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose
of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he
disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of
five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be
opened.
EVIDENCE 27

The following shall be considered dead for all purposes
including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage,
or an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of
for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in
armed hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under
other circumstances and whose existence has not been
known for four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four
consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a
subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief
that the absent spouse is already dead. In case of
disappearance, where there is danger of death
under the circumstances
hereinabove
provided
an
absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose
of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any
case, before marrying again, the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Family
Code and in the rules for a declaration of presumptive death
of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary
course of nature and the ordinary habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a
contract of copartnership;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and woman who are
capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with
each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or
under a void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman
who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have
acquired property through their actual joint contribution of money,
property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding
EVIDENCE 28

shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit
are equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother
contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such
termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the
absence of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to
have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it
be born within three hundred days after the termination of
the former marriage;
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days follow ing
the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to
have been conceived during such marriage, even though it
be born within the three hundred days after the termination
of the former marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as
is usual with things of that nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be
printed or published by public authority, was so printed or
published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to contain
reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the
book is published, contains correct reports of such cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to
convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed
it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of
such person or his successor in interest;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two
persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the
strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is
deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is
deemed to have survived;
EVIDENCE 29

3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the
former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be
different, the male is deemed to have survived; if the sex be
the same, the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other
between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more
persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of
them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the
other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be
considered to have died at the same time.(5a)
SEC. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy.There is no
presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three
hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the
separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation.(6)
EVIDENCE 30
RULE 132: PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

How examination to be done
SECTION 1. Examination to be done in open court. The
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done
1. in open court
2. under oath or affirmation
3. unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question
calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the
witness shall be given orally.
Recording of proceedings
SEC. 2. Proceedings to be recorded.The entire proceedings of a
trial or hearing, including the questions propounded to a witness and
his answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the
parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall be
recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of
recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official
stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him
shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such
proceedings.(2a)
Rights and obligations of a witness
SEC. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness.A witness must
answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim
against him. However, it is the right of a witness:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to
the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a
penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
EVIDENCE 31

5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact
from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense.
Sample problem 1
Which of the following is false?
A. A witness may refuse to answer a question on the ground that his
answer may tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense.
B. A witness may not refuse to answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense.
C. A witness may refuse to answer a question on the ground that his
answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
D. A witness may not refuse to answer a question which requires an
answer that will tend to degrade his reputation if it is the very fact in
issue.
ANSWER: C .A witness may refuse to answer a question on the ground
that his answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
NOTES: Rights and obligations of a witness [R132.3.A witness must
answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim
against him. However, it is the right of a witness:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions,
and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the
issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty
for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation,
unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the
fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to
the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense.(3a, 19a)
R132.11 except that it may be shown by the examination of the
witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense.
EVIDENCE 32

Order of examination
SEC. 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. The
order in which an individual witness may be examined is as follows:
a. Direct examination by the proponent
b. Cross-examination by the opponent
c. Re-direct examination by the proponent
d. Re-cross-examination by the opponent
Direct examination
SEC. 5. Direct examination.Direct examination is the examinationin-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant
to the issue.(5a)
Cross examination
SEC. 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent.Upon the
termination of the direct examination, the witness may be crossexamined 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 important facts bearing
upon the issue.(8a)
Exceptions:
1. The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who
is an adverse party may also be impeached and crossexamined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination
must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief.
[R132.12]
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to
testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to crossexamination on matters covered by direct examination.
[R115.1d]
EVIDENCE 33

Sample problem1
Which of the following is true?
A. The accused may be cross examined as to any matter stated in the
direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness.
B. The adverse party witness may be cross examined as to any matter
stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness.
C. A hostile may only be cross examined on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief.
D. The defendant may only be cross examined on the subject matter of
his examination-in-chief.
ANSWER: C. A hostile may only be cross examined on the subject
matter of his examination-in-chief.
Re-direct examination
SEC. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent.After the
cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be reexamined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his
answers given during the cross-examination. On re-direct
examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the crossexamination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion.(12)
Re-cross examination
SEC.8. Re-cross-examination.Upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine 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.(13)
EVIDENCE 34

Recalling witnesses
SEC. 9. Recalling witness.After the examination of a witness by
both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled
without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its
discretion14, as the interests of justice may require (14)
14
The discretion to recall a witness is not properly invoked or exercisable

by an applicants mere general statement that there is a need to recall a witness.
in the interest of justice or in order to to afford a party full opportunity to present
his case or that, as here, there seems to be many points and questions that
should have been asked in the earlier interrogation. To regard expressed
generalities such as these as sufficient ground for recall of witnesses would
make the recall of a witness no longer discretionary but ministerial. Something
more than bare assertion of the need to propound additional questions is
essential before a Courts discretion may rightfully be exercised to grant or deny
recall. There must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete, substantial
ground for the recall. There must be a satisfactory showing on the movants part,
for instance, that particularly identified material points were not covered in the
cross-examination, or that particularly described vital documents were not
presented to the witness whose recall is prayed for, or that the cross-examination
was conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof.
[People v. Rivera, 1991]
EVIDENCE 35

Leading questions
SEC. 10. Leading and misleading questions.A question which
suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except:
1. cross examination;
2. preliminary matters;
3. there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers
from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender
years15, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
4. unwilling or hostile witness16; or
5. witness who 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
SEC. 20. Leading questions. The court may allow leading
questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will
further the interests of justice.
Misleading questions
SEC. 10. Leading and misleading questions.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.(5a, 6a, and 8a)
15
See Rule on Examination of Child Witness.

Note R25.6 written interrogatories: Unless thereafter allowed by the court for
good cause shown to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written
interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in
open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal.
16
EVIDENCE 36

Impeachment of witness
SEC. 11. Impeachment of adverse party's17 witness. A witness
may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by
1. Contradictory evidence
2. General reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad
3. Prior inconsistent statement18
A witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness,
or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense.(15)
Party may not impeach own witness
SEC. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness.Except with
respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section
10 [unwilling, hostile; adverse party], the party producing a witness is
not allowed to impeach his credibility.
Hostile witness
SEC. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. witness may be
considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court
upon adequate showing of his
1. adverse interest,
2. unjustified reluctance to testify, or
3. his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.
17
Not adverse party witness
18
SEC. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent

statements.Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made
at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony,
1. the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the
times and places and the persons present, and
2. he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them.
3. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness
before any question is put to him concerning them.(16)
EVIDENCE 37

How to impeach hostile witness
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an
adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by
evidence of his bad character.19 He may also be impeached and
cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination
must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. (6a,
7a)
Good character evidence
SEC. 14. Evidence of good character of witness.Evidence of the
good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has
been impeached.( 17)
Exclusion of other witnesses
SEC. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses.On any trial or
hearing, the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the
time under examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of
other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept
separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until
all shall have been examined.(18)
19
She contends that the examination of respondent as adverse witness did not
make him her witness and she is not bound by his testimony. That the witness is
the adverse party does not necessarily mean that the calling party will not be
bound by the formers testimony. The fact remains that it was at his instance that
his adversary was put on the witness stand. Unlike an ordinary witness, the
calling party may impeach an adverse witness in all respects as if he had been
called by the adverse party, except by evidence of bad character.
Under the rule permitting the impeachment of an adverse witness, although the
calling party does not vouch for the veracity of the testimony of the witness, he is
nonetheless bound by the testimony if it is not contradicted or rebutted.
A party who calls his adversary as a witness is, therefore, not bound by the
latters testimony only in the sense that he may contradict him. [Gaw v. Suy Ben
Chua, 2008]
EVIDENCE 38

Reference to memorandum
SEC. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum.A witness may
be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything
written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when
the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same
was correctly written or recorded; but in such case the writing or
record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party,
who may, if he chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it, and may
read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing
or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he
is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the
transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with
caution.(10a)
1996 Bar Q
X states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being
asked but he cannot recall them now. When handed a written record
of the facts he testifies that the facts are correctly stated, but that he
has never seen the writing before. Is the writing admissible as
past recollection recorded? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, because for the written record to be
admissible as past recollection recorded. It must have been written
or recorded by X or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the
fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was
correctly written or recorded. (Sec. 16 of Rule 132) But in this case X
has never seen the writing before.
Part of transaction, writing, record given in evidence

SEC. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in
evidence, the remainder admissible.When part of an act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by
one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the
EVIDENCE 39

other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in
evidence.(11a)
Right to inspect writing shown to witness
SEC. 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness.Whenever a
writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse
party.(9a)
EVIDENCE 40

Classes of documents
SEC. 19. Classes of documents.For the purpose of their
presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
P
Public records, kept in the Philippines, of

private documents required by law to be
entered therein20
Documents Acknowledged before a notary

public except last wills and testaments
Written official acts, or records of the official

acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of
the Philippines, or of a foreign country
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS: All
other writings are private.(20a)21
20
The public document does not refer to the private document itself but to
the public record of that private document
.
21
It is well-settled that Church registries of births, marriages, and deaths
made subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 amd the
passage of Act No. 190 are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly
authorized public officials. They are private writings and their authenticity must
therefore be proved as are all other private writings in accorance with the rules of
evidence. [Llemos v. Llemos, 2007]
EVIDENCE 41

Public documents as evidence
SEC. 23. Public documents as evidence.
Documents consisting prima facie evidence of the facts
of records made in the therein stated
performance of a duty
of a public officer
All others
evidence, even against a third person,

of
1. the fact which gave rise to their
execution and
2. of the date of the latter.
Irremovability of public record

SEC. 26. Irremovability of public record.Any public record, an
official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed
from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where
the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a
pending case.(27a)
EVIDENCE 42

Proof of public documents
Public records, kept in the 1. original record; or
Philippines,
of
private 2. a copy thereof, attested22 by the legal
custodian of the record, with an appropriate
documents required by law
certificate that such officer has the custody.
to be entered therein
Documents
Acknowledged may be presented in evidence without further
before a notary public except proof, the certificate of acknowledgment
being prima facie evidence of the execution of
last wills and testaments23
the instrument or document involved
Written official acts, or 1. an official publication thereof; or
records of the official acts of 2. copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record24
the
sovereign
authority,
official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether
of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country
22
SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state.Whenever a copy of a

document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence:
the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
the attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer,
if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under
the seal of such court.(26a)
23
Sec. 3, Rule 5, REEA document electronically notarized in

accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be
considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the
Rules of Court
24

If the record is not kept in the Philippines Accompanied, with a

certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a 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
EVIDENCE 43

1997 Bar Q
How do you prove a written foreign law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A written foreign law 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 a 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 (Sec. 24,
Rule 132, Zalamea v. CA, 228 SCRA 23).
Proof of lack of record

SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record.A written statement signed by an
officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that
after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to
exist in the records of his officeaccompanied by a certificate as above
provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry.(29)
2003 Bar Q
X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a warrant of arrest
issued by the court, X was arrested by police operatives. They seized
from his person a handgun. A charge for illegal possession of firearm
was also filed against him. In a press conference called by the police,
X admitted that he had robbed the victim of jewelry valued at P500,
000.00. The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were
tried jointly. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper
clipping of the report to the reporter who was present during the press
conference stating that X admitted the robbery. It likewise presented
a certification of the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that
the accused had no license to carry any firearm. The certifying officer,
EVIDENCE 44

however, was not presented as a witness. Is the certification of the
PNP Firearm and Explosive Office without the certifying officer
testifying on it admissible in evidence against X?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the certification is admissible in
evidence against X because a written statement signed by an officer
having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after
diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist
in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above
provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry. (Sec. 28 of Rule 132).
Impeachment of judicial record

SEC. 29. How judicial record impeached.Any judicial record may
be impeached by evidence of:
a. want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer
b. collusion between the parties
c. fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings
Proof of private documents
SEC. 20. Proof of private document.Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
a. anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
b. evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is
claimed to be.
Ancient documents
SEC. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not
necessary.No other evidence of its authenticity need be given in
case of ancient documents
EVIDENCE 45

1. private document which is more than thirty years old
2. produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine
3. unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
Genuineness of handwriting
SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved.
1. May be proven by any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of a person because:
he has seen the person write; or
he has seen writing purporting to be the persons upon
which he has acted or has been charged; and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person
2. by a comparison made by the witness or the court with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom
the document is offered
or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge
R130.50: The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given
may be received in evidence regarding: a handwriting which he has
sufficient familiarity
Alterations
SEC. 31. Alterations in document, how to explain. The party
producing a document as genuine which has been altered and
appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to
the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. If he fails to
do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
How to account for alteration:
1. alteration was made by another without his concurrence
2. alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by
it
3. alteration was properly or innocently made
EVIDENCE 46

4. alteration did not in any way change the meaning or language
of the instrument
Documents in an unofficial language
SEC. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language.
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as
evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or
Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before
trial.(34a)25
Proof of private electronic document
Rule 5, REE, Sec. 2. Manner of authentication. Before any private
electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
a. by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person
purported to have signed the same;
b. by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or
devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law
for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the
document; or
c. by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge.26
25
Where such document, not so accompanied with a translation in English of

Filipino, is offered in evidence and not objected to, either by the parties or the
court, it must be presumed that the language in which the document is written is
understood by all, and the document is admissible in evidence. [Heirs of
Dormonio v. Heirs of Doronio, 2007pp]
26
Aznar claims that his testimony complies with par. (c), i.e., it constitutes
the "other evidence showing integrity and reliability of Exh. "G" to the satisfaction
of the judge." The Court is not convinced. Aznars testimony that the person from
Ingtan Agency merely handed him the computer print-out and that he thereafter
asked said person to sign the same cannot be considered as sufficient to show
said print-outs integrity and reliability. As correctly pointed out by Judge Marcos
in his May 29, 1998 Decision, Exh. "G" does not show on its face that it was
issued by Ingtan Agency as Aznar merely mentioned in passing how he was able
to secure the print-out from the agency; Aznar also failed to show the specific
EVIDENCE 47

Offer of evidence
SEC. 34. Offer of evidence.The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified.(35)27
When to make offer
SEC. 35. When to make offer.As regards the testimony of a
witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to
testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the
presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be
done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)
Objection
SEC. 36. Objection.Objection to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3)
days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by
the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
business address of the source of the computer print-out because while the
name of Ingtan Agency was mentioned by Aznar, its business address was not
reflected in the print-out.
Indeed, Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-out
was generated and how the said information could be relied upon as true. [Aznar
v. Citibank, G.R. No. 170491, 16 April 2009]
27
Note exceptions laid down in Vda. de Onate v. Court of Appeals [1995]

EVIDENCE 48

Continuing objection
SEC.37. When repetition of objection unnecessary.When it
becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a
witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class
as those to which objection has been made, whether such objection
was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the
objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his
continuing objection to such class of questions.(37a)
Ruling
SEC. 38. Ruling.The ruling of the court must be given immediately
after the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a
reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the
ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will
give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be
stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify
the ground or grounds relied upon.(38a)
Striking out answer
SEC. 39. Striking out answer.Should a witness answer the
question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious,
the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be
stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of
answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.(n)
Tender of excluded evidence
EVIDENCE 49

SEC. 40. Tender of excluded evidence.If documents or things
offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may h ave
the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence
excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the same and
other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony.(n)
EVIDENCE 50
RULE 133: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Preponderance of evidence
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil
cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case
by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved
lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the
case, the witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability
or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest,
and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number.(1a)
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
SEC. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.In a criminal case, the
accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.(2a)
Extrajudicial confession
SEC. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for
conviction.An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall
not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti.(3)
Corpus delicti
ELEMENTS:
1. proof of occurrence of a certain event

2. some persons criminal responsibility for the act
EVIDENCE 51
RULE 133: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

NOTE:
A judicial confession will support conviction without proof of

corpus delicti independent of the judicial confession.
Circumstantial evidence
SEC.4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
1. There is more than one circumstance;
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.(5)
Substantial evidence
SEC. 5. Substantial evidence.In cases filed before administrative
or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.(n)
Preponderance of evidence
SEC. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence.The court may
stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point
when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to
the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally
persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution.(6)
Evidence on motion
SEC. 7. Evidence on motion.When a motion is based on facts not
appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may
direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or
depositions.(7)
EVIDENCE 52
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

RULE 1
COVERAGE
SECTION 1. Scope. Unless otherwise provided herein,
these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic document or
electronic data message, as defined in Rule 2 hereof, is offered or
used in evidence.
SEC. 2. Cases covered. These Rules shall apply to all civil
actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative
cases.
SEC. 3. Application of other rules on evidence. In all matters
not specifically covered by these Rules, the Rules of Court and
pertinent provisions of statutes containing rules on evidence shall
apply.
RULE 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. For purposes of these
Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows:
(a) Asymmetric or public cryptosystem means a system
capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of a private
key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying
the digital signature.
(b) Business records include records of any business, institution,
association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind,
whether or not conducted for profit, or for legitimate or
illegitimate purposes.
(c)
Certificate" means an electronic document issued to support

a digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other
significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular
key pair.
EVIDENCE 53
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(d) Computer refers to any single or interconnected device or
apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic
impulse, or by other means with the same function, can receive,
record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze, project,
retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, graphics,
figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or
perform any one or more of these functions.
(e) Digital Signature refers to an electronic signature consisting
of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic
data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem
such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic
document and the signers public key can accurately determine:
(i) whether the transformation was created using the
private key that corresponds to the signers public key;
and,
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been
altered after the transformation was made.
(f) Digitally signed refers to an electronic document or electronic
data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public
key listed in a certificate.
(g) Electronic data message refers to information generated,
sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
(h) Electronic document refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression, described or however
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed
documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or
other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data
message or electronic document. For purposes of these
EVIDENCE 54
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Rules, the term electronic document may
interchangeably with electronic data message.28
be
used
28
As rightly pointed out in defendant Wallems Reply to the Comment of Plaintiff,

the Xerox copies do not constitute the electronic evidence defined in Section 1 of
Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
The information in those Xerox or photocopies was not received, recorded,
retrieved or produced electronically. Moreover, such electronic evidence must be
authenticated (Sections 1 and 2, Rule 5, Rules on Electronic Evidence), which
the plaintiff failed to do. Finally, the required Affidavit to prove the admissibility
and evidentiary weight of the alleged electronic evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 9, Ibid)
was not executed, much less presented in evidence.
An "electronic document" refers to information or the representation of
information, data, figures, symbols or other models of written expression,
described or however represented, by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is
received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any printout, readable
by sight or other means which accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document.
The rules use the word "information" to define an electronic document received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
This would suggest that an electronic document is relevant only in terms of the
information contained therein, similar to any other document which is presented
in evidence as proof of its contents. However, what differentiates an electronic
document from a paper-based document is the manner by which the information
is processed; clearly, the information contained in an electronic document is
received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies submitted by petitioner
will reveal that not all of the contents therein, such as the signatures of the
persons who purportedly signed the documents, may be recorded or produced
electronically. By no stretch of the imagination can a persons signature affixed
manually be considered as information electronically received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced. Hence, the argument of
petitioner that since these paper printouts were produced through an electronic
process, then these photocopies are electronic documents as defined in the
Rules on Electronic Evidence is obviously an erroneous, if not preposterous,
interpretation of the law. Having thus declared that the offered photocopies are
not tantamount to electronic documents, it is consequential that the same may
not be considered as the functional equivalent of their original as decreed in the
law. [NPC v. Codilla, G.R. No. 170491, 3 April 2007]
EVIDENCE 55
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(i) Electronic key refers to a secret code which secures and
defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels
into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
(j) Electronic signature refers to any distinctive mark,
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the
identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with
the electronic data message or electronic document or any
methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person
and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data
message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules,
an electronic signature includes digital signatures.
(k) Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone
conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.
(l) Information and Communication System refers to a system
for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise
processing electronic data messages or electronic documents
and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or
in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related
to the recording or storage of electronic data messages or
electronic documents.
(m) Key Pair in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private
key and its mathematically related public key such that the
latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates.
(n) Private Key refers to the key of a key pair used to create a
digital signature.
(o) Public Key refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a
digital signature.
EVIDENCE 56
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
SEC. 2. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally
construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just, expeditious, and
inexpensive determination of cases.
The interpretation of these Rules shall also take into
consideration the international origin of Republic Act No. 8792,
otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act.
RULE 3
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1. Electronic Documents as functional equivalent
of paper-based documents.
Whenever a rule of evidence
refers to the term writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be
deemed to include an electronic document as defined in
these Rules.
SEC. 2. Admissibility. An electronic document is admissible
in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by
the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by these Rules.
SEC. 3. Privileged communication. The confidential character
of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is
in the form of an electronic document.
EVIDENCE 57
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULE 4
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
SECTION 1. Original of an Electronic Document. An
electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately.29
SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. When a
document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same
time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical
or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such
29
Petitioner contends that the photocopies of the pro forma invoices presented by
respondent Ssangyong to prove the perfection of their supposed contract of sale
are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit of R.A. No. 8792,
because the law merely admits as the best evidence the original fax transmittal.
On the other hand, respondent posits that, from a reading of the law and the
Rules on Electronic Evidence, the original facsimile transmittal of the pro
forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an electronic document and,
therefore, the best evidence under the law and the Rules. Respondent further
claims that the photocopies of these fax transmittals (specificallyST2POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2) are admissible under the Rules on
Evidence because the respondent sufficiently explained the non-production of
the original fax transmittals.
We conclude that the terms "electronic data message" and "electronic
document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not
include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be
considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an
original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic
evidence.
Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an
"electronic document," and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the
Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not
electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore, Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits "E" and "F"), which are mere
photocopies of the original fax transmittals, are not electronic evidence, contrary
to the position of both the trial and the appellate courts. [MCC v. Ssangyong,
G.R. No. 170633, 17 October 2007.
EVIDENCE 58
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the
original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not
be admissible to the same extent as the original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to
admit the copy in lieu of the original.
RULE 5
AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. The person

seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding
has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in
this Rule.
SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. Before any private
electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or
devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by
law for authentication of electronic documents were applied
to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge.30
30
Aznar claims that his testimony complies with par. (c), i.e., it constitutes the
"other evidence showing integrity and reliability of Exh. "G" to the satisfaction of
the judge." The Court is not convinced. Aznars testimony that the person from
Ingtan Agency merely handed him the computer print-out and that he thereafter
asked said person to sign the same cannot be considered as sufficient to show
said print-outs integrity and reliability. As correctly pointed out by Judge Marcos
EVIDENCE 59
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
SEC. 3.
Proof of electronically notarized document. A
document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules
promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public
document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of
Court.31
RULE 6
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
SECTION 1. Electronic signature. An electronic signature or
a digital signature authenticated in the manner prescribed hereunder
is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature
of a person on a written document.
SEC. 2.
Authentication of electronic signatures. An
electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the following
manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to
establish a digital signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as
establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature.
in his May 29, 1998 Decision, Exh. "G" does not show on its face that it was
issued by Ingtan Agency as Aznar merely mentioned in passing how he was able
to secure the print-out from the agency; Aznar also failed to show the specific
business address of the source of the computer print-out because while the
name of Ingtan Agency was mentioned by Aznar, its business address was not
reflected in the print-out.
Indeed, Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-out
was generated and how the said information could be relied upon as true. [Aznar
v. Citibank, G.R. No. 170491, 16 April 2009]
31
Sec. 30, Rule 132
EVIDENCE 60
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic
signatures. Upon the authentication of an electronic signature, it
shall be presumed that:
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it
correlates;
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the
intention of authenticating or approving the electronic
document to which it is related or to indicate such persons
consent to the transaction embodied therein; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the
electronic signature operated without error or fault.
SEC. 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures.
Upon the authentication of a digital signature, it shall be presumed,
in addition to those mentioned in the immediately preceding section,
that:
(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct;
(b) The digital signature was created during the operational
period of a certificate;
(c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable;
(d) The message associated with a digital signature has not
been altered from the time it was signed; and,
(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority
indicated therein.
RULE 7
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC
DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. In
assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic document, the
following factors may be considered:
EVIDENCE 61
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(a)
The reliability of the manner or method in which it was

generated, stored or communicated, including but not
limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests and
checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data
message or document, in the light of all the circumstances
as well as any relevant agreement;
(b)
The reliability of the manner in which its originator was

identified;
(c)
The integrity of the information and communication

system in which it is recorded or stored, including but not
limited to the hardware and computer programs or
software used as well as programming errors;
(d)
The familiarity of the witness or the person who made

the entry with the communication and information system;
(e)
The nature and quality of the information which went into

the communication and information system upon which the
electronic data message or electronic document was
based; or
(f)
Other factors which the court may consider as affecting

the accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or
electronic data message.
SEC. 2. Integrity of an information and communication

system. In any dispute involving the integrity of the information and
communication system in which an electronic document or electronic
data message is recorded or stored, the court may consider, among
others, the following factors:
(a)
Whether the information and communication system

or other similar device was operated in a manner that did
not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and
there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the
integrity of the information and communication system;
EVIDENCE 62
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(b)
Whether the electronic document was recorded or

stored by a party to the proceedings with interest adverse
to that of the party using it; or
(c)
Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored

in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person
who is not a party to the proceedings and who did not act
under the control of the party using it.
EVIDENCE 63
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULE 8
BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION
TO THE HEARSAY RULE
SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. A
memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or
other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or
supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept
in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was
the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are
shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses,
is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
SEC. 2. Overcoming the presumption. The presumption
provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may be overcome by evidence
of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method
or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
EVIDENCE 64
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULE 9
METHOD OF PROOF
SECTION 1. Affidavit evidence. All matters relating to the
admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document may
be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit
must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on
the matters contained therein.
SEC. 2. Cross-examination of deponent. The affiant shall
be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court and may
be cross-examined as a matter of right by the adverse party.
RULE 10
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
SECTION 1. Electronic testimony. After summarily hearing
the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may authorize
the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic means. Before
so authorizing, the court shall determine the necessity for such
presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as may be
necessary under the circumstances, including the protection of the
rights of the parties and witnesses concerned.
SEC. 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. When
examination of a witness is done electronically, the entire
proceedings, including the questions and answers, shall be
transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypist or other recorder
authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as correct the transcript
done by him. The transcript should reflect the fact that the
proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been electronically
recorded.
SEC. 3. Storage of electronic evidence. The electronic
evidence and recording thereof as well as the stenographic notes
shall form part of the record of the case. Such transcript and
recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such proceedings.
RULE 11
EVIDENCE 65
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO, AND EPHEMERAL
EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. Audio,
photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall
be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to
the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the
person who made the recording or by some other person competent
to testify on the accuracy thereof .
SEC.2. Ephemeral electronic communications. Ephemeral
electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a
person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge
thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other
competent evidence may be admitted.
A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral
electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately
preceding section.
If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an
electronic document, then the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply.
EVIDENCE 66
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULE 12
EFFECTIVITY
SECTION 1. Applicability to pending cases. These Rules
shall apply to cases pending after their effectivity.
SEC. 2. Effectivity. These Rules shall take effect on the
first day of August 2001 following their publication before the 20th of
July 2001 in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines
EVIDENCE 67

Reviewer in Evidence Quickie Notes Parts 1 and 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Reviewer in Evidence Quickie Notes Parts 1 and 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RULES ON EVIDENCE (1)

Evidence defined ........................................................................................................... 4

Object evidence ........................................................................................................... 13

Qualification of witnesses .......................................................................................... 25

Res inter alios acta (type 1) ........................................................................................ 44

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS

An electronic document is admissible

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Where evidence at the time of its offer

Factum probandum v. Factum probans

facts evidencing the fact or

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Official acts if the legislative, executive, and

Political history of states

Existence and territorial extent of states

Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and

Political constitution and history of the

When the matter is subject to mandatory judicial, no motion or hearing is

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Which of the following is not subject of mandatory judicial notice?

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Political history of states

Political constitution and history of the

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The RTC may not generally take judicial

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

It is settled that judicial admissions may be made:

A written statement is nonetheless competent as an admission even if it is

Not just any witness

cf. Retraction of pre-trial stipulations in Criminal Proceedings. After

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

As rightly pointed out in defendant Wallems Reply to the Comment of

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

one, the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.

when a document is in two or more copies executed at

when an entry is repeated in the regular course of

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

Original Document under the Best Evidence Rule

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

the adverse party must have reasonable notice to

original consists of Numerous

contents may be proved by a certified copy issued

TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

Parol Evidence Rule

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

Failure of the written agreement to express the true

Intrinsic ambiguity14, mistake or imperfection in the

Validity of the written agreement

Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties

Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract,

LATENT OR INTRINSIC AMBIGUITYOne where the writing upon its face

The exception obtains only where "the written contract is so ambiguous or

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY

RULE 130: RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY