Clarence Tiu - Evidence Notes

RULES OF
EVIDENCE
COMPREHENSIVE NOTES
T HIS
IS BASICALLY AN OUTLINE AND REVIEWER OF
EVIDENCE ,
80%
D EAN R IANO S
OF THE CONTENT IS SOURCED FROM IT .
FROM CASES ASSIGNED IN OUR EVIDENCE CLASS UNDER

CONCEPTS WE TOOK UP ; AND ADDED THE
RULES OF EVIDENCE .
R EFERENCES
R ULES
ON THE
LEGENDARY BOOK ON THE RULES OF
H OWEVER , I
INTEGRATED THE DOCTRINES
C HAIRMAN V ILLAREAL ,
AS WELL AS SEVERAL
M ODES
AND SEVERAL SPECIAL
OF
D ISCOVERY
WERE ALSO MADE FROM THE BOOK OF
P ROFESSOR B AUTISTA .
P SALMS 61:2
F ROM
THE ENDS OF THE EARTH WILL
CRY UNTO THEE , WHEN MY HEART IS OVERWHELMED : LEAD ME
TO THE ROCK THAT IS HIGHER THAN
I.
R OMANS 8:28
A ND
WE KNOW THAT IN ALL THINGS , GOD WORKS FOR THE GOOD OF THOSE WHO LOVE HIM , WHO
HAVE BEEN CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE
F OR
THE GREATER GLORY OF
G OD
C LARENCE T IU A TENEO L AW 3B B ATCH 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE

NATURE AND DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE
PRINCIPLES ON THE APPLICABILITY AND APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT; PROBATIVE VALUE OF EVIDENCE
RELEVANCY AND COMPETENCE OF EVIDENCE
MISCELLANEOUS RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY (COMPETENCE) OF EVIDENCE
RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
5
5
6
7
10
12
13
JUDICIAL NOTICE
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
RULE 130(A): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

KINDS OF EVIDENCE
NATURE AND DEFINITION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
RULE 130(B): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

NATURE AND DEFINITION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
13
13
14
17
22
22
23
24
29
29
30
30
35
35
40
RULE 130(C): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
43
NATURE AND DEFINITION OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE; COMPETENCE OF WITNESSES
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
43
43
44
45
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY

DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF IMMATURITY
SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE (DEAD MANS STATUTE)
MARTIAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE (SPOUSAL IMMUNITY)
MARITAL PRIVILEGE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE
PRIEST/MINISTER-PENITENT PRIVILEGE
PUBLIC OFFICERS PRIVILEGE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CRIMINAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MATTERS
LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE
JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
EDITORIAL (JOURNALIST) PRIVILEGE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF LABOR CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS
SECRECY OF THE BALLOT
CONFIDENTIALITY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL SECRETS
SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
CONFIDENTIALITY OF WITNESS PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS
CONFIDENTIALITY OF REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION TO THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL
46
46
48
50
53
54
58
59
60
60
62
62
62
62
63
63
64
64
64
64
66
66
ADMISSIONS AND THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
67
HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
75
80
ADMISSIONS (EXTRA-JUDICIAL)
CONFESSIONS
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
OFFER OF COMPROMISE
WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA
OFFER TO PAY FOR EXPENSES
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE IN GENERAL
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE BRANCH 1: ACTS, DECLARATIONS, OR OMISSIONS OF ANOTHER
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE BRANCH 2: EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR CONDUCT
UNACCEPTED OFFER
DYING DECLARATION
CLARENCE TIU
ATENEO LAW 3-B BATCH 2017
67
68
70
71
71
71
72
72
74
75
81
2 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
REMEDIAL LAW
PARTS OF RES GESTAE

DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST
ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE
COMMON REPUTATION
ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
LEARNED TREATISES
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION IN A FORMER PROCEEDING
IN THE CASE OF CHILD WITNESSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
83
86
87
88
88
88
89
89
89
90
90
OPINION RULE
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
91
93
RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
98
BURDEN OF PROOF
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE; EQUIPOISE RULE
PRESUMPTIONS IN GENERAL
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
98
101
103
104
106
RULE 132(A): EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES PRESENTED IN TRIAL OR HEARING
PROCEEDINGS OF A TRIAL OR HEARING SHOULD BE RECORDED
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
KINDS OF EXAMINATIONS
RECALLING A WITNESS
LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS
IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF A WITNESS
EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESSES
WHEN THE WITNESS MAY REFER TO A MEMORANDUM
WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING OR RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE
RIGHT OF INSPECTION OF WRITING SHOWN TO WITNESS
PRINCIPLES AND RULES ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
RULE 132 (B): AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF AUTHENTICATION
119
119
120
120
121
123
123
124
128
129
129
130
130
130
135
135
AUTHENTICATION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
135
137
RULE 132(C): OFFER AND OBJECTION
147
KINDS OF DOCUMENTS; PRESENTING PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

PROOF OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
AUTHENTICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
AUTHENTICATION OF HANDWRITINGS AND SIGNATURES
EXPLAINING ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS IN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDICIAL RECORDS
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
OBJECTIONS
STRIKING OUT AN ANSWER OR TESTIMONY
RULING ON THE OBJECTION
TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE; OFFER OF PROOF
RULE 133: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN GENERAL
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES; PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES; PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES; SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP INTRODUCTION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE ON MOTION
137
138
142
144
145
145
145
147
149
151
152
153
156
156
156
157
160
161
163
163
OVERVIEW OF THE MODES OF DISCOVERY
164
RULE 23: DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION
165
OVERVIEW OF DEPOSITIONS
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION, WHEN MAY BE TAKEN
165
165
CLARENCE TIU
3 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
REMEDIAL LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF EXAMINATION
EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION
USE OF DEPOSITIONS
EFFECT OF SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES
OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY
EFFECT OF TAKING AND USING DEPOSITIONS
REBUTTING DEPOSITION
PERSONS BEFORE WHOM DEPOSITIONS MAY BE TAKEN
COMMISSION OR LETTERS ROGATORY
166
166
166
167
168
168
168
168
169
ORAL DEPOSITIONS
170
DEPOSITION UPON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
173
DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION; NOTICE AND PLACE

OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION
DUTY OF THE OFFICER TAKING THE ORAL DEPOSITION
FAILURE OF PARTY GIVING NOTICE TO ATTEND AND TO SERVE SUBPOENA
170
170
171
173
WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
EFFECT OF ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES IN DEPOSITIONS
173
174
RULE 24: DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL
176
DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION
176
DEPOSITIONS PENDING APPEAL
177
RULE 134: PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY
178
RULE 25: INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
179
VERIFIED PETITION FOR DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION

CONTENTS OF THE PETITION
NOTICE AND SERVICE; ORDER OF THE COURT
176
176
176
SERVICE OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

RESPONSE BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES: ANSWER OR OBJECT
NUMBER OF INTERROGATORIES
SCOPE AND USE OF INTERROGATORIES
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
179
180
180
180
180
RULE 26: ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
182
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
RESPONSE OF THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE REQUEST IS DIRECTED; FAILURE TO ANSWER
WITHDRAWAL
182
182
183
184
RULE 27: PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
185
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
185
RULE 28: PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
187
WHEN EXAMINATION MAY BE ORDERED

REPORT OF FINDINGS; WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE
187
187
RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MODES OF DISCOVERY
189
REFUSAL TO ANSWER
CONTEMPT OF COURT
OTHER CONSEQUENCES
EXPENSES ON REFUSAL TO ADMIT
FAILURE OF PARTY TO ATTEND OR SERVE ANSWERS
EXPENSES AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUMMARY OF THE SANCTIONS/REMEDIES AGAINST THE PERSON REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THE MODE OF DISCOVERY
189
189
189
190
190
190
191
DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
193
SPECIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
194
CONSTITUTIONAL RULES RELATED TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE UNDER THE WIRE-TAPPING LAW AND HUMAN SECURITY ACT
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
RULES ON PROOF OF PATERNAL FILIATION
RULE ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG CASES
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
CLARENCE TIU
4 OF 228
194
194
198
205
210
210
214
221
RULES OF EVIDENCE
REMEDIAL LAW

NATURE AND DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE
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)
NATURE OF EVIDENCE
Evidence, in its broadest sense, refers to any matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of which is to produce in the
mind a persuasive affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of some other matter of fact. This definition should be
given a more restrictive meaning because not every fact that could have a relation to the issue of the case could be
adduced in court. The practical limitations which attend the organization and proper functioning of judicial tribunals
render this impossible if there is to be any reasonable and just end to litigation.
A more restrictive definition which bears a close affinity to the definition provided for in Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
states: Judicial evidence is the means, sanctioned by law, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting
a question of fact
The very tenor of the definition in Sec. 1, Rule 128 clearly indicates that not every fact having a conceivable connection
to the issue of a case or that which provides a reasonable inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged, is
considered evidence. To be considered evidence, the same must be sanctioned or allowed by the Rules of Court.
It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the Rules even if it proves the existence or non-existence of a fact in
issue.
Thus, a hearsay evidence, a coerced extrajudicial confession of the accused, and an evidence obtained in violation
of constitutional rights, even if ultimately shown to correspond to the truth, do not fall within the definition of Sec. 1
of Rule 128.
The definition, provided for under Sec. 1 of Rule 128, significantly considers evidence not as an end in itself but
merely as a means of ascertaining the truth of a matter of fact. Equally significant is the observation that evidence as
defined in the Rules of Court is a means of ascertaining the truth not in all types of proceedings, but specifically, in a
judicial proceeding.
PURPOSE OF EVIDENCE
The purpose of evidence under the Rules of Court is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial
proceeding Litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence.
The truth must have to be determined by the rules for admissibility and proof.
Evidence is required because of the presumption that the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a
case. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through the presentation of admissible
evidence
The rules of evidence are merely the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. While the purpose of
evidence is to know the truth, the truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth but one aptly
referred to as the judicial or legal truth.
The limitations of human judicial systems cannot always guarantee knowledge of the actual or real truth. Actual truth
may not always be achieved in judicial proceedings because the findings of the court would depend on the evidence
presented before it based on the accepted rules for admissibility.
Also, under Sec. 34 of Rule 132, courts, as a rule, are not even authorized to consider evidence which has not been
formally offered. Thus, a supposed evidence that would undoubtedly show the innocence of the accused will not be
considered in the decision of the court if not formally offered in evidence. If it is evidence to the contrary that has been
formally offered, it is the latter which the court is bound to consider or appreciate.
WHEN EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED
Evidence is the means of proving a fact. As the definition says, it is offered in court to ascertain the truth respecting a
matter of fact. Implied from the definition of evidence in Sec. 1 of Rule 128 is the need for the introduction of
evidence when the court has to resolve a question of fact.
Where no factual issue exists in a case, there is no need to present evidence because where the case presents a
question of law, such question is resolved by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules of this jurisdiction to
which no evidence is required. In the Philippine judicial system, there is a mandatory judicial notice of the official acts of
the legislature (Sec. 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court) and these acts cover statutes.
CLARENCE TIU
ATENEO LAW 3B, BATCH 2017
5 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since there is no more
reason to present evidence. The case is then ripe for judicial determination through a judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Court.
Presentation of evidence may likewise be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. The parties to any action are
allowed by the Rules to agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgment
upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence (Sec. 6, Rule 30, Rules of Court).
Evidence is not also required on matters of judicial notice (Sec. 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court) and on matters judicially
admitted (Sec. 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court).
Evidence is not also required when a law or rule presumes the truth of a fact.
EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHED FROM PROOF
Proof is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely the probative effect of evidence
and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence
Proof is the effect or result of evidence, while evidence is the medium of proof
FACTUM PROBANDUM VS FACTUM PROBANS
Evidence signifies a relationship between two facts, namely:

1. The fact or proposition to be established (factum probandum), and
2. The facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established (factum probans)
Factum probandum is the fact to be proved; the fact which is in issue and to which the evidence is directed.
Factum probans is the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue
Example: If P claims to have been injured by the negligence of D who denies having been negligent, the
negligence of D and the causal connection between such negligence, and the injuries of P taken as a whole,
constitute the factum probandum of the suit. The evidence offered by P, whether it be object, documentary or
testimonial, constitute the materials to prove the liability of D. The totality of the evidence to prove the liability refers
to the factum probans.
In practical terms, the factum probandum in a civil case refers to the elements of a cause of action from the point of
view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from the standpoint of the defendant.
PRINCIPLES ON THE APPLICABILITY AND APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

Section 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)
RULE 1, SECTION 4. In what cases not applicable. - These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land
registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for,
except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. (R143a)
RULE 1, SECTION 6. Construction. - These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (2a)
UNIFORMITY AND APPLICABILITY OF RULES
The rules on evidence in the Rules of Court are guided by the principle of uniformity. As a general policy, the rules on
evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings
But note that the rules on evidence, being components of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings
Significantly, Sec. 4 of Rule 1 provides for the non-applicability of the Rules of Court, including necessarily the rules on
evidence, to certain specified proceedings.
NON-APPLICABILITY OF RULES TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
The general rule is that administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules of evidence.
It can accept documents which cannot be admitted in a judicial proceeding where the Rules of Court are strictly
observed. It can choose to give weight or disregard such evidence, depending on its trustworthiness
Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in strict judicial term
CLARENCE TIU
6 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

It has also been ruled that a reliance on the technical rules of evidence in labor cases is misplaced. Hence, the
application of the concept of judicial admissions in such cases would be to exact compliance with technicalities of
law that is contrary to the demands of substantial justice
The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such as the Board of
Medicine
The Civil Service Commission, for example, conducts its investigations for the purpose of ascertaining the truth
without necessarily adhering to technical rules of procedure applicable in judicial proceedings
The Rules on Electronic Evidence, however, apply to administrative cases.
The application of the rules on evidence in the Rules of Court contrasts with the application of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence.
While the definition of evidence under the Rules of Court makes reference only to judicial proceedings, the
provisions of the Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial
and administrative cases, but not to criminal actions.
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES
Like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the rules on evidence must be liberally construed (Sec. 6, Rule 1,
Rules of Court).
Rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid
application of the rules must always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing substantial
justice.
Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to frustrate substantial justice. However, to justify
relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have always been
required.
The Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise be construed liberally
NO VESTED RIGHTS IN THE RULES
There is no vested right in the rules on evidence because said rules are subject to change by the Supreme Court
pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure (Sec. 5[5], Art VIII, Constitution
of the Philippines).
The change in the rules on evidence is, however, subject to the constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex post
facto laws (Sec. 22, Art. Ill, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the Philippines).
An ex post facto law includes that which alters the rules on evidence and receives less or different testimony than
that required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the accused
WAIVER OF THE RULES
The rules on evidence may be waived. When an otherwise objectionable evidence is not objected to, the
evidence becomes admissible because of waiver, except when it involves public interest
For instance, while as a rule, hearsay evidence is excluded and carries no probative value, the rule admits of an
exception. Where a party fails to object to hearsay evidence, then the same is admissible
However, it is submitted that a failure to object with respect to a privileged communication involving state secrets
communicated to a public officer in official confidence should not be construed as a waiver of the privileged
character of the communication because of public policy considerations as when the state secret is one involving
national defense and security.
May the parties stipulate waiving the rules on evidence?
YES, As long as no law or principles of morality, good customs and public policy are transgressed or no rights of
third persons are violated, the rules on evidence may be waived by the parties. (Based on Art. 6 of the Civil Code)
ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT; PROBATIVE VALUE OF EVIDENCE

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
RULE: FOR EVIDENCE TO BE ADMISSIBLE, THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST BE PRESENT:

1. THE EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT, AND
CLARENCE TIU
7 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
2.

This means that the evidence has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence.
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT EXCLUDED BY THE RULES (COMPETENT)
These two elements correspond to Wigmores two axioms of admissibility, namely: (a) That none but facts having
rational probative value are admissible (relevance); and (b) That all facts having rational probative value are
admissible unless some specific rule forbids them (competence)
The formula for admissibility is a simple one. To be admissible, the evidence must be both relevant and competent.
Examples:
1. Evidence is relevant but incompetent
In a prosecution for homicide, the witness swears that the accused killed the victim because his ever truthful
boyhood friend told him so. The testimony, although relevant, is not admissible because the witness was not
testifying based on his personal knowledge of the event. The testimony is hearsay and this type of evidence is,
as a rule, excluded by the rules (Sec. 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
In a prosecution for homicide, the wife of the accused testified that the husband admitted to her in confidence
that it was he who killed their neighbor. If the testimony is offered as evidence against the husband and is
objected to by the latter, the testimonial evidence will be inadmissible by virtue of a particular provision of the
Rules of Court which excludes it as a specie of evidence notwithstanding its obvious relevance to the issue of
guilt (Sec. 24[a], Rule 130, Rules of Court)
Upon a timely objection, oral evidence will be excluded to prove a contract of a sale of a parcel of land which
does not conform to the statute of frauds (Art. 1403[2], Civil Code of the Philippines). Even if the evidence is
relevant to the issue of existence or non-existence of the contract, it is inadmissible because it is excluded by
law, hence, incompetent.
Documents obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees although containing relevant matters are
inadmissible because they are illegally obtained as when evidence is illegally seized
Evidence
is irrelevant
2.
In a civil case for collection of a sum of money, the testimony of an eyewitness to the transaction between the
creditor and the debtor is competent evidence because the witness would be testifying on the basis of his
personal knowledge.
However, if the subject of the testimony includes the alleged frequent bouts of dizziness of the debtor, that
portion of the testimony is made inadmissible by the fact that the matters testified to are irrelevant to the issue
of whether or not a debt exists. In this case, the testimony becomes irrelevant.
Evidence
is irrelevant and incompetent
3.
A defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim fire a gun at the accused without the latters
provocation. The testimony of the eyewitness is competent and the matters testified to are relevant to the plea
of self-defense. The testimony is thus, admissible. It is not only relevant but competent as well.
WEIGHT/PROBATIVE VALUE OF EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
While admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the evidence is to be considered at all. On the
other hand, the probative value of the evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue
Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation
within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence
Admissibility is one thing, weight is another. To admit evidence and not to believe it are not incompatible with each
other
The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with the weight of the evidence. The admissibility of the
evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to its tendency to convince
and persuade.
A particular item of evidence may be admissible but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation with the
guidelines provided by the rules of evidence
Jurisprudence has laid down some basic rules on credibility such as for evidence to be worthy of credit, it must not only
proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself. The evidence must be natural, reasonable
and probable as to make it easy to believe. No better test has yet been found to determine the value of the testimony
of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind (Serra v. Mumar)
Whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and
must lie outside judicial cognisance (People v. De Guzman)
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
1.
WHEN EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE FOR TWO OR MORE PURPOSES.
Examples:
CLARENCE TIU
8 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a dying person may be admissible for several
purposes. It may be offered as a dying declaration (Sec. 37, Rule 130, part of the res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule
130), or declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130).
The statement by a bus driver immediately after the collision that he dozed off in the wheel while driving may be
admissible as an admission under Sec. 26 of Rule 130 or as part of the res gestae pursuant to Sec. 42 of Rule
130
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for
several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose but not for
another. Otherwise, the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection
Such as, if testimony is offered to prove that the project was completed pursuant to the contract, it cannot be
offered to prove that the project was delayed.

A private document may be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary and object evidence
depending on the purpose for which the document is offered.
If offered to prove its existence, condition or for any purpose other than the contents of a document, the same is
considered as an object evidence. When the private document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is
considered as a documentary evidence
2.
WHEN EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST ONE PARTY BUT NOT AGAINST ANOTHER.
An extrajudicial statement of a robbery suspect is not admissible against his co-accused under the res inter alios
acta rule but may be admissible against the declarant himself as an admission pursuant to Sec. 26 of Rule 130.
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
It happens frequently enough that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered, but the
relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered.
The proponent of the evidence may ask the court that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime,
subject to the condition that he is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later time.
If the connection is not shown as promised, the court may, upon motion of the adverse party, strike out from the
record the evidence that was previously conditionally admitted.
Example:
For instance, Mr. P files an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land against Mr. D. The complaint alleges
that Mr. P is the owner of the property. During the trial, Mr. P testifies and adduces evidence that sometime in 1995,
the property subject of the action was bought by Mr. O from a certain Mr. M. The defendant, Mr. D, objects on the
ground that the evidence is irrelevant to support the claim of ownership of Mr. P.
The problem presented in such a situation is whether or not to interrupt the examination of the witness to first
present the connecting evidence or to admit the testimony conditionally, subject to presentation of the said
connecting evidence later in the trial. Mr. P may ask the court to conditionally allow the testimony with the
undertaking to show later that he bought the property from Mr. O who, in turn, bought it from Mr. M.
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
The doctrine of curative admissibility allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer
the opposing partys previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice
caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence
Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial cannot complain of the
subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating to the same subject matter
Conversely, the doctrine should not be invoked where evidence was properly admitted.
Example:
In an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff, despite objection by the defendant, introduced
evidence to show that on several occasions the defendant in the past had injured pedestrians because of his
negligence. The evidence was offered to prove the defendants propensity for negligence. Of course, under the
rules, this kind of evidence is inadmissible because evidence that a person did a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did the same or a similar thing at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130).
If we were to follow the concept of curative admissibility, the court may be asked to give the defendant the chance
to contradict or explain his alleged past acts and to show evidence of his past acts of diligence to counteract the
prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused.
Also, if hearsay evidence prejudicial to the defendant is erroneously admitted despite objection, under the principle
of curative admissibility, the court should allow hearsay evidence favorable to the same defendant.
Does the concept of curative admissibility refer to a situation where incompetent evidence was erroneously
received by the court despite absence of objection from the other party?
CLARENCE TIU
9 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

RIANO: It is submitted that in our jurisdiction, the principle of curative admissibility should not be made to apply
where the evidence was admitted without objection because the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the
inadmissibility of the evidence. In our jurisdiction, inadmissible evidence not objected to becomes admissible. For
instance, where a party failed to object to hearsay evidence, then the same becomes admissible.
An objection to an otherwise inadmissible evidence is not merely suggested but required by the Rules of Court. The
tenor of the rule is clear: Objections to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made
and objections to questions propounded in the course of the oral examination of the witness shall be made as soon
as the grounds therefor shall become apparent (Sec. 36, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
It is likewise submitted that it is only where the objection was incorrectly overruled that the court should
allow the other party to introduce evidence to contradict the evidence improperly admitted in order to cure
the prejudice caused to the other party against whom the offered evidence was erroneously admitted.
Common reason suggests that where there is a waiver, there is no defect to cure
While a trial court generally has discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, it is opined that a trial court
should be without discretion to apply the doctrine of curative admissibility if it appears that the party seeking to
invoke it intentionally or negligently failed to object to the inadmissible evidence in order to gain admission later of
his inadmissible evidence. If no limitations are placed on the doctrine of curative admissibility, the doctrine will
predictably be open to abuse and will encourage the counsel not to object to inadmissible evidence to open the
door for him to introduce inadmissible evidence. The more logical rule should be one which will not allow a party to
be heard through the offering of inadmissible evidence if he declines or fails to timely object to the other partys
inadmissible evidence.
One American case puts it: A breach of the rules of evidence by one party does not suspend those rules with
respect to the other party
RELEVANCY AND COMPETENCE OF EVIDENCE

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. 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)
RELEVANT EVIDENCE
RULE: EVIDENCE TO BE RELEVANT MUST HAVE SUCH A RELATION TO THE FACT IN ISSUE AS TO INDUCE BELIEF IN ITS
EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE.
The concept of relevance is clearly one of logic.

It deals with the rational relationship between the evidence and the fact to be proved.
In other words, the evidence adduced should be directed to the matters in dispute and any evidence which has
neither direct nor indirect relationship to such matters must be set aside as irrelevant.
It is the relation to the fact in issue which makes evidence either relevant or irrelevant. If the evidence induces
belief as to the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue, the evidence is relevant. If it does not induce such
belief, it is irrelevant.
Although competency of the evidence is a necessary component of admissible evidence, the question that most
often arises in court is the relevance of the evidence. When an advocate offers a piece of evidence for the courts
consideration, he offers the evidence to prove a fact. This fact may either be the immediate fact in issue or the
ultimate fact in issue.
Because of the definition of relevant evidence under Sec. 4 of Rule 128, it is obvious that relevance is a matter of
relationship between the evidence and the fact in issue. The determination of relevance is, thus, a matter of
inference and not of law. The test, is therefore, one of logic, common sense, and experience.
The existence of the relationship between the fact in issue and the offered evidence is one that is perceived only by
the mind without reference to a statute or rule. It is, therefore, a matter of reasoning. It is a matter of reasoning
because relevance is a matter of logic. The matter of relevance is one that is addressed to the discretion of
the court
There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the determination of whether
particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the
teachings of logic and everyday experience
Example:
Case of a standard car accident. Counsel for the plaintiff presents the testimony of another car driver to testify
to the following: that the defendant was driving at a speed of one hundred twenty (120) kilometers per hour in a
CLARENCE TIU
10 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

sixty (60)-kilometer limit zone at the time plaintiff was side- swiped and injured by the defendant. The witness
claims he knows whereof he speaks because he saw everything that transpired. Whether or not such testimony
meets the test of relevance will depend upon what counsel wants to prove by the testimony. Initially, of course,
counsel would want to prove that, at the time of the accident, the defendant was driving way beyond the speed
limit. This is the immediate fact sought to be established. Since there is a traceable connection between the
substance of the testimony and the fact to be proved, the testimony is relevant. On the other hand, if the
testimony is offered to prove that the defendant is a thief, the testimony has no logical connection at all to the
fact sought to be proved. Certainly, there is no connection between driving at a very fast pace and the
defendants being a thief. The testimony is hence, irrelevant.
Relevance further requires that the immediate fact proved must have a connection to the ultimate issue.
In the car accident case just illustrated, assume that counsel has established through the witness that the
defendant was driving way beyond the speed limit at the time of the accident. Establishing such a fact is not
however, sufficient. This fact must be shown to be related to the ultimate issue in the case. Now, the usual
ultimate issue in every automobile accident case is whether or not the damage caused to the plaintiff arose out
of the defendants negligent operation of his car. The question that should necessarily be asked is: Is the
immediate fact proved, i.e., defendants driving beyond the speed limit, related to the issue of negligence? If it
is, then the fact proved is relevant evidence. If it is not related to the issue of negligence, it is irrelevant.
COLLATERAL EVIDENCE
RULE: EVIDENCE ON A COLLATERAL MATTER IS NOT ALLOWED
A matter is collateral when it is on a parallel or diverging line, merely additional or auxiliary

This term connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in dispute.
Example of Collateral Matters
For instance, the motive of a person and, in some instances, his reputation are matters that may be considered
collateral to the subject of a controversy. A very strong motive to kill the victim does not ipso facto make motive
relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence because the person with absolutely no motive to kill could be the
culprit.
Evidence of the bad reputation of the accused for being troublesome and aggressive does not make the
evidence admissible to prove his guilt. After all, the culprit could have been the person with the most endearing
reputation.
It is not allowed because it does not have direct relevance to the issue of the case.
EXCEPT: A COLLATERAL MATTER MAY BE ADMITTED IF IT TENDS IN ANY REASONABLE DEGREE TO ESTABLISH THE
PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF THE FACT IN ISSUE
In other words, while the collateral evidence may not bear directly on the issue, it will be admitted if it has the
tendency to induce belief as to the probability or improbability of the issues of the case as when it would have
the effect of corroborating or supplementing facts previously established by direct evidence.
Example:
Although evidence of character is generally inadmissible (Sec. 51, Rule 130), the accused may prove his
good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged (Sec. 51[a][l], Rule
130).
Evidence of the good character of a witness is admissible if his character has been previously impeached
(Sec. 14, Rule 132).
COMPETENT EVIDENCE
Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law or rules in a particular case
If the the test of relevance is logic and common sense, the test of competence is the law or rules.
If the law or a particular rule excludes the evidence, it is incompetent. Competence is primarily, therefore, a matter of
law or rule.
The question as to competence is: Is the evidence allowed by the law or rules? If it is allowed, the evidence is
competent. If it is not allowed, it is incompetent.
Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received as such.
However, when applied to a witness, the term competent refers to the qualifications of the witness.
In other words, competence refers to his eligibility to take the stand and testify. It is in this context that the term is
normally associated with. Thus, a trial objection employing the ground incompetent is usually used in relation to the
ineligibility of a witness to testify because of the presence of a disability that renders him unfit to sit on the stand.
CLARENCE TIU
11 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

BUT, note that if evidence offered is objectionable on the ground that it is incompetent, an objection that it is
incompetent is not an accepted form of objection because it is a general objection. The objection should
specify the ground for its incompetence such as leading, hearsay or parol.
Although evidence is incompetent if excluded by law or the rules, evidence is not objected to on the ground that it is
incompetent. It is so general a term and cannot be appreciated in court.
Courts neither need nor appreciate generalities. General objections are viewed with disfavor because specific
objections are required by Sec. 36, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Thus, for purposes of trial objections, evidence
is never incompetent. It is people who are.
It is sloppy usage to object to a testimony or document as incompetent. Such term more appropriately describes a
witness who, under evidentiary rules, does not possess the qualifications of a witness or suffers from a
disqualification to be one.
MISCELLANEOUS RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY (COMPETENCE) OF EVIDENCE
These rules pertain to competence (one of the elements of admissibility) really as they talk about laws excluding it as
evidence. I put it in a separate chapter (latter parts) because they are long. I placed the headings here for emphasis
and correlation. Rule on Competence for specific kinds of evidence will also be discussed later.
See Chapter on Special Rules of Evidence for more comprehensive stuff and the full text of the Rules
Electronic evidence is competent evidence and is admissible 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 the Rules
on Electronic Evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 3, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN CONNECTION WITH ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AND RIGHT AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION
See Chapter on Special Rules of Evidence for more comprehensive stuff and the full text of the law
ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW IN RELATION TO THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
See Chapter on Special Rules of Evidence for more comprehensive stuff and the full text of the law
CLARENCE TIU
12 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

JUDICIAL NOTICE
WHAT IS JUDICIAL NOTICE?
These are matters in a litigation which must be admitted without need for evidence.
There is no need to adduce evidence to prove that there are twenty-four (24) hours in a day or that the sun rises in
the east and sets in the west. The fact that Cebu lies in the Visayan region needs no further evidence.
To require evidence for such obvious facts would be to indulge in utter absurdity.
Judicial notice is based on the maxim, what is known need not be proved, hence, when the rule is invoked, the
court may dispense with the presentation of evidence on judicially cognizable facts
PURPOSE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
The function of judicial notice is to abbreviate litigation by the admission of matters that need no evidence because
judicial notice is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence
Judicial notice takes the place of proof and is of equal force. It displaces evidence and fulfills the purpose for which the
evidence is designed to fulfill. Hence, it makes evidence unnecessary
While the court has the power to dispense with proof of judicially cognizable adjudicative facts when the principles of
judicial notice are properly invoked, judicial notice cannot, however, be used to fill in the gaps in the partys evidence
but judicial notice should not be used to deprive an adverse party of the opportunity to prove a disputed fact
KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE UNDER THE RULES
A matter of judicial notice may either be:

1. Mandatory or
2. Discretionary
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
MATTERS OF MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
Matters subject to Mandatory Judicial Notice:

1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
2. Political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality of states;
3. The law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
6. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions.
Examples of Matters of Mandatory Judicial Notice
Amendment to the Rules of Court (Siena Realty Corporation v. Gallang
Decisions the Supreme Court (Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Heirs of Sero)
Declaration of the President of the Philippines that she informed Chinas President that the Philippine Government
had decided not to continue with the ZTE-National Broadband Network (Suplico v. NEDA)
CLARENCE TIU
13 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
HOW MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN
RULE: WHEN THE MATTER IS SUBJECT TO A MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, NO MOTION OR HEARING IS NECESSARY
FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A FACT
This is because this is a matter which a court ought to take judicial notice of.
DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial functions. (1a)
Section 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 appeal, 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)
MATTERS OF DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE
RULE: A COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MATTERS WHICH ARE OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, OR ARE CAPABLE TO
UNQUESTIONABLE DEMONSTRATION, OR OUGHT TO BE KNOWN TO JUDGES BECAUSE OF THEIR JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
1. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
2.
These are matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or
they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and
unquestioned demonstration.
Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other
publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood
that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person.
As the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been judicially
noticed as being matters of common knowledge.
But a court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence
of a fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge
The concept of facts of common knowledge in the context of judicial notice has been explained as those facts
that are so commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof, and so certainly
known to as to make it indisputable among reasonable men.
Moreover, though usually facts of common knowledge will be generally known throughout the country, it is
sufficient as a basis for judicial notice that they be known in the local community where the trial court sits.
CAPABLE TO UNQUESTIONABLE DEMONSTRATION
3.
If there is any uncertainty about the matter, then evidence must be adduced
OUGHT TO BE KNOWN TO JUDGES BECAUSE OF THEIR JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge
of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally
known, as the basis of his action
Judicial notice is not limited by the actual knowledge of the individual judge or court. A judge must take judicial
notice of a fact if it is one which is the proper subject of judicial cognizance even if it is not within his personal
knowledge. Consequently, a judge may not take judicial notice of a fact which he personally knows if it is not
part of the evidence or not a fact generally known within its territorial jurisdiction
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can
be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety.
In other words, the principles of discretionary judicial notice will apply where the following requisites are met:
1. The matter must be one of common knowledge;
2. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt (if there is any uncertainty about the matter, then evidence
must be adduced); and
CLARENCE TIU
14 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

3. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court
Discretionary Judicial Notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the court.
The power to take judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and care must be taken that the requisite notoriety
exists.
Any reasonable doubt on the matter sought to be judicially noticed must be resolved against the taking of
judicial notice
HOW DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN
RULE: THE COURT, DURING TRIAL, BEFORE JUDGMENT, OR ON APPEAL, MAY ANNOUNCE ITS INTENTION TO TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE, ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE, OR ON REQUEST OF A PARTY, AND ALLOW THE PARTIES TO BE HEARD
THEREON.
The court can take judicial notice of a fact during or after trial, but the rules provide what matters may be taken
depending on the stage of the proceedings:
1. During trial
Court may take judicial notice of any matter
After
the trial (but before judgment) or on appeal
2.
Court may take judicial notice of matters decisive of a material issue in the case
Hearing required
The hearing is only for the purpose of determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a certain matter and not
for the purpose of proving the issues in the case.
Note that judicial notice is taken either by the courts own initiative or upon request of a party. In reality, parties must be
pro-active in asserting matters to be taken as judicial notice, the trial court rarely, on its own initiative, does this.
EXAMPLES OF MATTERS OF DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE

Courts own acts and records in the same case (Republic v. Court of Appeals)
Such as facts which are ascertainable from the record of court proceedings, as when court notices were received by
a party
BUT, 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 (Tabuena v. Court of Appeals)
EXCEPT:
1. When in the absence of any objection, and with the knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of said
other case are clearly referred to by title and number in a pending action and adopted or read into the
record of the latter; or
2. When the original record of the other case or any part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives at the
courts discretion upon the request, or with the consent, of the parties, and admitted as part of the record of
the pending case
2. Certain Practices of Banks and Other Financial Institutions
The Court has taken judicial notice of the practices of banks and other financial institutions. Precisely, it has noted
that it is their uniform practice, before approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would-be borrowers
credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan applied for (Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao
Ferroalloy Corporation
3. Financial Condition of the Government
Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the government is and has for many years been financially strapped,
to the point that even the most essential services have suffered serious curtailment (La Bugal-Blaan Tribal
Association v. Ramos)
4. Local Ordinances
*I put this under Discretionary because its not expressly listed down under Mandatory (may it be considered as a
legislative act?)
Municipal trial courts should take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit
(U.S. v. Blanco)
The Regional Trial Courts should also take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities
within their jurisdiction but only when so required by law. For example, the charter of the City of Manila requires all
courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the city council (City of Manila u. Garcia).
The RTC must take judicial notice also of municipal ordinances in cases on appeal to it from the inferior court in
which the latter took judicial notice of (U.S. v. Hernandez)
1.
CLARENCE TIU
15 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The Court of Appeals may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it from
taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable demonstration (Gallego v. People)
5. Others matters the court can take judicial notice
a. General increase in rentals of real estate especially of business establishments (Catungal v. Hao) but not the
reasonable amount of rent
b. In this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial notice that business transactions may be made by
individuals through teleconferencing by means such as: (1) video conferencing; (2) computer conferencing and (3)
audio-conferencing. But, athough judicial notice may be taken of teleconferencing as a means of making business
transactions, there is no judicial notice that one was conducted in a particular case (Expertravel and Tours, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals)
c. It can be judicially noticed that the scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded, for lust is
no respecter of time or place. (People v. Tundag)
d. The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the Filipinas inbred modesty and shyness, and her antipathy in
publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue (People v. Tundag)
e. The trial court properly took judicial notice that Talamban, Cebu City is an urban area. (Chiongbian-Oliva v.
Republic)
It is of judicial notice that the judiciary is beset with the gargantuan task in unclogging dockets, not to mention the
f.
shortage of judges occupying positions in far-flung areas. (Government Service Insurance System v. Vallar)
g. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those
stated in sworn statements, usually being incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons, at times because of
partial and innocent suggestions or for want of specific inquiries (Estioca v. People).
h. It is of judicial notice that sworn statements are almost always incomplete, often inaccurate and generally inferior to
the testimony of witness in open court (People v. Sorila)
The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties
i.
of the user it is beyond question, therefore, that any employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly
continue doing his duties without posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his
employer (Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation)
It is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all
j.
(People v. Zeta)
k. A court may take judicial notice of a matter within the locality where the court sits. Thus, it was held that the lower
court cannot be faulted for taking judicial notice that petitioner Saludo was the congressman or representative of
the lone district of Southern Leyte at the time of the filing of his complaint and admitted as a fact by the court a
quo. In this connection, it consequently held that, as such, petitioner Saludos residence in Southern Leyte, the
district he was then representing, could be taken judicial notice of.
EXAMPLES OF MATTERS NOT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE

Foreign Laws
These must be alleged and proved. In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as the
laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case under the doctrine of processual presumption
EXCEPTIONS:
a. The foreign law is well-known and had been ruled upon in previous cases
Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when the law is generally wellknown, had been ruled upon in previous cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise, the court
may take judicial notice of the foreign law (PCIB v. Escolin)
b. The foreign law is in a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is an expert
Where the foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is recognized in
his profession or calling as expert in the subject, the court, it is submitted, may take judicial notice of the
treatise containing the foreign law (Sec. 46, Rule 130)
2. Proprietary acts of government-owned and controlled corporations
A management contract entered into by a government- owned and controlled corporation like that involving the
Philippine Ports Authority is not among the matters which the courts can take judicial notice of.
It cannot be considered an official act of the executive department because it was entered into while performing a
proprietary function
3. Post-Office Practices
That a registered letter when posted is immediately stamped with the date of its receipt, indicating therein the
number of the registry, both on the covering envelope itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who delivered
the letter to the office is not a proper subject of judicial notice. (Republic v. Court of Appeals)
4. Laws or regulations which have not been promulgated or passed
1.
CLARENCE TIU
16 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

A court cannot take judicial notice of an administrative regulation or of a statute that is not yet effective. The reason
is simple. A law which is still inexistent cannot be of common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable
demonstration (State Prosecutors v. Muro)
5. Minority
It must be emphasized that the circumstances of minority and relationship mentioned in of the Revised Penal Code
are special qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in the information and duly proven by the prosecution.
The trial court erred when it took judicial notice of private complainants age to be fourteen. It should have required
competent evidence, such as her birth certificate, as proof of the victims actual age at the time of the offense
(People v. Metin)
6. Other matters the court cannot take judicial notice of
a. The court cannot be expected to take judicial notice of the new address of a lawyer who has moved, or ascertain,
on its own whether or not the counsel of record has been changed and who the new counsel could possibly be or
where he probably (Karen and Khristy Fishing Industry v. Court of Appeals)
b. Notwithstanding a persons standing in the business community, the court cannot take judicial notice of said
persons home address or office after his departure from the government as a cabinet member (Garrucho v. Court
of Appeals)
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
*This is a very important rule
Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)
RULE 10: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
SECTION 8. Effect of amended pleadings. - An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends.
However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader; and claims or
defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. (n)
RULE 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
SECTION 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under
oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath
does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance
with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a)
SECTION 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. - Material averment in the complaint, other
than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.
Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
(1a, R9)
Article 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person
making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
RULE 118: Pre-Trial
Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial
conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be
used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98)
RULE 26 Admission by Adverse Party
SECTION 1. Request for admission. - At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve
upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and
CLARENCE TIU
17 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

relevant document described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant
matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless
copies have already been furnished. (1a)
SECTION 2. Implied admission. - Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after
service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is
directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he
cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the party requested within the
period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his
compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as
early as practicable. (2a)
SECTION 3. Effect of admission. - Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose
of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the
same be used against him in any other proceeding. (3)
NATURE OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof.
ELEMENTS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
1.
THE SAME MUST BE MADE BY A PARTY TO THE CASE
2.
It must be made by a party to the case, such as the accused

Admissions of a non-party do not fall within the definition of Sec. 4 of Rule 129.
THE ADMISSION, TO BE JUDICIAL, MUST BE MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE
Thus, an admission made in another judicial proceeding will not be deemed a judicial admission in another case
where the admission was not made.
Instead, it will be considered an extrajudicial admission for purposes of the other proceeding where such
admission is offered.
Admissions are in the course of the proceedings if they are made either in the:
1. Pleadings
Admissions made in the pleadings of a party are deemed judicial admissions.
The admission includes those made in a complaint, motion, answer
BUT, an admission made in a document drafted for purposes of filing a pleading but never filed, is not a
judicial admission. If signed by the party, it is deemed an extrajudicial admission. If signed by the attorney, it
is not even an admission by the party. The authority of the attorney to make statements for the client extends
only to statements made in open court or in pleadings filed with the court (Jackson v. Schine Lexington
Corp)
What about admissions in amended pleadings?
When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends and the
admissions in the superseded pleading may be received in evidence against the pleader (See. 8, Rule
10)
It has been held that the admissions in a superseded pleading are to be considered as extrajudicial
admissions which must be proven.
Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings, and cease
to be judicial admissions, and to be utilized as extrajudicial admissions, they must, in order to have such
effect, be formally offered in evidence
What about admissions in dismissed pleadings?
Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial admissions
Is a Motion to Dismiss a Judicial Admission of the Allegations of the Complaint?
CLARENCE TIU
18 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

NO, the filing of a motion to dismiss does not amount to an actual admission of the material allegations
of the complaint. The admission is NOT the judicial admission contemplated in Sec. 4 of Rule 129 of
the Rules of Court. As the jurisprudence cited above puts it, the admission is merely hypothetical.
A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations of the complaint (Magno v. Court of
Appeals).
It partakes of a demurrer which hypothetically admits the truth of the factual allegations made in the
complaint.
However, the admission extends only to such matters of fact that have been sufficiently pleaded and not
to mere epithets charging fraud, allegations of legal conclusions or erroneous statements of law,
inferences from facts not stated, matters of evidence or irrelevant matters. Only deemed hypothetically
admitted are material allegations, not conclusions
What does a hypothetical admission mean?
2. During the trial
3. In other stages of the judicial proceeding, such as:
a. Pre-trial of Civil Cases
The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case constitutes judicial admissions.
One of the purposes of a pre-trial in a civil case is for the court to consider the possibility of obtaining
stipulations or admissions of facts (Sec. 2[d], Rule 18, Rules of Court). A pre-trial is mandatory and
because it is mandatory, it is an important part of a civil proceeding. Admissions therefore, in the pretrial, as well as those made during the depositions, interrogatories or requests for admission, are all
deemed judicial admissions because they are made in the course of the proceedings of the case.
Also, admissions in pre-trial briefs are judicial admissions, its submission is mandatory in a pre-trial of a
civil case. Submission of the pre-trial briefs is part of the judicial proceedings.
b. Pre-trial of Criminal Cases
Athough an admission made during the pre-trial is deemed to have been made in the course of a judicial
proceeding and is necessarily a judicial admission, an admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of
a criminal case is not necessarily admissible against him.
To be admissible, the conditions set forth by Sec. 2 of Rule 118 must be complied with. It must be
reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against
the accused.
Is this requirement required for admissions made during trial in criminal cases?
A stipulation of facts entered into by the prosecution and defense counsel during trial in open
court is automatically reduced in writing and contained in the official transcript of
proceedings had in court. An attorney who is employed to manage a partys conduct of a

lawsuit... has prima facie authority to make relevant admissions by pleadings, by oral or written
stipulation, which, unless allowed to be withdrawn are conclusive and binds the client. (People v.
Hernandez)
An offer of compromise by the accused in the pre-trial is a judicial admission, since the offer was made in
the course of a pre-trial which is a part of a judicial proceeding.
Under Sec. 27 of Rule 130, the offer of compromise by the accused could be considered as an
implied admission of guilt. (Programme, Inc. v. Province of Bataan)
c. Modes of Discovery
Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or requests for admission are also
considered judicial admissions
But note that under Sec. 3 of Rule 26, any admission made pursuant to the request for admission
is for the purpose of the pending action only. The admission shall not be considered as one for
any other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding.
Thus, generally while judicial admissions in a case are deemed extra-judicial admissions in another
case, an exception is where if the admission is the result of a request for admission, it cannot be
used in another cases.
FORM OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
RULE: AN ADMISSION MAY EITHER BE VERBAL OR WRITTEN
Sec. 4 of Rule 129 does NOT require a particular form for an admission.
HOW JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS ARE MADE

1.
EXPRESS/ACTUAL ADMISSIONS
CLARENCE TIU
19 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
2.

An admission made in a pleading may be an actual admission as when a party categorically admits a material
allegation made by the adverse party.
What about admissions by Counsel?
Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon a client. Even the negligence of counsel binds the
client. Acts of the counsel are acts of the client.

EXCEPT: Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when its
application will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property, or when the interests of justice so
require, relief is accorded the client who suffered by reason of the lawyers gross or palpable mistake or
negligence
IMPLIED ADMISSIONS (BY THE FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY DENY ALLEGATIONS)
An admission may likewise be inferred from the failure to specifically deny the material allegations in the other
partys pleadings.
But remember that you only need to specifically deny the ultimate facts, not conclusions of law
The rules of civil procedure for example, require a party to specifically deny allegations in the following cases
otherwise they are deemed admitted
a. Material averments in the complaint (Sec. 11, Rule 8)
The defendant must specifically deny material allegations in the complaint through his answer
EXCEPT: There are averments in the pleadings which are not deemed admitted even if the adverse party
fails to make a specific denial of the same, these are:
1. Immaterial allegations
2. Conclusions, non-ultimate facts in the pleading
3. Amount of unliquidated damages
Allegations
of Usury (Sec. 11, Rule 8)
b.
If the complaint makes an allegation of usury to recover usurious interest, the defendant must not only
specifically deny the same but must likewise do so under oath.
Failure to make the proper denial under oath would involve an implied admission of the allegation of usury.
Actions
or defenses founded upon written instruments (Sec. 8, Rule 8)
c.
When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, the genuineness and due execution of the
same instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them
and sets forth what he claims to be the facts
In this case, the specific denial must be coupled with an oath
BUT, an oath is not necessary when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.
But note that only its genuineness and due execution are deemed admitted, the party may still contest it
by arguing against the document by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of
limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration
In
a
written
request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and relevant
d.
document described in and exhibited with the request (Sec. 1, 2, 3, Rule 26)
Under Sec. 1 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, a party may, at any time after the issues have been joined,
file and serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of
any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request. The request for admission
may also be of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
The party to whom the request is directed must file and serve upon the party requesting the admission, a
sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in
detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. The sworn statement must be
filed and served within the period designated in the request which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days
after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion. If the sworn statement
required is not filed and served, each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be
deemed admitted (Sec. 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court).
Note that under Sec. 3 of Rule 26, any admission made pursuant to the request for admission is for the
purpose of the pending action only. The admission shall not be considered as one for any other purpose nor
may the same be used against him in any other proceeding.
EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
RULE: A JUDICIAL ADMISSION REQUIRES NO PROOF AND CANNOT BE CONTRADICTED BECAUSE THEY ARE
CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTY MAKING IT.
Thus, it need not be formally offered in evidence anymore, it is part of the records already
CLARENCE TIU
20 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

It is an established principle that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself
and binds the person who makes the same, absent any showing that this was made through palpable mistake, no
amount of rationalization can offset it
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact, as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof;
production of evidence is dispensed with.
A judicial admission removes the admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an admission made in
the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission, and is conclusive to such party, and all
proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed or not.
The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party
cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded
The trial court may reject evidence that a party adduces to contradict a judicial admission he made in his pleading
since such admission is conclusive as to him. That despite the presence of judicial admissions in a partys pleading,
the trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence presented because said admissions may not
necessarily prevail over documentary evidence
Relate judicial admissions with the principle of estoppel under Art. 1431
EXCEPT: IT MAY BE CONTRADICTED, BY THE ADMITTING PARTY, BY SHOWING THAT EITHER:

1. IT WAS MADE THROUGH PALPABLE MISTAKE
2.
The mistake that would relieve a party from the effects of his admission is not any mistake. It must be one
that is palpable, a mistake that is clear to the mind or plain to see. It is a mistake that is readily perceived
by the senses or the mind
THAT NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE (TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT OR IT WASNT WHAT THE PARTY MEANT)
This argument may be invoked when the statement of a party is taken out of context or that his statement
was made not in the sense it is made to appear by the other party
If a party invokes an admission by an adverse party, but cites the admission out of context, then the one
making the admission may show that he made no such admission, or that his admission was taken out of
context. That is the reason for the modifier such because if the rule simply states that the admission may be
contradicted by showing that no admission was made, the rule would not really be providing for a
contradiction of the admission but just a denial
CLARENCE TIU
21 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

KINDS OF EVIDENCE
Aside from the kinds of evidence according to the Rules of Admissibility in Rule 130 which are Object, Documentary
and Testimonial, these are the kinds of evidence as classified and categorized by jurisprudence:
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL
1. DIRECT EVIDENCE
Direct evidence proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another fact.
Such as:
The testimony of the prosecution witness claiming that he personally saw the accused when the latter drew and
fired his pistol on the victim without the latters provocation

When a witness, in a prosecution for arson, testifies that he was only a few feet away behind a bush when he
saw the accused set the nipa hut of the offended party on fire.
When a witness affirms in open court that the bus driver rammed a car on the opposite lane, and that he saw
what happened because he was seated as a passenger right behind the driver.
The original of a deed of sale is a direct evidence of the terms of the agreement of the parties.
2. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue through
an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established
It is the exact opposite of direct evidence. When the evidence is circumstantial, a fact is established by making an
inference from a previously established fact.
In other words, in this type of evidence, the court uses a fact from which an assumption is drawn. When the court
does not have to make an inference from one fact to arrive at a conclusion, the evidence is direct.
Such as:
The testimony of the victim that he dreads the mere presence of the accused is direct evidence that the
statement was made. However, it is also circumstantial evidence to show that this fear could have prevented the
victim from attacking the accused without provocation.
When the fingerprints of the accused are found in a crime scene of murder, such prints constitute circumstantial
evidence that he was in the same scene.
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
1.
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE
2.
Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind and character as that already given and that tends
to prove the same proposition
Such as:
When a witness testifies that he saw the event testified to and two other witnesses testify having seen the same
event which the first witness claimed he saw, the subsequent testimonies constitute cumulative evidence.
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
Corroborative evidence is one that is supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen or confirm
it.
It is additional evidence of a different character to the same point. It is usually of a different type from that
previously offered but which tends to prove the same fact.
As commonly used, the term connotes evidence which tends to confirm, validate, or strengthen evidence already
presented.
Although traditionally, this type of evidence is of a different type from the one it corroborates, the meaning of
corroborative evidence has been loosely used in local courts so as to cover also evidence of the same kind as that
already proferred as long as it affirms the previous evidence.
Such as:
If W testifies that the gun marked as Exhibit A was the weapon used in the shooting of the victim, the findings
of the crime laboratory that the gun bears only the fingerprints of the accused corroborates the testimony of W.
A witness claims that he saw Mr. X sign the document subject of the action. Mr. X denies the authenticity of his
signature. Evidence by a handwriting expert that the signature is indeed that of Mr. X is corroborative evidence.
Here, we have a testimonial evidence from an eyewitness, and a testimony from an expert who did not
personally witness the signing of the document.
CLARENCE TIU
22 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The testimony of X that he saw Y hack the victim with a bolo corroborates the previous testimony of Z that
indeed he saw Y strike the victim with a bladed weapon. Here, the previous testimony is corroborated by
evidence of the same kind, i.e., testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses. In this sense, the corroborating
evidence is also cumulative even if it is of the same kind and character.
Corroborative testimony is not always required. Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are
reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations are inaccurate
When the testimony of a single prosecution witness, where credible and positive, is sufficient to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. There is no law which requires that the testimony of a single witness
has to be corroborated, except where expressly mandated in determining the value and credibility of evidence.
Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered
The testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and
worthy of credence.
Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child.
His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion or judgment subject
to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases (Sec. 22, Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness).
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
These categories of evidence have been normally associated with testimonial evidence but there is no rule which
precludes their application to other forms of evidence.
1.
POSITIVE EVIDENCE
2.
Evidence is said to be positive when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does exist or that a
certain event happened.
Such as: the testimony of W that he saw P fire a gun at the victim is a positive evidence
Positive and negative evidence may likewise refer to the presence or absence of something
Such as: the presence of fingerprints of a person in a particular place is positive evidence of his having been
present in said place although absence of his fingerprints does not necessarily mean he was not in the same
place.
A negative finding in a paraffin test is not a conclusive evidence that one has not fired a gun because it is
possible for a person to fire a gun and yet bear no traces of nitrates or gunpowder, as when the culprit washes
his hands or wears gloves
Positive evidence is, as a general rule, more credible than negative evidence. The reason for this rule is that the
witness who testifies to a negative may have forgotten what actually occurred, while it is impossible to remember
what never existed
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
It is negative when the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not
actually exist.
Such as: the testimony of W that he could not have fired the gun because he was not armed during the incident
is a negative evidence.
A denial is a negative evidence. It is considered by the Court to be a very weak form of defense and can never
overcome an affirmative or positive testimony particularly when the latter comes from the mouth of a credible
witness
It is negative and self-serving which cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of credible witnesses
who testified on affirmative matters

A mere denial does not overturn the relative weight and probative value of an affirmative assertion. Denial is
inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability;

otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with no evidentiary value.
Like the defense of alibi, denial crumbles in the light of positive declarations. Denial cannot prevail over the
positive identification of the accused by the witnesses who had no ill-motive to testify falsely
Greater probative value is given to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is accorded to evidence
that is negative in character. Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than
the declaration of credible witness who testified on affirmative matters
NATURE AND DEFINITION OF 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)
CLARENCE TIU
23 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
WHAT IS OBJECT EVIDENCE?
Object or real evidence refers to evidence that is addressed to the senses of the court.
Object evidence does not refer to the perception of the witness and a recollection of that perception.
It is not a reconstruction of past events as related by a witness on the stand. Real or object evidence is not a verbal
description of something. It is not a replica or a mere representation of something.
Object or real evidence is exactly what its name suggests. It is the real thing itself. It consists of tangible things
Object or real evidence appeals directly to the senses of the court. Instead of relying on the recollection of the witness,
an object evidence will enable the court to have its own firsthand perception of the evidence.
Object evidence could have a very persuasive effect on the part of the court. A display of ones injury is very powerful.
Object evidence is not visual alone. It covers the entire range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell, and touch.
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence where the physical evidence runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the physical
evidence should prevail
Such as:
The knife used to slash the victims throat
The ring actually stolen by the accused
The bullet extracted from the victims chest,
The blood splattered on the wall of the room where the victim was found
Even a human being may be a form of real evidence. Where the racial characteristics of a party are at issue, the
court may, at its discretion, view the person concerned. In a criminal case where the complaining witness avers that
he was stabbed in the arm by the accused, the court may inspect his arm
WHAT IS DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE?
This is considered as object evidence as well

Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but it is referred to as demonstrative because it represents or
demonstrates the real thing.
It is not strictly real evidence because it is not the very thing involved in the case
Such as a map, diagram, photograph, or a model
This category of evidence is not separately defined in the Rules of Court and appears to have been incorporated
under the general term object evidence.
PRESENTATION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence, it only applies giants
testimonial compulsion
This is because is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him. It is
simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the accuseds own lips, against his will, admission of his
guilt.
It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object
evidence. It is not merely compulsion that is the kernel of the privilege, but testimonial compulsion.
ADMISSIBILITY OF 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)
ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE; AUTHENTICATION
RULE: THE ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT OR REAL EVIDENCE, LIKE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, REQUIRES THAT THE OBJECT
BE BOTH RELEVANT AND COMPETENT. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE BASIC REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT
EVIDENCE:
1. THE EVIDENCE MUST BE RELEVANT AND COMPETENT
2.
The admissibility of object or real evidence, like any other evidence, requires that the object be both relevant
and competent. Remember that to be relevant, the evidence in general must have a relationship to the fact in
issue. To be competent, it must not be excluded by the rules or by law. (Sec. 3, Rule 128)
THE EVIDENCE MUST BE AUTHENTICATED
CLARENCE TIU
24 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
3.

For the object not to be excluded by the Rules, the same must pass the test of authentication.
Authentication is taken up in Rule 132 as part of presentation of evidence
To authenticate the object, it must be shown that it is the very thing that is either the subject matter of the
lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the case.
It must be established that the object sought to be admitted is, in fact, the real thing and not a mere substitute or
representation of the real thing. This problem of authentication is commonly called laying the foundation for the
evidence.
If the prosecution wants the admission of the gun used in the murder, it must prove that it was the very same
gun used by the accused. Another gun, although identical with the actual gun in all respects, would not
satisfy the requirements of authentication.
THE AUTHENTICATION MUST BE MADE BY A COMPETENT WITNESS
4.
To authenticate the object, there must be someone who should identify the object to be the actual thing involved
in the litigation. This someone is the witness.
An object evidence, being inanimate, cannot speak for itself. It cannot present itself to the court as an exhibit.
Note that this requirement applies to all evidence, whether it be a document or an object, it needs a witness.
This is a very basic rule. In laymans term, the evidence must be sponsored by a witness.
The authentication of the object by a competent witness is to comply with the element of competence as an
essential ingredient of admissibility.
To authenticate the object, the witness must have capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved in the
litigation. Better still, he must have actual and personal knowledge of the exhibit he is presenting for admission.
This is because a witness can only testify to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
which are derived from his own perception.
Even a supposedly ancient document (a private document that is more than thirty years old produced from a
custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine and is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion), requires a witness to testify on the characteristics of the document even if it no
longer requires authentication.
An object evidence is not taken in isolation. It is weighed in relation to the testimony of a witness. Also, in giving
credence to a testimony, the court takes into consideration the physical evidence. If the testimony bears a
striking similarity with the physical evidence, the testimony becomes worthy of belief
More often than not, the presentation of object evidence supplements the credibility of the testimony of a
witness when the object has a clear relevance to the issue of the case.
An object evidence, when offered in accordance with the requisites for its admissibility, becomes evidence of the
highest order and speaks more eloquently than witnesses put together.
THE OBJECT MUST BE FORMALLY OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
The formal offer of evidence is particularly a vital act before the admission of evidence because the court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered (Sec. 34, Rule 132)
ADMISSIBILITY OF DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
RULE: THE EVIDENCE MUST SUFFICIENTLY AND ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE OBJECT IT SEEKS TO DEMONSTRATE OR
REPRESENT
The admissibility of this type of evidence largely depends on laying the proper foundation for the evidence.
The rule boils down to one basic question: Does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent the object it
seeks to demonstrate or represent? If it does, the evidence would be admissible.
Notable Kinds of Demonstrative Evidence
a. Photographs
Photographs of persons, things and places, when instructive to the understanding of the case, will be admitted
in evidence.
For a still photograph to be admitted, the same must be relevant and competent.
b. Motion pictures and recordings

c. Diagrams, models and maps
These types of demonstrative evidence are presented to indicate the relative locations or positions of objects
and persons.
d. X-ray pictures
X-ray pictures, also referred to as skiagraphs or radiographs, are admissible when shown to have been made
under circumstances as to assure their accuracy and relevancy to a material issue in the case.
Authenticated x-rays are normally involved in personal injury cases to show the location and extent of the injury.
e. Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments
CLARENCE TIU
25 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The issue of refusing or granting requests for demonstrations, experiments and tests in open court is a matter
subject to judicial discretion
In-court reenactment of material events by witnesses has been held permissible to help illustrate the testimony
of a witness
VIEW OF AN OBJECT OR SCENE; OCULAR INSPECTION
Remember that under Sec. 1 of Rule 130, when an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.
Courts have recognized that there are times when a party cannot bring an object to the court for viewing in the
courtroom. In such a situation, the court may take a view of an object.
The court may make an ocular inspection of a contested land to resolve questions of fact raised by the parties. It may
inspect a crime scene to clarify itself with certain matters raised by the litigants.
It may view the conditions of vehicles involved in a civil case for damages. Going out of the courtroom to observe
places and objects is commonly termed a view.
The view is expressly authorized by Sec. 1 of Rule 130 but even without this express provision, it is well-recognized
that the court has an inherent power to order a view when there is a need to do so (Sec. 5, Rule 135, Rules of Court).
A view disrupts the usual trial process and is time- consuming. Hence, in almost all jurisdictions, the trial judge is
granted discretion to grant or refuse a request for a view
The inspection may be made inside or outside the courtroom. An inspection or view outside the courtroom should be
made in the presence of the parties or at least with previous notice to them.
It is error for the judge, for example, to go alone to the land in question, or to the place where the crime was
committed and take a view without the previous knowledge of the parties. Such inspection or view is part of the trial
since evidence is thereby being received
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE (ACCORDING TO THE MEANS OF AUTHENTICATION)
For purposes of authentication of an object or for laying the foundation for the exhibit, object evidence may be
classified into the following
1.
UNIQUE OBJECTS
2.
These are objects that have readily identifiable marks

If the object has a unique characteristic (like the serial number of a caliber .45 pistol) it becomes readily
identifiable.
So long as the witness testifies that the object has a unique characteristic, he saw the object on the relevant
date, remembers its characteristics, asserts that the object shown to him in court is the same or substantially in
the same condition as when he first saw it and alleges that those characteristics are those of the object he is
identifying in court, the authentication requirement is satisfied.
OBJECTS MADE UNIQUE
3.
These are objects that are made readily identifiable

If the object does not have a unique characteristic (like the typical kitchen knife that has no serial number is
commonplace, and identical with a lot of knives of the same kind and quality) the witness may be able to identify
the same in court if he claims that he made the thing acquire a unique characteristic like placing identifying
marks on it.
All he has to do in court is to testify as to what he did to make the object identifiable and that the object
presented to him for identification in court has the characteristics he made on the object.
NON-UNIQUE OBJECTS
These are objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked

These refers to those which are not readily identifiable, were not made identifiable or cannot be made
identifiable
Such as drops of blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber, grains of sand and similar objects.
Under this situation, the proponent of the evidence must establish a chain of custody.
The purpose of establishing a chain of custody is to guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence and prevent
the introduction of evidence which is not authentic, but where the exhibit is positively identified, the chain of
custody of physical evidence is irrelevant.
It is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed
Since it is called a chain, there must be links to the chain. The links are the people who actually handled or had
custody of the object. Each of the links in the chain must show how he received the object, how he handled it to
prevent substitution, and how it was transferred to another. Each of the handlers of the evidence is a link in the
CLARENCE TIU
26 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

chain and must testify to make the foundation complete. This is the ideal way to show the chain of custody
although the ideal way is not absolutely required.
There is authority supporting the view that the prosecution is not required to elicit testimony from every
custodian or every person who had an opportunity to come in contact with the evidence sought to be
admitted
As long as one of the chains testifies and his testimony negates the possibility of tampering and that the
integrity of the evidence is preserved, his testimony alone is adequate to prove the chain of custody
Note that there may be special laws or rules on chain of custody for specific cases, such as in drug-related
crimes
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN DRUG CASES; RULE ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG CASES
This is a bit long, see the Rules on Chain of Custody in Drug Cases under the chapter Special Rules of Evidence for
more comprehensive stuff and the full text of the Rules
ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA EVIDENCE; RULES ON DNA EVIDENCE
See Chapter on Special Rules of Evidence for more comprehensive stuff and the full text of the Rules on DNA
Evidence
The issue concerning DNA testing was its admissibility as evidence (particularly in paternity and rape cases)
What is DNA?
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. A persons
DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a persons lifetime; the DNA in a persons blood is
the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue
and vaginal or rectal cells. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two
individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins (Agustin vs CA)
DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. The
totality of an individuals DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Rules
on DNA Evidence)
Is DNA Testing admissible as Evidence?
Yup, Court has acknowledged or admitted it in paternity cases (Agustin vs CA, Tecson v. COMELEC) and rape
cases (People vs Vallejo, People v. Janson, People v. Yatar)
Vallejo is considered to be the first real breakthrough of DNA as admissible and authoritative evidence in Philippine
jurisprudence. From a mere recognition of the existence of DNA testing, Vallejo moved towards an open use of DNA
evidence in deciding cases
Vallejo adopted the following guidelines to be used by courts in assessing the probative value of DNA
evidence (known as the Vallejo Standards):
1. How the samples were collected;
2. How they were handled;
3. The possibility of contamination of the samples;
4. The procedure followed in analyzing the samples;
5. Whether the proper standards and procedure were followed in conducting the tests; and
6. The qualification of the analyst who conducted the test
Note that after the Vallejo case, the SC issued the Rules on DNA Evidence in 2007. these are the primary rules to
be applied whenever DNA evidence is offered, used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in:
1. Criminal actions
2. Civil actions
3. Special proceedings
Does an order to submit to DNA Testing against the accused (in criminal cases) violate his constitutional right
against self-incrimination?
NO. There is no testimonial compulsion. (People vs Yatar)
Does an order to submit to DNA Testing against the defendant (in civil cases) violate his constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Yes, if the order was issued without probable cause or a prima facie case
The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the Bench and the Bar for the introduction and use of DNA
evidence in the judicial system. It provides the "prescribed parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and
validity (i.e., the proper procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the possible sources of error, the
available objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence as well as the probative value of DNA
evidence." It seeks "to ensure that the evidence gathered, using various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized
effectively and properly, and shall not be misused and/or abused and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure
CLARENCE TIU
27 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than prejudice the public. This does not mean, however, that
a DNA testing order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are
established. In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a show cause
hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or a
reasonable possibility of paternity or "good cause" for the holding of the test. A court order for blood testing
is considered a "search," which, under the Constitution, must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to
be valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a
counterpart of a finding of probable cause. (Lucas vs Lucas 2011)
PARAFFIN TESTS
Paraffin tests, in general, have been considered as inconclusive by the Court because scientific experts concur in the
view that paraffin tests have proved extremely unreliable in use.
The tests can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, but the tests alone cannot
determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm.
The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even a probability but not of infallibility
that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than gunpowder. A person
who tests positive may have handed one or more substances with the same positive reaction for nitrates such as
explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous plants.
The argument that the negative result of gunpowder nitrates from the paraffin test conducted shows an absence of
physical evidence that one fired a gun, is untenable as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the
presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test
The paraffin test is merely a corroborative evidence, neither proving nor disproving that a person did indeed fire a
gun.
The positive or negative results of the test can be influenced by certain factors, such as the wearing of gloves by
the subject, perspiration of the hands, wind direction, wind velocity, humidity, climate conditions, the length of the
barrel of the firearm, or the open or closed trigger guard of the firearm
POLYGRAPH TESTS (LIE DETECTOR TESTS)
A polygraph test operates on the principle that stress causes physiological changes in the body which can be measured
to indicate whether the subject of the examination is telling the truth.
During an examination in which a polygraph is used, sensors are attached to the subject so that the polygraph can
mechanically record the subjects physiological responses to a series of questions.
Courts accordingly uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the purpose of
establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime because it has not yet attained scientific acceptance
as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception
CLARENCE TIU
28 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

NATURE AND DEFINITION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their
contents. (n)
RULES OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Sec. 1(h), Rule 2: (h) Electronic document refers to information or the representation of information, data,
figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions 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 Rules, the term electronic document
may be used interchangeably with electronic data message.
WHAT IS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE?
Documents, as evidence, do not exclusively refer to writings. They may refer to any other material like objects as long
as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression and offered as proof of
their contents.
Categories of documents as evidence:
1. WRITINGS
Such as written contracts or wills
2. ANY OTHER MATERIAL CONTAINING MODES OF WRITTEN EXPRESSIONS
Those which are not traditionally considered as writings but are actually objects which contain modes of written
expressions.
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
3.
These are documents under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, see Sec. 1(h), Rule 2. For more information and
the full text, see the chapter on Special Rules on Evidence
An electronic document, also known interchangeably as electronic data message, based on the definition of the
Rules, does not only refer to the information itself. It also refers to the representation of that information.
Whether it be the information itself or its representation, for the document to be deemed electronic, it is
important that it be received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced

electronically
The rule does not absolutely require that the electronic document be initially generated or produced
electronically.
A contract, for instance, prepared through the traditional written way may be converted to an electronic
document if transmitted or received or later recorded electronically.

Electronic documents are the functional equivalents of paper-based documents
Since an electronic document is the functional equivalent of a paper-based document, whenever a rule of
evidence makes reference to the terms of a writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any
other form of writing, such terms are deemed to include electronic documents.
It is therefore, but logical to consider the rules on evidence in the Rules of Court, including statutes
containing rules of evidence, to be of suppletory application to the Rules on Electronic Evidence in all
matters not specifically covered by the latter.
Note that the mere fact that the evidence are writings or materials containing modes of written expressions do
NOT ipso facto make such documentary evidence. For such writings or materials to be deemed documentary
evidence, the same must be offered as proof of their contents.
If offered for some other purpose, the writings or materials would not be deemed documentary evidence but merely
object evidence.
When a contract is presented in court to show that it exists or simply to establish its condition, it is not offered to
prove its contents. The contract therefore, is not considered a documentary evidence but an object or real evidence.
CLARENCE TIU
29 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

A private document may be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and as object evidence
depending on the purpose for which the document is offered. If offered to prove its existence, condition or for any
purpose other than the contents of a document, the same is considered as an object evidence. When the private
document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is considered as a documentary evidence. The document
may be offered for both purposes under the principle of multiple admissibility.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN GENERAL
RULE: THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, LIKE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, REQUIRES THAT THE OBJECT BE
BOTH RELEVANT AND COMPETENT. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE BASIC REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
1. THE DOCUMENT MUST BE RELEVANT AND COMPETENT
2. THE EVIDENCE MUST BE AUTHENTICATED
3. THE DOCUMENT MUST BE AUTHENTICATED BY A COMPETENT WITNESS
4. THE DOCUMENT MUST BE FORMALLY OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
NOTE: these are the same basic requirements for admissibility of object evidence
Documentary evidence is also subject to general exclusionary rules such as the rule on hearsay, best evidence rule,
and parol evidence rule.
Thus, depending upon the specific purpose for which the contents of the document is offered, there are certain
inevitable issues which may arise in connection with the admissibility of the document aside from the issue of
relevance.
First, has the document been authenticated? Is it relevant? Is it the best evidence? Is it a mere parol evidence and
so must be excluded? Is it hearsay and therefore, must be rejected? It would therefore, be critical to remember that
whenever a documentary evidence is involved, the best evidence rule, parol evidence rule, and hearsay rule, or any
one of these rules may come into play.
On the other hand, where the evidence is offered as an object evidence, the best evidence rule, parol evidence
rule, and hearsay rule find no application
MANNER OF AUTHENTICATING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
This is discussed in Rule 132(b), just keep this in mind for now
BEST EVIDENCE RULE

NOTE: What follows from this point is the discussion on the Best Evidence Rule and the Parol Evidence Rule, these are
rules of exclusion, meaning they pertain to the Admissibility of evidence, particularly the Competence of evidence
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of
a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following
cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part
of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered,
and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a)
Section 4. Original of document.
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) 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) 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)
CLARENCE TIU
30 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. If the document is in the
custody or under the control of adverse party, he 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. (5a)
Section 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)
RULES OF 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.
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 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 a copy in lieu of the original.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE; ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
RULE: WHEN THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY IS THE CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENT, NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE
OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ITSELF
The term best evidence, as used in the best evidence rule, has been a source of misconception. It has often
been misunderstood and given a meaning it does not deserve.
The rule has been described as a misnomer because it has often been misunderstood and given a meaning it
does not deserve

Despite the word best, the rule does not proclaim itself as the highest and most reliable evidence in the
hierarchy of evidence.
The term best has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value in relation to other types of
evidentiary rules. It is not intended to mean the most superior evidence.

More accurately, it is the original document rule, or the primary evidence rule
The rule is not intended to mean that a weaker evidence be substituted by a stronger evidence. It merely
comprehends a situation where the evidence offered is substitutionary in nature when what should be offered is
the original evidence
The only actual rule that the best evidence phrase denotes today is the rule requiring the production of
the original writing
There must be an inquiry into the contents of the document
When a document is involved in the inquiry but the document is only collaterally in issue, the best evidence rule
does NOT apply. A document is collaterally in issue when the purpose of introducing the document is not to
establish its terms, but to show facts that have no reference to its contents like its existence, condition,
execution or delivery.
There is no reason to apply the best evidence rule when the issue does not involve the contents of a writing.
The key, therefore, to the understanding of the best evidence rule is simply to remember that the rule cannot
be invoked unless the contents of a writing is the subject of judicial inquiry, in which case, the best evidence is
the original writing itself.
Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution,
the best evidence rule does NOT apply
CLARENCE TIU
31 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Example: In a case, the Court held that the rule finds no application where a party never disputed the terms and
conditions of the promissory note, leaving the court to conclude that, as far as the parties are concerned, the
wordings or contents of the note are clear enough and leave no room for disagreement. The defense of lack of
consideration and that the signature in the note was not made in the personal capacity of the respondent are
defenses which do not question the precise wordings of the promissory note which should have paved the way
for the application of the best evidence rule
RATIONALE BEHIND THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
The underlying purpose of the best evidence rule is the prevention of fraud or mistake in the proof of the contents of
a writing
The basic premise justifying the rule is the need to present to the court the exact words of a writing where a slight
variation of words may mean a great difference in rights.
An ancillary justification for the rule is the prevention and detection of fraud.
The rule is also justified by the need to avoid unintentional or intentional mistaken transmissions of the contents of a
document through the introduction of selected portions of a writing to which the adverse party has no full access To
avoid possible erroneous interpretations or distortions of a writing, an objection based on the best evidence rule
prevents a party from proving the contents of a writing by a copy thereof or by oral testimony if the original writing itself
is available.
A purpose of the rule requiring the production by the offeror of the best evidence is the prevention of fraud, because if a
party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it and presents inferior or secondary evidence in its place, the
presumption is that the latter evidence is withheld from the court and the adverse party for a fraudulent or devious
purpose which its production would expose and defeat. As long as the original evidence can be had, the court should
not receive in evidence that which is substitutionary in nature, such as photocopies, in the absence of any clear
showing that the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court. Such photocopies must be
disregarded, being inadmissible evidence and barren of probative weight
WAIVER OF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
RULE: THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE MAY BE WAIVED IF NOT RAISED IN THE TRIAL
The presentation or the offer of the original may be waived. If the party against whom the secondary evidence is
offered does not object thereto when the same is offered in evidence, the secondary evidence becomes primary
evidence.
But even if admitted as primary evidence, its probative value must still meet the various tests by which its reliability
is to be determined. Its admissibility should not be confused with its probative value
In one case, although the marriage certificate, the marriage license, and other pieces of documentary evidence
were only photocopies, the fact that these have been examined and admitted by the trial court, with no objections
having been made as to their authenticity and due execution, means that these documents are deemed sufficient
proof of the facts contained therein
WHAT IS AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
The laymans concept refers to the original as the first one written and from which mere copies are made, transcribed
or imitated. Accordingly, from this perspective, there can only be one original. This is not however, so. Under the Rules
of Court, there are instances when subsequent documents are also regarded as originals
See Sec. 4, Rule 130, this enumerates what are considered as original documents
1. THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ITSELF, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY
The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry
When the rule speaks of an original, it obviously does not refer to the original of an object evidence but an
original of a documentary evidence. In a documentary evidence, its contents are the subjects of the inquiry.
2. SEVERAL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL COPIES OR CONTENTS, EXECUTED AT OR ABOUT THE SAME TIME
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.
Examples:
When a lawyer writes a pleading in two or more copies which are executed at the same time, with identical
contents, each document is an original
So are writings with identical contents made by printing, mimeographing, lithography and other similar
methods executed at the same time. Thus, each newspaper sold in the stand is an original in itself.
CLARENCE TIU
32 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of paper with the writing and the signature on
the first sheet being reproduced in the sheets beneath by the same stroke of the pen or writing medium, all
the sheets are deemed originals
Where a document is executed in duplicate or multiplicate form, each one of the parts is primary evidence of
the contents of the document, and the other need not be produced. In such a case, each is deemed an
original
BUT, if several copies of a document are made at the same by inserting on each page a carbon paper and
only one of them is signed, the signed copy is the original and the others are only copies
3. SEVERAL DOCUMENTS IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, ONE BEING COPIED FROM ANOTHER AT OR NEAR
THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION
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.
Requisites:
a. There must be entries made and repeated in the regular course of business
b. The entries must be made at or near the time of the transaction
Example: If a data clerk makes an entry of a transaction which is repeated several times for the files of each
department of the company, each document where the entry was made is an original as long as the entries are
made at or near the time of the transaction and in the regular course of business.
4. THE PRINTOUT OR OUTPUT READABLE BY SIGHT OR OTHER MEANS OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT AND ITS COPIES
EXECUTED AT OR ABOUT THE SAME TIME WITH IDENTICAL CONTENTS
This is under the Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence:

Sec. 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. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
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 copies or duplicates shall
be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Note that it must be shown to reflect the data accurately
The copies of the printout or output readable by sight are also deemed originals where the copies were
executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart reproduces the original
EXCEPT: For the court NOT to consider the copies as having the same effect as originals:
a. A genuine question as to the authenticity of the original must be raised, or
b. That the circumstances would make it unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original
APPLICATION OF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE IN RELATION TO THE SECONDARY EVIDENCE RULE
Basically, the rule is to present the original, except when you can justify its unavailability in the manner
provided for by the Rules of Court.
1. SEE IF THE MATTER FALLS UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE, IF IT DOES, PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL
Determine the matter inquired into. If the inquiry involves a document, and its contents are the subject of that same
inquiry, the best evidence rule applies and must, therefore, be complied with.
The procedural compliance of the rule requires the presentation of the original document, and not a copy of that
document.
So long as the original is available, no other evidence can be substituted for the original because the original is the
best evidence in relation to mere copies or substitutes thereof.
2. IF THE ORIGINAL CANNOT BE PRESENTED, PRESENT SECONDARY EVIDENCE AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS
Now what is to be done if, for one reason or another, the original cannot be presented in evidence? If this happens,
the second step now comes into play.
This step involves two stages:
a. LAYING THE BASIS: FINDING AN ADEQUATE LEGAL EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO PRESENT THE ORIGINAL
These are the exceptions to the best evidence rule in Sec. 3, Rule 130
b. PRESENTING SECONDARY EVIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE OF SECONDARY

EVIDENCE
More on this in Sec. 5 to 8
CLARENCE TIU
33 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE; LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PRESENTING SECONDARY EVIDENCE
These are the legal basis which should be established by the proponent/offeror before he can present secondary
evidence in lieu of the best evidence. Note that the burden of proof is on the offeror of the secondary evidence
RULE: THESE ARE THE INSTANCES WHICH CONSTITUTES A LEGAL EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO PRESENT THE
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND IS THE BASIS TO PRESENTING SECONDARY EVIDENCE
1. ORIGINAL IS LOST OR DESTROYED, OR CANNOT BE PRODUCED IN COURT
When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of
the offeror
Requisites:
a. The offeror must prove the execution and existence of the original document
b. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability
c. The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith.
d. The offeror must prove that he employed all reasonable means and diligence to look for the originals
Accordingly, the correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss and contents, although at the
sound discretion of the court, this order may be changed if necessary
The due execution and authenticity of the document must be proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the
document executed or written, or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker
This exception does not only cover loss or destruction but also other reasons for the failure to produce the
original in court even if the original is not lost or destroyed, as when the original is beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the court
Also falling within this exception are cases where the original consists of inscriptions on immovable objects and
monuments such as tombstones because they cannot be produced in court
Note that the offeror must duly prove the cause of the unavailability, he must show that all reasonable means
and diligence was employed to look for the original.
2. ORIGINAL IS IN THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE ADVERSE PARTY
When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and
the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice
Requisites:
a. The offeror must prove the existence of the original document
b. That said document is under the custody or control of the adverse party;
c. That the proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse party reasonable notice to produce
the original document
d. That the adverse party failed to produce the original document despite the reasonable notice.
The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or control of the party against whom it is offered
does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence.
The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said
party to produce the document.
The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original, or made in open court in the
presence of the adverse party, or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the
original has sufficient time to produce the same.
When such party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce
it, then secondary evidence may be admitted
What is the effect of not offering a document in evidence after calling for its production and inspection?
If the party who calls for the production of a document does not offer the same in evidence, no unfavorable
inference may be drawn from such failure. This is because under Sec. 8 of Rule 130, a party who calls for
the production of a document is not required to offer it
3. ORIGINAL IS OF NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS
When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole
Requisites:
a. The original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
b. They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
c. The fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole
The main reason for this exception lies in the determination by the court that production of the original writings
and their examination in court would result in great loss of time considering that the evidence desired from the
voluminous accounts is only the general result of the whole like a summary of the accounts.
CLARENCE TIU
34 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Under this exception, a witness may be allowed to offer a summary of a number of documents, or the summary
itself may be admitted, if the underlying documents are so voluminous and intricate as to make an examination
of all of them impracticable. They may also be presented in the form of charts or calculations
The voluminous records must, however, be made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the
summary of the voluminous records may be tested on cross-examination
Example: An accountants written summary of some 150,000 sales invoices for goods sold by the plaintiff may
be allowed under this exception over the objection of the defendant that the sales invoices constitute the original
documents and should be presented.
4. ORIGINAL IS A PUBLIC RECORD
When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office
There are instances when the original of a document is a public record or is recorded in a public office
Public records are generally not to be removed from the places where they are recorded and kept
For this reason, the proof of the contents of a document which forms part of a public record may be done by
secondary evidence.
This evidence is a certified true copy of the original. This certified copy is to be issued by the public officer in
custody of the public records
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. When the original document has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in
some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. When the original of document
is in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)
PRESENTATION OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE; ORDER OF PREFERENCE
RULE: THE PRESENTATION OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE MUST BE IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

1. A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
2. A RECITAL OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT IN SOME AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT
3. BY THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES
Secondary evidence refers to evidence other than the original instrument or document itself
The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must be strictly followed.
Because of the requirements of the rule, the testimony of the witness to prove the contents of the lost original is
inadmissible if a copy is available or if there is a recital of the contents of the writing in some authentic document.
Under the Rules of Court, a copy of the original is the best secondary evidence. If it is available, other secondary
evidence will not be admitted.
Remember that the presentation or the offer of the original may be waived. If the party against whom the secondary
evidence is offered does not object thereto when the same is offered in evidence, the secondary evidence becomes
primary evidence.
But even if admitted as primary evidence, its probative value must still meet the various tests by which its reliability
is to be determined. Its admissibility should not be confused with its probative value
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it
is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts
in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
CLARENCE TIU
35 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of
the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE; WRITTEN AGREEMENT RULE; INTEGRATION RULE
RULE: WHEN THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO WRITING, IT IS CONSIDERED AS CONTAINING
ALL THE TERMS AGREED UPON AND THERE CAN BE, BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, NO
EVIDENCE OF SUCH TERMS OTHER THAN THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
This is also called the integration rule.
The parol evidence rule becomes operative when the issues in the litigation are the terms of a written
agreement.
In clear-cut language, the basic question that would bring the parol evidence rule into play is: What have the
parties agreed upon?

The appropriate answer would be: Look into the written agreement and not elsewhere because only the
contents of the written agreement are admissible in evidence.
Meaning of Parol Evidence
The term parol evidence means something oral or verbal but with reference to contracts it means extraneous
evidence or evidence aliunde.

As used in the Rules of Court, the term refers not only to oral but also to written evidence which are outside of
or extraneous to the written contract between the parties.

The Written Agreement is considered to contain ALL the terms agreed upon
There is no need to look into any other source because such sources are barred by the rule. They are barred
because, as Sec. 9 of Rule 130 provides, the writing ...is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon
The provisions of Sec. 9 of Rule 130 consider the written agreement as the embodiment of all the terms agreed
upon by the parties, i.e., a total integration of said agreement. Because the writing is considered as containing
all the terms of said agreement, the traditional distinction between partial and total integration observed in
traditional American jurisprudence appears irrelevant to the application of the parol evidence rule in a Philippine
setting.
The written agreement already represents the final expression of the agreement of the parties on the
subject. Being the final agreement, any extraneous or parol evidence is inadmissible for any of the
following purposes: (a) modify, (b) explain, or (c) add to the terms of the written agreement.
The parol evidence rule, therefore, forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement
by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying
the purport of the written contract
APPLICABILITY OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
1.
THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE APPLIES ONLY TO AGREEMENTS (CONTRACT) WHICH HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO WRITING.
THE TERM "AGREEMENT" INCLUDES WILLS
Among the various evidentiary rules, it is the parol evidence rule that has direct application to the law on contracts.
When the agreement is merely oral, the parol evidence rule should not be applied.
A contract is a meeting of the minds between two or more persons. The Civil Code does not define a contract as a
document, a deed or an instrument. The document, deed and instrument are merely the tangible evidence of a
contract. It is the meeting of the minds between the parties that constitutes the contract.
There can be a contract of sale, for instance, without a document. By the clear terms of the Civil Code, a contract of
sale may be made in writing, or by word of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may even be
inferred from the conduct of the parties
The law further provides that contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered into,
provided all the requisites for their validity are present, namely consent, object, and cause
While, as a rule, a written form is not required for the existence of a contract because contracts are perfected by
mere consent, it would be legally convenient for the parties to reduce the contract in written form in order to have a
tangible and incontrovertible evidence of a previous meeting of the minds
The decision of the parties to reduce the agreement in written form is critical to the application of the parol
evidence rule. When they execute a written contract, the parol evidence rule ipso facto comes into play
CLARENCE TIU
36 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
2.

Not all writings, however, will trigger the application of the parol evidence rule. That writing must embody
an agreement.
There is only one writing which, although not legally an agreement, is considered to be one for purposes
of the application of the parol evidence rule. This writing is a will.
The last paragraph of Sec. 9 of Rule 130 confirms this observation, thus: The term agreement includes wills
Note that while the parol evidence rule applies to wills, an express trust concerning an immovable or any
interest therein may not be proved by parol evidence (Art. 1443, Civil Code)
Note that Sec. 9 of Rule 130 only makes reference to a writing, not a public writing or a private writing.
ONLY THE PARTIES AND SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST ARE BOUND BY THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE. THE RULE DOES NOT
BIND SUITS INVOLVING STRANGERS TO THE CONTRACT.
The rule that the terms of an agreement are to be proven only by the contents of the writing itself refers to suits
between parties and their successors in interest
It applies only to the parties to a written agreement and those who are privy to a party or successors-in-interest
Thus, 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
RATIONALE BEHIND THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
The parol evidence rule is designed to give certainty to written transactions, preserve the reliability and protect
the sanctity of written agreements.
Spoken words could be notoriously undesirable unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform language.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
RULE: A PARTY MAY PRESENT EVIDENCE TO MODIFY, EXPLAIN OR ADD TO THE TERMS OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT, BUT
HE MUST:
1. PROVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MATTERS:
a.
b.
c.
d.
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
The validity of the written agreement; or
The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
2. PUT SUCH MATTERS IN ISSUE IN THE PLEADINGS
PUTTING IN ISSUE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Introducing parol evidence means offering extrinsic or extraneous evidence that would modify, explain or add to the
terms of the written agreement, but parol evidence may only be allowed, if any of the matters mentioned above is put in
issue in the pleadings.
Without complying with this requirement putting in issue in the pleadings parol evidence cannot be introduced.
The parol evidence rule does not per se bar the introduction of parol evidence as long as the pleader puts
in issue in the pleading any of the matters set forth in the rule such as the mistake or imperfection of the
writing, its failure to express the true agreement of the parties or the existence of subsequent agreements.
The key words are putting in issue in the pleading. Unless duly pleaded, a party will be barred from offering extrinsic
evidence over the objection of the adverse party.
It is only where a party puts in issue in the pleadings the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent
of the parties thereto that said party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement
Note that even if parol evidence is admitted, such admission would not mean that the court would give probative value
to the parol evidence. Admissibility is not the equivalent of probative value or credibility.
If the petitioner, for instance, claims that the parties had entered into a verbal agreement subsequent to the written
agreement, the existence of the verbal agreement must be sufficiently supported by evidence
Example: Seller sues Buyer for P300,000.00, the unpaid balance of the price of a car bought by and duly delivered to
the latter. Although the deed of sale stipulated a contract price of P700,000.00, the actual oral agreement was only for
Buyer to pay a price of P400,000.00, an amount already paid. The amount as written in the deed of sale was actually a
result of mere inadvertence. If Buyer wants to prove during the trial that the true price as agreed by the parties is
P400,000.00, Buyer must allege in his answer to the complaint that there was a mistake in the writing and it does not
reflect the true agreement of the parties. Such allegations would put such matters in issue in the pleading, opening the
door to the introduction of parol evidence
CLARENCE TIU
37 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (EXPOUNDED)
1. INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY IN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT
An instance when evidence aliunde or parol evidence may be allowed to modify, explain or even add to the written
agreement is when an intrinsic ambiguity exists in the written agreement.
What is Intrinsic Ambiguity?
Intrinsic or latent ambiguity is one which is not apparent on the face of the document but which lies in the
person or thing that is the subject of the document or deed.

In other words, the ambiguity is intrinsic or latent when the language of the writing is clear and intelligible and
suggests but a single meaning, but some matter extraneous to the writing creates the ambiguity
In this type of ambiguity, the document is clear on its face but matters extraneous to the agreement create the
ambiguity.
As long as the latent or intrinsic ambiguity is raised as an issue in the pleadings, the court will allow evidence
aliunde to explain the ambiguity to give effect to the intention of a party or the parties.
Example: The testators will bequeaths to Jose Navidad, his grandson, a parcel of grazing land with an area of
ten thousand square meters, located in a town called Magdiwang. It was discovered after his death that the
testator owns two parcels of land in the same place which are of exactly the same area and description. There is
here an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. Similarly, if the testator owns only one parcel of land and bequeaths
that land to his grandson, described in the will as Jose Navidad, but it was discovered later that he has two
grandsons with the same name, there also exists an intrinsic or latent ambiguity. Parol evidence may be
introduced to show the exact grazing land referred to in the will or the grandson intended in the will provided
that the wills intrinsic ambiguity is put in issue.
Where the ambiguity is patent or extrinsic, parol evidence will NOT be admitted even if the same is put in
issue in the pleading.
A patent or extrinsic ambiguity is that which appears on the very face of the instrument, and arises from the
defective, obscure, or insensible language used

Parol evidence is not admissible to explain the ambiguity otherwise the court would be creating instead of
construing a contract.
Even if a pleader raises as an issue the extrinsic or patent ambiguity in a contract or will, the court will not allow
parol evidence to explain the ambiguity or supply the deficiency. The rule only allows parol evidence in the case
of an intrinsic or latent ambiguity.
Example: a donor writes in the deed of donation that he is donating to Jose, one of his cars. Without describing
the specific car, there is a patent ambiguity. The ambiguity which is apparent on the very face of the document
cannot be clarified or explained by parol evidence.
2. MISTAKE OR IMPERFECTION OR THE FAILURE OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO EXPRESS THE TRUE INTENT AND
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
The admission of evidence aliunde may be justified when there is a mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement.
The failure of the writing to express the true agreement of the parties is another ground for admitting parol
evidence as long as the issue is raised in the pleadings. In fact, mistake or imperfection of the writing may be a
reason for the failure of the instrument or writing to embody the intention of the parties.
This does not mean, however, that the mistake or imperfection prevented the meeting of the minds between or
among the parties. This only means that despite the meeting of the minds, the true agreement of the
parties is not reflected in the instrument.
Aside from mistake, there are some other reasons enumerated in substantive law for the failure of the instrument to
express the true intention of the parties like fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, ignorance, lack of skill,
negligence or bad faith on the part of the person drafting the instrument (Art. 1359, 1364 Civil Code)
Note that 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
Reformation of the Instrument containing the Contract
When there is a meeting of the minds between the parties, but their true intention is not expressed in the
instrument by any of the aforementioned causes, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the
instrument
In an action for reformation of the instrument under Art. 1359 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff may introduce parol
evidence to show the real intention of the parties. An action for reformation presupposes that a meeting of the
minds exists between the parties, i.e., there is a contract between them although the instrument that evidences
the contract does not reflect the true agreement of the parties by reason of, for instance, fraud or mistake.
CLARENCE TIU
38 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The action for reformation presupposes that there is nothing wrong with the contract itself, only the instrument
containing it, because there is a meeting of minds between the parties
Examples:
If the document appears to be a sale, parol evidence may be resorted to if the same does not express the true
intent of the parties because it is actually a loan. The owner of the property may prove that the contract is really
a loan with mortgage by raising as an issue in the pleading the fact that the document is not really a sale
The parties have agreed on the area of the land subject of the sale. By an act of fraud of the seller who
prepared the deed of sale, a smaller area is indicated in the deed. There is nothing defective in the contract
which is the meeting of the minds. The defect is in the deed of sale, which is the instrument. If an action for
reformation is brought, the action must be for the purpose of reforming the instrument, not for reforming the
contract.
If the parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of property, but the instrument states that the property is sold
absolutely or with a right of repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper
3. THE VALIDITY OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT
Atty. Villareal calls this the monkey wrench technique

This is when a party challenges the validity of the contract itself, and not merely the instrument containing it. Such
as when any of the essential requisites of a contract are absent
Action for Annulment of Contract
If there is no meeting of the minds between the parties because of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but an action for annulment (Art. 1359, Civil
Code) because the contract is rendered voidable by the vitiation of the consent of one of the parties
4. THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER TERMS AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST AFTER THE
EXECUTION OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT
Parol evidence on subsequent and independent agreements may be admitted.

The rules limit the inadmissibility of parol evidence or extrinsic evidence to prior or contemporaneous
stipulations, NOT subsequent agreements.
The rule forbidding the admission of evidence aliunde or extrinsic evidence did not prohibit proof of an
agreement entered into after the written instrument was executed, notwithstanding that such agreement may
have the effect of adding to, changing or modifying the written agreement of the parties
This means that the existence of another agreement after the execution of the original written agreement may
be introduced without first complying with the requirement of putting the subsequent agreement in issue
Under the current rules, it must be pleaded or put in issue in the pleadings
Note that in contrast to the 1964 Rules on Evidence, the amendments to the rules, effective July 1, 1989, added
subsequent agreements as among those matters that need to be put in issue. This signifies that before
evidence may be introduced that the parties entered into another agreement after the execution of the written
agreement, such subsequent agreement has first to be put in issue in the pleadings. The phraseology of the rule
leads one to conclude that, unlike traditional jurisprudence, such a subsequent agreement could be invoked only
if its existence is put in issue in the pleading.
The present rule now requires that the admissibility of subsequent agreements be conditioned upon its
being put in issue (Sec. 9[d], Rule 130, Rules of Court). Before the amendments, there was no such
requirement. Subsequent agreements had always been outside the ambit of the parol evidence rule.
Example: If a written agreement was executed by the parties on December 22, 2011, agreements before (prior)
that date or even on the same date (contemporaneous) which modify, alter, or contradict the stipulations written into
the December 22 agreement are not admissible since these constitute parol evidence. But assuming that the same
parties entered into another agreement on January 5, 2012 which modifies some of the terms of the December 22
agreement, would the January 5 agreement be admissible without violating the parol evidence rule? Under
traditional rules, the agreement would be admissible because subsequent agreements are not barred by the parol
evidence rule.
5.
COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS
Even if there was a written agreement on a particular subject matter, evidence of a collateral agreement between
the same parties on the same or related subject matter may be admitted
Collateral agreements have been admitted in the following cases:
1. Where the collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract. (Robles vs. Lizarraga
Hermanos)
2. Where the collateral agreement has not been integrated in and is independent of the written contract, as where it is
suppletory to the original contract. (Robles vs. Lizarraga Hermanos)
3. Where the collateral agreement is subsequent to or novatory of the written contract. (Filipinas Manufacturers Bank
vs Eastern Rizal Fabricators)
CLARENCE TIU
39 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

But this also falls under the 4th exception, the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement
4. Where the collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract
may become operative or effective (Henry W. Peabody & Co vs Bromfield),
But this exception does not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the agreement.
6.
WAIVER BY FAILURE TO OBJECT

The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to invoke the benefits of the rule. This waiver may be made by
failure to object to the introduction of evidence aliunde.
Inadmissible evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to object. Failure to object to the parol evidence
presented by the adverse party operates as a waiver of the protection of the parol evidence rule
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
As to Preference of
Document
Establishes a preference for the original

document over secondary evidence thereof
Not concerned with the primacy of evidence but

presupposes that the original is available
As to the Evidence
Precluded
Precludes the admission of secondary

evidence if the original document is
available
Precludes the admission of other evidence to prove

the terms of a document other than the contents of
the document itself for the purpose of varying the
terms of the writing
As to the Persons who

can invoke it
Can be invoked by any litigant to an action

whether or not said litigant is a party to the
document involved
Can be invoked only by the parties to the document

and their successors-in-interest
As to the Documentary
Evidence Covered
Applies to all forms of writing
The parol evidence rule applies to written

agreements (contracts), and wills
Issue involved
The contents of a document must be the

subject of inquiry
The contents of a written agreement (including

wills) must be the subject to inquiry
Rule
The parties must look at original document

only
The parties must look at the written agreement only
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
*This should be part of Civil Law.. zzz
Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 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 who language he is to interpret. (11)
CLARENCE TIU
40 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 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 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)
Section 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 was made. (15)
Section 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)
Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order
to determine its true character. (17)
NEW CIVIL CODE
Article 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting
parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. If the words appear to be contrary to the evident
intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. (1281)
Article 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent
acts shall be principally considered. (1282)
Article 1372. However general the terms of a contract may be, they shall not be understood to comprehend
things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to agree.
(1283)
Article 1373. If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings, it shall be understood as
bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. (1284)
Article 1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful
ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly. (1285)
Article 1375. Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that which is most in
keeping with the nature and object of the contract. (1286)
Article 1376. The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities
of a contract, and shall fill the omission of stipulations which are ordinarily established. (1287)
Article 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who
caused the obscurity. (1288)
Article 1378. When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established in the preceding
articles, and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract, the least transmission of
CLARENCE TIU
41 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

rights and interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall be settled in favor of the greatest
reciprocity of interests. If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way that it
cannot be known what may have been the intention or will of the parties, the contract shall be null and void.
Article 1379. The principles of interpretation stated in Rule 123 of the Rules of Court shall likewise be
observed in the construction of contracts. (n)
Article 788. If a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations, in case of doubt, that
interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred. (n)
Article 789. When there is an imperfect description, or when no person or property exactly answers the
description, mistakes and omissions must be corrected, if the error appears from the context of the will or
from extrinsic evidence, excluding the oral declarations of the testator as to his intention; and when an
uncertainty arises upon the face of the will, as to the application of any of its provisions, the testator's
intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will, taking into consideration the circumstances under
which it was made, excluding such oral declarations. (n)
Article 790. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless a clear
intention to use them in another sense can be gathered, and that other can be ascertained. Technical words in
a will are to be taken in their technical sense, unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention, or
unless it satisfactorily appears that the will was drawn solely by the testator, and that he was unacquainted
with such technical sense. (675a)
Article 791. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some
effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting
a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. (n)
Article 792. The invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of
the other dispositions, unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other
dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made. (n)
Article 793. Property acquired after the making of a will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had
possessed it at the time of making the will, should it expressly appear by the will that such was his intention.
Article 794. Every devise or legacy shall cover all the interest which the testator could device or bequeath in
the property disposed of, unless it clearly appears from the will that he intended to convey a less interest. (n)
Article 795. The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it
is made. (n)
CLARENCE TIU
42 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

NATURE AND DEFINITION OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
WHAT IS TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE?
Testimonial or oral evidence is evidence elicited from the mouth of a witness as distinguished from real and
documentary evidence.
It is sometimes called viva voce evidence which literally means living voice or by word of mouth. In this kind of
evidence, a human being is called to the stand, is asked questions, and answers the questions asked of him. The
person who gives the testimony is called a witness.
IMPORTANCE OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Experience and plain observation will tell us that the presentation and introduction of every kind of evidence,
whether it be object, demonstrative or documentary evidence, need the intervention of a witness.
The admission of any evidence requires its identification by a witness. It is a legal truth that identification precedes
authentication.
Without a witness, no evidence can ever be authenticated. Even the so-called self-authenticating documents need a
witness to identify the document.
The reason is simple. Being inanimate, a document or an object cannot speak for itself.
ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE; COMPETENCE OF WITNESSES
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons
who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise
provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE IN GENERAL
RULE: THE FOLLOWING ARE THE BASIC REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:
1. THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS MUST BE RELEVANT
2. THE WITNESS MUST BE COMPETENT (QUALIFIED) TO TESTIFY
3. THE TESTIMONY MUST BE FORMALLY OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
COMPETENCE OF A WITNESS IN GENERAL
Recall that competent evidence means evidence that is not excluded by the law or rules. It therefore, means the
eligibility of an evidence to be admitted by the court.
When applied to a witness, competence means that the witness is qualified to take the stand and testify. It
means that he is fit or eligible to testify on a particular matter in a judicial proceeding.
Competence of a witness refers to his personal qualifications to testify. Competence also includes the absence of any
factor that would disqualify him from being a witness.
If a witness cannot perceive or even if he can perceive but he cannot remember what he has perceived, he is
incompetent to testify. If he has no personal knowledge of an event the truth of which he wants to prove, he is also
incompetent to testify.
As a general rule, a person who takes the stand as a witness is presumed to be qualified to testify.
A party who desires to question the competence of a witness must do so by making an objection as soon as the
facts tending to show incompetency are apparent
QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
RULE: THE FOLLOWING ARE THE BASIC QUALIFICATIONS OF A COMPETENT WITNESS:
CLARENCE TIU
43 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
1.
WITNESS MUST BE ABLE TO PERCEIVE
2.
A witness must be able to perceive an event. Thus, it would be absurd to ask a blind man what he saw, or a deaf
person what he heard.
Corollary to this capacity to perceive is the requirement that the witness must have personal knowledge
of the facts surrounding the subject matter of his testimony.
Sec. 36 of Rule 130 explicitly requires that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived from his own perception. When the witness takes an oath
or an affirmation to tell the truth, he cannot live up to that oath or affirmation without his ability to show that
his testimony is based on his personal knowledge. Without this personal knowledge, the witness lacks the
competence to testify
HE CAN MAKE KNOWN HIS PERCEPTION TO OTHERS
3.
The ability of the witness to make known his perception to the court involves two factors:
a. Ability to remember what has been perceived; and
b. Ability to communicate the remembered perception
It is of common reason to realize that a witness is presented to testify on a matter he has perceived. If he
cannot remember what he perceived, he cannot be a competent witness.
Note that deaf-mutes are not necessarily incompetent as witnesses. They are competent where they can:
a. Understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath
b. Comprehend facts they are going to testify to; and
c. Communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter
HE MUST TAKE EITHER AN OATH OR AN AFFIRMATION
4.
The witness must be able to appreciate the duty to tell the truth
While the taking of an oath or of an affirmation is either rarely mentioned and merely glossed over by
commentators in discussing the qualifications of a witness to take the stand, the rule clearly requires that the
examination of a witness in a trial or hearing shall he done under oath or affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132).
The willingness to take an oath or affirmation is an essential qualification of a witness. No court would and
should allow the testimony of someone who desires to testify but refuses to swear or make an affirmation.
A person is not qualified to be a witness if he is incapable of understanding the duty to tell the truth. An oath or
affirmation is necessary for the witness to recognize the duty to tell the truth.
The oath of a witness signifies that he is swearing to the Creator to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and
that if he does not, he will later on answer for all the lies he is guilty of.
The issue which a judge must resolve before a witness is allowed to take the stand is whether the witness
understands the nature of an oath, realizes the moral duty to tell the truth, and understands the prospects of
being punished for a falsehood
Any objection to the competency of a witness raises an issue of fact: whether or not the witness is capable of
understanding the duty to tell the truth. The issue is addressed to judicial determination and in the absence of a
clear abuse of discretion, the trial courts findings will not be reversed
HE MUST NOT POSSESS ANY OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW OR THE RULES
Disqualifications and Privileged Communications are found in the Rules of Court and Statutes
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise
provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)
COMPETENCE DISTINGUISHED FROM CREDIBILITY
Remember that competence pertains to admissibility of evidence, while credibility pertains to its weight or probative
value
Competence is a matter of law or, in this jurisdiction, also a matter of rule.
Credibility of a witness has nothing to do with the law or the rules. It refers to the weight and trustworthiness or
reliability of the testimony.
In deciding the competence of a witness, the court will not inquire into the trustworthiness of a witness.
CLARENCE TIU
44 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Accordingly, a prevaricating witness or one who has given contradicting testimonies is still a competent witness.
Although he may be competent as a witness, his testimony may not be given much weight by the court or no weight at
all if the court deems him not worthy of belief. The competence of the witness must, hence, be sharply distinguished
from his credibility.
MATTERS OF CREDIBILITY
RULE: THE FOLLOWING FACTORS DO NOT AFFECT THE COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS, AT MOST THEY ARE MERELY
MATTERS OF CREDIBILITY:
1. RELIGIOUS BELIEF
2. POLITICAL BELIEF
3. INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE (BIAS)
4.
The relationship of a witness with a party does not ipso facto render him a biased witness
Interest in the outcome of a case which also includes close relationship, is not a ground to disqualify a witness
CONVICTION OF A CRIME, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW
In this case, there must be a law which disqualifies convicted persons to be a witness
Example: those who have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony are
disqualified from being witnesses to a will
WEIGHING AND ASCERTAINING THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS
Credibility presupposes that the witness is already qualified or competent to testify on the subject-matter
RULE: QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS ARE BEST ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION
OF THE TRIAL COURT AS IT IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO OBSERVE HIS DEMEANOR AND BODILY MOVEMENTS
The Supreme Court generally defers to the trial courts assessment because it has the singular opportunity to
observe the demeanor of witnesses and their manner of testifying
The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the
trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the
various indicia available but not reflected on the record.
The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy. The forthright answer or the
hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone, the flustered look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or
the guilty blanch, these can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or lying through his teeth
When the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimony of
the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said
findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings have been affirmed by
the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court,
said findings are generally binding upon this Court
The wisdom behind this rule is that the trial court had the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses
deportment and manner of testifying, thus, it is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate
testimonial evidence
Credibility, to state what is axiomatic, is the sole province of the trial court. In the absence of any clear showing that
it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have
affected the result of the case, the trial courts findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed
on appeal
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
SUMMARY OF RULES ON DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21, Rules of Court)

Survivorship disqualification rule/ Dead mans statute (Sec. 23, Rules of Court)
Martial disqualification/ Spousal immunity (Sec. 22, Rules of Court)
Martial privilege (Sec. 24(a), Rules of Court)
Attorney-client privilege (Sec. 24(b), Rules of Court)
Physician-patient privilege (Sec. 24(c), Rules of Court)
Priest/minister-penitent privilege (Sec. 24(d), Rules of Court)
Privileged communications to public officers (Sec. 24(e), Rules of Court)
Executive privilege (Senate vs Ermita)
CLARENCE TIU
45 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

Legislative privilege (Chavez v. PCGG, 1998)
Judicial privilege (Chavez v. PCGG, 1998)
Right against Self-Incrimination (Sec. 17, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution)
Parental and filial privilege (Sec. 25, Rules of Court)
Editors Privilege (RA 53, as amended by RA 1477 Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, 2007)
Voters Privilege (Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, 2007)
Trade or industrial secrets (Art. 291, 292, Revised Penal Code; Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, 2007)
Information contained in tax census returns (Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, 2007)
Secrecy of bank deposits (Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, Foreign Currency Deposits Act)
Confidentiality of Criminal Matters (Chavez v. PCGG, 1998)
Confidentiality of Labor Conciliation Proceedings (Art. 233, Labor Code)
Confidentiality of Witness Protection Proceedings (Sec. 7, Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act)
Confidentiality of reports of suspicious transaction to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (Sec. 9, Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001)
NOTE: Privileged communications apply even to electronic evidence. Under Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, the confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an
electronic document.
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY

Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. The following persons cannot be
witnesses:
(a) 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;
RULE: TO BE DISQUALIFIED AS A WITNESS BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY, THE FOLLOWING MUST CONCUR:
1. THE PERSON MUST BE INCAPABLE OF INTELLIGENTLY MAKING KNOWN HIS PERCEPTION TO OTHERS; AND
2. HIS INCAPABILITY MUST EXIST AT THE TIME OF HIS PRODUCTION FOR EXAMINATION
Sec. 21(a) of Rule 130 establishes the rule that the mental incapacity of a witness at the time of his perception of the
events subject of the testimony does not affect his competency as long as he is competent at the time he is produced
for examination to make known his perception to others.
His incapacity at the time of perception, although without legal effect on his competency to testify, would however,
concededly, affect his credibility.
The test supplied by the Rules of Court is simple: Is the mental condition of the proposed witness at the time he is
called to testify is such that he is incapable of intelligently making known his perception to others?
The answer to this question will determine whether or not a person is a mentally competent witness.

Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. The following persons cannot be
witnesses:
(b) 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. (19a)
RULE: TO BE DISQUALIFIED AS A WITNESS BY REASON OF IMMATURITY, THE FOLLOWING MUST CONCUR:

1. THE MENTAL MATURITY OF THE WITNESS MUST RENDER HIM INCAPABLE OF PERCEIVING THE FACTS RESPECTING
WHICH HE IS EXAMINED; AND
2. HE IS INCAPABLE OF RELATING HIS PERCEPTION TRUTHFULLY
Note that, in a disqualification by reason of mental incapacity under Sec. 21(a) of Rule 130, the incompetence of the
witness must exist, not at the time of his perception of the facts, but at the time he is produced for examination, and
consists in his inability to intelligently make known what he has perceived.
CLARENCE TIU
46 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In disqualification by reason of immaturity, the incompetence of the witness must occur at the time he perceives the
event including his incapability to relate his perceptions truthfully.
The rule on disqualification by reason of immaturity must, however, be construed in relation to the Rules on
Examination of a Child Witness
WHO IS A CHILD WITNESS?
RULE: A CHILD WITNESS IS ANY PERSON WHO, AT THE TIME OF GIVING TESTIMONY, IS BELOW THE AGE OF
EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS (Sec. 4[a], Rules on Examination of a Child Witness)
May a person over eighteen (18) years old be sometimes considered as a child?
Yes, he may. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable
to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of
a physical or mental disability or condition (Sec. 4[a], Rules on Examination of a Child Witness)
COMPETENCY OF A CHILD WITNESS; COMPETENCY EXAMINATION
RULE: EVERY CHILD IS PRESUMED QUALIFIED TO BE A WITNESS.
This is the presumption established by the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (Sec. 6, Rules on Examination
of a Child Witness) and to rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the
party challenging his competence
BUT, WHEN THE COURT FINDS THAT SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT EXISTS REGARDING THE ABILITY OF THE CHILD TO PERCEIVE,
REMEMBER, COMMUNICATE, DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD, OR APPRECIATE THE DUTY TO TELL THE TRUTH IN
COURT, THE COURT SHALL CONDUCT A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION OF THE CHILD.
The court may do so motu propio or on motion of a party (Sec. 6, Rules on Examination of a Child Witness)
A party who seeks a competency examination must present proof of necessity of a competency examination.
Proof of such necessity must be grounded on reasons other than the age of the child because such age, in itself, is
not a sufficient basis for a competency examination (Sec. 6[a], Rules on Examination of a Child Witness)
The competency examination of a child witness is not open to the public. Only the following are allowed to
attend the examination:
1. The judge and necessary court personnel
2. The counsel for the parties
3. The guardian ad litem
4. One or more support persons for the child; and
5. The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence (Sec. 6[c],
Rules on Examination of a Child Witness)
The competency examination of the child shall be conducted only by the judge. If the counsels of the parties
desire to ask questions, they cannot do so directly. Instead, they are allowed to submit questions to the judge which
he may ask the child in his discretion (Sec. 6[d], Rules on Examination of a Child Witness)
The questions asked at the competency examination shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level of the
child. The questions shall not be related to the issues at the trial but shall focus on the ability of the child to remember,
communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully (Sec. 6[e], Rules on
Examination of a Child Witness)
The assessment of the competency of the child is designed to be a continuing one. The court has the duty of
continuously assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony (Sec. 6[f], Rules on Examination of a
Child Witness)
Note: The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial
likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused, his counsel or the
prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of
the testimony of the child (Sec. 25[f], Rules on Examination of a Child Witness)
SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE
See Sec. 30, Rules on Examination of a Child Witness
RULE: THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING INVOLVING ALLEGED CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE:
1.
2.
3.
Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation
(Sec. 6, Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act)
CLARENCE TIU
47 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EXCEPTION: EVIDENCE OF SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR BY THE ALLEGED VICTIM TO PROVE THAT A
PERSON OTHER THAN THE ACCUSED WAS THE SOURCE OF SEMEN, INJURY, OR OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHALL BE
ADMISSIBLE.
For rape cases, but only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE (DEAD MANS STATUTE)

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. Parties or assignor of parties to
a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against
the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
(20a)
RULE: PARTIES, OR AN ASSIGNOR OF THAT PARTY, OR A PERSON IN WHOSE BEHALF THE CASE IS PROSECUTED
CANNOT TESTIFY AS TO THEIR DEALINGS WITH A DECEASED PERSON IN A CLAIM AGAINST THE LATTERS ESTATE
Example: Mr. D approaches Mr. C one rainy Sunday morning to borrow P100,000.00 to be paid exactly a year after.
Without hesitation, Mr. C gives Mr. D the amount requested. Mr. C does not require Mr. D to execute a promissory
note. They have been very good friends for as long as they can remember. Years ago, when Mr. Cs small business
was on the verge of bankruptcy it was the generosity of the then wealthy Mr. D that bailed him out. Exactly a day
before the agreed date for payment, Mr. D peacefully joins his Creator without paying the debt. What does Mr. C
do? Well, he does what every creditor would do under the circumstances. He goes to the executor of what remains
of the estate of Mr. D, and tells him of the debt of Mr. D. He says: Today is supposed to be the due date of his debt.
I cannot demand payment from him because he is dead. You are the executor and you are very much alive. I am
asking you to pay his debt. The executor retorts: Look Sir! I am not sure if you are telling the truth. Dont get me
wrong! I am not calling you a liar but I cannot verify the truth of your claim. Mr. D is dead. He cannot speak. His lips
are forever sealed. I would be doing an act unfair to the memory of Mr. D if I were to listen to you. I am sorry, I
cannot pay.
What is the effect of the death of Mr. D in relation to Sec. 23 of Rule 130? The rule is clear. Mr. C is rendered
incompetent to testify as to the transaction he had with Mr. D. He is incompetent because of the possibility that
his claim is fraudulent. If Mr. C were to be heard, there would be a high risk of paying a fraudulent or a fictitious
claim. It is Mr. C who has the motive to lie. He is the survivor. Mr. D cannot lie. He is dead. He did not survive.
Worse, he cannot answer back. He cannot disprove the claim of Mr. C. To level the playing field between the
lucky survivor and the poor deceased, our remedial law ancestors devised a rule that would seal the lips of the
survivor by declaring him incompetent to testify on the transaction between him and the deceased. The rule is
definitely one that does not protect the survivor even at the risk of not paying a just and valid claim because it is
the survivor who has the stronger reason to file a false claim. The rule is for the protection of the guy who died.
Hence, the name, Dead Mans Statute.
RATIONALE
The object of the rule is to guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard to the transaction on the part
of the surviving party and thereby put the parties upon equal terms.
Its purpose is to close the lips of the plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the defendant, in order to remove from
the plaintiff the temptation to do falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims against the deceased
It is obvious that the rule, by its terms, intends to protect the representatives of the deceased person when sued in
such capacity or a person of unsound mind on a claim against the estate of the decedent or a claim against the insane
person.
REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE
1.
THERE MUST BE A SUIT UPON A CLAIM BY THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE ESTATE OF SAID DECEASED OR PERSON OF
UNSOUND MIND
This rule applies only to a civil case or a special proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane person
Not to criminal cases because criminal liability obviously does not survive the death of the accused.
CLARENCE TIU
48 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Sec. 23 of Rule 130 clearly specifies that the case be upon a claim or demand against the estate of the deceased
person or a person of unsound mind.
The rule does not apply when the action brought is not against the estate, or not upon a claim or demand against
the estate.
This claim, from the tenor of the rule is, by its nature, civil, not criminal, because the estate itself cannot be
criminally liable.
2.
THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE IS THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED OR
THE PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND (THE ESTATE IS THE DEBTOR)
The defendant is the representative (executor or administrator) of the deceased or the person of unsound mind.
The persons entitled to invoke the protection of the dead mans statute are the executor, administrator and any
other representative of a deceased person, when they are the defendants in a claim against the estate of the
deceased.
The protection may likewise be invoked by a person of unsound mind in a claim filed against him.
The rule contemplates a suit against the estate, its administrator or executor and not a suit filed by the administrator
or executor of the estate.
A defendant, who opposes the suit filed by the administrator to recover alleged shares of stock belonging to the
deceased, is NOT barred from testifying as to his transaction with the deceased with respect to the shares
3.
THE WITNESS IS THE PLAINTIFF, OR AN ASSIGNOR OF THAT PARTY, OR A PERSON IN WHOSE BEHALF THE CASE IS
PROSECUTED; AND
The plaintiff is the person who has a claim against the estate of the decedent or the person of unsound mind. He is
the survivor.
Conversely, 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.
So if the executor of the estate of Mr. C sues Mr. D to collect an unpaid debt incurred in favor of Mr. C before his
death, Mr. D, although a survivor, is not precluded from testifying as to the transaction he previously had with
Mr. C because the case is not upon a claim against the estate of Mr. C but a claim by his estate against Mr. D.
When a counterclaim is set up by the administrator of the estate, the case is removed from the operation of the
dead mans statute. The plaintiff may testify to occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat the
counterclaim which is not brought against the representative of the estate but by the said representative
In this case, it is the estate who becomes the plaintiff to the counterclaim
ELEMENTS OF THE SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE
1.
THE PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM TESTIFYING ARE ONLY THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION, ASSIGNORS OF SUCH
PARTIES, OR PERSONS IN WHOSE BEHALF A CASE IS PROSECUTED
2.
The rule is obviously intended to be exclusive and does not prohibit a testimony by a mere witness to the
transaction between the plaintiff and the deceased and who has no interest in such transaction.
Thus, offering the testimony of a so-called disinterested witness is not a transgression of the rule since the
prohibition extends only to the party or his assignor or the person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted.
THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY IS AS TO ANY MATTER OF FACT OCCURRING BEFORE THE
DEATH OF SUCH DECEASED PERSON OR BEFORE SUCH PERSON BECAME OF UNSOUND MIND
3.
Also, the incompetency imposed upon the witness is to testify on any matter of fact occurring before the death of
such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
Hence, if the subject of the testimony is on some other matter, the witness may testify on such matter as when the
subject of the testimony is on a fact which transpired after the death of such person.
THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY MUST PERTAIN TO THE DEALINGS OF THE WITNESS TO THE
DECEASED PERSON, WHICH IS ADVERSE TO THE ESTATE
The rule does not altogether intend to keep the witness out of the stand altogether. He is merely precluded from
testifying on particular topics.
Witnesses who testify on the basis of their personal knowledge of a transaction, which are not based on
their personal dealings with the deceased, are NOT barred
This is because the deceased, even if he were alive, could not contradict it.
The rule would not preclude plaintiff's description of her own actions and the road conditions prior to the
point when within limitations of time or space the decedent could have contradicted her testimony of his own
knowledge. (Ziegler vs Moore)
The dead mans statute does not operate to close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his
knowledge in any other way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or communication made
by the deceased to the witness
CLARENCE TIU
49 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Testimony which Benefits the Estate NOT barred
Also, 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.

Thus, a testimony favorable to the estate or to the insane person is not barred since the rule is designed to
protect the interest of the estate of the deceased or insane person.

In one old case, an oral testimony to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by the evidence was
allowed
WAIVER
The survivorship disqualification rule is intended to benefit the estate of the deceased or the insane person, hence, this
protection may be waived by:
1. Failing to object to the testimony, or
2. Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited testimony or
3. Offering evidence to rebut the testimony.
MARTIAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE (SPOUSAL IMMUNITY)

NOTE: There are two independent codal provisions which cover marital disqualifications. The first is Sec. 22 of Rule 130
(Disqualification by reason of marriage) and the second is Sec. 24(a) of Rule 130 (Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication)
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. 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. (20a)
RULE: DURING THEIR MARRIAGE, NEITHER THE HUSBAND NOR THE WIFE MAY TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST THE OTHER
The marital disqualification rule, forbids the husband or the wife to testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse except in those cases authorized by the rule.
EXCEPTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Consent of the affected spouse

In a civil case by one against the other
In in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants
Waiver or failure to object
The marital and domestic relations of the spouses are already strained
RATIONALE
This rule is based on societys intent to preserve the marriage relations and promote domestic peace. A spouse
testifying against the other creates an ugly sight inimical to societys interests.
The rule prohibiting a testimony in favor of the spouse is intended to discourage the commission of perjury.
Specific reasons for the rule
1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife
2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is a consequent danger of perjury
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure
of justice, and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony
of the other
ELEMENTS OF THE MARTIAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE
1.
COVERS ANY KIND OF TESTIMONY
2.
The prohibition extends not only to a testimony adverse to the spouse but also to a testimony in favor of the spouse.
The testimony covered by the marital disqualification rule not only consists of utterances but also the production of
documents
COVERS BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES
It also extends to both criminal and civil cases because the rule does not distinguish.
CLARENCE TIU
50 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
3.
A SPOUSE MUST BE A PARTY TO THE CASE WHERE THE TESTIMONY IS TO BE GIVEN
4.
The rule applies whether or not the witness-spouse is a party to the case but the other spouse must be a party.
That the other spouse must be a party is evident from the phrase neither the husband nor the wife may testify for
or against the other
PARTIES MUST BE VALIDLY MARRIED AT THE TIME THE WITNESS-SPOUSE IS TO GIVE TESTIMONY
In order that the husband or wife may claim the privilege, it is essential that they be validly married. If they are not,
there is no privilege
Note that Sec. 22 of Rule 130 requires not only a valid marriage but the existence of that valid marriage at the
moment the witness-spouse gives the testimony.
The prohibited testimony is one that is given or offered during the existence of the marriage. Sec. 22 explicitly refers
to a testimony During their marriage... Hence, the rule does not prohibit a testimony for or against the other after
the marriage is dissolved.
When the marriage is dissolved on the grounds provided for by law like annulment or declaration of nullity, the rule
can no longer be invoked. One may now testify for or against the other despite an objection interposed by the latter
because there is no more marriage to speak of.
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 the knowledge of the witness-spouse before the marriage.
The affected spouse may still invoke the rule by objecting to the testimony as long as it is offered during the
marriage. Nothing in the tenor of the rule allows a contrary view.
Example: Before the marriage of W to H, she witnessed the murder of X by H but she never reported what she
witnessed to the authorities. A year after the murder, H and W married. Barely six months after the marriage, W
became a battered wife and to get even with H, she decided to report the murder to the police, (a) May she testify
against H over the latters objection even if the murder took place before the marriage? Answer: She cannot testify
over the objection of H. The situation is covered by the marital disqualification rule, (b) Suppose a year after the
marriage, the marriage is annulled, may W now testify despite the objection of H? Answer: She can now testify after
the marriage is annulled. The prohibition no longer applies since the testimony is to be offered after, not during the
marriage.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE
1.
2.
CONSENT OF THE AFFECTED SPOUSE

IN A CIVIL CASE BY ONE SPOUSE AGAINST THE OTHER
3.
In order for a spouse to be allowed to testify against the other in a civil case, the case must be a civil case by one
against the other.
This contemplates a situation where one spouse is a plaintiff or petitioner and the other spouse is a defendant or
respondent.
Where the civil case is between a spouse and the direct descendants or ascendants of the other, the marital
disqualification rule still applies.
Thus, if the wife sues the father of her husband for collection of a loan, the husband may be barred from testifying
against the wife upon the objection of the latter. This is because the civil case is not by one spouse against the
other but between a spouse and the parent of the other.
Example: In a suit for annulment of marriage, each spouse can testify against each other.
IN A CRIMINAL CASE FOR A CRIME COMMITTED BY ONE AGAINST THE OTHER, OR THE LATTERS DIRECT DESCENDANTS
OR ASCENDANTS
The rule is different in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the privilege of one to testify against the other is not
confined to crimes committed by one against the other, but covers crimes committed by one against the direct
descendants or ascendants of the latter like the latters children or parents.
However, crimes committed against a spouses collateral relatives like uncles, aunties, cousins or nephews and
nieces are not covered by the exception because they are neither direct descendants nor ascendants.
Note that the phrase or the latters direct descendants or ascendants did not appear in the old rules. Sec. 19(c) of
the then Rule 130 only mentioned two exceptions: (a) in a civil case by one against the other; or (b) in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other.
The current rule has been harmonized with the Supreme Court ruling in Ordofio v. Daquigan allowing the wife to
testify against her husband who was accused of raping his daughter. Here, the Court concluded that a rape
perpetrated by the father against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife.
In Ordofio, the Court ruled that the correct rule is the one laid down in Cargill v. Stat: The rule that the injury
must amount to a physical wrong upon the person is too narrow. The better rule is that, when an offense directly
attacks or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relations, it comes within the exception to the statute...
CLARENCE TIU
51 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
4.

Example: If the wife sues the husband for fraudulently embezzling the paraphernal funds of the former, the reason
for the prohibition in the rule ceases. The wife can now testify against the husband. Also, if the wife is sued for
adultery, the husband cannot be barred from testifying against the wife. The same rule applies when the husband is
sued by the wife for bigamy.
May a spouse testify in a trial where the other spouse is a co-accused?
Yes, but the testimony of the wife in reference to her husband must be disregarded since the husband timely
objected thereto under the marital disqualification rule. 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 case against the brothers who were jointly tried with her husband. However, that the
testimony cannot be used against accused-appellant directly or through the guise of taking judicial notice of the
proceedings in the murder case without violating the marital disqualification rule. What cannot be done directly
cannot be done indirectly. (People v. Quidato, Jr.)
WAIVER OR FAILURE TO OBJECT
5.
The testimony is prohibited only over the objection of the affected spouse or the spouse against whom the
testimony is offered.
It is the latter spouse who has the right to object to the competency of the spouse-witness.
It goes without saying that the testimony is admissible where no objection is interposed by the spouse who has the
right to invoke the prohibition.
The benefit of the rule may be waived and it may be done so impliedly or expressly. The objection to the
competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first offered as a witness.
Objections to the competency of a husband or wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other may be
waived as in the case of the other witnesses generally. Thus, the accused waives his or her privilege by calling the
other spouse as a witness for him or her, thereby making the spouse subject to cross- examination in the usual
manner. It is also true that objection to the spouse's competency must be made when he or she is first offered as a
witness, and that the incompetency may be waived by the failure of the accused to make timely objection to the
admission of the spouse's testimony, although knowing of such incompetency, and the testimony admitted,
especially if the accused has assented to the admission, either expressly or impliedly (People vs Francisco 1947)
THE MARITAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF THE SPOUSES ARE ALREADY STRAINED
This is because, the rationale for the rule has already disappeared
Sec. 22 of Rule 130 prohibits a testimony by one spouse against the other without the consent of the latter during
their marriage. Literally, this prohibition would cover a testimony by the estranged spouse because a separation
de facto does not sever the marriage bonds and the spouses remain legally married to each other.
A testimony under such a situation would still technically be a testimony during their marriage. This literal
construction of the rule has, however, been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Like all other general rules, the marital disqualification rule has its own exceptions, both in civil actions between
the spouses and in criminal cases for offenses committed by one against the other. Like the rule itself, the
exceptions are backed by sound reasons which, in the excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general
rule. For instance. where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony
to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such
harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of
perjury based on that identity is non-existent. Likewise. in such a situation, the security and confidences of
private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which through their absence. merely
leave a void in the unhappy home. When the marital and domestic relations between her and the accusedhusband have become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved. The
Supreme Court has held that in such a case, identity is non-existent. In such a situation. the security and
confidences of private life which the law aims to protect are nothing but ideals which through their absence,
merely leave a void in the unhappy home. It should be stressed that as shown by the records, prior to the
commission of the offense, the relationship between petitioner and his wife was already strained. In fact, they
were separated de facto almost six months before the incident. Indeed, the evidence and facts presented reveal
that the preservation of the marriage between petitioner and Esperanza is no longer an interest the State aims
to protect (Alvarez v. Ramirez)
However, as all other general rules, this one has its own exceptions, both in civil actions between the spouses
and in criminal cases for offenses committed by one against the other. Like the rule itself, the exceptions are
backed by sound reasons which, in the excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general rule. For
instance, where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be
preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and
tranquility fails. In such a case identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury
based on that identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of private life
CLARENCE TIU
52 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

which the law aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which, through their absence, merely leave a void in
the unhappy home. (People vs Francisco 1947)
MARITAL PRIVILEGE
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. The following persons cannot testify as
to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) 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;
RULE: THE HUSBAND OR THE WIFE CANNOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER AS TO ANY
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED IN CONFIDENCE BY ONE FROM THE OTHER DURING THE MARRIAGE.
Under Sec. 24 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, there are certain persons who cannot testify as to matters learned
in confidence. Among those subject to the rule are legitimate spouses.
RATIONALE
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither may be
examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a
compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other and this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that
each owes to the other
REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE
1. THERE MUST BE A VALID MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE HUSBAND AND WIFE

2. THERE IS A COMMUNICATION RECEIVED IN CONFIDENCE BY ONE FROM THE OTHER; AND
Note that it is required that the information received in confidence during the marriage be by one from the other.
The implication is clear: confidential information received from a third person is not covered by the privilege.
For the information to be confidential, it must be made during and by reason of the marital relations and is intended
not to be shared with others. Without such intention, common reason suggests that the information is not
confidential
Communications in private between husband and wife are presumed to be confidential (Blau v. United States)
A variety of factors however, may serve to rebut a claim that confidentiality was intended. In particular, if a third
person (other than a child of the family) is present with the knowledge of the communicating spouse, this
stretches the web of confidence beyond the marital pair, and the communication is unprivileged (Pereira v. US)
If children of the family are present, this likewise deprives the conversation of protection unless the children are
too young to understand what is said (Freeman v. Freeman)
3. THE CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED DURING THE MARRIAGE
Since the application of the rule requires a confidential information received by one spouse from the other during
the marriage, information acquired by a spouse before the marriage even if received confidentially will not fall
squarely with the provisions of Sec. 24(a) of Rule 130.
However, divulging the same may be objected to under Sec. 22 of Rule 130 upon proper objection as long as
the information is sought to be revealed during the marriage through a testimony for or against the affected
spouse.
The tenor of Sec. 22 of Rule 130 does not distinguish as to when the information subject of the testimony was
acquired and thus, may cover matters which occurred or to adverse information acquired prior to the marriage. It
is sufficient that the witness-spouse testifies during the marriage. It is unlike Sec. 24(a) which explicitly requires
that the confidential information be received during the marriage.
EXCEPTIONS THE MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE

Same exceptions as the Marital Disqualification Rule, except when the marital and domestic relations of the spouses
are already strained, since the underlying purpose is different
1. Consent of the affected spouse
2. In a civil case by one against the other, or
CLARENCE TIU
53 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants
4. Waiver
The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure of the claimant to object timely to its
presentation or by any conduct that may be construed as implied consent
Note that the prerogative to object to a confidential communication between spouses is vested upon the spouses
themselves, particularly the communicating spouse, not a third person. This is clear from the provision: cannot be
examined without the consent of the other.
3.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE AND MARITAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE
MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE
Provision
Sec. 22 of Rule 130
Sec. 24(a) of Rule 130
Application
of the Rule
Has reference to the prohibition of testimony during the

subsistence of the marriage. It does not refer to confidential
communications between the spouses. It will not come into
play when the fact pattern in a problem makes reference to
confidential communications between husband and wife
during the marriage. Sec. 24(a) of Rule 130 will instead apply.
Has reference to confidential

communications received by one spouse
from the other during the marriage.
However, communications that are not intended to be

confidential because they were uttered in the presence of
third parties are not deemed confidential even when made
during the marriage, but Sec. 22 could apply instead of Sec.
24(a) when used as parts of a testimony for or against the
party-spouse.
Applies only to testimonies of a confidential

nature received by one spouse from the
other during the marriage and obviously
does not include acts merely observed by
the spouse unless such acts are intended
as a means of conveying confidential
communication by one to the other.
Status of the
Marriage
This rule can no longer be invoked once the marriage is

dissolved. It may be asserted only during the marriage.
When this rule applies, the spouse affected

by the disclosure of the information or
testimony may object even after the
dissolution of the marriage. The privilege
does not cease just because the marriage
has ended.
Affected
spouse as a
party to the
action
Requires that the spouse for or against whom the testimony is

offered is a party to the action. A spouse must be a party to
the action.
Applies regardless of whether the spouses

are parties or not.
Prohibition
The prohibition is a testimony for or against the other.
What is prohibited here is the examination

of a spouse as to matters received in
confidence by one from the other during
the marriage.
Exceptions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

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
The marital and domestic relations of the spouses are
already strained
1.
2.
3.
4.

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
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
CLARENCE TIU
54 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, 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;
RATIONALE
A lawyer is bound to comply with Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that, a lawyer shall
preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his clients case. He learns from his client
the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with
care (Mercado vs Vitriolo)
In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. Their
relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and
confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest. Only by such confidentiality and protection will a
person be encouraged to repose his confidence in an attorney. The hypothesis is that abstinence from seeking legal
advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. Thus, the preservation and protection of
that relation will encourage a client to entrust his legal problems to an attorney, which is of paramount importance to the
administration of justice. One rule adopted to serve this purpose is the attorney-client privilege: an attorney is to keep
inviolate his clients secrets or confidence and not to abuse them. Thus, the duty of a lawyer to preserve his clients
secrets and confidence outlasts the termination of the attorney-client relationship, and continues even after the clients
death. It is the glory of the legal profession that its fidelity to its client can be depended on, and that a man may safely
go to a lawyer and converse with him upon his rights or supposed rights in any litigation with absolute assurance that
the lawyers tongue is tied from ever disclosing it. With full disclosure of the facts of the case by the client to his
attorney, adequate legal representation will result in the ascertainment and enforcement of rights or the prosecution or
defense of the clients cause. (Mercado vs Vitriolo)
REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE:
1.
THERE MUST BE A COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE CLIENT TO THE ATTORNEY, OR AN ADVICE GIVEN BY THE
ATTORNEY TO HIS CLIENT
2.
The communication may be oral or written but is deemed to extend to other forms of conduct like physical
demonstration as long as they are intended to be confidential. It is likewise submitted that the communication
between a client and his lawyer is not deemed lacking in confidentiality solely because the communication is
transmitted by facsimile, cellular telephone, or other electronic means.
THE COMMUNICATION OR ADVICE MUST BE GIVEN IN CONFIDENCE
3.
The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must
intend the communication to be confidential.
A confidential communication refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and
client in confidence and by means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person
other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose
for which it was given.
Before the statements of the client and the advice of the attorney be deemed as privileged, the same should
have been intended to be confidential. This confidentiality is the essence of the privilege.
The communications between lawyer and client do not become confidential merely from the fact that they were
made to each other.
The matters communicated to the attorney are evidently not intended to be confidential when they were made to the
lawyer but in the presence of third persons who neither stand in a position of peculiar confidence to the client or are
not agents of the attorney. If the communications made by the client to his attorney were also made to third
persons, the intention of secrecy does not appear (McCormick on Evidence).
There can be no attorney-client privilege where the information is given with the expectation that it will be revealed
to others (In re Grand Jury Proceeding)
THE COMMUNICATION OR ADVICE MUST BE GIVEN EITHER IN THE COURSE OF THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT OR
WITH A VIEW TO PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT
The present rules do not require a perfected attorney-client relationship for the privilege to exist. The
communications between the attorney and the client no longer need to be in the course of an actual professional
employment.
CLARENCE TIU
55 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

It is enough that the communication or advice be with a view to professional employment.
Hence, the privilege is extended to communications made for the purpose of securing the services of counsel even
if the counsel later refuses the professional relationship.
The insertion of the clause with a view to includes preliminary negotiations within the privilege. Without the clause,
it would seem extremely risky to consult an attorney for the first time and communicate to him certain sensitive
information without the protection of confidentiality.
The reason for this is to make the prospective client free to discuss whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear
that what he tells the lawyer will be divulged or used against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain
information from the prospective client.
The privilege of a client to keep communications to his attorney confidential is predicated upon the clients belief
that he is consulting a lawyer in that capacity and has manifested his intention to seek professional legal advice
There is authority to support the theory that it is enough if he reasonably believes that the person consulted is a
lawyer, although in fact he is not as in the case of a detective pretending to be a lawyer (People v. Barker)
For the privilege to exist, payment of a fee is not essential
Where a person consults an attorney, not as a lawyer, but merely as a friend, or a participant in a business
transaction, the consultation would not be one made in the course of a professional employment or with a view to
professional employment as required by Sec. 24(b), Rule 130, Rules of Court, and if proven to be so, would not be
within the ambit of the privilege
Accordingly, the privilege is not confined to communications regarding actual pending cases. The communications
may refer to anticipated litigations or may not refer to any litigation at all. It is sufficient that the statements be made
in the course of legitimate professional relationship between the attorney and the client
The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity. The communication made by a client
to his attorney must not be intended for mere information, but for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his
attorney as to his rights or obligations. The communication must have been transmitted by a client to his attorney
for the purpose of seeking legal advice.
If the client seeks an accounting service or business or personal assistance, and not legal advice, the privilege
does not attach to a communication disclosed for such purpose (Mercado v. Vitriolo)
ELEMENTS OF THE RULE ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE:
1.
ANY COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE CLIENT AND ADVICE GIVEN BY THE ATTORNEY ARE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT IT
DOES NOT COVER:
Communications for the commission of a ongoing or future crime or tort

The privilege does not extend to communications where the clients purpose is the furtherance of a future
intended crime or fraud (Wigmore) or for the purpose of committing a crime or a tort (U.S. v. Wilson), or those
made in furtherance of illicit activity (U.S. v. Aucoin).
Accordingly, although communications made when used to further crimes are not privileged, the discussion of
the communications in confidence with the lawyer after the crime has been committed may still be privileged
even though the earlier ones were not
b. The fact" of consultation or the identity of the client
The traditional and still applicable rule is that an inquiry into the fact of consultation or employment is not
privileged. Even the identity of the client, as well as that of the lawyer, is not privileged (Behrens v. Hironimus)
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. First,
the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and
blood. 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. Third, the privilege generally pertains to the
subject matter of the relationship. 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 (Regala vs Sandiganbayan 1996)
EXCEPT: In these case, the fact of consultation or the identity of the client is considered privileged:
Under the so- called last link doctrine, non-privileged information, such as the identity of the client, is
i.
protected if the revelation of such information would necessarily reveal privileged information (In re
Grand Jury Proceedings)
When the clients name itself has an independent significance, such that disclosure would then reveal
ii.
client confidences, such as in the following instances: (Regala vs Sandiganbayan 1996)
a) 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.
a.
CLARENCE TIU
56 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
b)
c)
d)
2.

Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged.
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.
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
THE PRIVILEGE EXTENDS TO THE ATTORNEY AND HIS EMPLOYEES
3.
The statements of the client need not be made to the attorney in person.
Those made to the attorneys secretary, clerk or stenographer for transmission to the attorney for the purpose of the
professional relationship, or with a view to such relationship, or those knowledge acquired by such employees in
such capacity are covered by the privilege.
Like the attorney, their employer, these persons cannot be examined as to the communication made by the
client or the advice given by the attorney without the clients consent and also the employers consent
In the case of persons overhearing without the knowledge of the client, it seems that the more reasonable view is
one which would protect the client against disclosure, unless he has failed to use ordinary precautions against
overhearing, but the cases in American jurisprudence have permitted the eavesdropper to speak (Van Horn v.
Commonwealth)
THE PRIVILEGE SURVIVES THE DEATH OF THE CLIENT
The protection of the privilege will generally survive the death of the client (Denver Tramway Co. v. Owens)
But, there had been cases where the privilege was not made to apply in cases involving the validity or interpretation
of the clients will. Where there is an attack on the validity of the will, communications made to the attorney on the
drawing of the will, while confidential during the lifetime of the client, are not intended to require secrecy after his
death (Wigmore)
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
1.
CONSENT OF THE CLIENT
2.
In relation to the attorney, the privilege is owned by the client. It is he who can invoke the privilege. As a rule, every
communication arising from the professional relationship cannot be disclosed without his consent.
The privilege is personal and it belongs to the client. If the client waives the privilege, no one else including the
attorney can invoke it
For example, if the client is asked on cross-examination of his communications to his lawyer and reveals the same,
there would be a waiver of the confidentiality of the communication.
There would also be a waiver if the client does not object to his attorneys testimony on the communication.
IN SUITS BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY AND THE CLIENT
The weight of authority supports the view that when the client and attorney become embroiled in a controversy
between themselves, as in an action filed for payment of attorneys fees or for damages against the negligence of
the attorney, the privilege is removed from the attorneys lips (Sokol v. Mortimer)
This rule, however, should be made to apply only where the suit is between the attorney and his client. The
communication would still be privileged where the suit is by or against a third party (State v. Markey)
WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE
Not in the rules yet, but recognized in other jurisdictions (it is similar to the deliberative process privilege)
RULE: A PERSON IS IMMUNE FROM DISCLOSING MATERIALS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION

EXCEPT: IF THERE IS A SHOWING OF SUBSTANTIAL NEED AND UNDUE HARDSHIP IN OBTAINING THE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE MATERIALS BY OTHER MEANS.
The work-product doctrine is broader than the attorney-client privilege. Its production extends to materials that are not
based on confidential communications from the client. It covers even materials prepared by non-lawyers when they are
acting on behalf of the party or lawyer in preparing for litigation. Moreover, while the client is the exclusive holder of the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney has the independent right to claim protection for work product, although the
attorney cannot assert immunity against the client or contrary to the clients interest. But, in other respects, the
attorney-client privilege provides more protection than the work-product doctrine. While the privilege is absolute, the
work product doctrine provides only a qualified immunity, which in the case of ordinary work product can be overcome
by a showing of substantial need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial evidence of the materials by other
means. The work product doctrine protects only material prepared in anticipation of litigation, whereas the privilege
applies to confidential communications relating to any type of legal services. The work-product doctrine operates
CLARENCE TIU
57 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

primarily as a limitation on pre-trial discovery, whereas the attorney-client privilege applies more broadly at all states of
legal proceedings. (Mueller vs Kirkpatrick)
The Work Product Doctrine is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary
intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation of a client's case demands that he assemble
information, sift what he considers to be the relevant go from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his
strategy without undue and needless interference.... This work is reflected of course, be in interviews, statements,
memoranda, etc...Were such materials open to opposing counsel on mere demand, much of what is now put down in
writing would remain unwritten. An attorney's thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would not be his own. The effect on the
legal profession would be demoralizing. And the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served.
(Hickman vs Taylor 1947)
PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent
of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may
have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to
enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
RATIONALE
The rationale traditionally mentioned to justify the privilege is to encourage the patient to freely disclose all the matters
which may aid in the diagnosis in the treatment of a disease or an injury. For this purpose, it is necessary to shield the
patient from embarrassing details concerning his condition
Accordingly, this privilege protects the interest of the patient. It is designed to promote health, not truth. It encourages
free disclosure in the sickroom by preventing disclosure in the courtroom. The patient is the person to be encouraged
and he is the holder of the privilege
REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE:
1.
A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, SURGERY OR OBSTETRICS ATTENDS TO A PATIENT BY GIVING ADVICE
OR TREATMENT
2.
The person against whom the privilege is claimed must be a person duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
obstetrics.
There must be a relationship of physician and patient which existed between the person claiming the privilege or his
legal representative and the physician
THE PHYSICIAN ACTS IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY
The physician may be said to be acting in a professional capacity when he attends to the patient for either curative
or preventive treatment
Hence, it is submitted that results of autopsies may not be deemed covered by the privilege because autopsies
are not intended for treatment

Also, it is opined that the rule does NOT require that the relationship between the physician and the patient be a
result of a contractual relationship. It could be the result of a quasi-contractual relationship as when the patient is
seriously ill and the physician treats him even if he is not in a condition to give his consent as in the situation
described in Art. 2167 of the NCC
ELEMENTS OF THE RULE ON PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE:
1.
PRIVILEGE ONLY APPLIES TO A CIVIL CASE, WHETHER THE PATIENT IS A PARTY OR NOT
The phraseology of the rule implies that the privilege cannot be claimed in a criminal case presumably because the
interest of the public in criminal prosecution should be deemed more important than the secrecy of the
communication.
The privilege does not apply to shield the commission of a crime or when the purpose is an unlawful one as to
obtain narcotics or prohibited drugs in violation of law because there is no treatment involved.
Similarly, where the purpose is to ask a physician to have ones appearance disguised by cosmetic or plastic
surgery to escape apprehension, the privilege does not apply.
CLARENCE TIU
58 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
2.

Common reason suggests that all these cases be deemed outside the operation of the privilege because the
purpose is not for treatment or prevention of any disease or injury.
THE PRIVILEGE COVERS ANY ADVICE, TREATMENT OR INFORMATION WHICH THE PHYSICIAN MAY HAVE ACQUIRED IN
ATTENDING TO THE PATIENT IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, AND WAS NECESSARY OR HELPFUL TO ENABLE HIM TO
ACT IN THAT CAPACITY; AND WHICH WOULD TEND TO BLACKEN THE REPUTATION OF THE PATIENT.
3.
Specifically, the information which cannot be disclosed refers to:

1. Any advice given to the client
2. Any treatment given to the client
3. Any information acquired in attending to such patient
Provided that the advice, treatment or information was:
1. Made or acquired in a professional capacity and
2. Was necessary or helpful to enable him to act in that capacity; and
3. Which would tend to blacken the reputation of the patient
THE PRIVILEGE SURVIVES THE DEATH OF THE PATIENT
Death does not permit the living to impair the deceaseds name by disclosing communications held confidential by
law
WAIVER
The privilege may be waived by the patient.

The waiver may be made expressly or impliedly.
The waiver may be by a contract as in medical or life insurance. When there is disclosure by the patient of the
information, there is necessarily, a waiver. When the patient answers questions on matters which are supposedly
privileged on cross-examination, the waiver also exists.
There could also be a waiver by operation of law or the rules.
Under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court, the court in which the action is pending may, in its discretion, order a party to
submit to a physical or mental examination (Sec. 1, Rule 28). This happens when the mental or physical condition
of a party is in dispute. The party examined may request a report of the examination. By doing so, he waives
any privilege he may have in that action regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined
him in respect of the same examination (Sec. 4, Rule 28)
PRIEST/MINISTER-PENITENT PRIVILEGE
(d) A 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;
REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIEST/MINISTER-PENITENT PRIVILEGE
1.
A PERSON GIVES A CONFESSION TO A MINISTER OR PRIEST, OR THE LATTER GIVES ADVICE
2.
CONFESSION OR ADVICE MUST BE GIVEN OR MADE IN THE MINISTERS PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER, OR IN HIS
SPIRITUAL CAPACITY.
3.
The person making the confession holds the privilege, and the priest or minister hearing the confession in his
professional capacity is prohibited from making a disclosure of the confession without the consent of the person
confessing.
The privilege also extends not only to a confession made by the penitent but also to any advice given by the
minister or priest.
Not every communication made to a minister or priest is privileged.

The communication must be made pursuant to confessions of sins (Wigmore). As clearly provided in the rule, the
advice given as a result of the confession, must be made in the ministers professional character, or in his
spiritual capacity.
Accordingly, where the penitent discussed business arrangements with the priest, the privilege does not apply (U.S.
v. Gordon)
THE CONFESSION AND THE ADVICE MUST BE MADE OR GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE COURSE OF DISCIPLINE OF THE
DENOMINATION OR SECT TO WHICH THE MINISTER OR PRIEST BELONGS.
CLARENCE TIU
59 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The confession and the advice must be made or given pursuant to the course of discipline of the denomination or
sect to which the minister or priest belongs.
Thus, the minister or priest must be duly ordained or consecrated by his sect.
PUBLIC OFFICERS PRIVILEGE

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to
him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
RA 6713: Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts
and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. - Public officials and employees shall not use or
divulge, confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made
available to the public, either:
(1)
To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or
(2)
To prejudice the public interest.
RULE: COMMUNICATIONS MADE TO A PUBLIC OFFICER IN OFFICIAL CONFIDENCE ARE PRIVILEGED WHEN THE COURT
FINDS THAT THE DISCLOSURE WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
It is the interest of the public that is sought to be protected by the rule.
Hence, the disclosure or non- disclosure is not dependent on the will of the officer but on the determination by a
competent court. The privilege may be invoked not only during the term of office of the public officer but also
afterwards
There is also authority supporting the theory that protection must be given to the identity of individuals who provide
information to the government. Effective law enforcement often results from information provided by citizens who do
not wish to publicly involve themselves (U.S. v. Straughter)
Also, The Ethical Standards Act further prohibits public officials and employees from using or divulging
confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available
to the public.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Memorandum Circular No. 151 (2008)
Section 3. Executive officials and employees can no longer invoke Executive Order No. 464 and Memorandum
Circular No. 108 as an excuse for not attending legislative inquiries in aid of legislation.
Section 4. Executive officials and employees are advised to follow and abide by the Constitution, existing laws
and jurisprudence, including, among others, Senate vs. Ermita, g.r. No. 169777, April 20, 2006, when they are
invited to legislative inquiries in aid of legislation.
ELEMENTS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE:
1.
IT IS THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO WITHHOLD MILITARY, DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY
MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC, THE COURTS, AND THE CONGRESS.
There are certain types of information which the government may withhold from the public like military, diplomatic
and national security secrets. Alluding to foreign jurisprudence, it was ruled that the President and those who assist
him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a
way many would be unwilling to express except privately. (Almonte v. Vasquez, 1995)
The privilege covers:
1. Military;
CLARENCE TIU
60 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Diplomatic; and,
Other national security matters, such as:
a. Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door cabinet meetings
(Presidential Communications Privilege)
b. Deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are
formulated (Deliberative Process Privilege)
This is an exception to the constitutional right to information and the power of inquiry of congress in aid of
legislation
The Constitution of the Philippines recognizes the right of the people to information on matters of public concern
and guarantees access to official records, documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law (Sec. 7, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution)
The rule on confidentiality based on executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in
the separation of powers under the Constitution. (Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 2006)
Diplomatic negotiations enjoy a presumptive privilege against disclosure (AKBAYAN v. Aquino)
While the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final
contract, such information does not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic
secrets and similar matters affecting national interest. These cannot be disclosed even if they constitute definite
propositions. (AKBAYAN v. Aquino)
Elements of presidential communications privilege (Neri vs Senate):
1. The protected communications must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.
2. The communication must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the President or the
President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in operational proximity with the President; and
3. The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of
adequate need, such that the information sought likely contains important evidence and by the unavailability
of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
Closely related to the presidential communications privilege is the deliberative process privilege recognized in
the United States, which covers documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations
comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated, Clearly, the privilege
accorded to diplomatic negotiations follows as a logical consequence from the privileged character of the
deliberative process (AKBAYAN v. Aquino)
Information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be
subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interest. (Chavez vs PCGG, 1998)
2.
3.
2.
IT IS THE INFORMATION ITSELF THAT IS PRIVILEGED, NOT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS THEMSELVES
3.
When Congress exercises its powers of inquiry, the department heads are not exempt by the mere fact that they are
department heads. Accordingly, only one executive official may be exempted from the power of inquiry of Congress
the President upon whom executive power is vested and is beyond the reach of Congress except through the
power of impeachment. (Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 2006)
THERE MUST BE A FORMAL CLAIM OF THE PRIVILEGE WITH SPECIFIC BASIS GIVEN
Congress has the right to know why the executive considers the requested information privileged. It does not
suffice to merely declare that the President, or an authorized representative, has determined that it is so. In the
absence of a specific basis for the claim, there is no way of determining whether it falls under one of the traditional
privileges or whether it should be respected. (Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 2006)
The specific basis of the claim must be given for the courts to judge whether or not the claim for executive privilege
is valid or not
For the claim of executive privilege to be invoked, there must be a formal claim of the privilege, lodged by the head
of the department which has control of the matter, and that a formal and proper claim of the privilege requires a
precise and certain reason for preserving confidentiality, but Congress must not require the executive to state the
reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel the disclosure of the information which the privilege is
meant to protect. This is a matter of respect for a coordinate and co-equal department (Neri vs Senate)
EXCEPTION TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
INFORMATION COVERED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE MAY BE DISCLOSED IF THERE IS A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF NEED
The standard to be employed in determining whether there is a sufficient interest in favor of disclosure is the strong
sufficient showing of need which must be shown whether that party is Congress or a private citizen. (AKBAYAN v.
Aquino)
Information, even if confidential under executive privilege, must be disclosed if the right to information outweighs
the public interest of secrecy.
CLARENCE TIU
61 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

When the government has claimed executive privilege, and it has established that the information is indeed covered
by the same, then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the privilege, must show that the information is vital,
not simply for the satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability to effectively and reasonably participate in social,
political, and economic decision-making.
Note that it is for the Courts to decide whether the information must be disclosed, based on the reasons and basis
given for the claim of executive privilege in relation to the circumstances
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CRIMINAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MATTERS
Courts cannot inquired into to law enforcement matters, such as those relating to the apprehension, the prosecution
and the detention of criminals, prior to such arrest, detention and prosecution.
Efforts at effective law enforcement would be seriously jeopardized by free public access to, for example, police
information regarding rescue operations, the whereabouts of fugitives, or leads on covert criminal activities.
(Chavez vs PCGG, 1998)
LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE
Executive sessions of either house of Congress are confidential (Chavez vs PCGG, 1998)
JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE
A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC: The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
RULE 10: COURT SESSIONS AND HEARINGS
Section 2. Confidentiality of court sessions. Court sessions are executive in character, with only the
Members of the Court present. Court deliberations are confidential and shall not be disclosed to outside
parties, except as may be provided herein or as authorized by the Court.
The internal deliberations of the Supreme Court are confidential (Chavez vs PCGG, 1998)
PER CURIAM SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CONNECTION WITH THE LETTER OF THE HOUSE PROSECUTION PANEL
TO SUBPOENA JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT (IN RELATION TO CORONA IMPEACHMENT)
To summarize these rules, the following are privileged documents or communications, and are NOT subject
to disclosure:
1. Court actions such as the result of the raffle of cases and the actions taken by the Court on each case included
in the agenda of the Courts session on acts done material to pending cases, except where a party litigant
requests information on the result of the raffle of the case, pursuant to Rule 7, Section 3 of the IRSC;
2. Court deliberations or the deliberations of the Members in court sessions on cases and matters pending before
the Court;
3. Court records which are predecisional and deliberative in nature, in particular, documents and other
communications which are part of or related to the deliberative process, i.e., notes, drafts, research papers,
internal discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal deliberations, and similar papers.
4. Confidential Information secured by justices, judges, court officials and employees in the course of their official
functions, mentioned in (2) and (3) above, are privileged even after their term of office.
5. Records of cases that are still pending for decision are privileged materials that cannot be disclosed, except
only for pleadings, orders and resolutions that have been made available by the court to the general public.
6. The principle of comity or inter-departmental courtesy demands that the highest officials of each department be
exempt from the compulsory processes of the other departments.
7. These privileges belong to the Supreme Court as an institution, not to any justice or judge in his or her
individual capacity. Since the Court is higher than the individual justices or judges, no sitting or retired justice or
judge, not even the Chief Justice, may claim exception without the consent of the Court.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

1987 CONSTITUTION, ART. 3: BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
CLARENCE TIU
62 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE: THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION APPLIES ONLY AGAINST TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION. IT DOES NOT
APPLY TO PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL ACTS.
If the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to take the stand.
But, a mere witness cannot altogether refuse to take the stand. Before he refuses to answer, he must wait for the
incriminating question
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other
direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a)
FAMILY CODE
Article. 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime, against the descendant or by one parent
against the other.
RULE: NO PERSON MAY BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIS PARENTS, OTHER DIRECT ASCENDANTS, CHILDREN
OR OTHER DIRECT DESCENDANTS
Under the Family Code, no descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and
grandparents
The privilege under the family code is narrower, but should be deemed to supersede the privilege in the Rules of
Court, in case of conflict, being substantive law.
ELEMENTS OF RULE ON PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
1.
A PERSON CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIS DIRECT ASCENDANTS OR DESCENDANTS

Note that the holder of the privilege is the person himself, NOT the ascendant or descendant against whom he will
testify.
It is similar to the right-against self-incrimination, unlike privileged communications, the privilege here is a
testimonial privilege in favour of a person
The privilege under the Family Code, however, applies only in favour of descendants testifying against parents or
grandparents
2.
THE RULE APPLIES TO BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES

Since the rule makes no distinction
The privilege under the Family Code, however, only applies in criminal cases
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ON PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
1.
WAIVER/ VOLUNTARINESS
2.
A person, however, may testify against his parents or children voluntarily, the rule only protects him from any
compulsion
IF THE PERSON SOUGHT TO GIVE TESTIMONY IS A DESCENDANT TESTIFYING AGAINST HIS PARENTS/GRANDPARENTS
IN A CRIMINAL CASE, HE MAY BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY:
a.
b.
When such testimony is indispensable in a crime; and

Such crime is committed against said descendant, or by one parent against the other
EDITORIAL (JOURNALIST) PRIVILEGE

RA 53 (1946) as amended by RA 1477 (1956)
"Section 1.Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist
or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was
related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.
CLARENCE TIU
63 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news (Air Philippines v. Pennswell, 2007)
CONFIDENTIALITY OF LABOR CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS

LABOR CODE
Article 233. Privileged communication. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be
treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and
similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation
proceedings conducted by them.
Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as confidential.
SECRECY OF THE BALLOT

1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted (Air Philippines v. Pennswell, 2007)
CONFIDENTIALITY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL SECRETS

REVISED PENAL CODE
Title Nine: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Chapter 3: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets
of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or
workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall
reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.
Because of public policy, trade secrets are privileged and the rules providing for the production and inspection of
books and papers do not authorize their production in a court of law. (Air Philippines Corporation vs Pennswell Inc,
2007)
But note that a claim of the confidential nature of trade secrets must have substantial factual basis which can pass
judicial scrutiny. (Cocoland Development Corporation vs National Labor Relations Commission, 1996)
SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS

RA 1405 as amended: SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments
in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby
considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office, except when the examination is made in the course of a special or general
examination of a bank and is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied that there is
reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being committed and that it is
CLARENCE TIU
64 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

necessary to look into the deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity, or when the examination is made by an
independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit
purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank, or upon written permission of the
depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty
of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. (As
amended by PD No.1792, January 16, 1981)
RA 6426: FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSIT ACT
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as
amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as
and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no
instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private;
Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other
order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As
amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Secrecy of Local Currency Deposits
RULE: ALL (LOCAL CURRENCY) DEPOSITS OF WHATEVER NATURE WITH BANKS OR BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE
PHILIPPINES ARE ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL NATURE AND MAY NOT BE EXAMINED, INQUIRED OR LOOKED INTO
BY ANY PERSON, GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, BUREAU OR OFFICE
EXCEPT:
Where there is a written permission of the depositor (R.A. 1405 as amended, Section 2);
Impeachment cases (R.A. 1405 as amended, Section 2);
Upon order of a competent court in case of bribery (R.A. 1405 as amended, Section 2)
Upon order of a competent court in case of dereliction of duty (R.A. 1405 as amended, Section 2)
Upon order of a competent court in cases of unexplained wealth (R.A. 3019: Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Section 8)
6. Upon order of a competent court in cases of money laundering offenses (R.A. 9160, as amended)
7. In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. (R.A. 1405 as
amended, Section 2);
8. In camera inspections of the Ombudsman based on pending investigations by such office. (R.A. 6770: The
Ombudsman Act of 1989, Section 15(8))
9. The power of the Commissioner of the BIR to inquire into bank deposit of the following:
1. A decedent to determine his gross estate; and
2. Any taxpayer who has filed an application for compromise of his tax liability under the NIRC by reason of
financial incapacity to pay his tax liability. (NIRC, Section 6)
10. Power of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) to make examinations and to require
information and reports from banks. (R.A. 3591: PDIC Charter, Section 8)
11. Information submitted by banks to the Treasurer of the Philippines regarding unclaimed balances. (Act No.
3936: Unclaimed Balances Law)
12. Judicial authorization given to any police or law enforcement officers from the Court of Appeals designated
as special courts to handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the existence of probable
cause in a hearing called for that purpose. (R.A. 9372)
13. RA 10021 Exchange of information on tax matters
14. Plunder Law
15. Human Security Act
Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
RULE: ALL FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSITS ARE ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, IN NO INSTANCE SHALL
FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSITS BE EXAMINED, INQUIRED OR LOOKED INTO BY ANY PERSON, GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL, BUREAU OR OFFICE WHETHER JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGISLATIVE, OR ANY OTHER ENTITY
WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
EXCEPT:
1.
2.
Where there is a written permission of the depositor

For purposes of equity and in the interest of justice (Salvacion v. Central Bank)
CLARENCE TIU
65 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF WITNESS PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS

RA 6981: Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act
Section 7. Confidentiality of Proceedings. - All proceedings involving application for admission into the
Program and the action taken thereon shall be confidential in nature. No information or documents given or
submitted in support thereof shall be released except upon written order of the Department or the proper
court.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of said proceedings shall upon conviction be punished with
imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years and deprivation of the right to hold
a public office or employment for a period of five (5) years.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION TO THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING

COUNCIL
RA 9160: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001 as amended by RA 9194
SEC. 9. Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer Identification Requirements and Record Keeping.
(c) Reporting of Covered and Suspicious Transactions. -- Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC all
covered transactions and suspicious transactions within five(5) working days from occurrences thereof,
unless the Supervising Authority prescribes a longer period not exceeding ten (10) working days.
Should a transaction be determined to be both a covered transaction and a suspicious transaction, the
covered institution shall be required to report the same as a suspicious transaction.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and
employees shall not be deemed to have violated Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as
amended, Republic Act No. 8791 and other similar laws, but are prohibited from communicating, directly or
indirectly, in any manner or by an means, to any person, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction
report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. In case of violation thereof,
the concerned officer and employee of the covered institution shall be criminally liable. However, no
administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, shall lie against any person for having made a covered or
suspicious transaction report in the regular performance of his duties in good faith, whether or not such
reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act of any other law.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered instituting and their officers and
employees are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any
person or entity, the media, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the contents
thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be published or aired in any
manner or form by the mass media, electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the
concerned officer and employee of the covered institution and media shall be held criminally liable.
Institutions covered by the law and its officers and employees who communicate a suspicious transaction to the AntiMoney Laundering Council, are barred from disclosing the fact of such report, that such report was made and other
related information.
CLARENCE TIU
66 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
ADMISSIONS AND THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE

*Admissions here pertain to extrajudicial admissions. Judicial admissions are governed by Rule 129, Sec. 4
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS VS EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
IMPORTANT: There is a need to distinguish Judicial Admissions and Extra-Judicial Admissions. They have different
rules and effects. Before you go any further always keep in mind the rules on judicial admissions
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Rule 129, Sec. 4
Rule 130, Sec. 26-35
Governing Rules
Requirements
1.
2.
Must be made by a party to the case

Must be made in the same case, in the course
of the proceedings
1.
2.
Must be made by a party to the case

It is made out of court. It is not made in
the course of the proceedings
Effects
1.
The admission is deemed automatically part

of the records of the case
The admission need not be formally offered in
evidence
The admission is conclusive against the
admitting party (except in certain cases)
1.
2.
Must still be formally offered in evidence

The admission may be given in evidence
against the party making it
2.
3.
ADMISSIONS (EXTRA-JUDICIAL)
Section 26. Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him. (22)
RULE: AN ADMISSION BY A PARTY MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.
What are admissions?

An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact.
It is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are
inconsistent with his claims in an action

Admissibility of admissions
His admission is not admissible in his favor, only admissible against him, because it would be self-serving
evidence.
Declarations of a party favorable to himself are not admissible as proof of the facts asserted
This rule is based on the notion that no man would make any declaration against himself, unless it is true
Doctrine of Adoptive Admission

An admission may also be adoptive. This admission occurs when a person manifests his assent to the
statements of another person.

The admission may be received in evidence if it can be shown that a party adopted the statements as his own
A party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or ratify anothers statement. Where it appears that a
party clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted the statements of another, evidence of those
statements is admissible against him. This is the essence of the principle of adoptive admission.
An adoptive admission is a partys reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to
treat the partys reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person.
By adoptive admission, a third persons statement becomes the admission of the party embracing or espousing
it
An adoptive admission is a partys reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to
treat the partys reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person (Estrada v.
Desierto)
Adoptive admission may occur when a party:
1. Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another
2. Impliedly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another by silence (Estrada v. Desierto)
CLARENCE TIU
67 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it
Utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another
Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores further points which he or
she has heard the other make; or
6. Reads and subsequently signs a written statement made by another (Republic v. Kenrick Development
Corp)
Example: Examples of adoptive admissions are the alleged admissions made by President Estrada when his
options dwindled when, according to the Angara Diary, the armed forces withdrew its support from him as
President and Commander- in-Chief. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to allegedly ask Senate President
Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of dignified exit or resignation. President Estrada did not
object to the suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country. According to the Court, his
silence on this and other related suggestions can be taken as adoptive admissions by him (Estrada v. Desierto)
3.
4.
5.
CONFESSIONS
Section 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)
RULE 133, Section 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)
RULE: 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
What are Confessions?
A confession is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein
It is a statement by the accused that he engaged in conduct which constitutes a crime
To be sure, a confession is not required to be in any particular form. It may be oral or written, formal or informal
in character. It may be recorded on video tape, sound motion pictures, or tape. However, while not required to
be in writing to be admissible in evidence, it is advisable, if not otherwise recorded by video tape or other
means, to reduce the confession to writing. This adds weight to the confession and helps convince the court that
it was freely and voluntarily made. If possible the confession, after being reduced to writing, should be read to
the defendant, have it read by defendant, have him sign it, and have it attested by witnesses. (People vs Satorre
2003)
Admissions vs Confessions
In a confession, there is an acknowledgement of guilt; in an admission, there is merely a statement of fact not
directly involving an acknowledgement of guilt or the criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is
charged
An admission, in a general sense, includes confessions, the former being a broader term because, accordingly, a
confession is also an admission... by the accused of the fact charged against him or of some fact essential to the
charge
A confession is a specific type of admission which refers only to an acknowledgment of guilt.
As used, the term admission refers to acknowledgment of facts which, although may be incriminating, falls short
of an admission of guilt.
In other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or
circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to establish the ultimate
fact of guilt
Hence, when a person declares in his counter-affidavit that he performed an act like shooting the victim but denies
that he did so with criminal intent because the shooting was done in self-defense, the declaration is merely an
admission and not a confession
CLARENCE TIU
68 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

ADMISSIONS
CONFESSIONS
Merely a statement of fact not directly involving

an acknowledgement of guilt or the criminal
intent to commit the offense with which one is
charged
There is an acknowledgement of guilt
It may be express or implied. An express

admission is a positive statement or act. An
implied admission is one which may be inferred
from the declarations or acts of a person.
It cannot be implied. It must be a positive

acknowledgment of guilt and cannot be inferred. Sec.
33 of Rule 130 refers to a confession as a
declaration which connotes an affirmative
statement from the person making the confession
Application
in Criminal
Cases
It is a statement by the accused, direct or

implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and
tending, in connection with proof of other facts,
to prove his guilt.
It is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party

in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged
Where it
should be
made
Admissions may be judicial or extrajudicial. An

admission is judicial when made in the course
of a judicial proceeding. An admission is
extrajudicial when made out of court or even in
a proceeding other than the one under
consideration
A confession may be also judicial or extrajudicial. But

while a judicial confession may sustain a conviction,
an extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for
conviction
An admission may also be adoptive. This

admission occurs when a person manifests his
assent to the statements of another person. The
admission may be received in evidence if it can
be shown that a party adopted the statements
as his own
Cannot be adoptive
In relation to
the Doctrine
of Adoptive
Admission
Definition
How it
should made
EFFECT OF JUDICIAL OR EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS OF GUILT
RULE: WHILE A JUDICIAL CONFESSION MAY SUSTAIN A CONVICTION, AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION ALONE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION, TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION, IT MUST BE:
1. CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE OF THE CORPUS DELICTI
Corpus delicti is the body of the crime or the offense. Strictly speaking, it means the actual commission of the
crime and someone criminally responsible therefor
It is the substance of the crime; the fact that a crime has actually been committed
Corpus delicti has two elements:
1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event
For example, that a man has died or a building has been burned
2. Some persons criminal responsibility for the act
Corpus delicti, and all the elements thereof, may be proved by circumstantial evidence but such proof must be
convincing and compatible with the nature of the case
While an extrajudicial confession will not be sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti, a judicial confession will support conviction without proof of corpus delicti independent of the judicial
confession
At any rate, an extrajudicial confession forms but a prima facie case against the party by whom it is made. Such
confessions are not conclusive proof of that which they state; it may be proved that they were uttered in
ignorance, or levity, or mistake; and hence, they are, at best, to be regarded as only cumulative proof which
affords but a precarious support and on which, when uncorroborated, a verdict cannot be permitted to rest. In
the cases cited by the trial court, the convictions were based on circumstantial evidence in addition to the
appellants confessions, or the extrajudicial confessions were reduced to writing and were replete with details
which only appellants could have supplied. In the case at bar, however, there was no circumstantial evidence to
corroborate the extrajudicial confession of appellant. More importantly, the said confession does not contain
details which could have only been known to appellant. Indeed, an extrajudicial confession will not support a
conviction where it is uncorroborated. There must be such corroboration that, when considered in
CLARENCE TIU
69 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

connection with confession, will show the guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial
evidence may be sufficient corroboration of a confession. It is not necessary that the supplementary
evidence be entirely free from variance with the extrajudicial confession, or that it show the place of offense or
the defendants identity or criminal agency. All facts and circumstances attending the particular offense charged
are admissible to corroborate extrajudicial confession. (People vs Satorre 2003)
2.
COMPETENT (MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES ON CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AND OTHER PERTINENT
LAWS)
The rule on extrajudicial confession in the Rules of Court must be considered together with applicable
constitutional and substantive laws which must be complied with for the confession to be admissible.
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latters absence, upon a valid
waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor,
the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise,
such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding (Sec. 2(d) of R.A. 7438: Act
Defining Certain Rights of Persons, Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation)
But, a confession made by the accused before he is placed under custodial investigation need not comply with
the above.
Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements, not
elicited through questioning by authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally
admitted having committed the crime. Hence, such confession is admissible in evidence against him, even
when he did so without the assistance of counsel (People v. Cabiles)
Custodial investigation has been described as one which involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins
to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of
interrogations that lend itself to eliciting incriminating statements, that the rule begins to operate (Aquino v.
Paiste)
Note that R.A. 7438 (Sec. 2[f]) has extended the meaning ofcustodial investigation to include the practice of
issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed.
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
Section 32. Admission by silence. An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence
against him. (23a)
ELEMENTS
He heard and understood the statement
He was at liberty to make a denial
The statement was about a matter affecting his rights or in which he was interested and which naturally calls
for a response
4. The facts were within his knowledge; and
5. The fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue
Admission by silence has been traditionally received, even in common law, as admissible evidence.
The usual pattern for its admissibility involves a statement by a person in the presence of a party to the action, criminal
or civil.
The statement contains assertions against the party which, if untrue, would be sufficient cause for the party to deny. His
failure to speak against the statement is admissible as an admission.
Not every silence is an implied admission. For instance, the silence of a person under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense should not be construed as an admission by silence because of constitutional reasons (Sec.
2[b], R.A. 7438).
Note that admission by silence are frowned up, before silence may be construed as an admission, there must be no
other reasonable explanation why the person would be silent
1.
2.
3.
CLARENCE TIU
70 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Example: Suppose upon seeing a policeman, a bystander, in the presence of other people, points to a man and
accuses him as the killer of another man found dead the night before. The man pointed at does not respond. He does
not deny the accusation. His failure to respond may be given in evidence against him. The idea of the rule on
admission by silence is that if an accusation is made, and a reasonable person would have denied the same if it were
false, the failure to deny the accusation by the person accused may be construed as an implied admission of the truth
of the accusation and may be given in evidence against him.
OFFER OF COMPROMISE
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission
of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission
of guilt.
1.
OFFER OF COMPROMISE IN CIVIL CASES
2.
It is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror
OFFER OF COMPROMISE IN CRIMINAL CASES
It may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt

Exceptions: There is no implied admission of guilt if the offer of compromise is in relation to:
a. Quasi-offenses (criminal negligence); or
b. Cases allowed by law to be compromised
Example: Although the marriage of the accused in a rape case extinguishes the penal action, an offer of marriage
is, generally speaking, an admission of guilt
WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA

Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible
in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
RULE: IN CASE THE ACCUSED WITHDRAWS HIS GUILTY PLEA, THAT PLEA OF GUILTY LATER WITHDRAWN IS NOT
ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED WHO MADE THE PLEA
The Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sec. 2 of Rule 116) allows the accused, at arraignment, to plead guilty to a lesser
offense with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor provided that the lesser offense is necessarily
included in the offense charged.
He may also plead guilty to a lesser offense even after arraignment but before trial, after withdrawing his plea of not
guilty.
If the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not accepted, the rule does not provide for an adverse consequence of the
unaccepted plea. On the contrary, the rule provides that an unaccepted plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not
admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer
OFFER TO PAY FOR EXPENSES

Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. (24a)
RULE: AN OFFER TO PAY OR THE PAYMENT OF MEDICAL, HOSPITAL OR OTHER EXPENSES OCCASIONED BY AN INJURY
IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR THE INJURY
CLARENCE TIU
71 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In other jurisdictions, this act of rendering aid is sometimes called the good, Samaritan rule. The phrase is used to
refer to the rendering of voluntary aid to a suffering person.
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE IN GENERAL
The expression if fully expressed reads: res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet which literally means that things
done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them
The res inter alios acta rule has two branches:
1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another (Sec. 28, Rule 130)
2. Evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible to prove that one did or did not do the
same act at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130)
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE BRANCH 1: ACTS, DECLARATIONS, OR OMISSIONS OF ANOTHER
Section 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)
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party
within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
jointly interested with the party. (26a)
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and
during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act of declaration. (27)
Section 31. Admission by privies. Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or
omission of the latter,while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. (28)
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE BRANCH 1
RULE: THE RIGHTS OF A PARTY CANNOT BE PREJUDICED BY AN ACT, DECLARATION, OR OMISSION OF ANOTHER
The first branch is a very simple and logical rule which holds that whatever one says or does or omits to do should
only affect him but should not affect or prejudice others. In other words, both common reason and fairness demand
that a mans actions and declarations should affect him alone and should not affect others.
APPLICATION OF THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
RULE: RES INTER ALIOS ACTA APPLIES ONLY AGAINST EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS, NOT JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
I cant emphasize this enough, dont forget this! Judicial admissions are governed by Rule 129, Sec. 4
Res inter alios acta Rule only pertains to extra-judicial admissions, NOT Judicial Admissions
Hence, statements made in open court by a witness implicating persons, aside from his own judicial admissions,
are admissible as declarations from one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.
A distinction must be made between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An extrajudicial confession may be
given in evidence against the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity
to cross- examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against the declarants co-accused since the latter are
afforded opportunity to cross-examine the former. Sec. 30 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies only to
extrajudicial acts or admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely affected has the
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant (People v. Janjalani)
Example: Thus, if X makes a statement before the media admitting his participation in a previous murder, his
statement is admissible against him under Sec. 26 of Rule 130. The rest of his statement pointing to Y and Z as coparticipants in the murder are not admissible against Y and Z under the first branch of the res inter alios acta rule in
Sec. 28 of Rule 130. Under this rule, the statement of X should not affect or prejudice Y and Z.
CLARENCE TIU
72 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE BRANCH 1

1. Admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29, Rule 130)
2. Admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30, Rule 130)
3. Admission by privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130)
4. Interlocking Confessions (Jurisprudence)
The basis for admitting the exceptions is that the person making the statement is under the same circumstances as the
person against whom it is offered. Such circumstances give him substantially the same interest and the same motive to
make a statement about certain matters
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE BRANCH 1 (EXPOUNDED)
1.
ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT
2.
Requisites:
a. The declaration or act of the partner or agent must have been made or done within the scope of his
authority
b. The declaration or act of the partner or agent must have been made or done during the existence of the
partnership or agency (while the person making the declaration was still a partner or an agent); and
c. The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by evidence other than the declaration or act of
the partner or agent
An agent performs some service in representation or on behalf of his principal (Art. 1868, NCC).
The agent, therefore, is in legal contemplation, a mere extension of the personality of the principal and unless the
agent acts in his own name, the principal must comply with all the obligations which the agent may have contracted
within the scope of his authority (Art. 1883, NCC)
Hence, whatever is said by an agent to a third person, during the course of the agency and within the scope of his
actual or apparent authority, relative to the business contemplated by the agency, is for legal purposes, also the
statement of the principal and is therefore, admissible against said principal
The relationship among partners is on the same footing with the relationship of an agent to his principal. Both the
contracts of agency and partnership involve fiduciary relationships. Every partner is an agent of the partnership for
the purpose of its business and the act of the partner in carrying out the usual course of business binds the
partnership as a rule (Art. 1818, NCC). Hence, under the same principle governing an agency, the declarations of a
partner may be admissible against the other partners or the partnership.
Any declaration made before the partnership or agency existed, or those made after, are not admissible against the
other partners or the principal but remains admissible against the partner or agent making the declaration. It is also
necessary for the application of the exception that the proof of the agency or partnership be from a source
independent of the declaration made by the partner or agent.
Note that the above rules also apply to the declarations or acts of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other persons jointly
interested with the party (Sec. 29, Rule 130)
ADMISSION BY A CO-CONSPIRATOR
Requisites:
a. The declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the conspiracy;
b. The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy; and
c. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such declaration or act
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it (Art. 8, RPC).
Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. The statement, therefore, of one may be admitted
against the other co- conspirators as an exception to the rule of res inter alios acta.
Incriminating declarations of co-conspirators made in the absence of or without the knowledge of the others after
the conspiracy has come to an end is inadmissible
If the confessions were made after the conspiracy had ended and after the consummation of the crime. It cannot
be said that the execution of the affidavits were acts or declarations made during the conspiracys existence,
thus inadmissible (People v. Quidato)
Note that the rule requiring the concurrence of the above requisites does not apply when the co-accused takes the
witness stand and repeats his extrajudicial confession as a witness. The declarations referred to under Sec. 30 of
Rule 130 are merely extrajudicial statements or declarations. When he testifies as a witness, his statements
become judicial and are admissible not only against him but also against his co-accused. This is because the
statements by witnesses in open court are admissible as testimonies of a person based on his personal perceptions
and knowledge pursuant to Sec. 36 of Rule 130
The general rule is that the extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is admissible only against the
said accused but inadmissible against the other accused. However, if the declarant/admitter repeats in court his
CLARENCE TIU
73 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
3.

extrajudicial confession during trial and the other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the
admitter, such confession or admission is admissible against both accused. The erstwhile extrajudicial
confession or admission, when repeated during the trial, is transposed into judicial admissions (People v.
Buntag)
When the extrajudicial admission of a conspirator is confirmed at the trial, it ceases to be hearsay. It becomes
instead a judicial admission, being a testimony of an eyewitness admissible in evidence against those he
implicates
ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
Requisites:
a. There must be an act, declaration or omission by a predecessor-in-interest;
b. The act, declaration, or omission of the predecessor must have occurred while he was holding (not
after) the title to the property; and
c. The act, declaration, or omission must be in relation to the property
Privies are persons who are partakers or have an interest in any action or thing, or any relation to another
Examples: (a) a lessor and his lessee, a grantor and a grantee; an assignor and an assignee are privies in an
estate or a contract; (b) An executor or an administrator and the estate of the deceased are privies in
representation; or (c) An heir and his ascendant are privies in blood or succession.
When the former owner of the property made the declaration after he ceased to be the owner of the property, the
rule on admission by privies does not apply. What applies is the general rule that the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another (Gevero v. Intermediate Appellate Court)
4.
INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS
The rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence only against the person making it, also recognizes various
exceptions. One such exception worth noting is the rule that where several extrajudicial statements had been made
by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several
confessions, the facts that the statements are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of
the co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein. They are also admissible as
circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the latters actual
participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from
other facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and
proved. These are known as interlocking confessions. (People vs Lising 1998)
The rule that an extra judicial confession is evidence only against the person making it recognizes exceptions. One
of them is called interlocking confessions: Where there is several extra judicial statements made by several persons
charged with an offense, and there could have been no collusion between these confessions, and if the statements
are in all material respects identical, then this is confirmatory of the confessions of the co-defendants and is
admissible against other persons implicated therein. (People vs Muit, 2008)
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE BRANCH 2: EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR CONDUCT

Section 34. Similar acts as evidence. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or 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.
(48a)
RULE: EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS CONDUCT OR SIMILAR ACTS AT ONE TIME IS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE THAT ONE
DID OR DID NOT DO THE SAME ACT AT ANOTHER TIME
The general rule is that the law will not consider evidence that a person has done a certain act at a particular time
as probative of a contention that he has done a similar act at another time.
This is the rule of res inter alios acta found in Sec. 34, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
A similar conduct which does not even sufficiently establish a plan or scheme is not admissible
The rule prohibits the admission of the so-called propensity evidence which is evidence that tends to show that
what a person has done at one time is probative of the contention that he has done a similar act at another time.
Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the
complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of relevant issues, and diverts the attention of the court
from the issues immediately before it. Hence, the evidentiary rule guards the practical inconvenience of trying
collateral issues and protracting the trial and prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants (Cruz v.
Court of Appeals)
CLARENCE TIU
74 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Example: Assume that Mr. X is accused of physical injuries. Is evidence that in the past he committed several acts
constituting physical injuries admissible to prove his propensity for committing such acts or that he acted in
conformity with his past acts? Answer: The evidence is not admissible for the purpose for which it is offered.
EXCEPTION TO THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE BRANCH 2:
EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR ACTS OR PREVIOUS CONDUCT IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
1. Specific intent
2. Knowledge
3. Identity
4. Plan
5. System
6. Scheme
7. Habit
8. Custom
9. Usage
10. The like
Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially in actions based on fraud and deceit, because it
sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a person, his motive or intent, or they may uncover a scheme, design
or plan (Cruz v. Court of Appeals)
The admissibility of similar acts or previous conduct would depend on the purposes for which such acts or conduct
are offered.
Example: For example, evidence of the other similar crimes, acts or wrongs previously committed by the accused are
admissible to show that the offense for which he is currently charged and his prior similar acts show the signature or
handiwork of the accused, or because of identical modus operandi. In other words, the similar acts may be offered to
show that they share distinctive features as the offense for which the accused is currently charged with, but the
evidence cannot be offered to show that the accused is likely to be guilty of the charge for having committed the same
or similar acts before his present indictment. The rule is: The past acts of the accused are inadmissible to prove that he
acted in conformity with such previous acts.
UNACCEPTED OFFER
Section 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)
HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE
Section 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
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. (30a)
RULE: A WITNESS CAN TESTIFY ONLY TO THOSE FACTS WITHIN HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. TESTIMONY BASED ON
THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF OTHERS IS INADMISSIBLE AND EXCLUDED AS THEY ARE HEARSAY EVIDENCE.
The reliability of a testimony is based on the personal knowledge of a witness.

If a witness testifies on the basis of what others have told him, and not on facts which he knows of his own personal
knowledge, the testimony would be excluded as hearsay evidence
The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that
establishes the truth of a disputed fact.
A witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her
testimony derives its value, not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying, but from the
veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information.
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force 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
CLARENCE TIU
75 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RATIONALE OF THE HEARSAY RULE
THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY TESTIMONY RESTS MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO
CROSS-EXAMINE THE DECLARANT.
In case a witness is permitted to testify based on what she has heard another person say about the facts in dispute, the
person from whom the witness derived the information on the facts in dispute is not in court and under oath to be
examined and cross-examined. The weight of such testimony then depends, not upon the veracity of the witness, but
upon the veracity of the other person giving the information to the witness without oath. The information cannot be
tested because the declarant is not standing in court as a witness and cannot, therefore, be cross-examined.
It is apparent, too, that a person who relates a hearsay is not obliged to enter into any particular, to answer any
question, to solve any difficulties, to reconcile any contradictions, to explain any obscurities, to remove any ambiguities;
and that she entrenches herself in the simple assertion that she was told so, and leaves the burden entirely upon the
dead or absent author.
Excluding hearsay also aims to preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the original declarant
claiming to have a direct knowledge of the transaction or occurrence. If hearsay is allowed, the right stands to be
denied because the declarant is not in court. It is then to be stressed that the right to cross-examine the adverse partys
witness, being the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, is essential to the
administration of justice
A witness can only testify on matters of his own personal knowledge because, while his credibility, accuracy of
perception and recollection, can be tested before the court through cross-examination, those of the out-of-court
declarant cannot. The latters statements are therefore, unreliable. His statements lack the indicia of trustworthiness.
It is this lack of reliability which is the reason for the time- honored rule excluding hearsay testimony.
Thus, in criminal cases, for instance, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the constitutional
provision that the accused shall enjoy the right to confront the witnesses testifying against him and cross- examine
them. The hearsay rule, therefore, bars the admission of evidence that has not been given under oath or solemn
affirmation and more importantly, has not been subjected to cross-examination by opposing counsel.
There are three reasons for excluding hearsay evidence: (1) absence of cross examination; (2) absence of demeanor
evidence, and (3) absence of the oath. (Estrada vs Desierto)
WAIVER OF THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE; PROBATIVE VALUE OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE
Hearsay evidence, if not objected to, is admissible.

However, even if admitted, it has no probative value
WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?
The hard questions is, when is evidence considered hearsay?
HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS AN OUT OF COURT STATEMENT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED
Basically, evidence is called hearsay when its probative force 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.
Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony or statements. The rule that excludes hearsay evidence applies to
both written and oral evidence (DMCI vs CA). It covers verbal or non-verbal conduct which operates as
assertions
If the affiants of affidavits do not take the witness stand to affirm their averments in their affidavits, said affidavits
must be excluded from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay
While affidavits that have been notarized are public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public,
these are still considered hearsay unless the affiants themselves are placed in the witness stand to testify
thereon. The reason for this rule is that, generally, they are not prepared by the affiants, but by another one who
uses his own language in writing the statements, parts of which may be either omitted or misunderstood by the
one writing them.
Doesn't the hearsay evidence rule only apply to testimonial evidence?
Yes, but it effectively operates against documentary evidence as well because such is required to be
authenticated by testimonial evidence
Elements of Hearsay Evidence:
1.
THERE IS AN OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT
Who made the statement referred to? It must be another person, aside from the witness testifying in
court
This presupposes that the witness has no personal knowledge of the matter testified to. It is someone outside
the court and who at the same time is not in the stand who has personal knowledge of the facts.
CLARENCE TIU
76 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

That someone outside the court cannot be questioned. His perception cannot be tested. His capacity to
remember what he perceived cannot be accurately determined. Neither can his capacity to communicate his
remembered perceptions.
Why? Because he is not in court and, if he is not in court, he cannot be cross-examined.
2.
SUCH STATEMENT IS REPEATED AND OFFERED BY THE WITNESS IN COURT TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS
ASSERTED BY THE STATEMENT
What is the purpose of the testimony or statement? It must be to prove the truth of the matters in the
statement
Where a statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but is offered for an evidentiary purpose not
dependent on the truth of the matters asserted, the statement is non-hearsay.

When this second element is absent, it is said that the statement is offered for a non-hearsay purpose. If it is
offered to prove the truth of the statement, it is hearsay because it is offered to prove a hearsay purpose.
Although hearsay evidence presupposes lack of personal knowledge of the truth of the fact asserted by a witness,
the purpose for which the evidence is offered is a vital element of hearsay evidence.
It is the purpose for which the evidence is offered which would determine whether the same is hearsay or not.
The purpose of the out-of-court statement as evidence, to be hearsay, should be to prove the truth of the
matters asserted by such statement

Example: Jose, a witness testifying in court as to what his friend, Juan, wrote him. In a letter dated August 5, his friend
wrote Jose that it was a street bum who shot the cop, not Joses uncle. Joses friend, Juan, the eyewitness, is not in
court. It is Jose who is in court but we hear Jose presenting a statement that is not his own. It is a statement made outside the court by his friend, Juan. His friends statement is an out-of-court statement because when it was made, the
friend who made it was in Cebu and he is not the witness in court. We clearly have an out-of-court statement from
Joses friend whom we shall call an outside declarant. We have the first part of our formula: An out-of-court statement
from an out-ofcourt declarant.
Is Joses testimony therefore, hearsay? Answer: We still do not know. We do not know because we do not know the
purpose of the testimony. Is it offered to prove that it was indeed a bum who shot the cop? Or is it offered to prove
something else? We are not sure. If we are not sure, then we do not know if it is hearsay. How can we be sure then? To
be sure, we must know what it is the proponent wants to prove. After knowing what he wants to prove, then we ask
whether or not the matter he wants to prove is relevant to an issue in the case. This is basic, a matter of logic, and no
rules of evidence need tell us this.
Suppose the judge asks: Counsel, what is the purpose of Joses testimony that his friend wrote him that it was a street
bum who shot the cop and not Joses uncle? Comes the quick reply: To prove Your Honor, that Joses friend was alive
on August 5 and not to prove that it was a bum who shot the cop. Had he been dead on that day, he would not have
been able to write Jose.
Is the testimony of Jose hearsay? Now let us go back to our formula. Do we have an out-of-court statement? Yes, we
do. The friends statement is out-of-court and you know the reason for this. We have our first element, an out-of-court
statement. To be hearsay, we must have the second. Do we have it this time? Let us repeat what counsel says his
purpose is. He says, To prove, Your Honor, that Joses friend was alive on August 5...etc. There you are. We do not
have the second part of our formula. We do not have the second part because we are told the statement is offered to
prove that Joses friend was alive on August 5. It is not to prove that it was a street bum who shot the cop. The
declaration of Juan is not, therefore, to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement of Juan. We have the
first component but we dont have the second. What, then, would the judge rule? Clearly, it would be, Objection,
overruled. Not hearsay!
Will Joses testimony then be admissible? It would be admissible as long as the fact that Joses friend was alive on
August 5 is relevant to an issue of the case. If the evidence is not allowed, it is not because of the hearsay rule but
because it did not meet the standards of relevance.
Let us repeat the question of the judge: Counsel, what is the purpose of Joses testimony that his friend wrote him that
it was a street bum who shot the cop and not Joses uncle? This time counsel emphatically declares: To prove, Your
Honor, that it was not Joses uncle who shot the cop but a bum! Should the judge sustain a hearsay objection? This
time, the judge should sustain the objection. The formula is now complete. Joses testimony is hearsay. It is hearsay
because the out-of-court statement of Joses friend that it was a street bum who shot the cop and not Joses uncle is
offered to prove the very matter asserted in the statement: that it was a street bum who shot the cop... etc... etc...
etc... The first response is different. It is not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the assertion in
the letter of Joses friend. It was offered to prove a different purpose.
CLARENCE TIU
77 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE WHICH IS NOT HEARSAY
Basically, if the witness is testifying as to his or her own personal knowledge, it is not hearsay. It is within the witnesss
personal knowledge if it complies with the elements aforementioned. If it lacks one of the elements then, it is not within
his personal knowledge, and therefore it is hearsay
1.
IF THERE IS NO OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT
2.
Obviously, if the witness is testifying as to his own statements he made, not to statements of another person, there
is no out-of-court statement, thus, it is not hearsay.
INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS
This is when the second element is absent, because the statement is offered for the purpose other than to prove
the truth of the matters asserted in the statement
Basically, independent relevant statements are those statements which are relevant independently of whether
they are true or not. They are statements offered for a non-hearsay purpose
As long as an out-of-court statement is offered for a non-hearsay purpose (a purpose other than to prove the truth
of the matter asserted), the statement is admissible if it has relevance to the matter in issue.
It is doctrinal that a declarants statement may have relevance to an issue in a case from the mere fact that the
words were spoken or written, irrespective of the truth or falsity of the assertion. This category of a non-hearsay
out-of-court statement, together with the previously discussed categories, is commonly known in this jurisdiction
under the general term, independently relevant statements.
They are called as such because the statements are admissible for some relevant reason independent of their
truth or falsity.
They are relevant because the statement itself is either the very fact in issue or a circumstantial evidence of a
fact in issue.
Some authorities call independent relevant statements as the operative acts which give rise to legal consequences
An independently relevant statement is not hearsay and is, therefore, not banned under the hearsay evidence rule.
Example: For example,where any mental state or condition is in issue, such as motive, malice, knowledge, intent,
assent or dissent, unless direct testimony of the particular person is to be taken as conclusive of his state of mind,
theonly method of proof available is testimony of others to the acts or statements of such person.Where his acts or
statements are against his interest, they are plainly admissible within the rules hereinabove announced as to
admissions against interest.And even where not against interest, if they are so closely connected with the event or
transaction in issue as to constitute one of the very facts in controversy,they become admissible of necessity.
INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS
Independently relevant statements actually come in various shapes and shades because of the different reasons for
which such statements are offered. They, however, have a unifying element. That element is: Their relevance to the
matter in issue is not dependent on their truth or falsity. Its relevance lies in its tenor or the fact that it was said.
THESE ARE STATEMENTS WHICH ARE THE VERY FACTS IN ISSUE OR WHICH ARE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE
FACT IN ISSUE
These include:
Statements of a person offered to prove the fact of the utterance itself
A statement having probative worth simply by virtue of the fact that it was uttered, if relevant to a material
fact in issue, is not hearsay and is generally admissible
Where a statement is not offered for the truth of the contents of the conversation, but only to show that it
was made, then the statement is not hearsay.
What is significant is the making of the statement. Beyond the mere fact that the words were uttered, the
statement proves nothing as to its averments because the out-of-court declarations relevance is
independent of the truth of its assertions.
Example:
A statement that is offered to show its patent falsity, so as to suggest the defendants consciousness of
guilt, is not hearsay
In a prosecution for defamation, an important issue is whether or not the words constituting the offense
were uttered. There is no other inference required. Once there is proof that the words were uttered, then
the legal consequences of the mere making of the statement will follow.
Newspaper accounts of an incident are hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the accounts but are not
hearsay if offered for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted. The newspaper account is
admissible only to prove that there was a publication and merely the tenor of the news, but not its truth
b. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his mental condition, knowledge, belief,
intention, ill-will and other emotions
a.
CLARENCE TIU
78 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

A popular example of an out-of-court statement offered for a non-hearsay purpose is one which
demonstrates by inference from the tenor of the statement the state of mind of the speaker or the declarant.
Here, the significance of the statement is not whether its assertion is true or false. Its significance rests on
the mere fact that it was uttered and, by extension, on the conclusion which may reasonably be drawn from
the statement.
From experience we know that a persons state of mind may be revealed by his actions or statements.
It is the fact that the statement was made which is relevant. A testimony by the hearer that such statement
was made is not hearsay. Why? The hearer will be testifying as to his personal knowledge that the statement
was uttered. He may, therefore, be cross- examined as to what he heard, when it was heard, how it was
said, and the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement. The hearers veracity and sincerity
can well be tested under a cross-examination because he will not be testifying as to the veracity of the
assertion or its falsity which are totally irrrelevant.
c. Statement offered to prove its effect on the listener/hearer
An out-of-court statement may be offered not only to prove the state of mind of the declarant. It may also be
used to show the state of mind of the hearer or listener. This state of mind of the listener is oftentimes
described in terms of the effect of the declarants statement on the hearer and why the listener acted in a
particular manner. The statement here, although out-of-court, is presented not to prove the truth of the
statement and hence, non-hearsay.
When the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but is offered to show the mental effect
of the statement on the hearer, the statement is not hearsay
This is an important category of non-hearsay evidence worth remembering. The statement offered in
evidence is not hearsay because it is the hearers reaction to the statement which is sought to be proved. It
is his reaction to the statement that is relevant, not the truth of the assertion in the statement. Since the
hearer is present in court, he can be cross-examined on whether or not he heard the statement accurately,
believed the statement to be true, and whether or not he really acted in conformity with his belief.
d. Statements of a person which shows his physical condition, as illness and the like
e.
Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another, that is
knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter
f.
Statements which may identify the date, place, and person in question
g.
Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness

Words uttered, in this regard, merely constitute circumstantial evidence of an assertion and where the
making of the statement is the significant fact because it either gives rise to the inference about the
declarants state of mind or indicates its effect on the hearer. The truth of the statement is not in issue here.
A statement by an out-ofcourt declarant may be offered not for the veracity of what is asserted but merely
to impeach the declarants credibility
That the credibility of a witness is always an issue in every litigation is a given. It is basic. Of course, a
testimony that attacks the credibility of the witness is equally relevant especially when that witness claims to
have personal knowledge of the facts testified to. Prior out-of-court declarations of that same witness
inconsistent with his testimony on the stand are admissible, not to prove the truth of what was said.
DOUBLE HEARSAY
This is when a person testifies as to a an out-of-court statement he heard from a declarant, the latter also heard
from another. The declarants statement was not based on this personal knowledge.
In this case, the witness did not offer to testify to anything to which the plaintiff doctor had said, but offered to testify to
what the defendant patient said that the doctor said. The witness did not know that the doctor had made those
statements; he only knew that the defendant said that the doctor made them. (Richmond vs Anchuelo 1905)
NEGATIVE HEARSAY
This is when a testimony by an in-court witness concerning the conduct or silence of an out-of-court individual.
RULE: NEGATIVE HEARSAY IS INADMISSIBLE UNLESS THE FOLLOWING ARE ESTABLISHED, IN ADDITION TO SILENCE OF
AN OUT-OF-COURT INDIVIDUAL:
1.
2.
Such individual is similarly situated with the defendant

Such individual had the opportunity to complain
This must be proven to avoid being speculative
CLARENCE TIU
79 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

While the porters proposed testimony as to the other passengers silence or non-complaint was identified to be
hearsay it was nonetheless held to be properly allowable. Evidence of no complaint is too remote and should not
be admitted unless, in addition to the fact that no complaints were made, there is evidence of circumstances
indicating that others similarly situated and had opportunity for complaining. There must first be a preliminary
showing that the non- complainants were all similarly situated as the plaintiff. In the case at bar, should the
circumstances of Mrs. Silver and of the other passengers as to exposure to the cold be shown to be substantially the
same, the negative evidence that none of the others spoke of it to the porter might properly be admitted. (Silver v. New
York Central Railroad 1952)
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE UNDER THE RULES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
It is not correct to assert that the exceptions to the hearsay rule are not hearsay. They are hearsay evidence but they
are deemed admissible hearsay for certain reasons.
Dying declarations (Sec. 37, Rule 130)
Part of the res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130)
Declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130)
Act or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 39, Rule 130)
Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec. 40, Rule 130)
Common reputation (Sec. 41, Rule 130)
Entries in the course of business (Sec. 43, Rule 130)
Entries in official records (Sec. 44, Rule 130)
Commercial lists and the like (Sec. 45, Rule 130)
Learned treatises (Sec. 46, Rule 130)
Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding (Sec. 47, Rule 130)
In the Case of Child Witnesses (Sec. 28, Rules on Examination of Child Witnesses)
RATIONALE OF THE EXCEPTIONS
Under appropriate circumstances, a hearsay statement may possess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness
sufficient to justify non-production of the declarant in person
Declaration against interest, act or declaration about pedigree, entries in the course of business, entries in official
records, commercial lists, and learned treatises are examples of hearsay evidence where there exist a diminished
risk of untrustworthiness because the motivation to lie is less.
Another justification may be simply dictated by the necessity to admit an out-of-court statement
Some statements may be admissible where no other or better evidence is available to prove an act, such that their
admissibility is predicated on a compelling necessity. A dying declaration is admissible largely under this
rationale.
Not at all hearsay evidence, however, is inadmissible as evidence.Over the years, a huge body of hearsay
evidence has been admitted by courts due to their relevance, trustworthiness and necessity. (Estrada vs Desierto)
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS (EXTRA-JUDICIAL)

Note that Dean Riano says that admissions are NOT exceptions to the hearsay rule. It is admissible but not as an
exception to the hearsay rule but because it is made by a PARTY to the case, and not by a mere witness, which the rules
explicitly provide may be used in evidence against such declarant-party. I think this is because an element of hearsay is
that there is an out-of-court statement, meaning a statement by a non-party (but a mere witness), in the case of
admissions, the statement was made by a party to the case (defendant/accused), thus it cannot be hearsay. But note that
the case of Estrada vs Desierto says that admissions are admissible even if they are hearsay. Normally you prove
admissions by presenting witnesses who heard the admission from the declarant, so in that sense, it is hearsay, yet it is still
admissible, so it operates as an exception to the hearsay rule in this sense. The better rule seems to be that it is not an
exception to the hearsay rule, but admissible because it is expressly provided by the rules and the fact that the declarant is
a party and he can rebut the statements testified to by another person by taking the stand. I put it here for emphasis and
correlation.
Section 26. Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him. (22)
CLARENCE TIU
80 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Section 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)
It has long been settled that these admissions are admissible even if they are hearsay.(Estrada vs Desierto)
Whyare admissions not covered by the hearsay rule?
Estrada vs Desierto:
Wigmore, after pointing out that thepartys declarationhas generally the probative value of any other
persons asssertion, argued that it had aspecial value when offered against the party.In that circumstance,
the admission discredits the partys statement with the present claim asserted in pleadings and testimony,
much like a witness impeached by contradictory statements.Moreover, he continued: Admissions pass the
gauntlet of the hearsay rule, which requires that extrajudicial assertions be excluded if there was no
opportunityfor the opponent to cross-examine because it is the opponents own declaration, andhe
does not need to cross examine himself.Wigmore then added that the Hearsay Rule is satisfied since
the party now as opponent has the full opportunity to put himself on the stand and explain his former
assertion.
According toMorgan:The admissibility of an admission made by the party himself rests not upon any notion
that the circumstances in which it was made furnish the trier means of evaluating it fairly, but upon the
adversary theory of litigation.A party can hardly object that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself
or that he is unworthy of credence save when speaking under sanction of an oath.
A mans acts, conduct, and declaration, wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him, for the
reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if they do not.
DYING DECLARATION
Section 37. Dying declaration. 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. (31a)
RATIONALE
A dying declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the utmost credence on the premise that no
person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation. At the brink of death, all
thoughts on concocting lies disappear
The reasons for its admissibility is necessity and trustworthiness. Necessity, because the declarants death renders it
impossible his taking the witness stand, and it often happens that there is no other equally satisfactory proof of the
crime; allowing it, therefore, prevents a failure of justice. And trustworthiness, because the declaration is made in
extremity, when the party is at the point of death, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced
by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth.
The law considers the point of death as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to that which is
imposed by an oath administered in court
REQUISITES OF A DYING DECLARATION AS ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE
1.
THE DECLARATION IS ONE MADE BY A DYING PERSON
2.
The dying declaration of the deceased need not be directed to a particular person inquiring from the declarant as to
the circumstances of his death. Anyone who has knowledge of what the declarant said, whether it be directed to him
or not, or whether he made inquiries from the declarant or not, can testify thereto (People v. Valdez)
THE DECLARATION IS MADE BY SAID DYING PERSON UNDER A CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS IMPENDING DEATH
A mere consciousness of death is not enough because everyone of us, at one time or another, has become
conscious of death.
The kind of death which the declarant should be conscious of is a death that is impending. The declarant must be
conscious that death is near and certain, that death is near at hand, and what is said must have been spoken in
the hush of its impending presence.
A dying declaration must be uttered, under the fixed belief and moral conviction of the person, that his or her death
is impending and certain to follow almost immediately
CLARENCE TIU
81 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
3.

To admit a dying declaration in evidence, it must be shown that the declarant believed, at the time the statement
was made, that he was in a dying condition and had given up the hope of surviving
How do you prove that the declaration was made by a person with knowledge of his impending death?
The declarants belief in the imminence of his death can be shown by the declarants own statements or from
circumstantial evidence
In any event, it is conceded that the attendant circumstances should be carefully weighed in determining the
consciousness of the impending death and the sincerity of such belief

The declarants belief that he is going to die soon may be shown circumstantially by the obvious fatal quality of
the wound, by the statements made to the victim by the physician that his condition is hopeless, or by some
other circumstances
THE DECLARATION REFERS TO THE CAUSE AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DEATH OF THE DECLARANT AND
NOT OF ANYONE ELSE
4.
This requirement is an essential part of the evidentiary foundation for a dying declaration and where the statement
sought to be introduced by the prosecution is on a matter other than the cause of death of the declarant, the
required foundation for its admissibility cannot be laid. An objection timely interposed will most likely be sustained.
Example: Suppose that a man collapses on your front door, blood oozing from his back where a knife is prominently
planted. You rush to help him and you notice, the poor, hapless guy is your next door neighbor, Candido. You have
long wanted to ask him whether or not he had something to do with the death of Calixto, another neighbor six
months ago. As he lay dying in your arms, you ask him the question and, in a weak voice, he whispers: It was not
me... it was Frank Santos. In a couple of seconds, he dies. Is the decedents statement admissible as a dying
declaration in a prosecution against Frank Santos for the death of another neighbor? Of course, the answer should
be No. It should be no because the declaration was neither about the cause nor the circumstances of the
declarants death. It is not admissible because the subject of the inquiry is the death of someone else.
THE DECLARANT IS COMPETENT AS A WITNESS HAD HE SURVIVED
5.
This competence is vital to the admissibility of a dying declaration. Competence is affected where the declarant had
no opportunity to see the assailant.
The declaration must identify the assailant; otherwise it loses its significance
THE DECLARANT SHOULD HAVE DIED
Note that 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. This is because a dying declaration should be offered in
evidence in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry.
Impliedly therefore, the death of the declarant, although always neglected to be mentioned, should be an
element of a dying declaration.
BUT, if the declarant survives, his declaration may be admissible as part of the res gestae.
ELEMENTS OF THE RULE ON ADMISSIBILITY OF DYING DECLARATIONS:
1.
A DYING DECLARATION IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, IT IS ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY EVIDENCE
2.
A dying declaration is generally inadmissible in evidence due to its hearsay character but may, nonetheless, be
admitted as an exception to the rule
As an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a dying declaration or ante mortem statement is evidence of
the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a
careless and false accusation.
It is thus, admissible to provide the identity of the accused and the deceased, to show the cause of death of the
deceased, and the circumstances under which the assault was made upon him.
A DYING DECLARATION MAY BE OFFERED IN ANY KIND OF CASE
3.
The former rules limited the admissibility of dying declarations to a criminal case. But changes in the Rules in 1989
made in applicable to all cases.
This is seen in the wording of Sec. 37, it applies to any kind of case
In doing so, the Rules of Court no longer places any limitation on the type of action in which a dying declaration
may be introduced. As long as the relevance is clear, a dying declaration may now be introduced in a criminal or
a civil action and the requirement of relevance is satisfied where the subject of inquiry is the death of the
declarant himself.
THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY OF THE CASE, IN WHICH THE DYING DECLARATION IS OFFERED, MUST BE THE DECLARANTS
DEATH
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. A dying declaration is offered in evidence in any case wherein his
death is the subject of inquiry.
CLARENCE TIU
82 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
4.
THE DYING DECLARATION MAY EITHER FAVOR OR PREJUDICE THE DECLARANT
There is nothing in the rules which prohibit the admission of a dying declaration that is favorable to the accused.
Certainly, the interest of the State in convicting an accused is as strong as its interest in acquitting a man falsely
and erroneously charged. The Supreme Court had long recognized the rule that dying declarations, which exculpate
or exonerate an accused, may be introduced by him and are admissible in his favor.
It has been ruled that it would be unfair to restrict the use of dying declarations by the prosecution. It is well-settled
that it will also be received on behalf of the defendant
HOW TO ASSAIL A DYING DECLARATION
WHILE IT IS ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY EVIDENCE, A PARTY CAN ASSAIL ITS PROBATIVE WEIGHT OR THE CREDIBILITY OF
THE WITNESS LIKE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE
No evidentiary rule grants a dying declaration a favored status in the hierarchy of evidence. Like any other
evidence, the declaration may be attacked in the same manner as one would do to a testimony in open
court. The declarant himself may be impeached through the normal methods provided for under the rules.
Although jurisprudentially considered as evidence of the highest order, it is submitted that the admissibility of a
dying declaration, like any admissible evidence, does not create a conclusive presumption of credibility of the
admitted declaration.
Courts have to apply to dying declarations the same rules applied in testing the credibility of testimony of a witness
in court. No law allows them to use a different criterion
The ways by which the credibility of the declaration and the declarant may be assailed are as varied as the
particular circumstances of the case. Knowing them is largely a matter of logic and not necessarily of law.
The credibility or trustworthiness of those, who have allegedly heard or taken down the dying declaration and the
form and manner by which the declaration was taken, are vital points to be considered by an objector who desires
to water down the effects of a dying declaration.
Examples:
For instance, the objector may show that prior to the admitted declaration, the declarant had previously made a
statement inconsistent with his supposedly dying declaration.

The objecting counsel may also demonstrate that the declarant has no personal knowledge of the identity of the
assailant.
It may also be pointed out that the declarant would not have been a competent witness even if he had survived.
One may even question the competency of the declarant himself who, like any other witness, may also be
impeached. If the declarant is incompetent under the rules if he were to appear in court and in person, he would
also be incompetent as a dying declarant. Thus, if a court would adjudge him incompetent because of his
insanity if he were alive, there is no reason to consider him sane as a dying declarant.
Where it is shown that the persons from the prosecution were the ones who squeezed out the dying declaration
from the lips of a weakened declarant through questions calculated to bring out a desired response, a
conscientious counsel may bring this matter up to court.
PARTS OF RES GESTAE

Section 42. Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence
as part of res gestae. 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. (36a)
RULE: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE RECEIVED AS PARTS OF THE RES GESTAE AND ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY EVIDENCE:
1.
2.
Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof
Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance
RES GESTAE IN GENERAL; ORIGIN AND CONCEPT
The term res gestae is an old word which literally means, things done, and was originally used by the courts in the
other side of the world in the early 1800s to create hearsay exceptions whenever it was difficult to justify the admission
of a piece of hearsay evidence at a time when the hearsay theory was far from being a developed concept in the law of
evidence. It was used as a justification to escape from the strict application of the hearsay rule.
CLARENCE TIU
83 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The term res gestae has been defined as those circumtances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular
litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such act.
In a general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and
serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea
of deliberation and fabrication.
The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the
excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and fabricate a false statement.
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration,
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to
be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or
purpose to manufacture testimony
RATIONALE
The rationale behind the concept is that it is the event that speaks for itself through the spontaneous words or
instinctive words or conduct of the witness, and not the witness speaking for and about the event.
MATTERS WHICH ARE PART OF RES GESTAE
These are the only two matters which may be given as evidence as part of res gestae, no other statement, act or
evidence may qualify as part of res gestae
1.
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS
2.
These are statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof.
Example:
Where the victim went to her aunts house immediately after escaping from the crime scene and spontaneously,
unhesitatingly and immediately declared to her that the accused had sexually abused
When the deceased gave the identity of his assailant to another, he was referring to a startling occurrence, i.e.,
his stabbing by the accused. The victim was then on board the taxicab that would bring him to the hospital, and
thus, had no time to contrive his identification of the accused as the assailant. His utterance about the accused
having stabbed him was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence. The statement was
relevant because it identified the accused as the perpetrator
VERBAL ACTS
These are statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance.
Example: Suppose that a witness testifies on the stand for the plaintiff in a collection case where defendant denies
having borrowed P10,000 from the plaintiff. The debt is not evidenced by a promissory note because plaintiff claims
that defendant had orally borrowed money from him in the past and had always paid. This time, he refuses to pay.
The witness testifies that one year ago, he saw the plaintiff give money to the defendant. There is no hearsay
problem at this point because the witness is testifying to what he actually saw. He has a personal knowledge of the
transaction, i.e., the act of the plaintiff handing money to the defendant. The act of the plaintiff, however, taken in
itself, has no legal significance because it is an equivocal act. It is ambiguous. Is the money intended as a bribe? Is
it a payment for a debt? Is it a gift? Or is it a loan extended by the plaintiff to the defendant? We do not know. We
still do not know what to make of that money delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant so the attorney asks the
witness: Q: Mr. Witness, did you testify that you saw the plaintiff give money to the defendant? A: I did, sir. Q:
What,if any, did anybody say at the time the money was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant? A: As the
plaintiff handed the money, he said to the defendant: This is the P10,000 you told me you were borrowing from
me. Q: What did the defendant say, if any? A: The defendant said, Thank you. Ill pay you after a year.
Focus on what the plaintiff said. What he said is an out-of-court statement. There is no doubt about that. The
statement is offered to explain the conduct of the plaintiff. With his statement, the act of the plaintiff acquires a
legal significance. The money is not intended as a bribe, a gift or a payment of a debt. It is a loan by the plaintiff
to the defendant. Now, focus this time on the statement of the defendant. The act of receiving money in itself
has no definite meaning or significance. When, however, the defendant answered: Thank you. Ill pay you after
a year, the act of receiving the money now acquires a legal significance. A contract of loan has just been
perfected. It is now evident, therefore, that the defendant is the debtor of the plaintiff for P10,000. He is a debtor
because this is what the acts of the plaintiff and defendant point to, as explained by the utterances
contemporaneous to such acts. Now, the witness is testifying to that out-of-court statement and it is offered to
CLARENCE TIU
84 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

prove the truth of that statement, that the money handed over is a loan to the defendant. It is hearsay, but it is
an admissible hearsay as part of the res gestae.
REQUISITES OF SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS AS PART OF RES GESTAE
When all these conditions are met, we have a spontaneous statement constituting an exception to the rule barring
hearsay statements. Even if the declarant is unavailable and thus, cannot be cross-examined, the evidence may be
received.
1.
THERE IS A STARTLING EVENT OR OCCURRENCE TAKING PLACE;
2.
The justification for the excited utterance exception is that a spontaneous declaration of an individual who has
recently suffered an overpowering and shocking experience is likely to be truthful
The event must be of such a nature as to cause an excited reaction in an average individual.
If the event in itself is not sufficient to disturb the emotional and mental equilibrium of the average, reasonable
person, then raise this issue with the court as soon as it becomes apparent that the event is not as startling as that
required by the rules.
A STATEMENT WAS MADE, WHILE THE EVENT IS TAKING PLACE OR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO OR SUBSEQUENT THERETO
3.
In the spontaneous statement part of the res gestae, common reason suggests that the statement and the event
cannot be taken separately. The statement alone, without the event, will not qualify for admission because it is the
circumstances surrounding the making of the statement which make said statement admissible.
The res gestae is the startling event or occurrence and the statement is a part of that res gestae. The
circumstances stamp on the statement a character of reliability on the theory that it is almost impossible to lie in an
excited state. It has thus, been said that the spontaneity of the utterance is the guaranty of its trustworthiness.
The declarant is supposed to have made a statement under the influence of the occurrence, it must be made while
the event is taking place or immediately prior to or subsequent thereto
There has been no clear standard formulated so far as to when a statement made after the event is one made
under the influence of that event. There is no mathematical formula for this. Everything hinges on the unique and
particular circumstances of each case. Hence, the determination as to the spontaneity of the utterance is a matter
of judicial discretion.
THE STATEMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE DECLARANT HAD THE TIME TO CONTRIVE OR DEVISE A FALSEHOOD
4.
The admissibility of a spontaneous statement is anchored on the theory that the statement was uttered under
circumstances where the opportunity to fabricate is absent.
The statement is a reflex action rather than a deliberate act, instinctive rather than deliberate.
Thus, the declaration was made under conditions suggestive of the truth. Accordingly, the basis for the excited
utterance exception to the hearsay rule is that the perceived event produces nervous excitement, making
fabrications about that event unlikely
THE STATEMENTS MUST CONCERN THE OCCURRENCE IN QUESTION AND ITS IMMEDIATE ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES
In other words, the statement must describe the event perceived.

A declaration by a deceased person concerning the circumstances of his death may not be considered a dying
declaration if it cannot be established that he uttered his statement while conscious of his impending death but the
utterance of the victim made immediately after sustaining injuries may be considered the incident speaking through
the victim. While it may not qualify as a dying declaration, it may nonetheless be admitted in evidence as part of the
res gestae.
REQUISITES OF VERBAL ACTS AS PART OF RES GESTAE
1.
THE PRINCIPAL ACT TO BE CHARACTERIZED MUST BE AMBIGUOUS OR EQUIVOCAL
2.
THE EQUIVOCAL ACT MUST BE MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE
3.
A verbal act presupposes a conduct that is equivocal or ambiguous, one which, in itself, does not signify anything
taken separately if there were statements made contemporaneous to it.
Is there an act that is equivocal or ambiguous? If the act is clear, it needs no explanation and so there is no res
gestae to speak of.
The act of swinging a baseball bat at the victim in a physical injuries case is not equivocal and need not be
explained by any statement to understand the nature of the act. The bat was swung to cause injuries to the
victim.
Materiality is necessary for relevance.
It is matter of logic and is absolutely necessary for the admissibility of evidence and the reference to it in the rules is
a redundancy.
A STATEMENT MUST ACCOMPANY THE EQUIVOCAL ACT
CLARENCE TIU
85 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
4.

The equivocal or ambiguous act only acquires a meaning, specifically what the rules call a legal significance, only
because of the statements that accompany the act. It is the statement contemporaneous with the act that identifies
or indicates the character, purpose or motive of the act.
The requirement that the statement accompany the act is explicit in Sec. 42 of Rule 130. This element is one
distinction between a spontaneous statement and a verbal act.
A spontaneous statement may be prior to, simultaneous with, or subsequent to the startling event or occurrence.
This is not so in a verbal act. The statement in the latter must accompany the equivocal act which evidently means
that it must be contemporaneous with the act.
THE STATEMENT MUST GIVE A LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE EQUIVOCAL ACT
Will the statement accompanying the ambiguous or equivocal act explain the act or give legal significance to it? If it
will not, then the statement is not admissible.
Thus, the statement, I will hit you with this as he swung the bat at the victim, does not explain the act in the
physical injuries case. Because of the nature of the case, the accompanying words will not add a new meaning to it.
However, where the indictment is attempted homicide where intent to kill is an element, the swinging of the bat may
be ambiguous as to whether or not it was swung with or without the intent to kill. The utterance accompanying the
act may explain the nature of the act. Thus, if the accused, while swinging at the victim said, Adios Amigo! See you
in hell, the statement may help explain the purpose of the act of the accused.

Section 38. Declaration against interest. The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify,
against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is 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)
RATIONALE
This is a well-established exception which finds confirmation in human nature and experience.
People normally speak freely and even with untruth when the statement is in their interest, but are usually unwilling to
speak falsely against their interest.
Wigmore considers a declaration against interest as also founded on necessity on account of the impossibility of
obtaining other evidence from the same source, the declarant being unavailable in person to testify on the stand on
account of death, absence from the jurisdiction or serious illness
REQUISITES OF DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST AS ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE
1.
A STATEMENT OF FACT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO DECLARANT'S OWN INTEREST AT THE TIME IT WAS MADE
2.
The declaration contemplated under Sec. 38 of Rule 130 is a declaration against interest.
If the declaration is favorable to the interest of the declaration, it is a mere self- serving statement and does not fall
as an exception to the hearsay rule.
THE DECLARANT HAS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE STATEMENT IS AGAINST HIS
PECUNIARY OR MORAL INTEREST IN THAT A
REASONABLE MAN IN HIS POSITION WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE DECLARATION UNLESS HE BELIEVED IT TO BE TRUE
3.
Note that it is not enough that a declaration against interest was made. It is necessary that the declarant knew that
the statement was against his interest and which he would not have made had it not been true.
As a rule, the interest against which the declaration may have been made should be either a pecuniary or moral
interest, but in our jurisdiction, the declaration could possibly be against ones penal interest because if one
admits to a crime, he is also civilly liable, a liability that is pecuniary
THE DECLARANT IS DEAD OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY
This exception will not apply where the declarant is available as a witness. The declarant must be dead or unable to
testify.
What kind of unavailability aside from death is a sufficient reason to justify the application of the exception?
Being outside the territorial jurisdiction of the country may be a good reason for unavailability if his exact
whereabouts abroad are unknown.

If known, his deposition may be taken and the exception will not apply.
Serious physical or mental impairments may be grounds for considering a person unavailable.
CLARENCE TIU
86 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Example: A statement by the debtor before he died that he owes the creditor a sum of money, or an oral
acknowledgment by the principal that he received the money previously entrusted to his agent, are clear declarations
against the interest of the person making the statement.
Note that the declaration against interest made by the deceased, or by one unable to testify, is admissible even against
the declarants successors-in-interest or even against third persons
ADMISSIONS VS DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST

ADMISSIONS
Status of the
Persons
making the
Statement
An admission is admissible in evidence even if the

person making such is alive and is in court
To be admitted as a declaration against interest, the

declarant must be dead or unable to testify
When it should
be made
Made at any time, even during the trial
Generally made before the controversy arises
Subject-matter
of the
Statement
Admissible as long as it is inconsistent with his present

claim or defense and need not be against ones
pecuniary or moral interest
Generally made against ones pecuniary or moral

interest;
Against whom
it is admissible
against
An admission is admissible only against the party

making the admission
Admissible even against third persons
In relation to
the Hearsay
Rule
It is not an exception to the hearsay rule. It is admissible

not as an exception to any rule
An exception to the hearsay rule
ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE

Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to
testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in
evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy,
birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these fast occurred, and the names of the
relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (33a)
REQUISITES OF ACTS OR DECLARATIONS ABOUT PEDIGREE AS ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE
1.
THERE IS AN ACT OR DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PEDIGREE OF ANOTHER PERSON
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 also embraces facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree
THE DECLARANT IS RELATED BY BIRTH OR MARRIAGE TO THE PERSON WHOSE PEDIGREE IS IN ISSUE
THE DECLARATION WAS MADE BEFORE THE CONTROVERSY
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO PERSONS IS SHOWN BY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN SUCH ACT OR DECLARATION
THE DECLARANT IS DEAD, OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY
Such as if the declarant is outside the territorial jurisdiction and his whereabouts are unknown, or he has serious
physical or mental impairments
Example:
The declaration of Jose, already dead, prior to his death and prior to any controversy, that Juan is his illegitimate
son, is a declaration about pedigree.
Similarly, a statement from a mother while living, that her daughters, Maria and Petra, were sired by the same father
is admissible.
CLARENCE TIU
87 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE
Section 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, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be
received as evidence of pedigree. (34a)
REQUISITES OF FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION ABOUT PEDIGREE AS ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE
1.
THERE IS A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIES REGARDING THE REPUTATION OR TRADITION OF THE FAMILY IN RELATION TO THE
PEDIGREE OF ANY MEMBER OF THE FAMILY
2.
3.
THE WITNESS IS RELATED BY BIRTH OR MARRIAGE TO THE PERSON WHOSE PEDIGREE IS IN ISSUE
THE REPUTATION OR TRADITION IS ONE EXISTING PREVIOUS TO THE CONTROVERSY
Note that entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like,
may be received as evidence of pedigree aside from family tradition or reputation
COMMON REPUTATION
Section 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)
REQUISITES OF COMMON REPUTATION AS ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE
1.
THERE IS A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIES REGARDING A MATTER OF COMMON REPUTATION MORE THAN THIRTY (30)
YEARS OLD
2.
Common reputation is admissible in evidence where the reputation refers to a matter of public or general interest, or
respecting marriage or moral character and said matter is more than thirty (30) years old.
THE COMMON REPUTATION IS ONE EXISTING PRIOR TO THE CONTROVERSY
Note:
Common reputation is hearsay, like any other exception to the hearsay rule, but is admissible because of
trustworthiness
Common reputation may also be established by monuments and inscriptions (which need not be thirty years old)
Common reputation cannot establish pedigree. This is established by reputation in the family and not in the
community
ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS

Section 43. Entries in the course of business. Entries made at, or near the time of 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. (37a)
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,
CLARENCE TIU
88 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

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.
Section 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.
Requisites:
1. Entries are made at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer
2. The person made such entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.
3. Such person making the entries is deceased, or unable to testify
4. The witness is in a position to know the facts stated (personal knowledge)
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS

Section 44. Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a
public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (38)
REQUISITES OF ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AS ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE

1.
2.
3.
The entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so
It was made by the public officer, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law
The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him or her stated, which must have been
acquired by the public officer or other person personally or through official information
An entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from
reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same. In this case, the entries made by the witness were
not based on her personal knowledge, as she did not attest to the fact that she personally prepared and mailed the
assessment notice. Nor was it stated in the transcript of stenographic notes how and from whom she obtained the
pertinent information. Moreover, she did not attest to the fact that she acquired the reports from persons under a
legal duty to submit the same. Hence, Sec. 44 of Rule 130 finds no application in the present case. The evidence
offered by respondent does not qualify as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. Furthermore,
independent evidence, such as the registry receipt of the assessment notice, or a certification from the Bureau of
Posts, could have easily been obtained (Barcelon Roxas Security vs CIR)
COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE

Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged
in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is 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)
REQUISITES OF ENTRIES OF COMMERCIAL LISTS (AND THE LIKE) AS ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE
Evidence presented are commercial lists or reports of matters of interest to persons engaged in a particular
occupation
These documents may be in the form of lists, registers, periodicals, or other published compilations
2. The documents are made and published by persons engaged in such occupation
3. The documents are generally used and relied upon by persons also engaged in such occupation
1.
LEARNED TREATISES
CLARENCE TIU
89 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Section 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)
History books and published findings of scientists fall within this exception provided that an expert on the subject
testifies to the expertise of the writer or the court takes judicial notice of such fact.
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION IN A FORMER PROCEEDING

Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. The testimony or deposition of a witness
deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the
same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity
to cross-examine him. (41a)
REQUISITES OF TESTIMONIES OR DEPOSITIONS AS ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The witness is dead or unable to testify

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
The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action
The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case
The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case
IN THE CASE OF CHILD WITNESSES

EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE FOR CHILD WITNESSES
See Sec. 28, Rules on Examination of a Child Witness
RULE: 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:
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. It shall consider the following factors:
(a) Whether there is a motive to lie
(b) The general character of the declarant child
(c) Whether more than one person heard the statement
(d) Whether the statement was spontaneous
(e) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness
(f) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child
(g) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote
(h) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child
misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
4. The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(a) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe
psychological injury; or
(b) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable means.
(c) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other
admissible evidence.
1.
CLARENCE TIU
90 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
OPINION RULE
Section 48. General rule. The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following
sections. (42)
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, may be received in evidence. (43a)
Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be
received in evidence regarding
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person. (44a)
FACT-OPINION DICHOTOMY
The true rationale of the Opinion Rule is that opinion testimony of a witness is excluded because it is not needed, it is
superfluous. It is scientifically impossible to distinguish between fact and opinion, as all matters of measure, identity,
quality and the like are no better than opinions.The difference between so-called fact and opinion is no difference
between opposites or contrasting absolutes, but a mere difference in degree with no recognizable line to mark the
boundary. (Wigmore, McCormick)
INADMISSIBILITY OF OPINIONS AS EVIDENCE; EXCEPTIONS
RULE: GENERALLY, THE OPINION OF A WITNESS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE
This is because when a witness testifies, a witness does so with respect to facts personally observed by him and it
is for the court to draw conclusions from the facts testified to.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. EXPERT OPINION
This is when:
a. The opinion of a witness requires special knowledge, skill, experience or training
b. Such expert witness must be qualified, it must be shown that he possesses such special qualifications
They may be received in evidence
Note that expert opinions are NOT conclusive
The court is not bound by the opinion of an expert such as a handwriting expert.
Expert opinion evidence is to be considered or weighed by the court, like any other testimony, in the light
of its own general knowledge and experience upon the subject of inquiry.
The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or
opinion, but rather in the aid that he can render to the courts in showing the facts which serve as a basis
for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. When faced with conflicting expert opinions, courts give
weight and credence to that which is more complete, thorough and scientific (Bacalso v. Padigos)
A handwriting expert is not indispensable to prove that a signature was indeed a forgery. The opinion of
handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the experts function being to place
before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion. While these experts are helpful in
the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing them,
resort to them is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination or comparison of handwriting. A
finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the findings of handwriting experts, because the judge
must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable
conclusion (Lorzano v. Tabayag)
CLARENCE TIU
91 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not necessary. The observations of the trial
judge coupled with evidence establishing the person's state of mental sanity will suffice (Hernandez vs
Juan-Santos 2009)
2. LAY OPINION ON CERTAIN MATTERS
These are opinion of ordinary witnesses, when they pertain to the following matters
a. The identity of a person about whom the witness has adequate knowledge
b. The handwriting of a person with which the witness has sufficient familiarity
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted
d. The impressions of the witness of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person
When the opinion is that of a witness who is not an expert (ordinary witness), his testimony may be admitted
in evidence provided that the proper basis of the opinion is given and the subject of the opinion is any of the
aforementioned matters
This is because, in such cases, the ordinary witness already has personal knowledge of the pertinent facts
and data so that his inference or opinion is rationally based on his perception.
It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of a person,
provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of
the person in question. Generally, it is required that the witness details the factors and reasons upon which
he bases his opinion before he can testify as to what it is. (People vs Duranan 2001)
Note that a witness who is presented as an expert, who fails to qualify as such, may still be introduced as an
ordinary witness in the enumerated cases
CONCURRENT EXPERT OPINION; HOT-TUB METHOD
Hot tubbing, the colloquial term for concurrent expert evidence, a method used for giving evidence in civil cases in
Australia. In a hot tub hearing, the judge can hear all the experts discussing the same issue at the same time to
explain each of their points in a discussion with a professional colleague. The objective is to achieve greater efficiency
and expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-examination and increased emphasis on professional dialogue, and
swifter identification of the critical areas of disagreement between the experts. The hot tub method involves multiple
expert witnesses providing testimony at the same time, often together. The experts can challenge and quiz each
another facilitating a dialogue between experts and the tribunal, with counsels' role sometimes limited to stating
objections. (ISAAA vs Greenpeace 2015)
Is this method allowed?
Not sure. The ISAAA case didnt categorically disallow it and merely said that the hot tub hearing in the case did not
yield any consensus on the points of contention.
However, the concurring opinion of Justice Leonen seems to suggest otherwise method obfuscated further an
already complicated legal issue. Courts of law have a precise and rigorous method to ferret out the facts of a case,
a method which is governed by our published rules of evidence. By disregarding these rules, the Court of Appeals
acted whimsically, capriciously, and arbitrarily.
Remember also that the rules of evidence may be waived by the parties. As long as no law or principles of morality,
good customs and public policy are transgressed or no rights of third persons are violated, the rules on evidence
may be waived by the parties. (Art. 6 of the Civil Code)
COLLECTIVE FACTS RULE
This is based on US Jurisprudence, and seems to be an additional exception to the opinion rule. These are opinions
but are said to be statements of collective facts
VIRGINIA RY VS BURR (1926)
The court is of opinion that this evidence was improperly excluded, that it should have been admitted under what is
called the collective facts rule and not excluded under the opinion rule. The exception to the general rule that
witnesses cannot give opinions, is not confined to the evidence of experts testifying on subjects requiring special
knowledge, skill or learning, but includes the evidence of common observers, testifying to the results of their
observation made at the time in regard to common appearances of facts, and a condition of things which
cannot be reproduced and made palpable to a jury.
Such evidence has been said to be competent from necessity on the same ground as the testimony of experts. Nor
is it a mere opinion, but a conclusion of fact to which his judgment, observation, and common knowledge has led
him in regard to a subject matter which requires no special learning or experiment, but which is within the
knowledge of men in general.
Impressions which are based upon a great variety of circumstances and a combination of appearances,
which because either of the witness' infirmity or the infirmity of our language cannot be adequately or
better expressed, may be testified to by those who have personally observed the facts.
CLARENCE TIU
92 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Wigmore: The second corollary of the general principle of knowledge is that the result of the witness' observation
need not be positive or absolute knowledge. Such a degree of certainty cannot be demanded, even in theory; it
suffices if he had an opportunity of personal observation, and did get some impressions from this observation.
What the courts repudiate then is a mere guess, an exercise of the imagination, a suspicion, a conjecture, offered in
the place of the result of actual personal observation; it is from this point of view only that a belief or opinion or
impression is not to be received.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:

(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.
(3) 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.
(b) In Civil Cases: Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)
Section 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)
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. 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.
CHARACTER OR PROPENSITY EVIDENCE; CHARACTER VS REPUTATION
Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an individual person; the general
results of ones distinguishing attributes.
It refers to what a man is and depends on the attributes he possesses. It is not the same as a mans reputation
because the latter depends on attributes which others believe one to possess. Character signifies reality while
reputation signifies what is accepted to be reality at present (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p. 211)
Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from
others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are
acquainted with him; his reputation. Good moral character includes all the elements essential to make up such a
character; among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that
measures up as good among people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the
average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct. (People vs Lee 2002)
In other words, while character is what the person really is, reputation is what he is supposed to be in
accordance with what people say he is, and is dependent on how people perceive him to be.
INADMISSIBILITY OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE
RULE: GENERALLY, CHARACTER EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE
Character is generally irrelevant in determining a controversy because the evidence of a persons character or trait
is not admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with such character or trait in a particular occasion
The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy,
so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were allowed to be influenced
by evidence of the character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity
CLARENCE TIU
93 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the business of the court is to try the case,
and not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause (People vs Lee 2002)
The general rule prevailing in a great majority of jurisdictions is that it is not permissible to show that a witness has
beenarrested or that he has been charged with or prosecuted for a criminal offense, or confined in jailfor the
purpose of impairing his credibility. This view has usually been based upon one or more of the following grounds or
theories:(a)that a mere unproven charge against the witness does not logically tend to affect his credibility,(b)that
innocent persons are often arrested or accused of a crime,(c)that one accused of a crime is presumed to be
innocent until his guilt is legally established, and(d)that a witness may not be impeached or discredited by
evidence of particular acts of misconduct. Significantly, the same Section 11, Rule 132 of our Revised Rules on
Evidence provides that a witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts. Such evidence is
rejected because of the confusion of issues and the waste of time that would be involved, and because the witness
may not be prepared to expose the falsity of such wrongful acts.(CSC v. Belagan)
EXCEPTIONS; WHEN CHARACTER EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE
1.
IN CRIMINAL CASES:
a. THE ACCUSED MAY PROVE HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER WHICH IS PERTINENT TO THE MORAL TRAIT INVOLVED IN
THE OFFENSE CHARGED.
The general rule against propensity evidence does not apply to the accused who is allowed to offer evidence
of his good character.
When the accused presents proof of his good moral character, this strengthens the presumption of innocence,
and where good character and reputation are established, an inference arises that the accused did not commit
the crime charged.
This view proceeds from the theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to have
committed the act charged against him.
But note that only those moral traits involved in the offense charged are provable.
In doing so, an accused may advance more than one character trait as evidence so long as each trait is
germane to some issue in the case
He may not prove his character by evidence of specific instances of good conduct which are totally unrelated
to the offense charge
The character evidence must be relevant and germane to the kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of
rape, character for chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or violence; on a charge for
embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity.
The offering of evidence of good moral character is a privilege of the accused and the prosecution cannot even
comment on his failure to produce such evidence. But once he raises the issue of his good character, the
prosecution may, in rebuttal, offer evidence of the defendants bad character (People v. Lee 2002)
Where the accused proves his good moral character pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged, he opens the door to the prosecution to prove that his moral character is, in fact, bad.
An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and
exemplary conduct.
The fact that Diopita is endowed with such "sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is
innocent of the crime charged. Similarly, his having attained the position of "Ministerial Servant" in his faith is
no guarantee against any sexual perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part. Indeed, religiosity is not
always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone who succumbs to the impulse to rob
and rape. An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and
exemplary conduct. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issue of
whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt.
Since the evidence of the crime in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the evidence of good
moral character of accused-appellant is unavailing. (People vs Diopita 2000)
b. IN REBUTTAL AND ONLY AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,
THE PROSECUTION MAY PROVE THE BAD MORAL CHARACTER OF THE ACCUSED WHICH IS PERTINENT TO THE
MORAL TRAIT INVOLVED IN THE OFFENSE CHARGED
In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the accused in its evidence-inchief. It can only do so in rebuttal
This means that the prosecution may not offer evidence of the character of the accused unless the accused
himself has offered evidence of his good moral character.
The prosecution, therefore, must wait until the accused puts his character in issue during the proceedings.
Then and only then may the prosecution prove the bad moral character of the accused.
CLARENCE TIU
94 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
c.

The offering of character evidence on his behalf is a privilege of the defendant, and the prosecution cannot
comment on the failure of the defendant to produce such evidence.
Rationale
This is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might otherwise be convicted not because
he is guilty but because he is a person of bad character.
This rule prevents the government from opening the doors towards the introduction of character evidence
of the accused. It prevents a pronouncement of guilt on account of his being a bad man and instead
anchors a conviction on the basis of the sufficiency of evidence of his guilt. The rule also prevents the
inference that being a bad person, the accused is more likely to commit a crime. The rule likewise
discourages the presentation of the so-called propensity evidence, i.e., evidence that one acts in
accordance with ones character.
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
Note while both sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 51 of Rule 130 refer to character evidence of the
accused, this sub-paragraph refers to that of the offended party or the victim
Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this provision but only those
which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
Note the definition of collateral matters in Sec. 4, Rule 128. Character evidence seems to be classified as
Collateral Evidence
This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of
offense charged.
Thus, on a charge of rape character for chastity, on a charge of assault character for peaceableness or
violence, and on a charge of embezzlement character for honesty. In one rape case, where it was established
that the alleged victim was morally loose and apparently uncaring about her chastity, the Court found the
conviction of the accused doubtful (CSC v. Belagan)
Such evidence is most commonly offered to support a claim of self-defense in an assault or homicide case or a
claim of consent in a rape case.
PEOPLE VS LEE (2002):
In the Philippine setting, proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied with frequency in sex
offenses and homicide. In rape and acts of lasciviousness or in any prosecution involving an unchaste act
perpetrated by a man against a woman where the willingness of a woman is material, the womans character
as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the mans act. The exception to this
is when the womans consent is immaterial such as in statutory rape or rape with violence or intimidation. In
the crimes of qualified seduction or consented abduction, the offended party must be a virgin, which is
presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation, or a virtuous woman of good reputation. The crime of
simple seduction involves the seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve
but under eighteen years of age. The burden of proof that the complainant is a woman of good reputation
lies in the prosecution, and the accused may introduce evidence that the complainant is a woman of bad
reputation.
In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in two situations: (1) as evidence of
the deceaseds aggression; and (2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused. The pugnacious,
quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature,
as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was the aggressor.
When the evidence tends to prove self-defense, the known violent character of the deceased is also
admissible to show that it produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a
justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary.
In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or
improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the
killing was made in self-defense. There is no connection between the deceaseds drug addiction and thievery
with his violent death in the hands of accused-appellant. In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the
claim that because of the victims bad character he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he
had stolen, is pure and simple speculation.
Moreover, proof of the victims bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with
treachery and premeditation. In People v. Soliman. a murder case, the defense tried to prove the violent,
quarrelsome or provocative character of the deceased. Upon objection of the prosecution, the trial court
disallowed the same. The Supreme Court held: 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 (Section 15, Rule 123), such
is not necessary in the crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation.
CLARENCE TIU
95 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

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. This rule does not apply to cases of murder.
2.
IN CIVIL CASES, EVIDENCE OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF A PARTY IN CIVIL CASE IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY WHEN
PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE OF CHARACTER INVOLVED IN THE CASE.
3.
Thus, evidence of a partys intemperance may be admitted when such is pertinent to the issues involved.
EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD CHARACTER OF A WITNESS IS ADMISSIBLE BUT ONLY WHEN SUCH CHARACTER HAS
ALREADY BEEN IMPEACHED
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached (Sec. 14,
Rule 132 and Sec. 51[c], Rule 130)
It is error for counsel to offer evidence of the good character of his witness who is presented in court for the first
time since he could not have been previously impeached.
TIMELINESS OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Settled is the principle that evidence of ones character or reputation must be confined to a time not too remote
from the time in question.In other words, what is to be determined is the character or reputation of the person at the
time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement of the suit. In this case,
Magdalenas credibility is diminished by proofs of tarnished reputation existing almost a decade ago is unreasonable. It
is unfair to presume that a person who has wandered from the path of moral righteousness can never retrace his steps
again. Certainly, every person is capable to change or reform. (CSC vs Belagan)
CHARACTER EVIDENCE AGAINST CHILDREN AND RAPE VICTIMS

Section. 30. Sexual abuse shield rule.
(a) Inadmissible evidence.The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
(b) Exception.Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a
person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible.
A party intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial, specifically describing the evidence and stating
the purpose for which it is offered, unless the court, for good cause, requires a different time for filing or
permits filing during trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the
motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child, his
guardian ad litem, the parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. The motion and the record of
the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in Section
31(b).The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent.
RA 8505: Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998
Section 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion
thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that
such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
See Sec. 30, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness and Sec. 6, Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act, the
former involves children victims of child sexual abuse, the latter pertains to rape victims in general
RULE: THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
CLARENCE TIU
96 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
1.
2.
3.

Involving alleged child sexual abuse, evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; and
Involving alleged child sexual abuse, evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her
reputation (Sec. 6, Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act)
EXCEPTIONS:
1.
2.
For child sexual abuse cases, evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that
a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.
For rape cases, but only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case
CLARENCE TIU
97 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

BURDEN OF PROOF
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. (1a, 2a)
WHAT IS THE 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
The burden of proof, or onus probandi, traditionally refers to the obligation of a party to a litigation to persuade the
court that he is entitled to relief.
The burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right.
Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove
The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a
favorable judgment.
The burden of proof is fixed by the pleadings.
The claim of the plaintiff, which he must prove, is spelled out in his complaint.
The defendants defenses, which he must likewise prove, are to be found in his answer to the complaint.
The burdens of proof of both parties do not shift during the course of the trial.
Negative allegations do not need to be proved, unless essential elements of the cause of action. But it need not be
proved nonetheless if it is merely for purposes of denying the existence of something
TEST FOR DETERMINING IN WHOM THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES
RULE: ASK WHICH PARTY TO AN ACTION OR SUIT WILL FAIL IF HE OFFERS NO EVIDENCE COMPETENT TO SHOW THE
FACTS AVERRED AS THE BASIS FOR THE RELIEF HE SEEKS TO OBTAIN.
The burden of proof rests with the party who wants to establish a legal right in his favor. It is on the part of the party
who makes the allegations. If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence,
relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent (China Banking
Corporation v. Ta Fa Industries, Inc)
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
This is discussed in Rule 133 on weight and sufficiency of evidence
THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED BY LAW OR THE RULES TO BE PRESENTED IN A PARTICULAR CASE TO
OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE RULING
This is what is to be achieved as the party carries the burden of proof.

This is fixed by the law or the rules
Such as:
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
2. Preponderance of evidence
3. Substantial evidence
4. Clear and convincing evidence
BURDEN OF PROOF IN CERTAIN CASES

Civil cases in general
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence. If he claims
a right granted or created by law, he must prove such right. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
not on the weakness of that of the opponent
It is submitted that the plaintiff is only obliged to prove facts which constitute the essential elements of his cause of
action. Facts that are not necessary to establish his claim need not be proved.
Hence, if a party alleges the existence of a fact, that party has the burden of proof whether that party is the plaintiff
or the defendant. If the plaintiff, for example, alleges that the defendant owes him a sum of money, the plaintiff has
the burden to prove the debt.
Counterclaims
and affirmative defenses
2.
1.
CLARENCE TIU
98 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In a counterclaim, the burden of proving the existence of the claim lies with the defendant.
Defendant also has to prove his affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is one which is not a denial of an
essential ingredient in the plaintiffs cause of action, but one which, if established, will be a good defense i.e., an
avoidance of the claim
It is, thus, inaccurate to state that the burden of proof rests solely on the shoulders of the plaintiff. The burden of
proof, under the clear terms of Sec. 1 of Rule 131, is the duty of a party to present evidence not only to establish a
claim but also a defense. It will be observed that the rule does not define burden of proof as the duty of the plaintiff
but as the duty of a party.
If the defendant has affirmative defenses, he bears the burden of proof as to those defenses which he sets up in
answer to the plaintiff s cause of action. Hence, if the defendant sets up the affirmative defense of prescription, he
must prove the date when prescription began to run (Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. Aying)
Notarized documents
The Court has held that one who denies the due execution of a deed where ones signature appears has the burden
of proving that, contrary to the recital in the jurat, one never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged
the deed to be a voluntary act
Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong,
and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of the
execution of a notarized document lies on the one contesting the same (Spouses Lehner v. Chua 2013)
Actions based on Torts
In an action anchored on a quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the plaintiff has the
burden of proving that the fault or negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injuries he sustained.
On the other hand, the defendant has the burden to prove his defense as when he claims that the injuries of the
plaintiff were caused, not by his wrongful conduct, but by a third person or a caso fortuito.
Actions based on Breach of Contract
In an action based on a contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence and execution of the contract,
the obligations of the defendant under such contract, and his breach thereof.
In an action for a sum of money, the plaintiff places upon himself the burden of proving the existence of the debt,
and the non-payment of the same despite a proper demand upon the defendant on or after the due date of the
obligation.
Intervention
A person who wants to intervene in an action has the burden of proving his legal interest in the matter in litigation or
that he is so situated as to be adversely affected by any distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of
the court or an officer thereof.
Invoking foreign law
The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or
defense of an action. In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint
when those are denied in the answer; and defendants have the burden of proving the material allegations in their
answer when they introduce new matters. Since the divorce law was a defense raised by respondent, the burden of
proving the pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him.
Actions based on Breach of Contract of Carriage
In suits against a common carrier, the passenger-plaintiff does not have the burden of proving the defendant
carriers negligence since common carriers are presumed to have been at fault, or to have acted negligently in case
of death or injuries to passengers (Art. 1756, Civil Code of the Philippines).
On the contrary, under the same provision, the defendant has the burden of proof to show that he observed the
extraordinary diligence required by law.

The plaintiff has to show, however, the existence of a contract and the breach of the contract of carriage. It is the
breach of the contract which the plaintiff has to prove, not the negligence of the defendant-common carrier, the
latters negligence being already presumed under Art. 1756 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
All that he has to prove are (a) the existence of the contract, and (b) the fact of non-performance by the carrier
In a case, the Court ruled that Although initially, the burden of proof was with the passenger to prove that there was
a breach of contract of carriage, the burden of evidence shifted to the airline when the former adduced sufficient
evidence to prove the fact alleged (Northwest Airlines v. Chiong)
Existence and Extinguishment of Obligations
The burden of proof that a debt was contracted lies with the creditor-plaintiff.
If the defendant admits the debt but defends by alleging that it has already been paid, waived or otherwise
extinguished, he has the burden to prove the extinguishment of the alleged obligation
As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CLARENCE TIU
99 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been
discharged by payment. When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record,
the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor, who offers such a
defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going
forward with the evidence as distinct from the general burden of proof shifts to the creditor, who is then under
a duty of producing some evidence to show non- payment (Jimenez v. NLRC)
Even where the creditor alleges non-payment, the general rule is that the onus rests on the debtor to prove
payment, rather than on the creditor to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal
certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.
10. Expropriation Cases
In an eminent domain case, the local government that seeks to expropriate private property has the burden of
proving that the elements for the valid exercise of the right of eminent domain have been complied with (Jesus is
Lord Christian Foundation, Inc. v. City of Pasig)
This is because the burden of proof is on the party making the allegations
11. Termination Cases

In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a valid and just
cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal (LBC
Domestic Franchise Co. v. Florido).
This is in consonance with the guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution and reiterated in the Labor Code.
A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer
When there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the
matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or
authorized cause. This burden of proof appropriately lies on the shoulders of the employer and not on the employee
because a workers job has some of the characteristics of property rights and is, therefore, within the constitutional
mantle of protection. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Apropos thereto, Art. 277, par. (b) of the Labor Code mandates
in explicit terms that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests on the employer.
Failure to discharge this evidential burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and
therefore, illegal (Tongko v. Manufacturer's Life Insurance Company)
12. Disbarment Cases
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its
disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof. Indeed, considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the
Supreme Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
administrative penalty. (Santos v. Dichoso)
13. Insurance Cases
In an accident insurance, the insureds beneficiary has the burden of proof in demonstrating that the cause of death
is due to the covered peril. Once that fact is established, the burden then shifts to the insurer to show any excepted
peril that may have been stipulated by the parties. And where, thereafter, the burden would be on the insurer to
show any excluded peril.
When, however, the insured risk is specified, it lies with the claimant of the insurance proceeds to initially prove that
the loss is caused by the covered peril
14. Administrative Proceedings
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of rests on
the complainant. The complainant must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, otherwise, the complaint must be
dismissed
15. Application for Attachment
The party suing for the attachment of the property of the adverse party has the burden to justify the attachment
because a general averment will not suffice to support the issuance of a writ for preliminary attachment.
It is necessary to recite in what particular manner an applicant for the writ of attachment was defrauded. It is not
enough for the complaint to ritualistically cite that the defendants are guilty of fraud in contracting the obligation.
Fraud cannot be presumed. Sec. 1 of Rule 131 instructs that each party must prove his own affirmative allegations
16. Cases of Judicial Review
He, who attacks the constitutionality of a law, has the onus probandi to show why the law is repugnant to the
Constitution. Failing to overcome its presumption of constitutionality, a claim that a law is cruel, unusual or inhuman,
must fail.
CLARENCE TIU
100 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The reason for the rule is the presumption that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law
which operates no further than may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the law. Every statute is,
therefore, presumed to be valid and constitutional
EXCEPTION: Government actions or laws against freedom of speech or of the press are presumed to be
unconstitutional
In this jurisdiction, freedom of the press is crucial and so inextricably woven into the right of free speech and
free expression, that any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger
so clear and present would be allowed to curtail it. A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or
of the press based on content is given the strictest scrutiny, with the government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality of the restriction by the clear and present danger rule. This rule
applies equally to all kinds of media, including broadcast media (Chavez v. Gonzalez)
17. Claim of Executive Privilege
In keeping with the general presumption of transparency, the burden is initially on the Executive to provide precise
and certain reasons for upholding its claim of privilege. Once the Executive is able to show that the documents
being sought are covered by a recognized privilege, the burden shifts to the party seeking information to overcome
the privilege by a strong showing of need (AKBAYAN v. Aquino)
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE; EQUIPOISE RULE

BURDEN OF EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF COMING FORWARD WITH THE EVIDENCE
THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE IS THE DUTY OF A PARTY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE EVIDENCE TO OVERTHROW THE
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM
The burden of going forward with the evidence may shift from one side to the other as the exigencies of the trial
require, and shifts with alternating frequency.
As the trial progresses, one party may have presented evidence that weigh heavily in his favor and sufficient to
convince the court of the justness of his claim. If this occurs, the other party has the burden to come forward with
his own evidence to counteract whatever positive impression which the evidence of the other party may have been
created in the mind of the court.
This duty, also called the burden of coming forward with the evidence is what is referred to as burden of
evidence
The burden of proof doesnt shift, it only arises, as it is determined by the pleadings of the parties. It is the burden of
evidence which shifts; this is a day-to-day skirmish in court.
What is a Prima Facie Case?
A prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would be sufficient to counter-balance the general
presumption of innocence, and warrant a conviction, if not encountered and controlled by evidence tending to
contradict it, and render it improbable, or to prove other facts inconsistent with it, and the establishment of a
prima facie case does not take away the presumption of innocence which may in the opinion of the jury be
such as to rebut and control it. (Bautista v. Sarmiento 1985)
Rationale
Basically, if a party fails to present a fact that is necessary to his claim or defense, when it is within his power to
do so, then an inference can be made that, such fact does not exist. The presumption is that a man will do that
which tends to his obvious advantage, if he possesses the means.
If the defendants really had the evidence to controvert the prima facie evidence presented by the plaintiff, then
they should have presented such evidence. The fact that they did not, then inference can be made that either:
1. If they did present the evidence, it would actually be prejudicial to its case; or
2. That the uncontroverted evidence of private respondents does indeed speak of the truth.
The defendants omission to rebut that which would have naturally invited an immediate, pervasive and stiff
opposition from plaintiff created an adverse inference that either the controverting evidences to be presented by
petitioner will only prejudice its case, or that the uncontroverted evidence of private respondents indeed speaks
of the truth. The inference still holds even if it be assumed, for argument's sake, that the plaintiffs evidence is
improbable or weak, for it has likewise been said that even if a party's testimony is improbable, the failure of the
opposite party to contradict it, although it was entirely within his power to do so if it were false, fully entitles it to
belief. Weak evidence becomes strong by the neglect of the party against whom it is put in, in not showing by
means within the easy control of that party that the conclusion drawn from such evidence is untrue. As weak
evidence is often strengthened by failure of an opposing party to contradict by evidence within his power, so the
trier of facts may infer that testimony in chief is worth its full face value when the other party is content to let it
stand without cross-examination or contradiction by other evidence. (Manila Bay Club vs CA 1995)
CLARENCE TIU
101 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The presumption that a man will do that which tends to his obvious advantage, if he possesses the
means, supplies a most important test for judging of the comparative weight of evidence. If, on the
supposition that a charge or claim is unfounded, the party against whom it is made has evidence within his
reach by which he may repel that which is offered to his prejudice, his omission to do so supplies a strong
presumption that the charge or claim is well founded; it would be contrary to every principle of reason, and to
all experience of human conduct, to form any other conclusion.
Burden of Proof vs Burden of Evidence

BURDEN OF PROOF
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Burden of proof is the obligation 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 (Sec. 1, Rule 131)
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with

the evidence to overthrow any prima facie presumption
against him (Bautista v. Sarmiento)
APPLICATION OF THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
1.
APPLICATION IN CIVIL CASES
2.
He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden
of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case
in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima facie case,
otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden
of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendants. The concept of preponderance of evidence refers to
evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means
probability of truth (Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Tulabot)
Example: In insurance cases, where a risk is excepted by the terms of a policy, loss from such a risk constitutes a
defense which the insurer may urge, since it has not assumed that risk. From this, it follows that an insurer seeking
to defeat a claim has the burden of proving that the loss comes within the purview of the exception set up. If a proof
is made of a loss apparently within a contract of insurance, the burden is upon the insurer to prove that the loss
arose from a risk which is excepted or for which it is not liable, or from a cause which limits its liability.
Consequently, it is sufficient for the insured to prove the fact of damage or loss. Once the insured makes out a
prima facie case in his favor, the duty or burden of evidence shifts to the insurer to controvert the insureds prima
facie case. It is only when the insurer has sufficiently proved that the damage or loss was caused by an excepted
risk does the burden of evidence shift back to the insured, who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show
why such excepted risk does not release petitioner from any liability
APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES
There is no denying that in a criminal case, unless the guilt of the accused is established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal. But when the trial court denies petitioners' motion to dismiss
by way of demurrer to evidence on the ground that the prosecution had established a prima facie case
against them, they assume a definite burden. It becomes incumbent upon the accused to adduce evidence
to meet and nullify, if not overthrow, the prima facie case against them. This is due to the shift in the burden of
evidence, and not of the burden of proof as petitioners would seem to believe. When a prima facie case is
established by the prosecution in a criminal case, as in the case at bar, the burden of proof does not shift to the
defense. It remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposedthe prosecution. It is the burden of
evidence which shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial. This
burden of going forward with the evidence is met by evidence which balances that introduced by the prosecution.
Then the burden shifts back. (Bautista v. Sarmiento 1985)
A prima facie case need not be countered by a preponderance of evidence nor by evidence of greater weight.
Defendant's evidence which equalizes the weight of plaintiff's evidence or puts the case in equipoise is sufficient. As
a result, plaintiff will have to go forward with the proof. Should it happen that at the trial the weight of evidence is
equally balanced or at equilibrium and presumptions operate against plaintiff who has the burden of proof, he
cannot prevail. (Bautista v. Sarmiento 1985)
Example: In criminal cases, generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. If the accused, however,
admits killing the victim, but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such defense by
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part. To escape
liability, it now becomes incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence all the elements
CLARENCE TIU
102 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
PRESUMPTIONS IN GENERAL
INFERENCES VS PRESUMPTIONS
AN INFERENCE IS A FACTUAL CONCLUSION THAT CAN RATIONALLY BE DRAWN FROM OTHER FACTS
It is, in other words, one that is a result of the reasoning process. It need not have a legal effect because it is not
mandated by law. The factfinder is free to accept or reject the inference.
Example: Thus, if X proposes marriage to Y, it may be inferred that X is in love with Y. This is a mere inference and
has in fact no legal effect. There are no legal relations established by the mere fact that one is in love. On the other
hand, if X enters into a contract of sale of a car with Y, there arises a presumption that the contract was entered into
with a sufficient cause or consideration ("Sec. 3[r], Rule 131, Rules of Court) and although the cause is not stated in
the contract, it is presumed that it exists and is lawful, unless the contrary is proven (Art. 1354, Civil Code of the
Philippines). The presumption involved has a definite legal effect.
A PRESUMPTION IS AN ASSUMPTION OF FACT RESULTING FROM A RULE OF LAW WHICH REQUIRES SUCH FACT TO BE
ASSUMED FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS FOUND OR OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED IN THE ACTION
The rationale of presumptions is for purposes of expediency and the fact that some things are very hard if not
impossible to prove (such as malice as a state of mind)
A presumption is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from
proof of other facts (In the Matter of the Intestate Estates of Delgado and Rustia)
A presumption is not evidence (California Evidence Code, cited in Blacks Law Dictionary). They merely affect the
burden of offering evidence (1 Whartons Criminal Evidence). In a sense, a presumption is an inference which is
mandatory unless rebutted.
It is a rule of law directing that if a party proves certain facts (the basic facts) at a trial or hearing, the factfinder
must also accept an additional fact (the presumed fact) as proven unless sufficient evidence is introduced tending
to rebut the presumed fact.
In a sense therefore, a presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted
Example: D is the debtor of C, creditor for PI million payable in twelve (12) equal monthly installments. If evidence
is introduced that the installment payment for December has been received by the creditor, a presumption arises
that previous installments have been paid. This is because under the law, the receipt of a later installment of a debt,
without reservation as to prior installments, gives rise to the presumption that such installments have been paid
(Art. 1176, Civil Code of the Philippines).
KINDS OF PRESUMPTIONS
Presumptions of Law (presumption juris)
A presumption of law is an assumption which the law requires to be made from a set of facts.
A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a
fact in issue.
One need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presume
Examples:
The presumption that an accused is innocent of the crime charged until the contrary is proven is a presumption
of law embodied in the Constitution (Sec. 14[2], Art. Ill, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the Philippines)
Art. 1756 of the Civil Code of the Philippines also illustrates another presumption mandated by the law. Under
the said provision, in case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently.
2. Presumptions of Fact (presumption hominis)
Presumptions of fact are really merely inferences
A presumption is one of fact when the assumption is made from the facts without any direction or positive
requirement of a law.
An assumption of fact does not arise from any direction of the law. It arises because reason itself allows a
presumption from the facts.
Example: If A attacks B without provocation, the logical presumption arises that A does not have tender feelings
towards B. A presumption of fact is, in effect, actually a mere inference because it does not necessarily give rise to
a legal effect.
1.
CLARENCE TIU
103 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Presumption vs Inference
PRESUMPTION OF LAW
INFERENCE/ PRESUMPTION OF FACT
A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a

rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from
another fact or group of facts found or otherwise
established in the action (Blacks Law Dictionary)
An inference is a factual conclusion that can rationally be

drawn from other facts (29 Am Jur 2d 182)
Fixed by law or the rules
Derived from common experience
KINDS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW/ LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS

1.
2.
Conclusive (presumptions juris et de jure)

Disputable (presumptions juris tantum)
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
Section 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 to
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 commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
CORPORATION CODE
Sec. 21. Corporation by estoppel. - All persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without
authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising
as a result thereof: Provided, however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction
entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a
defense its lack of corporate personality. On who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such,
cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation.
NEW CIVIL CODE
Article 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person
making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
Article 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (2)
RULE 39: Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments
SECTION 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court
or of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will, or the
administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal
condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or final order is
conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of
the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie
evidence of the death of the testator or intestate;
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any
other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their
successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding,
litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to
have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so
adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. (49a)
CLARENCE TIU
104 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
WHAT ARE CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS?
A PRESUMPTION IS CONCLUSIVE WHEN THE PRESUMPTION BECOMES IRREBUTTABLE UPON THE PRESENTATION OF THE
EVIDENCE AND ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.
Conclusive presumptions are inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be
overturned by any contrary proof however strong
A conclusive or irrebuttable presumption is not a presumption at all; it is a substantive rule of law directing that proof of
certain basic facts conclusively proves an additional fact which cannot be rebutted.
Such presumption rests upon grounds of expediency or public policy so compelling in character as to override the
requirement of proof
Example: That every person knows the law is a conclusive presumption (Art. 3, NCC; Taada v. Tuvera) When a law is
passed by Congress, duly approved by the President of the Philippines, properly published, and consequently becomes
effective pursuant to its effectivity clause or to some provision of a general law on the effectivity of statutes, the public
is always put on constructive notice of the laws existence and effectivity. This is true even if a person has no actual
knowledge of such law. To allow a party to set up as a valid defense the fact that he has no actual knowledge of a law
which he has violated is to foment disorder in society. However, Article 3 applies only to mandatory and prohibitory laws
(Consunji v. Court of Appeals
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER THE RULES OF COURT
The conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court are based on the doctrine of estoppel. Under this doctrine, the
person making the representation cannot claim benefit from the wrong he himself committed
1.
ESTOPPEL IN PAIS OR ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT
2.
Estoppel, an equitable principle rooted upon natural justice, prevents persons from going back on their own acts
and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them.
The essential elements of estoppel in pais may be considered in relation to the party sought to be estopped, and in
relation to the party invoking the estoppel in his favor.
Elements in relation to the party to be estopped:
a. Conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts; or at least calculated to convey the
impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts
to assert
b. Intent, or at least, expectation, that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party
c. Knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts
Elements in relation to the party claiming estoppel:
a. Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question
b. Reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped
c. Action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the
estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice
An essential element of estoppel is that the person invoking it has been influenced, or relied on the representations
or conduct of the person sought to be estopped
Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be
denied or disproved as against the person relying on it. (Art. 1431, NCC)
Where a party, by his deed or conduct, has induced another to act in a particular manner, estoppel effectively
bars the former from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that causes loss or injury to
the latter.
The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its
purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to
whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon
Example: Persons who assume to be a corporation without legal authority to act as such shall be considered a
corporation by estoppel and shall be liable as general partners (Sec. 21, Corporation Code of the Philippines)
BETWEEN A LESSOR AND A LESSEE, THE FORMER HAS A BETTER TITLE
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord
and tenant between them
This conclusive presumption sufficiently shields the lessor from being questioned by the lessee, regarding its
title or better right of possession as lessor because having admitted the existence of a lessor-lessee
relationship, the lessee is barred from assailing the lessors title of better right of possession. As long as the
lessor-lessee relationship between the parties exists, the lessee cannot, by any proof, however strong, overturn the
CLARENCE TIU
105 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
3.

conclusive presumption that the lessor has valid title to or better right of possession to the subject leased premises
than it has (Datalift Movers, Inc. v. Belgravia Realty & Development Corporation)
The lessees, who had undisturbed possession for the entire term under the lease, are estopped to deny their
landlords title, or assert a better title not only in themselves, but also in some third person while they remain
in possession of the leased premises and until they surrender possession to the landlord. This estoppel applies
even though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor and lessee was created, and may be
asserted not only by the original lessor, but also by those who succeed to his title (Golden Horizon Realty
Corporation v. Sy Chuan)
The relation of lessor and lessee does not depend on the formers title but on the agreement between the parties,
followed by the possession of the premises by the lessee under such agreement. As long as the latter remains in
undisturbed possession, it is immaterial whether the lessor has a valid title or any title at all at the time the
relationship was entered into. Between the present parties, the lease which was actually a sublease was
effective. And respondent had a colorable right to lease the premises by virtue of the assignment even if, as
against the owner, both the assignment and the sublease were ineffectual. But for reasons of equity, the sub-lessee
cannot be required to pay both owner and lessee for the same period of the lease (Tamio v. Ticson)
However, the alleged lessor-respondents cannot claim estoppel against the lessee where they knew fully
well that they were accepting rentals from the latter in their capacity as mere administrators of the leased
premises or only on behalf of the deceased owner of the property. As administrators, the lessors were not actually
parties to the lease agreement. The fact that the lessee initially thought that respondents were the owners of the
leased premises does not put the lessee in estoppel because respondents were expected to know in what capacity
they accepted the payments. Moreover, respondents themselves have not asserted ownership over the leased
premises, the truth of the matter being that respondents were never the registered owners of the leased premises
(Consumido v. Ros)
CONCLUSIVE EFFECTS OF FINAL JUDGMENTS (RES JUDICATA)
See Sec. 47, Rule 39

The following are considered conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status
or relationship of the person if there is a judgment or final order rendered by a court or of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce such:
a. Against a specific thing
b. In respect to the probate of a will,
c. The administration of the estate of a deceased person
d. In respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to
another
In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter
that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by
title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under
the same title and in the same capacity
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
Section 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 takes 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 one is produced;
(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 possess, 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;
CLARENCE TIU
106 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(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 endorsement of 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.
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 with 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 well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. In
case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death 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 proceedings
as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for 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 ordinary nature habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of co-partnership;
(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 a 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 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 acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such
contributions and their corresponding 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:
CLARENCE TIU
107 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization 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.
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following 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 the 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 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 the 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 sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
(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)
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. There is no presumption of legitimacy 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)
RULE 39: Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments
SECTION 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal
of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon
the title to the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence
of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice
to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. (50a)
FAMILY CODE
Art. 168. 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 marriageis
considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born within three hundred
days after the termination of the former marriage;
CLARENCE TIU
108 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following 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. (259a)
Art. 169. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the termination of
the marriage shall be proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy or illegitimacy. (261a)
Art. 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. (256a)
Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds:
(1) (1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife within the
first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child because of:
(a) The physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;
(b) The fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was not
possible; or
(c) Serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;
(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that of the
husband, except in the instance provided in the second paragraph of Article 164; or
(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification
of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence. (255a)
Art. 213. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated
by the Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child
over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. (n)
Art. 129. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has
decided otherwise.
NEW CIVIL CODE
Article 1176. The receipt of the principal by the creditor without reservation with respect to the interest, shall
give rise to the presumption that said interest has been paid. The receipt of a later installment of a debt
without reservation as to prior installments, shall likewise raise the presumption that such installments have
been paid. (1110a)
Article 1387. All contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to
have been entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all
debts contracted before the donation. Alienations by onerous title are also presumed fraudulent when made
by persons against whom some judgment has been rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment has
been issued. The decision or attachment need not refer to the property alienated, and need not have been
obtained by the party seeking the rescission. In addition to these presumptions, the design to defraud
creditors may be proved in any other manner recognized by the law of evidence. (1297a)
Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the
goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.
Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault
or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in
articles 1733 and 1755.
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions,
but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
CLARENCE TIU
109 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by
the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused
by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of
their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has
been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in
article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in
the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of
article 2180 are applicable. (n)
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury
results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when
the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n)
WHAT ARE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS?
A PRESUMPTION IS DISPUTABLE OR REBUTTABLE IF IT MAY BE CONTRADICTED OR OVERCOME BY OTHER EVIDENCE
Disputable presumptions are satisfactory, if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
When evidence that rebuts the presumption is introduced, the force of the presumption disappears.
Example: While evidence of receipt of payment of a later installment gives rise to the presumption that previous
installments have been paid, yet when evidence is shown that prior installments remain unpaid, the presumption falls.
IMPORTANT DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER THE RULES OF COURT
Note that there are multitudes of disputable presumptions under statutes
1.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
That a person is innocent of crime or wrong (Sec. 3[a], Rule 131)

Remember that this is a constitutional right (Sec. 14[2], Art. Ill [Bill of Rights], Constitution)
The presumption of innocence, is founded upon the first principles of justice, and is not a mere form but a
substantial part of the law. It is not overcome by mere suspicion or conjecture; a probability that the defendant
committed the crime; nor by the fact that he had the opportunity to do so. Its purpose is to balance the scales in
what would otherwise be an uneven contest between the lone individual pitted against the People and all the
resources at their command. Its inexorable mandate is that, for all the authority and influence of the prosecution.
The accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. This is
in consonance with the rule that conflicts in evidence must be resolved upon the theory of innocence rather than
upon a theory of guilt when it is possible to do so (People vs Alvario)
CLARENCE TIU
110 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The constitutional presumption of innocence is enjoyed by the accused until final conviction and in this regard, the
prosecutions case must rise and fall on its own merits and cannot draw its strength from the weakness of the
defense (People v. Mingming)
2.
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
Official duty has been regularly performed (Sec. 3[m], Rule 131)
It has been settled that credence is given to prosecution witnesses, who are police officers, for they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on
the part of the police officers. The presumption stands where the claim of ill motive was not substantiated by the
accused (People v. Almodiel)
A mere allegation of frame-up and extortion, without clear and convincing evidence to support the same, is not
sufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties (People v. Clarite)
This presumption of regularity of court proceedings includes presumptions of regularity of service of summons. It is,
therefore, incumbent upon the party questioning the validity of the service to rebut these presumptions with
competent and proper evidence. The return is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein (Masagana Concrete
Products v. NLRC)
The well-settled rule is that a document acknowledged before a notary public enjoys the presumption of regularity. It
is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
In addition, the titles in the name of respondent, having been registered under the Torrens system, are generally a
conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein and a strong presumption exists that the titles
are regularly issued and valid. Therefore, until and unless petitioners show that the documents are indeed spurious
and the titles invalid, then the presumptions must prevail at this juncture (Medina v. Greenfield Devt Corp.)
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot, by itself, overcome the presumption of
innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and nothing else, is required to erase all doubts as to the
culpability of the accused (Zafra v. People)
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing
rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or procedure in the performance thereof.
The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law
enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where
the official conduct in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course. Where
the buy-bust team deviated from the mandated conduct of taking post-seizure custody of the dangerous drugs
confiscated, there is no way to presume that the members thereof had performed their duties regularly (People v.
Obmiranis)
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of
innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. It should be noted that the presumption is precisely just
that a presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, it cannot be regarded as binding truth. (People
v. Caranto 2014)
EXCEPTIONS: In these cases, the presumption of regularity does NOT apply:
a. Cases involving the Writ of Amparo
Under Sec. 17 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the respondent public official or employee cannot invoke
the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.
Custodial
investigation
b.
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove during the trial that prior to questioning, the confessant was
warned of his constitutionally-protected rights because the presumption of regularity of official acts does not
apply during in-custody investigation. Trial courts should further keep in mind that even if the confession of
the accused is gospel truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence
regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given (People v. Camat)
The presumption of innocence of the accused prevails over the presumption that law enforcement agents
were in the regular performance of their duty. To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or not, it is
incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and adequately laid out
through relevant, material, and competent evidence. It is the duty of courts to preserve the purity of their own
temple from the prostitution of criminal law through lawless enforcement (People v. Ong)
Cases
involving Chain of Custody of Illegal Drugs
c.
In these cases, the prosecution must establish the chain of custody in order to properly authenticate the
drugs involved. It must establish that it followed the proper procedure under the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 and its IRR. Non-compliance with the strict procedures however, is not fatal, as if there is
a failure to comply with the requirements of the law in the handling of confiscated drugs, the accused may
still be convicted if the prosecution sufficiently establishes the following:
The non-compliance must be because of justifiable grounds; and
i.
CLARENCE TIU
111 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The apprehending officer/team must have properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items.
In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense
and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The
chain of custody performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed. The rule seeks to settle definitively whether the object evidence subjected to
laboratory examination and presented in court is the same object allegedly seized from the accused (Fajardo
vs People)
In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to present any explanation to justify the nonobservance
of the prescribed procedures. Therefore, the non observance by the police of the required procedure
cannot be excused. It likewise failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items adduced
were not tainted. The lower courts erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance
that a police officer enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to
falsify his testimony. The regularity of the performance of the police officers duties leaves much to be
desired in this case given the lapses in their handling of the allegedly confiscated shabu. The totality of all
the aforementioned procedural lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the
corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frameup. These lapses negate the presumption that
official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole
performance and should make the presumption unavailable. (People vs Caranto 2014)
ii.
3.
PRESUMPTION OF UNLAWFUL INTENT

That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent (Sec. 3[b], Rule 131)
Intent is a state of mind, and is hidden from the judicial eye. Courts are left to evaluate the overt acts, and on their
basis, to form a conclusion as to the actors intentions. The legal presumption drawn from human experience and
generally applied by the courts is that men intend the natural consequences of their voluntary acts and that unlawful
acts are done with unlawful intent (Supreme Court Resolution in Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals)
4.
PRESUMPTION OF DUE DILIGENCE

That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns (Sec. 3[d], Rule 131)
That private transactions have been fair and regular (Sec. 3[p], Rule 131)
But note that there are exceptions such that a presumption of negligence applies instead, such as against common
carriers (to be discussed later)
A businessman who is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns. Absent any countervailing evidence, it
cannot be gainsaid that he will not sign documents without first informing himself of its contents and consequences.
Clearly, he knew the nature of the transactions and documents involved as he not only executed these notes on two
different dates but also executed, and again, signed twice, a notarized Continuing Suretyship Agreement wherein
he guaranteed, jointly and severally with the debtor to pay the creditor. He cannot now avoid liability by hiding under
the convenient excuse that he merely signed the notes in blank and the phrases in personal capacity and in his
official capacity were fraudulently inserted without his knowledge (Astro Electronics Corporation v. Philippine
Export and Foreign Guarantee Loan, Inc)
The general rule is that whoever alleges fraud or mistake in a transaction must prove the same since it is presumed
that a person ordinarily takes care of his concerns and private transactions have been fair and regular (Sec. 3[p],
Rule 131). However, in Art. 1332 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, if mistake or fraud is alleged, and one of the
parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understandable to him, the person enforcing the
contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former (Cayabyab v. IAC)
5.
PRESUMPTION THAT EVIDENCE WILFULLY SUPPRESSED IS ADVERSE
That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced (Sec. 3[e], Rule 131)
Remember that this is the rationale for the best evidence rule
Based on the logic that a person would not suppress evidence which is favourable to him
EXCEPTIONS: This presumption does NOT apply if:
a. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties
b. The suppression was not wilful
c. It is merely corroborative or cumulative; and
d. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege such as it is covered by the privileged communication between
physician and patient
The non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute suppression of evidence and is not fatal to
prosecutions case. There is no rule of evidence which requires the presentation of a specific number of witnesses
to sustain a conviction. It is the prosecutors prerogative to determine who or how many witneeses are to be
presented in order to establish the quantum of proof necessary. (People vs Navaja 1993)
CLARENCE TIU
112 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
6.
PRESUMPTION THAT REGISTERED MAIL WAS DULY RECEIVED

That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail (Sec. 3[v], Rule 131)
The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption are:
a. That the letter was properly addressed with postage prepaid; and
b. That it was mailed
But note that while a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the ordinary course of mail, this is still
merely a disputable presumption subject to controversion, and a direct denial of the receipt thereof shifts the
burden upon the party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by
the addressee (Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue)
7.
PRESUMPTION OF PAYMENT OF PRIOR INSTALLMENTS

That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced (Sec. 3[i], Rule 131)
Relate this with the Civil Code: Article 1176. The receipt of the principal by the creditor without reservation with
respect to the interest, shall give rise to the presumption that said interest has been paid. The receipt of a later
installment of a debt without reservation as to prior installments, shall likewise raise the presumption that such
installments have been paid. (NCC)
8.
PRESUMPTION OF PERFORMANCE OF CRIMINAL ACTS

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 (Sec. 3[j], Rule 131)
In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the
forger and therefore, guilty of falsification. If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use
of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material author
of the falsification (Maliwat vs CA)
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and be made use of it (uttered it), taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is
especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that
the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection
with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who
is found in possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger (People vs
Senaydiego 1978)
BUT, the presumption that whoever possesses or uses a spurious document is its forger applies only in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation. Hence, a satisfactory explanation would render the presumption
ineffective. (Metrobank v. Tobias III 2012)
9.
PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP
XXXX that things which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him Sec. 3[j], Rule
131)
10. PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
A judgment or final order against a person, rendered by a tribunal of a foreign country with jurisdiction to render said
judgment or final order, is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-ininterest. If the judgment or final order is upon a specific thing, said judgment or final order is conclusive upon the
title to the thing. The presumptions are not, however, irrefutable. In either case, the judgment or final order may be
repelled by any of the following: (a) want of jurisdiction; (b) want of notice to the party; (c) collusion; (d) fraud; or (e)
clear mistake of law or fact (Sec. 48, Rule 39, Rules of Court)
11. PRESUMPTION OF DEATH

In case of Probate or Administration Proceedings
While the judgment or final order rendered by a Philippine court, among others, in respect to the probate of a
will or the administration of the estate of a deceased person is conclusive upon the will or administration, the
probate of a will or granting letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of
the testator (Sec. 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court).
b. In case of Absence
See Sec. 3[w], Rule 131
i. Absence of seven (7) years

If it is unknown whether or not the absentee is still alive, he is considered dead for all purposes but not for
the purpose of succession
ii. Absence of ten (10) years
The absentee shall be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession only after an absence of
ten (10) years. Before the lapse of ten (10) years, he shall not be considered dead if the purpose is the
opening of his succession
iii. Absence of five (5) years
a.
CLARENCE TIU
113 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In relation to the immediately preceding number, if the absentee disappeared after the age of seventy five
(75) years, his absence of five (5) years is sufficient for the purpose of opening his succession in which
case, it is not necessary to wait for the lapse of ten (10) years
iv. Absence of four (4) years
A person is deemed dead for all purposes even for the purpose of the division of his estate among his heirs
in any of the following cases:
(1) If the person is on board a vessel that was lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, and
has not been heard of for four (4) years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft
(2) If the person is a member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been
missing for four (4) years
(3) If the person has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been
known for four (4) years
(4) If the person is married and has been absent for four (4) 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.
v. Absence of two (2) years
In case of disappearance, if the person is married and there is danger of death, an absence of only two (2)
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
12. PRESUMPTION OF ORDER OF DEATH

See Sec. 3[jj, kk], Rule 131
This is 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
a. For all purposes except succession
The survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes,
according to the following rules:

i. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived
ii. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived
iii. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived
iv. 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
v. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have
survived.
For
purposes
of succession
b.
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.
OTHER NOTABLE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS (OUTSIDE THE RULES OF COURT)
1.
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
2.
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE
3.
Every statute has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality.

This presumption is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon the three coordinate
departments of the Government a becoming courtesy for each others acts. The theory is that every law, being the
joint act of the Legislature and the Executive, has passed careful scrutiny to ensure that it is in accord with the
fundamental law. The Court, however, may declare a law, or portions thereof, unconstitutional, where a petitioner
has shown a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative one. In other
words, the grounds for nullity must be beyond reasonable doubt, for to doubt is to sustain (Cawaling v. Comelec)
The rule is settled that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds. The courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly
repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight. The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987
Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution, and marriage as the
foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage (Sevilla v.
Cardenas)
PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMATE FILIATION
CLARENCE TIU
114 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
4.

Art. 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or
may have been sentenced as an adulteress. (Family Code)
The law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy.
The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the statute but is based on the broad
principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. It is grounded on the policy to protect the
innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.
The presumption of legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage, particularly during the period of
conception.
BUT note that there is NO presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred (300)
days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. (Sec. 4, Rule 131)
In such case, whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation
The burden of proving paternity, if no presumption of legitimate filiation exists is on the person who alleges that
the putative father is the biological father of the child. There are four significant procedural aspects of a
traditional paternity action which parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of
legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and child. However, ghe law requires that
every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy. The presumption is grounded on the policy to
protect the innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy. (Estate of Ong v. Diaz)
How to dispute the presumption?
See Art. 166, Family Code
To overthrow this presumption on the basis of Article 166(l)(b) of the Family Code, it must be shown beyond
reasonable doubt that there was no access that could have enabled the husband to father the child. Sexual
intercourse is to be presumed where personal access is not disproved, unless such presumption is rebutted by
evidence to the contrary. The presumption is quasi-conclusive and may be refuted only by the evidence of
physical impossibility of coitus between husband and wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which
immediately preceded the birth of the child. To rebut the presumption, the separation between the spouses must
be such as to make marital intimacy impossible. This may take place, for instance, when they reside in different
countries or provinces and they were never together during the period of conception. Or, the husband was in
prison during the period of conception, unless it appears that sexual union took place through the violation of
prison regulations (Concepcion v. CA)
Under Art. 166 of the Family Code the physical impossibility for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife within the period mentioned in the law, is not the only way to impugn the legitimacy of a child. Thus, the
legitimacy may be also be impugned by proof that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not
have been that of the husband, except children conceived as a result of artificial insemination (Art. 166[2],
Family Code). The legitimacy of a child may likewise be impugned where the written authorization or ratification
of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence, in case of
children conceived through artificial insemination (Art. 166[2], Family Code)
TENDER-AGE PRESUMPTION
Art. 129. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has
decided otherwise. Art. 213. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the
parent designated by the Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice
of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. (Family Code)
The so-called tender-age presumption under Art. 213 of the Family Code may be overcome only by compelling
evidence of the mothers unfitness.
The mother is declared unsuitable to have custody of her children in one or more of the following instances: neglect,
abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity,
or affliction with a communicable disease. (Gamboa-Hirsch v. Court of Appeals)
5.
PRESUMPTION OF CONTRACTS OR DONATIONS EXECUTED TO DEFRAUD CREDITORS
Article 1387. All contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to have
been entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all debts
contracted before the donation. Alienations by onerous title are also presumed fraudulent when made by persons
against whom some judgment has been rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment has been issued. The
decision or attachment need not refer to the property alienated, and need not have been obtained by the party
seeking the rescission. (NCC)
The existence of fraud or intent to defraud creditors may either be presumed in accordance with Art. 1387 of the
Civil Code or duly proved in accordance with the ordinary rules of evidence.
The law presumes that there is fraud of creditors when:
1. There is alienation of property by gratuitous title by the debtor who has not reserved sufficient property to pay
his debts contracted before such alienation; or
CLARENCE TIU
115 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
2.
6.
PRESUMPTION OF SOUND MIND

A person is not incapacitated to contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities.
Only when such age or infirmities impair her mental faculties to such extent as to prevent one from properly,
intelligently, and fairly protecting her property rights, is one considered incapacitated. A person is presumed to be of
sound mind at any particular time and the condition is presumed to continue to exist, in the absence of proof to the
contrary. Competency and freedom from undue influence, shown to have existed in the other acts done or contracts
executed, are presumed to continue until the contrary is shown (Mendezona v. Ozamiz)
7.
PRESUMPTION THAT A SALE IS AN EQUITABLE MORTAGAGE

Under Art. 1602 of the New Civil Code, a contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage in any of the
following cases:
a. When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate
b. When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise
c. When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending the period of
redemption or granting a new period is executed
d. When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price
e. When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold
f. In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall
secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.
For the presumptions under the article to apply, two requisites must concur:
1. That the parties entered into a contract denominated as a sale; and
2. That their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage.
In order for a deed to be declared a mortgage, the relation of debtor and creditor must exist between the grantor in
such a deed and one who seeks to have it declared a mortgage. There must be a continuing binding debt; a debt in
its fullest sense. Where there is no debt, there can be no mortgage; for if there is nothing to secure, there can be no
security. If there is an indebtedness or liability between the parties, either a debt existing prior to the conveyance, or
a debt arising from a loan made at the time of the conveyance, or from any other cause, and this debt is still left
subsistent, not being discharged or satisfied by the conveyance, but the grantor is regarded as still owing and
bound to pay at some future time, so that the payment stipulated for in the agreement to reconvey is in reality the
payment of this existing debt, then the whole transaction amounts to a mortgage, whatever stipulation they may
have inserted in the instruments. If there is no relation of debtor- creditor, but by the terms of the contract, one is
merely given an option to buy real property for a fixed amount and a fixed price, there is no equitable mortgage; the
optionee is not bound to buy and pay for said real property (JMA House, Inc. v. Santa Monica Industrial)
8.
PRESUMPTION THAT A WRITTEN CONTRACT CONTAINS THE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES
Remember the Parol Evidence Rule
The rule is that he, who alleges that a contract does not reflect the true intention of the parties thereto, may prove
the same by documentary or parol evidence. In this case, petitioner alleges that the Deed of Absolute Sale and
Option to Buy do not reflect the true intention of the parties. The petitioner asserts that it is a loan with a mortgage
or an equitable mortgage. The petitioner is burdened to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the terms of
the writings, not by simple declarations of the parties, but by proof of facts and circumstances, are inconsistent with
the rule of absolute purchase, otherwise, the solemnity of deeds would always be exposed to the slippery memory
of witnesses. The presumption is that the contract is what it purports to be; and, to establish its character as a
mortgage, the evidence must be clear, unequivocal and convincing which reasons tending to show that the
transaction was intended as a security for debt; and thus to be a mortgage must be sufficient to satisfy every
reasonable mind without hesitation. A less rigorous rule would mean that no man is safe in taking a deed of
property. It would only be necessary for the grantor to bring witnesses to an agreement that the deed was regarded
as an equitable mortgage, to enable him, on payment of the purchase price and interest, to redeem, particularly if
the value of the property had doubled or trebled in ratio. Unless the testimony is entirely plain and convincing
beyond reasonable controversy, the writing will be held to express correctly the intention of the parties. If there is a
doubt as to the fact whether the transaction is in the nature of a mortgage, the presumption, in order to avoid a
forfeiture is always in favor of a position to redeem, to subserve abstract justice and avert injurious consequences
(JMA House, Inc. v. Santa Monica Industrial)
9.

There is alienation of property by onerous title made by a debtor against whom some judgment has been
rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment has been issued. From the tenor of the law, the decision or
attachment need not refer to the property alienated and need not have been obtained by the party seeking
rescission.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
a.
Common Carriers
CLARENCE TIU
116 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they
observed extraordinary diligence as required in Art. 1733 of the Civil Code (Arts. 1735 and 1756, NCC)
In case of death of, or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed under Arts. 1733
and 1755 of the Civil Code (Art. 1756, NCC)
Persons Vicariously Liable
The persons mentioned in Art. 2180 of the Civil Code like employers, and owners or managers of establishment,
among others, are liable for the acts of those persons for whom they are responsible. Under the same provision,
such responsibility shall cease when the persons mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage. This indicates that there is a presumption that employers and other
persons in Art. 2180 have likewise been negligent in case those under them have caused damage to
another.
Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption
juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris familias in the selection (culpa eligiendo) or
supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees (Macalinao v. Ong)
Motor Vehicle Mishaps
It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating
traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months (Art. 2184, NCC)
Possession of Dangerous Weapons and Substances
There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or
use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business (Art. 2188, NCC)
Res Ipsa Loquitur
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) also establishes a presumption of negligence
against the defendant and furnishes a substitute for a specific proof of negligence.
The doctrine can be invoked only when, under the circumstances, direct evidence is absent and not readily
available.
For the doctrine to apply, the following must be satisfactorily shown:
i. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence
ii. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and
iii. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated
The defendants negligence is presumed or inferred when the plaintiff establishes the requisites for the
application of res ipsa loquitur. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of all the elements, the
burden then shifts to defendant to explain. The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by
other evidence and, under appropriate circumstances disputable presumption, such as that of due care or
innocence, may outweigh the inference. It is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the
presumption or inference from arising. Evidence by the defendant of say, due care, comes into play only after
the circumstances for the application of the doctrine has been established. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
furnishes a bridge by which a plaintiff, without knowledge of the cause, reaches over to defendant who
knows or should know the cause, for any explanation of care exercised by the defendant in respect of
the matter of which the plaintiff complains. (DMCI vs CA)
Res ipsa loquitur is merely evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience, since it
furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing a specific proof of
negligence. It recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows
the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of
the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption
of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his
part. The doctrine is based partly on the theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes
the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it while the plaintiff
has no such knowledge, and is therefore compelled to allege negligence in general terms. (Del Carmen vs
Bacoy 2012)
In medical negligence cases, although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice suits to
prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure,
when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is
dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. Hence, in cases where the res
ipsa loquitur is applicable, the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of
injury to the patient, without the aid of expert testimony, where the court from its fund of common
knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. When the doctrine is appropriate, all that the patient
b.
c.
d.
e.
CLARENCE TIU
117 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

must do is prove a nexus between the particular act or omission complained of and the injury sustained while
under the custody and management of the defendant without need to produce expert medical testimony to
establish the standard of care. Thus, courts of other jurisdictions have applied the doctrine in the following
situations: leaving of a foreign object in the body of the patient after an operation, injuries sustained on a
healthy part of the body which was not under, or in the area, of treatment, removal of the wrong part of the body
when another part was intended, knocking out a tooth while a patients jaw was under anesthetic for the removal
of his tonsils, and loss of an eye while the patient plaintiff was under the influence of anesthetic, during or
following an operation for appendicitis (Ramos vs CA 1999)
CLARENCE TIU
118 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Rule 132 in general pertains to presentation of evidence
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES PRESENTED IN TRIAL OR HEARING

Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to
speak, or the questions calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
(1a)
RULE: THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES PRESENTED IN A TRIAL OR HEARING SHALL BE DONE:

1. IN OPEN COURT
EXCEPT: Testimonies may not be given in open court, if the rules provide otherwise, such as:
Rules on Summary Procedure
The affidavits of the parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the
same (Sec. 15, Rule on Summary Procedure).
In civil cases, the parties are merely required to submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other pieces
of evidence on the factual issues, together with their position papers, setting forth the law and the facts
relied upon (Sec. 9, Rule on Summary Procedure).
b. Depositions
Likewise, depositions need not be taken in open court. They may be taken before a notary public (Sec.
10, Rule 23, Rules of Court) or before any person authorized to administer oaths (Sec. 14, Rule 23,
Rules of Court).
In a criminal case, either party may utilize the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of the country,
or one who is unavailable or unable to testify despite the exercise of due diligence, even if the testimony
was one used in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, provided the said proceeding
involved the same parties and subject matter and the adverse party had the opportunity to crossexamine the witness (Sec. l[f], Rule 115, Rules of Court).
c. Judicial Affidavit Rule
Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the judicial affidavit shall take the place of direct testimonies of
witnesses (Sec. 2, Judicial Affidavit Rule).
a.
2.
UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION
3.
The witness must take either an oath or an affirmation but the option to do so is given to the witness and not to
the court.
An oath is an outward pledge made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God or a solemn appeal to
the Supreme Being in attestation of the truth of some statement
An affirmation is a substitute for an oath, and is a solemn and formal declaration that the witness will tell the
truth
Where the witness refuses to take an oath or give any affirmation, the testimony may be barred (U.S. v. Fowler)
The rule requiring an oath or an affirmation is satisfied when the court takes pains to impress on the witness the
need to testify truthfully and the witness says he would (U.S. v. Salim).
No special wording is necessary for an affirmation, provided that the language used is designed to impress upon
the individual the duty to tell the truth (U.S. v. Kalaydjian)
It may be an abuse of the courts discretion to require the use of the words swear or affirm in the oath if the
language would violate the witnesss religious beliefs where the witness could otherwise testify truthfully
(Gordon v. State of Idaho)
It is an abuse of discretion to refuse to allow the accused to testify pursuant to an oath which he had drafted by
which he swore to testify honestly (U.S. v. Ward)
THE ANSWERS OF THE WITNESS SHALL BE GIVEN ORALLY
EXCEPT:
a. If the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
b. The questions calls for a different mode of answer
This method allows the court the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness and also allows the
adverse party to cross-examine the witness.
CLARENCE TIU
119 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESSES
RULE: THE EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS PRESENTED IN A HEARING OR ANY PROCEEDING SHALL BE DONE IN
OPEN COURT. THE ANSWER OF THE WITNESS SHALL BE GIVEN ORALLY, UNLESS THE WITNESS IS INCAPACITATED TO
SPEAK, OR THE QUESTION CALLS FOR A DIFFERENT MODE OF ANSWER (SEC. 8, RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS)
Basically, examination of child witnesses follows the same general rule with ordinary witnesses (must be in open
court, under oath and given orally), BUT there are special rules which applies to child witnesses (tetimony by livelink television, allowing of support persons, interpreter, facilitator for the child, closing the courtroom to the public,
etc). Just see Chapter on Special Rules of Evidence under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness for this.
PROCEEDINGS OF A TRIAL OR HEARING SHOULD BE RECORDED

Section 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)
RULE: THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE RECORDED:

1. The questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto
2. Statements made by the judge, any of the parties or any of the counsels.
3. The entire proceedings of the trial or hearing must be recorded
How should it be recorded?
The recording may be by shorthand, stenotype or any means of recording found suitable by the court.
The official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder shall make a transcript of the record of the proceedings and
shall be certified by him as correct.
The transcript so prepared and certified shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS

Section 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
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be 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)
RULE: A WITNESS HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, ALTHOUGH HIS ANSWER MAY TEND TO ESTABLISH A
CLAIM (CIVIL LIABILITY) AGAINST HIM
EXCEPT: THERE ARE QUESTIONS WHICH A WITNESS IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, AS HE
HAS THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense (criminal liability), unless
otherwise provided by law
To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanour
Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue
Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires; and
CLARENCE TIU
120 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it be the very fact at issue or to a fact
from which the fact in issue would be presumed
Counsel must always come to the aid of his witness being subjected to intimidation, harassment and
embarrassment. Such acts are objectionable and a timely objection should be raised.
5.
RIGHT OF A WITNESS AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
RULE: THE WITNESS HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO GIVE AN ANSWER THAT WILL SUBJECT HIM TO A PENALTY
This is based on the right of a person against self-incrimination (Sec. 17, Art. Ill, 1987 Constitution)
Note that the witness must still take the stand and wait for the incriminating question before he can invoke the right
against self-incrimination. But, if the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to take the stand. (Bagadiong v.
Gonzales)
The right against self incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under
compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. The right is not to be compelled to be a
witness against himself. It secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to answer any
particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime.
However, the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the
witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, decline
to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. As to an accused in a criminal
case, it is settled that he can refuse outright to take the stand as a witness. This is because an accused occupies a
different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the party thereto can
altogether decline to take the witness stand. It is not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the
proceedings that controls. (Rosete v. Lim, 2006)
However, remember that the right against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence. It does not apply to
a physical and mechanical acts.
There is no testimonial compulsion involved by extracting blood from the accused for testing purposes.
Extracting blood samples and cutting strands of hair do not involve testimonial compulsion but purely
mechanical acts which neither requires discretion nor reasoning (Tijing vs CA)
EXCEPT: UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW
Under R.A. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act), a witness admitted into the witness protection
program cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or produce books, documents, records or writings necessary
for the prosecution of the offense or offenses for which he has been admitted on the ground of the right against
self-incrimination (Sec. 14, R.A. 6981).
RIGHT OF A WITNESS AGAINST DEGRADATION
RULE: A WITNESS LIKEWISE HAS THE RIGHT AGAINST BEING DEGRADED.
This refers to his right not to give an answer that will degrade him.
EXCEPT: EVEN IF THE ANSWER IS DEGRADING TO HIS REPUTATION, HE MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION IF THE
DEGRADING ANSWER IS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1.
2.
3.
The very fact in issue; or

Refers to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed
Matters that pertain to a previous final conviction for an offense
Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. The order in which the 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. (4)
Section 5. Direct examination. Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (5a)
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. Upon the termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross- examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or
CLARENCE TIU
121 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

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)
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. After the cross-examination of the witness has
been concluded, he may be re-examined 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)
Section 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)
1.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (SEC. 5, RULE 132)
2.
This is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
It is actually a procedure for obtaining information from ones own witness in an orderly fashion.
It is information which counsel wants the court to hear.
The purpose is to elicit facts about the clients cause of action or defense.
But note that this examination is now subject to the Judicial Affidavit Rule which took effect on January 1, 2013.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (SEC. 6, RULE 132)
This is the examination of the witness by the adverse party after said witness has given his testimony on direct
examination.
Cross-examination has two basic purposes:
a. To bring out facts favorable to counsels client not established by the direct testimony
b. To enable counsel to impeach or to impair the credibility of the witness
RULE: THE SCOPE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION IS NOT CONFINED TO THE MATTERS STATED BY THE WITNESS IN
THE DIRECT EXAMINATION.
3.
The cross-examination is not limited to the mattes taken up in direct examination. We follow the english rule,
as long as the issue is raised in the pleadings, it may be covered in cross-examination.
Thus, under the Rules of Court, an objection that the question in the cross-examination is on a matter not
touched upon by the witness in his testimony will seldom be sustained provided the question covers matters
allowed to be asked by way of cross-examination.
This is because the rule allows questions designed to test the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness, his
freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue
EXCEPTION: IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE WITNESS MAY ONLY BE CROSS-EXAMINED AS TO THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF HIS EXAMINATION-IN- CHIEF OR ON MATTERS COVERED BY DIRECT EXAMINATION:
a. The witness is an unwilling or a hostile witness as so declared by the court (Sec. 12, Rule 132).
b. The witness is an accused (Sec. 1[d], Rule 115)
While the adverse party may cross-examine a witness for the purpose among others, of eliciting all important facts
bearing upon the issue. From this provision it may clearly be inferred that a party may cross- examine a witness on
matters not embraced in his direct examination. But this does not mean that a party by doing so is making the
witness his own. (Capitol Subd. v. Province of Negros Occidental 1956)
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION (SEC. 7, RULE 132)
4.
This examination is conducted after the cross examination of the witness.

The party who called the witness on direct examination may re-examine the same witness to explain or supplement
his answers given during the cross-examination.
It is the examination of a witness by the counsel who conducted the direct examination after the cross-examination.
In re-direct examination the counsel may elicit testimony to correct or repel any wrong impression or inferences that
may have been created in the cross-examination.
It may also be an opportunity to rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been damaged.
In its discretion, the court may even allow questions on matters not touched in the cross-examination
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION (SEC. 8, RULE 132)
This is the examination conducted upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination.
Here, the adverse party may question the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination and also on such
matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion
CLARENCE TIU
122 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
DEATH OR ABSENCE OF A WITNESS BEFORE CROSS-EXAMINATION
RULE: IF THE WITNESS DIES BEFORE HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION IS OVER, HIS TESTIMONY ON THE DIRECT MAY BE
STRICKEN OUT, BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY NOT COVERED BY THE CROSS- EXAMINATION.
The absence of the witness is not enough to warrant striking out his testimony for failure to appear for further crossexamination where the witness has already been sufficiently cross-examined, and the matter on which the crossexamination is sought is not in controversy (People v. Seheris)
EXCEPT: IF THE WITNESS WAS NOT CROSS-EXAMINED BECAUSE OF CAUSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CROSSEXAMINING PARTY
In this case, the cross-examiner is deemed to have waived the right to cross- examine the witness
The right to cross examine may also be waived expressly, as when the party does not want to cross-examine
the witness.
If the witness was not cross-examined because of causes attributable to the cross-examining party and the
witness had always made himself available for cross- examination, the direct testimony of the witness shall
remain in the record and cannot be ordered stricken off because the cross-examiner is deemed to have waived
the right to cross- examine the witness (De la Paz v. IAC)
RECALLING A WITNESS
Section 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 discretion,
as the interests of justice may require. (14)
If a witness has been examined by both sides, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. Recalling a
witness is a matter of judicial discretion.
In the exercise of its discretion, the court shall be guided by the interests of justice
LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS

Section 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:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a
child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a 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.
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)
RULE: LEADING QUESTIONS, WHICH SUGGEST TO THE WITNESS THE ANSWER WHICH THE EXAMINING PARTY DESIRES,
ARE NOT ALLOWED
A leading question is one that is framed in such a way that the question indicates to the witness the answer desired
by the party asking the question.
Note that even the actions of counsel may be leading
In the words of Sec. 10 of Rule 132, it is a question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires.
The prohibition on leading questions apply particularly in case of direct and re-direct examinations
Leading questions are not appropriate in direct and re-direct examinations particularly when the witness is asked to
testify about a major element of the cause of action or defense.
EXCEPTIONS: LEADING QUESTIONS ARE ALLOWED IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES:
CLARENCE TIU
123 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
1.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Leading questions are allowed in cross and re- cross examinations.
In fact, leading questions are the types of questions that should be employed in a cross-examination. Such
questions enable the counsel to get the witness to agree with his clients version of the facts.
Most lawyers will agree that a why question should not be asked in cross- examination. This kind of
question allows a witness to explain his or her position, emphasize key points of harmful testimony and
control the pace and scope of the examination.
It invites the witness to deliver an unwanted lecture in the courtroom. Short and leading questions will
help control the witness.
2.
DIRECT EXAMINATION IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES:

a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
On preliminary matters
When the witness is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is feeble-minded or a deaf-mute and there is
difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from such witness;
When the witness is a hostile witness
When the witness is an adverse party, or an officer, director, or managing agent of a corporation,
partnership or association which is an adverse party
As to a child witness, Sec. 10, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court should be deemed modified by Sec. 20 of the
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.
Under the said rule, the court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a child under
the condition that the same will further the interest of justice.
Under the Rules of Court, a leading question may be asked of a child only if there is difficulty of eliciting
from said child a direct and intelligible answer (Sec. 10[c], Rule 132, Rules of Court).
Examples:
The case is a collection case. The defendant contends that the debt has been paid. He calls a witness to testify to
the fact of payment. Q: While the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in a conversation on the date and time
you mentioned, did you see the defendant deliver P50,000.00 to the plaintiff?
The question is objectionable on the ground that it is leading. Here, the examiner obviously wants the witness to
directly testify that money was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff in his presence. The question could
have been properly framed in this manner: What have you observed, if any, while the plaintiff and the defendant
were engaged in a conversation?
2. The fact situation is a robbery case. The accused claims innocence and that a couple of hours after the alleged
robbery, he is arrested by the police while in the park with his children. The defense counsel calls the accused to
the stand. Q: What were you doing in the park? A: I was taking a stroll with my two adolescent children. Q: While
you were in the park with your children, the police officers arrived to arrest you, is that true?
The question is leading. It suggests the next event which the witness should testify to. The attorney could
convert the question into a non-leading one by taking the suggestive element out of the question. Thus, What
happened if any, while you and your children were at the park?
1.
MISLEADING QUESTIONS
RULE: MISLEADING QUESTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED, IN ANY TYPE OF EXAMINATION
A misleading question is one which:

1. Assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
2. Contains facts contrary to that which the witness has previously stated.
Example: Counsel: You testified that you and the accused were in a car bound for Baguio City. How fast were you
driving? This question is objectionable as misleading where there was no previous testimony from the witness that
he was driving the car. The question assumes a fact not yet in evidence.
IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's 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, honestly, 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. (15)
CLARENCE TIU
124 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand.
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 cross-examined by the adverse party, but such crossexamination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-inchief. (6a, 7a)
Section 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,
the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons
present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the
statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning
them. (16)
GUIDELINES IN IMPEACHING A WITNESS
Impeachment is basically a technique employed usually as part of the cross-examination to discredit a witness by
attacking his credibility.
Destroying credibility is vital because it is linked with a witness ability and willingness to tell the truth.
The rules enumerate certain guideposts in impeaching a witness:
3.
THE IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS IS TO BE DONE BY THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE WITNESS IS CALLED (SEC.
11, RULE 132)
THE PARTY PRODUCING THE WITNESS IS BARRED FROM IMPEACHING HIS OWN WITNESS (SEC. 12, RULE 132).
4.
Example: If D calls W as his witness, D is not allowed to impeach the credibility of W. It is the adverse party, P,
against whom W was called, who is accorded the privilege of impeaching W
EXCEPTIONS: IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE PARTY MAY IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS:
If the witness is unwilling or hostile, the party calling him may be allowed by the court to impeach
the witness.
But it is not for the party calling the witness to make a determination that the witness is unwilling or
hostile.
Whether or not a witness is hostile, is addressed to judicial evaluation and the declaration shall be made
only if the court is satisfied that the witness possesses an interest adverse to the party calling him or
there is adequate showing that the reluctance of the witness is unjustified, or that he misled the party into
calling him as a witness
b. When the witness is an adverse party or is an officer, director, or managing agent of a corporation,
partnership or association which is an adverse party
a.
3.
IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PARTY CALLING THE WITNESS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD CHARACTER OF HIS
OWN WITNESS.
The same is allowed only if the character of the witness has been impeached (Sec. 14, Rule 132).
Thus, evidence of the good character of the witness is allowed only to rebut the evidence offered to impeach the
witnesss character.
If he has been impeached, then he can be rehabilitated by evidence of his good character.
MODES OF IMPEACHING A WITNESS
See Sec. 11, Rule 132
RULE: A WITNESS MAY BE IMPEACHED THROUGH THE FOLLOWING MODES:

1.
2.
3.
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
A WITNESS CANNOT BE IMPEACHED BY:
CLARENCE TIU
125 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
1.
2.

Evidence of particular wrongful acts except evidence of his final conviction of an offense as disclosed by his
examination or the record of the judgment (Sec. 11, Rule 132).
An unwilling or hostile witness so declared by the court or the witness who is an adverse party cannot be
impeached by evidence of his bad character (Sec. 12, Rule 132)
MODES OF IMPEACHING A WITNESS (EXPOUNDED)
1.
IMPEACHMENT BY CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE (SEC. 11, RULE 132)
2.
Every ethical trial lawyer will tell us that one basic rule in impeaching a witness by contradictory evidence is the
observance of fairness.
Fairness demands that the impeaching matter be raised in the cross-examination of the witness sought to
be impeached by allowing him to admit or deny a matter to be used as the basis for impeachment by
contradictory evidence.
Normally, the basis of this mode of impeachment is a declaration made by the witness in his direct testimony. The
cross-examiners intention is to show to the court that there were allegations made by the witness that do not
correspond to the real facts of the case.
This mode of impeachment may also be used to contradict conclusions made by expert witnesses during their
testimonies.
Usually, the adverse party may also call another expert to testify to a contrary conclusion.
Example: Witness A testifies on direct examination that he was barely five meters away from where the accused, D
fired a shot at the victim, V. The defense counsel has reliable information that, at the time the shooting took place,
Witness A was standing as a witness in a wedding of his friend, Witness B, in a place a hundred miles away. The
defense counsel now asks: Q: You testified that you were present when D shot V, is that right? A: Perfectly right,Sir!
Q: Isnt it true that, at the time of the alleged shooting of V by D, you were in a wedding of your friend miles and
miles away? A: That isnt true. Sir. Absolutely not.
Because Witness A denied his being in a friends wedding at the time of the incident, the defense counsel now
has the chance to prove the contrary by a contradictory evidence. He can do so by calling Witness B or any
other witness to testify on the whereabouts of Witness A on the relevant date and time.
IMPEACHMENT BY SHOWING BAD REPUTATION (SEC. 11, RULE 132)
3.
When a witness testifies, he puts his credibility at issue because the weight of his testimony depends upon his
credibility.
One way to impair his credibility is by showing a not so pleasing reputation.
Hence, the prevailing rule allows his impeachment by evidence that he has a bad general reputation.
Not every aspect of a persons reputation may be the subject of impeachment. Evidence of bad reputation for the
purpose of impeachment should refer only to the following specific aspects:
a. For truth
b. For honesty; or
c. For integrity
These are aspects of a persons reputation that are relevant to his credibility. He cannot be impeached for his
reputation on other grounds.
Thus, it would be improper for a witness to be impeached because of his reputation for being troublesome and
abrasive.
A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts except evidence of his final conviction of an
offense as disclosed by his examination or the record of the judgment
Note that Sec. 11 does not allow impeachment by evidence of bad character but by bad reputation.
Character is made up of the things an individual actually is and does, whereas reputation is what people
think an individual is and what they say about him Hence, a persons reputation is not necessarily his character
and vice versa.
Example: Mr. W is called by the prosecution to testify that it was indeed the accused who picked the pocket of the
victim when the latter accidentally tripped by the sidewalk. The defense later presents Mr. D, a neighbor of Mr. W for
thirty (30) years, who testifies that Mr. W has a reputation in the community for telling lies. The testimony of Mr. D is
an impeaching testimony to discredit Mr. W. Mr. D, who has testified on the reputation of Mr. W, may be crossexamined like any witness. He may be asked on cross-examination about the extent of his familiarity with the
witness who is being impeached, together with any prejudice and biases he may have against the witness or his
stake and interest in the case.
IMPEACHMENT BY PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS (SEC. 13, RULE 132)
Prior inconsistent statements are statements made by a witness on an earlier occasion which contradict the
statements he makes during the trial.
CLARENCE TIU
126 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In the words of Sec. 13 of Rule 132, they are that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony.
These statements are admissible to impeach the credibility of the witness making them.
Impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement is the most commonly used method because of its simplicity
and the impact it makes when properly used.
Effectively impeaching a witness by prior inconsistent statements requires laying the proper foundation for the
impeachment.
Laying the foundation, commonly referred to as laying the predicate is a preliminary requirement before the
impeachment process prospers.

Elements of Laying the Foundation (Sec. 13, Rule 132):
a. The alleged statements must be related to the witness including the circumstances of the times and places and
the persons present. If the statements are in writing they must be shown to him; and
b. He must be asked whether he made such statements and also to explain them if he admits making those
statements.
The underlying purpose for laying the predicate is to allow the witness to admit or deny the prior statement and
afford him an opportunity to explain the same.
Non-compliance with the foundational elements for this mode of impeachment will be a ground for an
objection based on improper impeachment.

Over a timely objection, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement without the required foundation is
not admissible.
The mere presentation of the prior declarations of the witness without the same having been read to him while
testifying in court is insufficient for the desired impeachment of his testimony, if he was not given the ample
opportunity to explain the supposed discrepancy. This rule is founded, not only upon common sense, but is
essential to protect the character of the witness (People v. De Guzman)
Practical application:
To achieve a dramatic effect, the first step in setting up the prior inconsistent statement would actually be to ask
the witness to repeat or reaffirm his most recent statement.

The second step would be to relate to the witness his prior inconsistent statement and, at the same time,
building up or highlighting the contradictory utterance by relating to the witness the circumstances of times,
persons and places.
Then, the witness is asked whether or not the statements were made
Examples:
1. The case is a robbery case. The accused has Oriental features and is five feet and three inches tall. The
prosecution witness is one who allegedly saw the culprit come out of the crime scene. Q: Mr. A, you testified on
direct examination that the man you saw come out of the burglarized store had Oriental features and was a little
over five feet tall. Is that correct? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Are you certain of your description of the man? A: Very certain,
Sir. Q: And when was this? A: On February 15, 2012, around 9:30 in the evening. That was the date and time of
the burglary. Q: Do you recall having seen SP04 Morales outside the burglarized store at around 10:00 of the
same day and night? A: I do, Sir. He spoke to me that night and asked me what I saw. Q: And that was only ten
minutes from the time you saw the man. Is that correct? A: That is correct, Sir. Q: And at that time, everything
was still fresh in your mind. Right? A: Youre absolutely right, Sir. Q: Do you recall telling SP04 Morales that you
cannot give an accurate description of the man who came out of the burglarized store because he was wearing
a bonnet over his face, had a pair of gloves on and was wearing dark long sleeves?
At this point, the witness gets boxed in, and his credibility starts crumbling no matter how he responds to the
question asking him to affirm or deny the prior inconsistent statement. If the witness admits the prior
inconsistent statement, the rule requires that he be allowed to explain them. Often, it is difficult to explain
inconsistent statements and would require a lot of effort. If the witness denies making the statement, it is
imperative for the impeaching party to be prepared to present another witness who would contradict the
witness being impeached.
It happens sometimes that the prior inconsistent statement is in writing. The process of laying the predicate
is fundamentally the same as when the prior statement is oral, but if the statement be in writing, it must be
shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning it
2. The case is a murder case. The witness was interviewed by the police ten minutes after the incident. In her
signed statement, she claimed that she did not actually see the accused fire the shot that killed the victim, but
in her direct examination, she testified that she saw him fire once at the victim. Q: Did you earlier testify that
you saw the accused fire at the victim? A: I did, sir. Q: Are you certain of that? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Do you recall
having made a statement to the police ten minutes after the incident? A: Yes, Sir. I made it before Detective
Rosales. Q: Your statement was reduced to writing, is that right? A: Right, Sir. Q: After your statement was
CLARENCE TIU
127 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

typed, it was shown to you, right? A: Yes, sir. Q: He asked you to read the statement very carefully before you
signed it. Am I correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: After making sure that the contents of the written statement were correct,
you signed the statement. Is that correct? A: That is correct, Sir. Q: I am showing you a three-page statement
entitled Sinumpaang Salaysay. Is this the statement you signed before Detective Rosales? A: It is, sir. Q: At
the end of the last page is a name and signature over the name. Is that your name and signature? A: They are,
Sir.
Counsel will now ask that the statement be marked as an exhibit including the name and signature of
witness. Then counsel will call the attention of the witness to the relevant paragraph of her signed
statement. The reading of the prior inconsistent statement must be verbatim, not a mere summary as: In
paragraph 13 of this Sinumpaang Salaysay, you stated, and I quote
NO IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF PARTICULAR WRONGFUL ACTS
RULE: A WITNESS CANNOT BE IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF PARTICULAR WRONGFUL ACTS

EXCEPT: EVIDENCE OF HIS FINAL CONVICTION OF AN OFFENSE AS DISCLOSED BY HIS EXAMINATION OR THE
RECORD OF THE JUDGMENT
This prior conviction of the witness is shown through either of two ways:
1. By his examination (such as by cross-examining him), or
2. By presenting the record of his prior conviction
Examining another witness to elicit from his lips the prior conviction of another witness is not the correct
procedure, unless the witness is one who is competent (like an official custodian of records) to present in court
the record of conviction.
The rule is clear on this. It should be by the examination of the witness. This witness is obviously the one
whose prior conviction is the subject of inquiry.

Example: The case is a criminal prosecution for robbery. The defense is presenting its evidence- in-chief and calls its
first witness to impeach the primary witness of the prosecution. The defense counsel asks a series of questions to
show specific instances of misconduct of the prosecution. Q: Do you know the prosecution witness? A: I do. Q: How did
you come to know him? A:Two years ago, he robbed me of my wallet at gun point. Q: Was that incident the first time
you came to know the prosecution witness? A: No Sir. Q: Why do you say so? A: Prior to my being robbed by him, he
stole the carabao of my neighbor.
Is this line of questioning objectionable? Certainly, it is. A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of particular
wrongful acts. Just as a witness cannot testify on specific acts of misconduct committed by the witness being
impeached, the latter cannot also be examined on particular wrongful acts done by him. To do so would be a
contravention of the tenor of Sec. 11 of Rule 132.
BUT, he can, nevertheless, be impeached as to his bad reputation for truth, honesty or integrity. Thus: Q: How long
have you known the prosecution witness? A: Since childhood, Sir. Q: How well do you know him? A: Very well, Sir.
Q: Why do you say so? A: We studied in the same school since nursery school until we both graduated from
college. We were also neighbors since childhood. Q: What can you say about his reputation? A: Terrible, Sir. He is
dishonest and untruthful.
This line of questioning does not violate the rules on impeachment. This is not an impeachment by evidence of
specific wrongful conduct which is barred, but an impeachment by evidence of bad reputation.
IMPEACHMENT OF THE ADVERSE PARTY AS A WITNESS
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. He is not bound
only in the sense that he may contradict him by introducing other evidence to prove a state of facts contrary to what the
witness testifies. 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 his bad character. Under a rule permitting the
impeachment of an adverse witness, although the calling party does not vouch for the witness veracity, he is
nonetheless bound by his testimony if it is not contradicted or remains unrebutted (Gaw v. Chua)
For bad character, remember the rules in Rule 130 on Character Evidence
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF A WITNESS

Section 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)
CLARENCE TIU
128 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE: EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD CHARACTER OF A WITNESS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE
This is because good character is presumed

A witness, cannot initiate proof of his good character.
But note that this the rule has reference only to a mere witness.
It does not refer to an accused in a criminal case.
In a criminal case, the accused may prove his good moral character relevant to the offense charged even before
his character is attacked (Sec. 51[a][l], Rule 130). However, remember that the prosecution cannot initiate proof
of the bad character of the accused. It can only do so by way of rebuttal (Sec. 51[a][2], Rule 130). This means
that the prosecution can prove the bad character of the accused only if the latter had first presented evidence of
his good character.
EXCEPT: IF THE WITNESS HAS BEEN IMPEACHED, EVIDENCE OF HIS GOOD CHARACTER MAY BE PRESENTED
Example: If the plaintiff in a civil case presents Mr. W to testify on a vehicular collision, the counsel is not allowed to ask
questions tending to show the good character or reputation of the witness. Any question to that effect can be validly
objected to as improper character evidence. Because a witness is presumed to be truthful and of good character, the
party presenting him does not have to prove he is good because he is presumed to be one. It is only after his character
has been attacked, can he prove his being good. He must first be discredited before his reputation or character
can be bolstered.
EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESSES

Section 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)
RULE: THE JUDGE MAY EXCLUDE A WITNESS WHO, AT THE TIME OF EXCLUSION, IS NOT UNDER EXAMINATION SO
THAT HE MAY NOT HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER WITNESSES
Excluding future witnesses from the courtroom at the time another witness is testifying, or ordering that these
witnesses be kept separate from one another, is primarily to prevent them from conversing with one another.
The purpose is to ensure that the witnesses testify to the truth by preventing them from being influenced by the
testimonies of the others. In other words, this measure is meant to prevent connivance or collusion among
witnesses. The efficacy of excluding or separating witnesses has long been recognized as a means of
discouraging fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion. However, without any motion from the opposing party or order
from the court, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits a witness from hearing the testimonies of other witnesses.
(Design Resources v. Eristingcol)
But there must be a prior order or at least a motion for exclusion from any of the parties, a court cannot simply
allow or disallow the presentation of a witness solely on the ground that the latter heard the testimony of
another witness. (Design Resources v. Eristingcol)
WHEN THE WITNESS MAY REFER TO A MEMORANDUM

Section 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 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 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)
RULE: DURING HIS TESTIMONY, IN ORDER TO REFRESH HIS MEMORY, A WITNESS MAY REFER TO A MEMORANDUM OR
TO ANYTHING WRITTEN OR RECORDED BY HIMSELF, OR WRITTEN OR RECORDED BY SOMEONE ACTING UNDER HIS
DIRECTION.
CLARENCE TIU
129 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Requisites:
1. Memorandum must be written at the time the fact occurred or immediately thereafter or at any time when the
event or fact was fresh in his memory.
2. Witness must affirm that the fact was correctly written or recorded.
3. The memorandum must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party
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. (People vs Plasencia 1995)
The memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be
admitted as such. In other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been
refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative
evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly
by him. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration with written statements of
the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing
memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even where this requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction
of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with caution, if only because it is not very difficult to
conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true when the witness stands to gain materially or
otherwise from the admission of such evidence. (Canque vs CA 1999)
WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING OR RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE

Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder, the remainder
admissible. When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one
party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the 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 OF INSPECTION OF WRITING SHOWN TO WITNESS

Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness. Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be
inspected by the adverse party. (9a)
PRINCIPLES AND RULES ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

BASIC RULES ON CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Jurisprudence has laid down some basic rules on credibility such as for evidence to be worthy of credit, it must not only
proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself. The evidence must be natural, reasonable
and probable as to make it easy to believe. No better test has yet been found to determine the value of the testimony
of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind (Serra v. Mumar)
Whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and
must lie outside judicial cognisance (People v. De Guzman)
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES ON APPEAL
The Court is guided by the following jurisprudence when confronted with the issue of credibility of witnesses on appeal:
The Court gives the highest respect to the RTCs evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its
unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court
is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.
2. Absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTCs assessments and conclusions, the
reviewing court is generally bound by the lower courts findings, particularly when no significant facts and
1.
CLARENCE TIU
130 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded showing of a
fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of
the case (People v. Valdez)
Appellate courts do not disturb the findings of the trial courts with regards to the credibility of a witness. The
reason for this is that trial courts have the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their
demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination (People v. Cabtalan)
It has been an established rule in appellate review that the trial courts factual findings including its assessment of
the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions drawn from the factual
findings are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect. These factual findings and conclusions assume
greater weight if they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals (People v. Diu)
Fundamental is the principle that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility
of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary
and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better
position to decide on the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained
by the Court of Appeals (People v. Mangundayao)
It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on the
Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or
palpable error (Valleno v. People)
The factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to
certain specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but, at all times, even finality if such findings are
supported by substantial evidence (Versoza, Jr. v. Carague)
SUFFICIENCY OF TESTIMONY OF SOLE-WITNESS AS BASIS FOR CONVICTION
In determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. The testimony of
only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict (Bastian v. Court of Appeals)
The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of
murder. A person can still be properly identified and recognized even by merely looking at the side portion of his face.
Experience dictates that because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, witnesses can
remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time (People v. Zeta)
INCONSISTENCIES IN WITNESS TESTIMONY
Minor inconsistencies in the narration of facts by the witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as
their testimonies on the whole are coherent and intrinsically believable. Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal
upon which the credibility of witnesses rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of
scheming (People v. Camat)
For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to the
significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has nothing
to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused (People v. Mangundayao)
Affidavits and statements taken ex parte are generally considered incomplete and inaccurate. Thus, by nature, they are
inferior to testimony in open court, and whenever there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and testimony of a
witness, the testimony commands greater weight (People v. Cabtalan)
Inconsistencies dwelling on minor details or collateral matters have been held to be badges of veracity and
manifestations of truthfulness due to their tendency of demonstrating that the testimony had not been rehearsed or
concocted. It is also basic that inconsistencies bearing on minor details or collateral matters should not adversely affect
the substance of the witness declaration, veracity, or weight of testimony. The only inconsistencies that might have
discredited the victims credible testimony were those that affected or related to the elements of the crime (People v.
Sabadlab)
It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may
be some details which one witness may notice while the other may not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence
even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were
fabricated and rehearsed (People v. Cabtalan)
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect
the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the
positive identification of the accused. (People vs Sherwin Bis 2014)
CLARENCE TIU
131 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
CREDIBILITY OF TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIMS IN PROSECUTIONS FOR RAPE
Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. No sane girl would concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a
victim of rape, and thus impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. The weight of her testimony may be
countered by physical evidence to the contrary, or indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the
rape, but in the absence of such countervailing proof, the testimony shall be accorded utmost value. (People v.
Aycardo)
The rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show
that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted on that basis (People v. Aycardo)
Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit since when a woman, more so if she is a minor,
says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and
immaturity could indeed be badges of truth. This observation is a matter of judicial cognizance borne out by
human nature and experience. There could not have been a more powerful testament to the truth than this,
public baring of unspoken grief. (People v. Rubio)
Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman,
especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter
pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the
wrong committed against her. (People v. Rubio)
It is not enough to say that a girl would not expose herself to the humiliation of a rape complaint unless the charge is
true. That is putting things too simply. For the prosecution to succeed, it is also necessary to find that the
complainants story is by itself believable independently of the presumption. Otherwise, if all that mattered was
that presumption, every accusation of rape would inevitably result, without need of further evidence, in the conviction of
the accused. This would militate against the rule that in every criminal prosecution, including rape cases, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (People v. Domogoy)
Motives such as feuds, resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed the Court from giving full credence to the
testimony of a rape victim. Ill-motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from
the rape victim which clearly established the liability of the accused (People v. Navarette)
The sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things, suffices to convict (People v. Rubio)
People react differently under emotional stress. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a
shocking incident, especially if the assailant is physically near. The workings of the human mind when placed under
emotional stress are unpredictable. In a given situation, some may shout, others may faint, and still others may be
frozen into silence. Consequently, the failure of complainant to run away or shout for help at the very first opportunity
cannot be construed consent to the sexual intercourse (Sison v. People)
There is no standard matrix by which to determine what constitutes normal behavior post assault. Different people react
differently to trauma. Hence, the victims testimony that after appellant raped her, she stood up, walked home and hid
her shame is not completely improbable (People v. Santos)
Presumption of Guilt in Rape Cases
Rationale for the presumption of guilt in rape: In rape cases especially, much credence is accorded the testimony
of the complaining witness, on the theory that she will not choose to accuse her attacker at all and subject herself to
the stigma and indignities her accusation will entail unless he is telling the truth. (People vs Godoy 1995)
It frequently happens that in a particular case two or more presumptions are involved. Sometimes the presumptions
conflict, one tending to demonstrate the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. In such case, it is
necessary to examine the basis for each presumption and determine what logical or social basis exists for
each presumption, and then determine which should be regarded as the more important and entitled to
prevail over the other. It must, however, be remembered that the existence of a presumption indicating guilt
does not in itself destroy the presumption against innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together
with all of the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, is sufficient to overcome the
presumption of innocence by proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the defendant's
guilt is shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence continues. Although the trial court did observe that a
mother would not sacrifice her daughter to tell a story of defloration, that is not always the case as this Court has
noted a long time ago. The books disclose too many instances of false charges of rape. (People vs Godoy 1995)
FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS
Means false in one thing, false in everything
CLARENCE TIU
132 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The doctrine means that if the testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with an intention to
deceive, the jury may disregard all the witness testimony
It is particularly applied to the testimony of a witness who may be considered unworthy of belief as to all the rest of his
evidence if he is shown to have testified falsely in one detail.
It is not an absolute rule of law and is, in fact, rarely applied in modern jurisprudence
It deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. The rule is not an inflexible one of
universal application. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be
partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial (People v Negosa)
Before this maxim can be applied, the witness must be shown to have wilfully falsified the truth on one or more material
points. The principle presupposes the existence of a positive testimony on a material point contrary to subsequent
declarations in the testimony (Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong)
It does not lay down a categorical test of credibility. While the witnesses may differ in their recollections of an incident,
it does not necessarily follow from their disagreements that all of them should be disbelieved as liars and their
testimonies completely discarded as worthless. (People v. Manalansan)
DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIALS
It is a settled doctrine that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and must be rejected when the identity of the
accused is satisfactorily and categorically established by the eyewitnesses to the offense, especially when such
eyewitnesses have no ill-motive to testify falsely
Alibi crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. The positive identification of the accused,
when categorical and consistent, and without any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter,
prevails over alibi and denial
Note that there are two types of positive identification, namely: (a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to
the very commission of the act; and (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last seen with
the victim immediately before or after the crime
Denial, which is the usual refuge of offenders, is an inherently weak defense, and must be buttressed by other
persuasive evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.
The defense of denial fails even more when the assailant, as in this case, was positively identified by credible
witnesses, against whom no ulterior motive could be ascribed
Denial and alibi are self- serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive, and credible
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who pointed to and identified the accused-appellant as the malefactor.
Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. It is not enough to prove
that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must also demonstrate by clear
and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the
time the same was committed
Alibi is not always false and without merit. To be exonerating, the defense of alibi must be so airtight that it would
admit of no exception. It must be demonstrated that the person charged with the crime was not only somewhere
else when the offense was committed, but was so far away that it would be physically impossible to be at the place
of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The reason is that no person can be in two
places at the same time
DEFENSE OF FRAME-UP
Allegations of frame-up by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs cases. For this
claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that
government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.
Thus, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty shall prevail
The defense of frame-up is not looked upon with favor due to its being conveniently concocted
It is commonly used as a defense in most prosecutions arising from the violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The
legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists
The rule requiring a claim of frame-up to be supported by clear and convincing evidence was never intended to shift to
the accused the burden of proof in a criminal case. The claim of frame-up assumes importance when faced with the
rather shaky nature of the prosecution evidence
CLARENCE TIU
133 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
DELAY AND INITIAL RELUCTANCE IN REPORTING A CRIME
Delayed reporting by witnesses of what they know about a crime does not render their testimonies false or incredible,
for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a
criminal case.
But more than this, there is always the inherent fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable, especially if the
accused is a man of power and influence in the community.
The natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case, as well as to give information to the
authorities is a matter of judicial notice
Delay in revealing the commission of a crime, like rape, does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief.
This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public
scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant (People
v. Navarette)
It is common for a witness to prefer momentary silence for fear of reprisal from the accused. In the absence of other
circumstances that would show that the charge was a mere concoction, delay in testifying is insufficient to discredit a
testimony (People v. Cabtalan)
FLIGHT OR NON-FLIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
FLIGHT
Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and even erratically
in externalizing and manifesting their guilt.
Some may escape or flee a circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt while others may remain in the same
vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members of the
community
There is no law or principle holding that non-flight per se is proof, let alone conclusive proof, of innocence.
Much like the defense of alibi, the defense of non-flight cannot prevail against the weight of positive identification of
the appellants
Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to ones consciousness of guilt.
Flight alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances because flight alone is inherently
ambiguous
However, when flight is unexplained, it is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Indeed,
the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as a lion Flight betrays a desire to evade
responsibility and is, therefore, a strong indication of guilt
NON-FLIGHT
The fact that appellants never fled the locality where the crime was committed is NOT, by itself, a valid defense
against the prosecutions allegations because non-flight does not signify innocence.
Non-flight is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors. It cannot be singularly considered as evidence or
a manifestation determinative of innocence
CLARENCE TIU
134 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF AUTHENTICATION
The concept of authentication occupies a vital place in the presentation of evidence. Not only objects but also
documents introduced in evidence need to be authenticated. It is the preliminary step in showing the admissibility of an
evidence.
Litigation always involves the authentication of either object or documentary evidence. Unless a document is
considered self-authenticating, it will not be admitted in evidence without a prior authentication.
Example: A weapon, such as a .38 revolver, is found in the crime scene. To be admissible in evidence, it must be
authenticated. This means that it must be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the weapon is the very same
weapon found in the crime scene. To convince the court, the proponent of the evidence must call someone to identify
the weapon and affirm: This is the weapon I found in the crime scene. This someone could be the police investigator
or someone else who handled the evidence. When he affirms it is the same weapon, then the evidence is
authenticated.
The requirement for authentication of evidence discloses the existence in the legal system of a legal presumption that
is not, however, directly written in statutes or procedural rules but is necessarily implied therein.
This presumption is: That objects and documents presented in evidence are, as a rule, counterfeit. In short, an
evidence presented in court is not presumed authentic.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon the proponent of the evidence to prove its authenticity.

RULE: TO AUTHENTICATE THE OBJECT, IT MUST BE SHOWN BY A COMPETENT WITNESS THAT IT IS THE VERY THING
INVOLVED TO PROVE AN ISSUE IN THE CASE.
For the object not to be excluded by the Rules, the same must pass the test of authentication.
It must be established that the object sought to be admitted is, in fact, the real thing and not a mere substitute or
representation of the real thing. This problem of authentication is commonly called laying the foundation for the
evidence.
The manner of authentication depends on the kind of object evidence involved
If the prosecution wants the admission of the gun used in the murder, it must prove that it was the very same gun
used by the accused. Another gun, although identical with the actual gun in all respects, would not satisfy the
requirements of authentication.
The authentication must be made by a competent witness
To authenticate the object, there must be someone who should identify the object to be the actual thing involved
in the litigation. This someone is the witness.

An object evidence, being inanimate, cannot speak for itself. It cannot present itself to the court as an exhibit.
Note that this requirement applies to all evidence, whether it be a document or an object, it needs a witness.
This is a very basic rule. In laymans term, the evidence must be sponsored by a witness.
The authentication of the object by a competent witness is to comply with the element of competence as an
essential ingredient of admissibility.

To authenticate the object, the witness must have capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved in the
litigation. Better still, he must have actual and personal knowledge of the exhibit he is presenting for admission.
This is because a witness can only testify to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
which are derived from his own perception.
Even a supposedly ancient document (a private document that is more than thirty years old produced from a
custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine and is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion), requires a witness to testify on the characteristics of the document even if it no
longer requires authentication.
An object evidence is not taken in isolation. It is weighed in relation to the testimony of a witness. Also, in giving
credence to a testimony, the court takes into consideration the physical evidence. If the testimony bears a
striking similarity with the physical evidence, the testimony becomes worthy of belief
More often than not, the presentation of object evidence supplements the credibility of the testimony of a
witness when the object has a clear relevance to the issue of the case.
CLARENCE TIU
135 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

An object evidence, when offered in accordance with the requisites for its admissibility, becomes evidence of the
highest order and speaks more eloquently than witnesses put together.
AUTHENTICATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

Remember that object evidence also includes demonstrative evidence
1. Photographs
Photographs of persons, things and places, when instructive to the understanding of the case, will be admitted in
evidence.
For a still photograph to be admitted, the same must be relevant and competent.
How to authenticate?
It is competent when it is properly authenticated by a witness who is familiar with the scene or person portrayed,
and who testifies that the photograph faithfully represents what it depicts.
Some courts insist on requiring the photographer to testify but this view has been eroded by the tendency of
modern courts to admit as a witness one who has familiarity with the scene portrayed
Under the Electronic Rules of Evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 11), photographic evidence of events, acts or transactions
shall be admissible in evidence provided that:

1. It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the court; and
2. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by either:
The person who made the recording; or
i.
ii. Any other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof
The admissibility of photographs is within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling in this respect will not be
interfered with, except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.

In determining whether photographs should be admitted, a trial judge must determine whether they are relevant,
and whether a proper foundation has been laid

b. Motion pictures and recordings
Courts have taken judicial notice of how motion cameras and tape recorders work and their general reliability
and prevalent use. Court practices regarding motion pictures and tape recordings have been liberalized and the
testimony of a person present when the activities of taking the picture and recording have been held sufficient.
He must testify that the motion picture accurately and faithfully represents the place or person it purports to
portray.
In the case of tape recordings, the witness should identify the speakers, state how he recognizes their voices
and that the recording was not taken in violation of the Anti Wire-Tapping Law (R.A. 4200).
The modern approach to motion pictures and recordings is reflected in local rules. Under the Rules on
Electronic Evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 11), the authentication process need not involve the person who actually
made the recording. It can be done by some other person as long as he can testify as to its accuracy.
There is also a requirement that the recording be shown, presented or displayed to the court
c. Diagrams, models and maps
These types of demonstrative evidence are presented to indicate the relative locations or positions of objects and
persons.
Aside from the requirement of relevance, a diagram, model or map must be identified by a witness who is
familiar with what the evidence depicts, and that the same is an accurate representation of the scene it
portrays.
Like any other exhibit, the touchstone for admissibility of maps, diagrams and models is the ability of the witness
to authenticate the exhibit.

Some courts may require that the model, diagram or map be made or drawn to scale. If not drawn to scale, the
court must be so informed.

The question as to the sufficiency of the authentication is a matter of judicial discretion
d. X-ray pictures
X-ray pictures, also referred to as skiagraphs or radiographs, are admissible when shown to have been made
under circumstances as to assure their accuracy and relevancy to a material issue in the case.
Authenticated x-rays are normally involved in personal injury cases to show the location and extent of the injury.
X-rays are properly authenticated by the x-ray technician or the physician who testifies to the competence of the
person taking it, the procedure taken and that the x-ray picture shown is that of the person, the anatomical part
or the object involved in the case
CLARENCE TIU
136 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Because the science of taking x-ray pictures is now well-founded and generally recognized, almost all courts no
longer require testimony as to the reliability of an x-ray machine
e. Drug paraphernalia
This has specific rules for authentication, the chain of custody must be established
See chapter on special rules of evidence; rules on chain of custody in drug cases
DNA evidence
f.
This also has specific rules for authentication.
See chapter on special rules of evidence; rules on DNA evidence
AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

KINDS OF DOCUMENTS; PRESENTING PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
Section 19. Classes of Documents. For the purpose of their in presentation evidence, documents are either
public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The 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;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein. All
other writings are private. (20a)
MEANING OF A DOCUMENT
Remember the definition of a document or documentary evidence in Rule 130

A document as a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set
forth
For documents to be considered as documentary evidence, it must be offered as proof of their contents (Sec. 2,
Rule 130)
If the document is not offered for that purpose, the document is a mere object evidence as when the purpose is
merely to prove its existence.
Hence, not every document is to be received as a documentary evidence.
KINDS OF DOCUMENTS
RULE: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR IN PRESENTATION EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS ARE EITHER:
1. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
These are:
The 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
These refer to both the Philippines and to foreign countries
b. Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments
Note that last wills and testaments are private documents even if notarized
Assumed to be included in this class of public documents are those acknowledged before an officer,
other than a notary public, authorized to administer oaths
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
Note that the public document does not refer to the private document itself but the public record of that
private document
a.
2.
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Documents which are not public documents are private documents
IMPORTANCE OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence
in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged
CLARENCE TIU
137 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or
because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further
authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document is any other writing,
deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized
by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public
document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed
by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. (Patula v. People 2012)
PROOF OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

Section 24. Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section
19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested
by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not
kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is
kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)
Section 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)
Section 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)
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as
provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being
prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (31a)
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the
date of the latter. (24a)
Section 27. Public record of a private document. An authorized public record of a private document may be
proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a)
Section 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 office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence
that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (29)
AUTHENTICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
RULE: PUBLIC DOCUMENTS NEED NOT BE AUTHENTICATED. THEY ARE PRIMA FACIE PRESUMED TO BE GENUINE,
AUTHENTIC AND DULY EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES THERETO
1.
2.
They are said to be self-authenticating documents. There is no need to prove its authenticity and due execution.
OFFICIAL ACTS OR RECORDS OF SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY

NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS
CLARENCE TIU
138 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
3.

The certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or
document involved and may be presented in evidence without further proof (Sec. 30, Rule 132)
Notarial documents also fall under the classification in Sec. 23 of all other public documents
The phrase all other public documents in the second sentence of Sec. 23 means those public documents other
than the entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer. And these include
notarial documents. (Siguan vs Lim 1999)
Sec. 23 provides that the facts stated therein constitute evidence of:
a. The facts that gave rise to the execution of such documents and
b. The date of the execution of the same.
The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due
execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document the force of evidence.
Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to
the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents
to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed before a notary public and appended to a private instrument. (Lazaro vs Agustin
2010)
The notarial seal converts a document from a private to a public instrument, after which it may be presented as
evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution (Maria v. Cortez)
Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one and renders it admissible in court
without further proof of its authenticity. It is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. However, the irregular
notarization or lack of notarization does not necessarily affect the validity of the contract reflected in the
document (Bangayan v. RCBC 2011)
It is well settled that a document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that enjoys the
presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive
presumption of its existence and due execution. To overcome this presumption, there must be presented
evidence that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld. In addition, one
who denies the due execution of a deed where ones signature appears has the burden of proving that contrary
to the recital in the jurat, one never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be a
voluntary act. Denials without clear and convincing evidence to support the claim of fraud and falsity are not
sufficient to overthrow the above-mentioned presumption (Spouses Santos v. Spouses Lumbao)
The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes they will discharge their several trusts
with accuracy and fidelity; and, therefore, whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in
evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each
case may appear to require. A notary public is sometimes spoken of as a public officer. He is an officer known to
the Law of Nations; hence his official acts receive credence, not only in his own country, but in all others in
which they are used as instruments of evidence. All documents acknowledged by a notary public and certified to
by him are considered public documents in this jurisdiction. The principal function of notary public is to
authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies the due execution and delivery of a document under his
hand and seal he thereby gives such a document the force of evidence. Thus, the SC held that every instrument
conveying or affecting real property situated in the Philippine Islands, acknowledged or proved and certified as
provided by law prevailing in the Philippine Islands, may, together with the certificate of the acknowledgment or
proof, be read in evidence in an action or proceeding without further proof. One of the very purposes of requiring
documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the
execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given in evidence without further
proof of their execution and delivery. (Antillon vs Barcelon)
Note that it must at least be acknowledged by the notary, a mere jurat is NOT enough
Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not
automatically become a public document just because it contains a notarial jurat. (Lazaro vs Agustin 2010)
ENTRIES IN PUBLIC RECORDS
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (Sec. 23, Rule 132)
The Certificate of Identification of Dead Body being a public record made in the performance of a duty of officers
in the Medico-Legal Office of the NBI is governed by Rule 132, Sections 19 and 23 of the Rules of Court thus
the entries therein are deemed prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein (Suerte-Felipe vs People 2008)
CLARENCE TIU
139 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF GENUINENESSS
The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the
notarization was regular. While notarized document enjoys this presumption, the fact that a deed is notarized is not a
guarantee of the validity of its contents. The presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case,the presumption cannot be made to apply to because the regularity
in the execution of the sworn statement was challenged in the proceedings below where its prima facie validity was
overthrown by the highly questionable circumstances under which it was supposedly executed, as well as the
testimonies of witnesses who testified on the improbability of execution of the sworn statement, as well as on the
physical condition of the signatory, at the time the questioned document was supposedly executed. Although the
questioned sworn statement is a public document having in its favor the presumption of regularity, such presumption
was adequately refuted by competent witnesses. (Lazaro vs Agustin 2010)
HOW TO PRESENT AND PROVE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE
While public documents are presumed to be genuine, authentic and duly executed, they still need to be presented and
proved in accordance with the rules
1.
PROOF OF OFFICIAL ACTS OF SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY (SEC. 24, 25 & 26, RULE 132)
These are the 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
While a public document does not require the authentication imposed upon a private document, there is a necessity
for showing to the court that indeed a record of the official acts of official bodies, tribunals or of public officers
exists.
The record of a public document may be evidenced by:
a. An official publication thereof; or
b. By a copy of the document attested by the officer having legal custody of the record or by the attestation of
his deputy. (Sec. 24, Rule 132) Such attestation must:
State, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
i.
may be.
ii. 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 (Sec. 25, Rule 132)
What if the record is not kept in the Philippines?
The attestation must be:
a. Accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody, 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,
b. Authenticated by the seal of his office (Sec. 24, Rule 132)
This rule applies to authentication of foreign judgments. Such is given presumptive evidentiary value, but the
document must first be presented and admitted in evidence.

A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself.
Indeed, the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or
record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country.
The certificate and attestation are required because of the general rule on the irremovability of public
records
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. (Sec. 26, Rule 132)
PROOF OF NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS (SEC. 30, 23 RULE 132)
2.
These are documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments
It is proved and presented like any other document but with the certificate of acknowledgement
PROOF OF ENTRIES IN PUBLIC RECORDS (SEC. 23, 27, & 28, RULE 132)
3.
These are public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein
A public record of a private document may be proved by any of the following:
a. The original record; or
b. A copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has
the custody (Sec. 27, Rule 132)
How to prove the absence of a record?
The lack of record of a document must be proved by the following documents:
a. Written statement signed by the officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy; and
CLARENCE TIU
140 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

It must contain the following matters:
There has been a diligent search of the record;
i.
ii. That despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of
his office. (Sec. 28, Rule 132)
b. Certificate that such officer has the custody of official records. (Sec. 28, Rule 132)
Church Registries are NOT public registries
It is well-settled that church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made subsequent to the promulgation of
General Orders No. 68, promulgated on December 18, 1889, and the passage of Act No. 190, enacted on
August 7, 1901, 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 accordance
with the Rules of Evidence (Llemos v. Llemos)
Certifications alone without the copies are NOT sufficient

In this case, the documents presented by respondents were mere certifications and not the certified copies or
duly authenticated reproductions of the purported death certificates. While duly-registered death certificate is
considered a public document and the entries found therein are presumed correct, the certifications are not the
public documents referred to by the Rules of Court, nor even records of public documents; thus, they do not
enjoy the presumption granted by the Rules.(Delfin v. Billones 2006)
Complete Definition
Official
Acts of
Sovereign
Authority
The 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 (Sec. 19, Rule
132)
Notarized
Documents
Documents acknowledged
before a notary public except
last wills and testaments
(Sec. 19, Rule 132)
Prima Facie Evidence of What

1.
2.
It is prima facie evidence of the

execution of the instrument or
document involved (Sec. 30, Rule
132)
As under other public documents in
Sec. 23, the facts stated therein
constitute evidence of:
1. The facts that gave rise to the
execution of such documents
and
2. The date of the execution of the
same
Entires in
Public
Records
How to Prove and Present
Public records, kept in the

Philippines, of private
documents required by law to
be entered therein (Sec. 19,
Rule 132)
Prima facie evidence of the facts

therein stated. (Sec. 23, Rule 132)
An official publication thereof;

or
By a copy of the document
attested by the officer having
legal custody of the record or
by the attestation of his
deputy. (Sec. 24, Rule 132)
It is proved and presented like

any other document but it must be
with the certificate of
acknowledgement, except that it
need not be authenticated
anymore
1.
2.
The original record; or

A copy thereof, attested by
the legal custodian of the
record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer
has the custody (Sec. 27,
Rule 132)
CONTRACTS WHICH ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
This can either be under notarized documents or those registered in a public record
Where a contract is required by law to be registered, the same must be, as a rule, in a public instrument.
For example, for purposes of registration and convenience, acts and contracts which have for their object the
creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property must appear in a
public instrument (Art. 1358, NCC).
CLARENCE TIU
141 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Certain contracts must be embodied in a public instrument in order to be valid (Solemn Contracts). Such as:
1. A donation of an immovable (Art. 749, NCC)
2. A donation of a movable with a value exceeding five thousand pesos (Art. 748, NCC)
3. A partnership where immovable property or real rights are contributed (Art. 1771, NCC)
AUTHENTICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

Section 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) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By 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. (21a)
Section 32. Seal. There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as
their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. Where a private document is
more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and
is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be
given. (22a)
RULE 129: What need not be proved
Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)
RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
SECTION 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under
oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath
does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance
with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a)
WHEN AUTHENTICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS IS REQUIRED
RULE: WHERE THE PRIVATE DOCUMENT IS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE AS AUTHENTIC, THERE IS A NEED TO PROVE ITS
DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY.
Thus, if the document or writing is not offered as authentic, it only needs to be identified as that which it is claimed
to be, no need for authentication
Where the document is offered in evidence not as authentic, its genuineness and due execution need not be proven
as when the only purpose is for the offeror to show that a certain piece of document exists.
Example: When a witness says: I found this document in the drawer of my table, the document only needs
identification and not authentication. But when the witness wants to show that the deed was indeed executed by his
brother, it must be authenticated
Note that there is no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as
evidence is concerned. (Sec. 32, Rule 132)
MANNER OF AUTHENTICATING PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Remember, the manner of authenticating a document, required by Sec. 20 of Rule 132, applies only when a private
document is offered as authentic as when it is offered to prove that the document was truly executed by the person
purported to have made the same.
CLARENCE TIU
142 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE: FOR A PRIVATE DOCUMENT TO BE AUTHENTICATED, ITS DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY MUST BE PROVED
EITHER BY:
Anyone who saw the document executed or written
Here reliance is placed on the personal knowledge of a witness.
The witness attests to the genuineness of the document because it was executed or signed in his presence, that
he personally witnessed the execution or writing of the document.
2. Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
This does not require that the document be executed in the presence of the witness.
Here, the witness testifies or shows evidence that the signature or handwriting of the maker is genuine
This will be discussed later in Sec. 22, authentication of handwritings and signatures
3. Subscribing witnesses
1.
MANNER OF AUTHENTICATING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
The person offering the document has the burden to prove its authenticity. The rules also provide the manner of
authentication of an electronic document.
Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by
any of the following means (Sec. 2, Rule 5, Rules of Electronic Evidence):
1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
2. 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
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge
WHEN AUTHENTICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS, OFFERED AS AUTHENTIC, IS NOT REQUIRED
These are basically the exceptions to the rule on authentication, requiring proof of the genuineness and due execution
of a private document, in Sec. 20
1.
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS (SEC. 21, RULE 132)
2.
Requisites:
a. The private document is more than thirty (30) years old,
b. It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and
c. Unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
In this case, a witness is still required, but not for the purpose of authentication, only for the purpose of identification
and showing that it complies with the requisites of an ancient document
The testimony will only be for the purpose of identifying the document and not to prove its authenticity.
In this case, as to the requirement that the document must on its face appear to be genuine and unblemished,
petitioners did not present any conclusive evidence to support their allegation of falsification of the said documents.
They merely alluded to the fact that the lack of signatures on the first two (2) pages could have easily led to their
substitution. Moreover, the last requirement of the "ancient document rule" that a document must be unblemished
by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion refers to the extrinsic quality of the document itself. The
lack of signatures on the first pages, therefore, absent any alterations or circumstances of suspicion cannot be held
to detract from the fact that the documents in question, which were certified as copied of the originals on file with
the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, are genuine and free from any blemish or circumstances of suspicion. (Heirs
of Lacsa vs CA 1991)
WHEN THE AUTHENTICITY OF A DOCUMENT HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY ADMITTED (SEC. 4, RULE 129; SEC. 8, RULE 8)
This pertains to judicial admissions under Sec. 4, Rule 129

Either because:
a. Express Judicial Admission (Sec. 4, Rule 129)
This is when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted under Sec. 4 of Rule
129
An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does
not require proof
b. Implied Judicial Admission (Sec. 8, Rule 8 in relation to Sec. 4, Rule 129)
When the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically denied under
oath by the adverse party under Sec. 8 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
This is when an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument
If he fails to specifically deny them under oath and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, it amounts to a
judicial admission because it is made in the course of the procedings
CLARENCE TIU
143 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
3.

But note the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a
party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused.
WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS NOT BEING OFFERED AS GENUINE OR AUTHENTIC
Note that Sec. 20 says that the private document must be offered as authentic for the rules on authentication to
apply.
WILLS AS PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Last wills and testaments must undergo an authentication process even if they are notarized in accordance with Art.
806 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
While the rules provide that public document includes one acknowledged before a notary public, nevertheless
expressly excludes last wills and testaments. (Sec. 19[b], Rule 132)
Substantive law provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless proved and allowed in the
proper court (Art. 838, Civil Code of the Philippines). The same substantive rule is echoed in Sec. 1 of Rule 75 which
provides: No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court.
Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution
Specpro na ito, probate of wills
AUTHENTICATION OF HANDWRITINGS AND SIGNATURES

*Very important rule!
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a)
RULE: THE GENUINENESS OF A HANDWRITING OR SIGNATURE MAY BE PROVED OR DISPROVED BY:
The genuineness may not only be proved but it maybe also be disproved by these modes (as seen in Mariano vs
Roxas 2002)
A WITNESS WHO HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE HANDWRITING OF A PERSON
1.
This is either because:

a. He has seen the person write
b. He has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person; or
This knowledge could be obtained either by (Security Bank vs Triumph 1999):
a. Seeing the person write some other documents or signatures(ex visu scriptionis);
b. Seeing documents otherwise known to him to have been written by the person in question(ex scriptis olim
visis);or
c. Examining, in or out ofcourt, for the express purpose of obtaining such knowledge, the documents said to
have been written by the person in question(ex comparatione scriptorum)
MAKING A COMPARISON BY A WITNESS OR THE COURT, BETWEEN THE ALLEGED HANDWRITING AND A SAMPLE
2.
SPECIMEN
This is 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
It may be made by an ordinary witness, or an expert witness, or even the court itself
Expert testimony is NOT necessary to prove the handwriting of a person.
Well-entrenched by now is the rule that resort to questioned document examiners, more familiarly called
handwriting experts, is not mandatory. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in
examining or comparing handwriting. (People v. Godoy 1995)
Note that the sample specimen must also be properly authenticated by a witness (unless its in a public
document?)
In this case, nobody was presented to prove that the specimen signatures were in fact signatures affixed by
the parties whose signature is purports to be (Security Bank vs Triumph 1999)
CLARENCE TIU
144 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
3.
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE REPUTED WRITER OF THE STANDARD HAS ACQUIESCED IN OR RECOGNIZED THE
SAME, OR THAT IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED AND ACTED UPON BY HIM IN HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OR OTHER
CONCERNS
This was provided for in Security Bank vs Triumph 1999 citing BA Finance vs CA
This is authentication by circumstantial evidence
Reply Letter Rule
If one writes to a company concerning a business matter, and receive in due course a reply to the letter,
purporting to be made through a manager, a superintendent, or other agent or officer whose department
such a matter would ordinarily lie, a presumption that he replied with authority of his principal would arise.
For this presumption to apply, it must be shown that the letter was written and mailed.
In this case, there was no need for introduction of evidence to authenticate the letter since the court relied
on the Reply Letter Rule. The genuineness of the signature and the authority of Schooler was held have
been proved circumstantially by the letterhead, the subject matter, by the fact that it was a reply to
Anstines letter and that it was done purportedly on behalf of McWilliams. (Anistine vs McWilliams 1945)
NOTE: The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and between the different means stated above in
proving the handwriting of a person. (Lopez vs CA 1978)
EXPLAINING ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT

Section 31. Alteration 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. He may show that the alteration was made by another, without his
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent
made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails
to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (32a)
RULE: THE PARTY PRODUCING THE DOCUMENT AS GENUINE BUT WHICH BEARS ALTERATIONS AFTER ITS EXECUTION
HAS THE DUTY TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY ALTERATION FOUND IN A DOCUMENT PURPORTED TO BE GENUINE. FOR SUCH
PURPOSE, HE MAY SHOW ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. That the alteration was made by another without his concurrence
2. That the alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it
3. That the alteration was otherwise properly or innocently made
4. That the alteration did not in anyway change the meaning or language of the instrument
Failure to do any of the above will make the document inadmissible in evidence
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS IN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE

Section 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)
Because the rule provides that a document written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, it must
be accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of court proceedings, attorneys are required to have such translation prepared before trial
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDICIAL RECORDS

Section 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, or (c) fraud in the party offering
the record, in respect to the proceedings. (30a)
CLARENCE TIU
145 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE: ANY JUDICIAL RECORD MAY BE IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF:

1. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
2. Collusion between the parties, or
3. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings
A judicial record refers to the record of judicial proceedings.
It does not only include official entries or files or the official acts of a judicial officer, but also the judgment of the court
CLARENCE TIU
146 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Section 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)
Section 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)
OFFER OF EVIDENCE VS PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
In actual practice, there is a difference between presentation or introduction of evidence and offer of such evidence at
the trial of a case. The presentation of evidence consists of putting in as evidence the testimony of the witnesses or the
documents relevant to the issue. An offer of evidence, on the other hand, means the statement made by counsel as to
what he expects to prove through the witness. This is what trial lawyers understand by the "offer of evidence." Thus,
"offer of evidence," as used in Section 34 of Rule 132 must be understood to include the presentation or introduction of
evidence. What is essential in order that an offer of testimony may be valid, therefore, is that the witness be called and
asked appropriate questions. (People v. Yap 1994)
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Consists of putting in as evidence the testimony of the

witnesses or the documents relevant to the issue.
This is the statement made by counsel as to what he

expects to prove through the witness.
NECESSITY AND IMPORTANCE OF OFFER OF EVIDENCE
RULE: AN EVIDENCE MUST BE FORMALLY OFFERED, OTHERWISE, THE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE
The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and judgment only
and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties (Aludos v. Suerte 2012).
Only after evidence is offered and admitted that the court can appreciate and properly evaluate it (Marquez v.
Sandiganbayan 2011)
In this case, the Court sustained the Court of Appeals which refused to consider a document submitted for the first
time by the petitioners when the same was attached to their motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court
of late court, the Supreme Court reiterated the rule in Sec. 34 of Rule 132 that the court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The document should have been offered during the trial in the Regional Trial
Court. (Spouses Tan v. Republic)
A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for identification; it must be
formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunity to object to it or cross-examine the witness called
upon to prove or identify it. A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To allow a party to attach any
document to his pleading and then expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted
consequences. The opposing party will be deprived of his chance to examine the document and object to its
admissibility. The appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court
below. The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court, on the inclusion on appeal of documentary evidence
or exhibits in the records, cannot be stretched as to include such pleadings or documents not offered at the hearing
of the case (Candido v. Court of Appeals)
The court considers the evidence only when it is formally offered. The offer of evidence is necessary because it is
the duty of the trial court to base its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly on the evidence offered by the
parties. A piece of document will remain a scrap of paper without probative value unless and until admitted by the
court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which it is offered. The formal offer of evidence allows the parties
CLARENCE TIU
147 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

the chance to object to the presentation of an evidence which may not be admissible for the purpose it is being
offered. (Laborte vs PTCC 2014)
EXCEPTIONS: IN THESE INSTANCES, EITHER NO OFFER IS REQUIRED OR THE SC HAS RELAXED THE RULE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If the evidence were properly identified by testimony duly recorded and incorporated in the records of the
case. (People v. Napat-a)
The SC merely relaxed the rule here
This really pertains to waiver of failure to object. This is true only when the failure to offer an evidence has been
objected to.
The failure to object to the omission of the prosecutor and the cross-examination of the witness by the adverse
party, taken together, constitute a waiver of the defect (People v. Libnao)

While under the Rules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered
In this case, evidence of the prosecution in a crime involving a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
were considered by the court even without their having been formally offered because the evidence were
properly identified by testimony duly recorded and incorporated in the records of the case. The counsel for the
accused also cross-examined the witnesses testifying on the evidence. (People v. Libnao)
Where the absence of an offer of a testimonial evidence was not objected to as when the witness was cross
examined by the adverse party despite failure of counsel to make an offer of the testimony of the witness, the
court must consider the testimony.
Exhibits repeatedly referred to in the course of the trial by the counsel of the accused (Laborte vs PTCC
2014)
The SC merely relaxed the rule here
In a summary proceeding, because it is a proceeding where there is no full-blown trial

Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of
Documents, affidavits and depositions used in rendering a summary judgment
Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or administrative cases (Bantolino v. Coca-Cola
Bottlers)
Lost objects previously marked, identified, described in the record, and testified to by witnesses who had
been subjects of cross-examination in respect to said objects (Tabuena v. CA)
WHEN OFFER OF EVIDENCE IS TO BE MADE
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Offer must be made at the time the witness is called to

testify.
Offer must be made after the presentation of a party's

testimonial evidence.
Note that the presentation of a documentary or object evidence for marking and identification during the course of the
trial is not the offer contemplated in the Rules. Failure to object to the evidence at this time should not be construed as
a waiver of the objection to the evidence.
The mere fact that a document is marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has thereby already been offered as part
of the evidence of a party (People v. Gecomo)
There is a distinction between identification of a documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. The first is
done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit, while the second is
done only when the party rests its case (Dizon v. Court of Tax Appeals)
A party is not deemed to have waived objection to admissibility of documents by his failure to object to the same when
they were marked, identified and then introduced during the trial, because objection to documentary evidence must be
made at the time it is formally offered and not earlier. (Macasiray v. People)
Testimonial evidence is formally offered by the calling of the witness to the stand.(Dans, Jr. vs People 1998)
HOW OFFER OF EVIDENCE IS MADE
RULE: WHEN A PARTY MAKES A FORMAL OFFER OF HIS EVIDENCE, HE MUST STATE THE NATURE OR SUBSTANCE OF
THE EVIDENCE, AND THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS OFFERED
Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.
The court can only consider the evidence solely for the purpose for which it is offered, not for any other purpose
(Spouses Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants Association)
CLARENCE TIU
148 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
OBJECTIONS
Section 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 unless a different
period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
Section 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)
PURPOSES OF OBJECTIONS
To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm to a clients cause. The rules of evidence are not selfoperating and, hence, must be invoked by way of an objection
To protect the record, i.e., to present the issue of inadmissibility of the offered evidence in a way that if the trial court
rules erroneously, the error can be relied upon as a ground for a future appeal
To protect a witness from being embarrassed on the stand or from being harassed by the adverse counsel
To expose the adversarys unfair tactics like his consistently asking obviously leading questions
To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors and, at the same time, warn the court that a ruling
adverse to the objector may supply a reason to invoke a higher courts appellate jurisdiction; and
To avoid a waiver of the inadmissibility of an otherwise inadmissible evidence.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
HOW OBJECTIONS IS MADE; GENERAL VS SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS
RULE: THE GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTIONS MUST BE SPECIFIED.
The objection must be specific.

An objection must point out the specific ground of the objection, and if it does not do so, no error is committed in
overruling it
Hence, an objector must be explicit as to the legal ground he invokes. He cannot simply manifest that he is
interposing an objection. He has to precisely state the exclusionary rule that would justify his opposition to the
proffered evidence.
Rule 132 does not tell us how specific an objection must be. Practical reasons, however, tell us that the objection
must be specific enough to adequately inform the court the rule of evidence or of substantive law that
authorizes the exclusion of the evidence.
Example: Objections like, question calls for a hearsay answer witness cannot testify on a privileged
communication the question calls for a conclusion the question is beyond the scope of the direct
examination impeachment is improper are specific enough for anyone to know the basis of the objection.
General objections are those which do not clearly indicate to the judge the ground upon which the objections
are predicated.
They assign no grounds to the objection. A general objection, in including everything, actually specifies nothing.
An objection that evidence is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial is ordinarily regarded in most jurisdictions, in
the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary , as not sufficiently definite to present any question for review
because it conveys neither to the court nor counsel any specific point of objection
The following examples are considered as general objections:
1. Objection, The evidence is incompetent!
2. Objection! Inadmissible!
3. Objection: Incompetent, Irrelevant, and Immaterial!
CLARENCE TIU
149 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

4. Objection: Improper!
While an objection that the evidence is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial is, by common wisdom, concededly
a general objection, some writers hold that an objection that the evidence is irrelevant may at times not be
general. This kind of objection states a distinct and substantial ground for exclusion. It is submitted that the
opinion is worth considering. Necessarily, when the evidence clearly is one which does not prove a fact in issue,
with no probative value and with no relationship to the fact in issue, or inadmissible for any purpose and no other
objection is possible, there is no other ground for the objection except to say that it is irrelevant. In such a
situation, this should be deemed as substantially the equivalent of a specific objection.
EXCEPTION: GENERAL OBJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED, IF THE GROUND ON WHICH IT IS BASED IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS
TO THE COURT
The rule is that a specific objection is always preferred over a general objection. This is not to say however, that a
general objection can never be allowed.
The rule on specificity is dictated largely by the need to allow the court to intelligently rule on the objection and give
the other party an opportunity to withdraw the evidence or correct an error in his presentation.
The rule however, does not impose a general or an absolute ban on general objections. There is no compelling
need to specify the ground, if the ground for exclusion should have been obvious to the judge or to counsel
There are cases where the incompetency of the evidence is so palpable that a mere general objection is deemed
sufficient, and where the portion of the evidence objected to is clearly pointed out, and its illegality is apparent on its
face, then the objection must be allowed
Objections based on irrelevancy and immateriality need no specification or explanation. Relevancy or materiality of
evidence is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in
the case. (Cruz-Arevalo v. Layosa 2006)
KINDS OF OBJECTIONS; FORMAL AND SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS
1.
FORMAL OBJECTIONS
2.
This is one directed against the alleged defect in the formulation of the question.
Examples: defectively-formulated questions: ambiguous questions; leading and misleading questions; repetitious
questions; multiple questions; argumentative questions.
SUBSTANTIAL OBJECTIONS
This is one made and directed against the very nature of the evidence, i.e., it is inadmissible either because it is
irrelevant or incompetent or both.
Examples: parol; not the best evidence; hearsay; privileged communication; not authenticated; opinion; res inter
alios acta.
WHEN OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE MADE
RULE: OBJECTIONS MUST BE TIMELY MADE, OTHERWISE, IT IS DEEMED WAIVED.
Aside from the requirement that an objection must state the specific ground relied upon, it is necessary that the
objection be timely.
In order to be timely therefore, the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity.
What the earliest opportunity is depends upon the manner the evidence is offered.
1. If the evidence is offered orally, objection to the evidence must be made immediately after the offer is made
(Sec. 36, par. 1, Rule 132)
2. An objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of the witness shall be made as
soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent (Sec. 36, par. 2, Rule 132).
3. 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 (Sec. 36, par. 3, Rule 132)
Any objection to evidence must be timely raised in the course of the proceedings in which the evidence is first
offered. This enables the adverse party to meet the objection to his evidence, as well as grants to the trial court the
opportunity to pass upon and rule on the objection. The objection to evidence cannot be made for the first time on
appeal, both because the party who has failed to timely object becomes estopped from raising the objection
afterwards; and because to assail the judgment of the lower court upon a cause as to which the lower court had no
opportunity to pass upon and rule is contrary to basic fairness and procedural orderliness (Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Nable 2012)
The rules, therefore, make the offer of evidence the frame of reference for a timely objection. Hence, it is to be
assumed that an objection to the evidence before it is offered, is premature and no adverse inference may be had
against a party who does not object to the evidence before it is offered.
CLARENCE TIU
150 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

What if the witness answers the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection?
If the objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be
stricken out of the record (Sec. 39, Rule 132)
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OBJECT OR FAILURE TO TIMELY OBJECT
RULE: THE FAILURE TO TIMELY OBJECT RESULTS IN THE WAIVER OF SUCH OBJECTIONS. WHAT IS WAIVED ARE
OBJECTIONS TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY
In plain language, the evidence becomes admissible but the waiver involves no admission that the evidence
possesses the weight attributed to it by the offering party.
A waiver should not be construed as an admission that the evidence is credible. It does not also mean that the nonobjecting party waives his right to present controverting evidence. It only involves waiver of objection to two
matters, namely, the relevance and the competence of the evidence. Because these are the components of
admissibility
It is a rule of evidence, that any objection against the admission of any piece of evidence must be made at the
proper time, and that, if not so made, it will be understood to have been waived.
The proper time to make a protest or an objection is when, from the question addressed to the witness, or from the
answer thereto, or from presentation of the proof, the inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may be inferred
The term waiver implies the existence of a right, claim, privilege or something one is entitled to. It is, by its nature, a
unilateral act. It need not however, be a positive act.
A waiver may result from failure to perform an act. When the claim, right, or privilege is abandoned, repudiated,
renounced or not asserted, there is a waiver.
Applied to objections, there is a waiver when there is failure to point out some defect, irregularity or wrong in the
admission or exclusion of evidence. Such failure may take various forms and may either be expressed or implied.
A party may by his acts or omissions, waive or be estopped to make objections to the admission or exclusion of the
evidence. Such waiver or estoppel may arise from failure to object from acts done or omitted before the evidence is
offered, as by failure to object to previous similar evidence or from some affirmative act done after the ruling on the
evidence
If no objection is made to an otherwise inadmissible evidence, the objection is deemed to have been waived by the
party upon whom making the objection is incumbent. A rule of evidence not invoked is waived. Thus, it is generally
held that a failure to object to evidence at the time it is offered, is a waiver of objections to its admissibility
A failure to assert an objection promptly and specifically is a waiver. Unless a timely and sufficient objection is made to
an evidence introduced, the reviewing court will not ordinarily consider the question of the propriety of the admission of
the evidence. It will not be considered on appeal because there is deemed to be a waiver.
Also, when inadmissible evidence is offered, the party against whom such evidence is offered consents to its
introduction, or fails to object, or insist upon a ruling on an objection to the introduction of such evidence, and otherwise
fails to raise the question of its admissibility, he is considered to have waived whatever objection he may have had
thereto, and the evidence is in the record for consideration, the same as other evidence
Failure to object to an evidence is a waiver of the objection. The right to object is merely a privilege which the party
may waive. For instance, even assuming ex gratia argumenti that certain documents are inadmissible for being
hearsay, the same may be admitted on account of failure to object thereto (Manliclic v. Calaunan)
Had appellants wanted the trial court to reject the evidence being introduced, they should have raised an objection
thereto. They cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.The right to object is a privilege which the party may
waive. It is not consistent with the ends of justice for a party, knowing of a supposed secret defect, to proceed and take
his chance for a favorable verdict, with the power and intent to annul it as erroneous if it should be against him.(People
vs Yap 1994)
STRIKING OUT AN ANSWER OR TESTIMONY

Section 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)
CLARENCE TIU
151 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE:
A MOTION TO STRIKE MAY BE AVAILED OF IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES:
1. When the answer is premature

2. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant, incompetent or otherwise improper
3. When the answer is unresponsive
4. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross- examination through no fault of the cross-examining party; or
5. when the testimony was allowed conditionally and the condition for its admissibility was not fulfilled
Sometimes, an apparently unobjectionable question brings out an objectionable and inadmissible response. But the
infirmity of the response becomes apparent only after it is completed. If the answer is damaging, then relief may be
obtained by a motion to strike.
RULING ON THE OBJECTION

Section 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)
Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course
of the examination of a witness that the question 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)
RULE: THE RULING OF THE COURT MUST BE GIVEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE OBJECTION IS MADE
If the court fails to rule on the objection, the same should be brought to the attention of the court.
Words like submitted or the objections are noted are, by common reason, not appropriate rulings and neither
sustains or overrules the objection. There is no need to stretch the rules of logic to deduce a ruling that the
evidence is admitted for whatever they may be worth or that the evidence is admitted subject to the objections
are not rulings on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence.
The ruling of the court sustaining or overruling the objection need not be stated except if the objection is based on
two or more grounds.
In such a case, a ruling sustaining the objection must specify the ground or grounds relied upon
EXCEPT: WHEN THE COURT DESIRES TO TAKE A REASONABLE TIME TO INFORM ITSELF ON THE QUESTION
PRESENTED.
However, the court must give its ruling during the trial and at such time as will give a party an opportunity to
meet the situation presented by the ruling
The ruling on an objection must be given immediately after an 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
situations presented by the ruling. (Cruz-Arevalo v. Layosa 2006)
KINDS OF RULINGS ON OBJECTIONS
1.
OBJECTION SUSTAINED
2.
When an objection to a question is sustained, the judge considers the question as improper and the witness will not
be allowed to answer the question.
This means the exclusion of a testimonial evidence.
OBJECTION OVERRULED
When the objection is overruled, this means that for the court, the question is proper and the witness will be allowed
to answer.
CLARENCE TIU
152 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
REPETITION OF OBJECTION
RULE: IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO REPEAT AN OBJECTION WHEN IT BECOMES REASONABLY APPARENT WHILE
THE WITNESS IS BEING EXAMINED, THAT HE IS ASKED QUESTIONS WHICH ARE OF THE SAME CLASS AS THOSE TO
WHICH AN OBJECTION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE, WHETHER SUCH OBJECTION WAS SUSTAINED OR OVERRULED.
Instead of repeating the objection, it is sufficient for the objection to be recorded as a continuing objection to such
class of objectionable questions
Thus, when questions calling for a hearsay answer are repetitiously asked by the adverse counsel, the recording of
a continuing objection to such questions would be in order after an initial objection had already been made.
TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE; OFFER OF PROOF

Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the
court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral,
the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony. (n)
RULE: IF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE ARE EXCLUDED BY THE COURT, THE OFFEROR MAY HAVE
THE SAME ATTACHED TO OR MADE PART OF THE RECORD.
The foregoing rule, called offer of proof in other jurisdictions, embodies the procedure for the tender of excluded
evidence.
Why make a tender of excluded evidence?
1. To allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary evidence and convince the trial judge
to permit the evidence or testimony.
2. Even if he is not convinced to reverse his earlier ruling, the tender is made to create and preserve a record for
appeal.
The rule is that evidence formally offered by a party may be admitted or excluded by the court. If a partys offered
documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may move or request that it be attached to form part of the record
of the case. If the excluded evidence is oral, he may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. These procedures are known as offer of
proof or tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If an adverse judgment is eventually
rendered against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of the excluded evidence.
The appellate court will better understand and appreciate the assignment of error if the evidence involved is
included in the record of the case. (Cruz-Arevalo v. Layosa 2006)
Example:
Assume that you have called your witness to the stand. He takes his oath and proceeds to testify. You are cer
tain your witness will pull through. He is sharp and respon- sive. His demeanor projects sincerity. Everything is
going on as planned. Then from the right end of the table screams the opposing counsel, Objection, Your
Honor! The objection comes unexpectedly. Before you could say a word the judge rules, Sustained! The ruling
feels like a laser-guided missile aimed straight at the heart of your clients case. You spring from your chair and
move to reconsider the ruling. Motion denied, the judge again rules.
You did not prepare for this scenario. You thought everything has been planned. You came to court with an
armload of copies of the latest jurisprudence on your case, bound and carefully tabbed, to reveal to the court the
gems of wisdom you will hurl against the enemy seated at the other end of the table. Your supposedly welloiled examination is now sputtering like a badly tuned engine. Your witness has been stopped right on his
tracks. But you are not rattled. Instead, you are seething with anger. You want to kick the table in front of you.
You cannot get a critical testimony heard by the judge who just declared with finality that he refuses to hear from
your witness. You are certain the judge is in error. You are determined to turn it around in case you cannot save
your client from the mistake of the trial court.
A situation like the one just described is not infrequent and does occur when you least expect it. It happens to all
of us. This is not a heartbreaking episode in your legal career. It is not a reason to throw in the towel. You do not
have to feel the horror of failing to figure out the right remedy. This is not a problem at all. As we usually say,
This is a piece of cake. Peanuts. Chicken feed. Childs play. Indeed it is. Calm down. This is not panic time.
So what do you do if you are the victim of an objection sustained by the trial court or of a motion to strike
granted on a testimony that is crucial to your cause of action or defense? You should make a tender of
excluded evidence.
CLARENCE TIU
153 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Assume that you have called your witness to the stand. He takes his oath and proceeds to testify. You are certain your witness will pull through. He is sharp and respon- sive. His demeanor projects sincerity. Everything is
going on as planned. Then from the right end of the table screams the opposing counsel, Objection, Your
Honor! The objection comes unexpectedly. Before you could say a word the judge rules, Sustained! The ruling
feels like a laser-guided missile aimed straight at the heart of your clients case. You spring from your chair and
move to reconsider the ruling. Motion denied, the judge again rules.
You did not prepare for this scenario. You thought everything has been planned. You came to court with an
armload of copies of the latest jurisprudence on your case, bound and carefully tabbed, to reveal to the court the
gems of wisdom you will hurl against the enemy seated at the other end of the table. Your supposedly welloiled examination is now sputtering like a badly tuned engine. Your witness has been stopped right on his
tracks. But you are not rattled. Instead, you are seething with anger. You want to kick the table in front of you.
You cannot get a critical testimony heard by the judge who just declared with finality that he refuses to hear from
your witness. You are certain the judge is in error. You are determined to turn it around in case you cannot save
your client from the mistake of the trial court.
A situation like the one just described is not infrequent and does occur when you least expect it. It happens to all
of us. This is not a heartbreaking episode in your legal career. It is not a reason to throw in the towel. You do not
have to feel the horror of failing to figure out the right remedy. This is not a problem at all. As we usually say,
This is a piece of cake. Peanuts. Chicken feed. Childs play. Indeed it is. Calm down. This is not panic time.
So what do you do if you are the victim of an objection sustained by the trial court or of a motion to strike
granted on a testimony that is crucial to your cause of action or defense? You should make a tender of
excluded evidence.
MANNER OF MAKING THE TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
The procedure depends upon the type of evidence excluded.
1.
WHERE THE EVIDENCE INVOLVED IS DOCUMENTARY OR OBJECT EVIDENCE
2.
The tender is made by having the document or object attached to or made part of the record
Even if the rules do not spell out the details on how this should be done, it is a common practice in almost all
jurisdictions, for the offering counsel to produce, describe, identify the object or document, and in case of the latter,
to state the contents of the document that is sought to be admitted where the substance of the same is not apparent
on its face. Reading the substance of the document is an accepted way of stating its contents for the record in
states which recognize a tender. A disclosure of the contents of the document is necessary in order to aid the court
in determining its competence and relevance.
The next step is to state the purpose for which the object or document sought to be attached is offered, and to ask
that it be marked for identification and have it attached to the record.
Example: Counsel may state after manifesting to make a tender of excluded evidence: Your Honor, this document
is a deed of sale executed between the plaintiff and defendant on such and such date in the presence of both the
town mayor and vice-mayor who signed the deed as witnesses, and notarized before Notary Public so and so. The
document reads: (Counsel reads the document). With this document, we intend to prove that the defendant bought
the parcel of land herein described prior to taking possession of the property as owner on such and such date. We
request that this document be marked and attached to and form part of the records of this case.
IF THE EVIDENCE EXCLUDED IS ORAL/TESTIMONIAL
The offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance
of the proposed testimony.
There are two traditional methods of making the tender:
a. Where the counsel tells the court what the proposed testimony will be. This is the method prescribed in the
Rules of Court. After stating for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness, counsel
b. By using the question and answer form
The first method has the advantage of brevity and efficiency but it does not create as clear a record as the second
method. Whichever method is to be used lies in the discretion of the trial court.
The court may prefer the second method which although not described in the rules, is not prohibited. In fact, the use
of the first method is not mandatory. This is evident from the use of the word may instead of shall in Sec. 40 of Rule
132.
Whichever method of tender is used, the advocate must see to it that the offer must be specific enough to contain
the facts and circumstances of the matter sought to be proved by the excluded evidence.
The tender is not meant to be a mere manifestation to the court in mere general terms.
It must not be in the form of conclusions of fact such as, If permitted to pursue this line of questioning, Your
Honor, the witness will testify that he is not a trespasser.

The offer must make reference to the details of the excluded testimony or excluded document.
CLARENCE TIU
154 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

An erroneous way of making an offer of excluded testimony is to make a mere general offer of proof (tender of
excluded evidence) without producing the witness or stating the evidence whereby the fact in issue is to be proved
May an objection be interposed to the manner of tender of excluded evidence?
The rules are silent on the issue.
However, there is no cogent reason to disallow the objection. If the document tendered is not described or
identified, its substance stated in vague and general terms or when the purpose for which it is offered is not
declared, then the evidence has to be objected to.
If the testimony tendered is in the form of a conclusion and thus, fails to disclose sufficient information to enable
the court and the other party to determine its admissibility, the same may likewise be the target of an objection.
To have a contrary rule and confer immunity from objection to such type of evidence would be to grant a favored
status to evidence initially excluded by the trial court.
FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE VS OFFER OF PROOF
Formal offer of evidence refers either to the offer of the testimony of a witness prior to the latters testimony, or the
offer of the documentary and object evidence after a party has presented his testimonial evidence.
Offer of proof is the process by which a proponent of an excluded evidence tenders the same. If what has been
excluded is testimonial evidence, the tender is made by stating for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the proposed witness and the substance of his proposed testimony. If the evidence excluded is
documentary or of things, the offer of proof is made by having the same attached to or made a part of the record.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AFTER CASE IS RESTED
The Rules of Court does not prohibit a party from requesting the court to allow it to present additional evidence even
after it has rested its case (Republic v. Sandiganbayan 2011)
CLARENCE TIU
155 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN GENERAL
*Recall Rule 131 on the Burden of Proof, Rule 133 pertains to the amount or quantum of evidence or degree of proof
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED BY LAW OR THE RULES TO BE PRESENTED IN A PARTICULAR CASE TO
OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE RULING
This is what is to be achieved as the party carries the burden of proof.

Such as:
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt (Rule 133, Sec. 2)
2. Preponderance of evidence (Rule 133, Sec. 1)
3. Substantial evidence (Rule 133, Sec. 5)
4. Clear and convincing evidence (Jurisprudence)
BURDEN OF PROOF
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
Rule 131
Rule 133
It 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 (Rule 131, Sec. 1)
It is the amount of evidence required by law or the rules to

be presented in a particular case to obtain a favourable
ruling
Determined by the pleadings of the parties in relation to

the rules
Determine by law or by the rules
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES; PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having 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 there 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)
RULE: IN CIVIL CASES, THE PARTY HAVING BURDEN OF PROOF MUST ESTABLISH HIS CASE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE.
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible
evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto
(Chua v. Westmont Bank 2012)
It means the greater or superior weight of evidence. It is the evidence that is more convincing and more credible
than the one offered by the adverse party. It means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to
that of the other (Republic v. Sandiganbayan)
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater
weight than that of the other (Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer)
It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto (Republic v. Bautista)
In determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following:
1. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
CLARENCE TIU
156 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
2.
3.
4.

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;
The witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately
appear in the trial;
The number of witnesses, although it does mean that the preponderance is necessarily with the greater number
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES; PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Section 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, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)
Section 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)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (5)
RULE: 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, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof that excludes all possibility of error. Only
moral certainty is required (People v. Sevilleno)

What is reasonable doubt?
Reasonable doubt does not refer to any doubt or a mere possible doubt because everything in human
experience is subject to possible doubt. Reasonable doubt is that state of the case which, after a comparison of
all the evidence, does not lead the judge to have in his mind, a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. Where
there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, there must be an acquittal (People v. Calma)
Correlate this degree of proof with the Presumption of Innocence
It is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution
In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused lies with the prosecution because of the
presumption that the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven (Sec. 14[2], Art. Ill, Bill of Rights,
Philippine Constitution).
The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by
procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that the accused is guilty of the offense
charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the
prosecutions evidence and not on the weakness of the defense (People v. Maraorao 2012)
An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the
due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond
reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. (People v. Ganguso)
Where the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus probandi for a pronouncement of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused will result in acquittal In
an acquittal, an accused is set free not necessarily because he did not commit the offense but, more likely than
not, because the exacting proof for conviction may not have been met. A person is presumed innocent of a
crime unless his guilt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus, an acquittal does not always mean
that the defense evidence is given full credence, but, rather that the prosecution has failed to overcome the
presumption of innocence. (People vs Coderes 2003)
CLARENCE TIU
157 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EQUIPOISE RULE; EQUIPONDERANCE DOCTRINE
RULE: WHERE THE EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS EVENLY BALANCED, THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE TILTS THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED, THUS HE MUST BE ACQUITTED.
The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there is doubt on which
side the evidence preponderates or weighs more heavily. In this case the decision should be against the party with
the burden of proof. Hence, where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the evidence does not suggest that the
scale of justice should weigh in his favor, the court should render a verdict for the defendant (Rivera v. CA)
The equipoise doctrine is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law (Sec. 1, Art. Ill, Constitution of the Philippines).
Thus, where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction (People v. Saturno).
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an
accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the
defense. The rule is invariable whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence
unless and until the contrary is proved. In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the
balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right (Malillin v. People)
The Court has consistently held that it is better to acquit ten guilty individuals than to convict one innocent person.
Every circumstance against guilt and in favor of innocence must be considered. Where the evidence admits of two
interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, and the other with innocence, the accused must be given the
benefit of the doubt and should be acquitted. While it is possible that the accused has committed the crime, there is
also the possibility, based on the evidence presented, that he has not. He should be deemed to have not where
there is a failure to meet the test of moral certainty. (Ubales v. People)
In a criminal case, every circumstance or evidence favoring a mans innocence must be taken into account. If the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with
innocence and the other with guilt, then the evidence does not pass the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient
to support a conviction. Thus, the presumption of innocence founded on the basic principle of justice as embodied
in our Constitution prevails in the present case.(People vs Coderes 2003)
Equipoise Rule as applied in Labor Cases
In labor cases, if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and employee, the scales of justice
must be tilted in favor of the latter (Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana)
It is a time-honored rule that, in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the
evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the formers favor. The policy is to
extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor (Nicario v. NLRC)
ENGLISH EXCHEQUER RULE
Appellant cannot hope to exculpate himself simply because the trial judge violated the rule on res inter alios acta when
he considered his involvement in previous shooting incidents. This stance is a specie of a mid-1800 rule known as the
English Exchequer Rule pursuant to which "a trial court's error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to
have caused prejudice and therefore, almost automatically required a new trial." The Exchequer rule has long
been laid to rest for even English appellate courts now disregard an error in the admission of evidence "unless
in its opinion, some substantial wrong or miscarriage (of justice) has been occasioned." American courts
adopted this approach especially after the enactment of a 1915 federal statute which required a federal appellate court
to "give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors,
defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties." We have likewise followed the
harmless error rule in our jurisdiction. In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its
damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant,
we disregard the error as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the
prejudiced party. (People vs Teehankee 1995)
SUFFICIENCY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS AS BASIS FOR CONVICTION
Remember the rules on judicial and extra-judicial admissions and confessions back in Rule 130
RULE: AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION, TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION, IT
MUST BE CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE OF THE CORPUS DELICTI
CLARENCE TIU
158 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Remember that while an extrajudicial confession will not be sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti, a judicial confession will support conviction without proof of corpus delicti independent of
the judicial confession
Note that what must be corroborated is theextrajudicial confessionand not the testimony of the person to whom the
confession is made, and the corroborative evidence required is not the testimony of another person who heard the
confession but the evidence ofcorpus delicti. (People vs Lorenzo 1995)
Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court does not mean that every element of the crime charged must be
clearly established by independent evidence apart from the confession. It means merely that there should
be some evidence tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the confession. Otherwise, the
utility of the confession as a species of proof would vanish if it were necessary, in addition to the confession, to
adduce other evidence sufficient to justify conviction independently of such confession. Otherwise stated, the other
evidence need not, independently of the confession, establish thecorpus delictibeyond a reasonable doubt (People
vs Lorenzo 1995)
Sec. 3, Rule 133, merely requires that there should be some other evidence "tendingto show the commission of
the crime apart from the confession. (People vs Base 2000)
CORPUS DELICTI
CORPUS DELICTI IS THE BODY OF THE CRIME OR THE OFFENSE. IT REFERS TO THE FACT OF THE COMMISSION OF
Corpus delicti in its legal sense refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not to the physical body of the
deceased or to the ashes of a burned building or -- as in the present case -- to the smuggled cigarettes. (Rimorin vs
People 2003)
Strictly speaking, it means the actual commission of the crime and someone criminally responsible therefor
It is the substance of the crime; the fact that a crime has actually been committed
Elements of the Corpus delicti
1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event
For example, that a man has died or a building has been burned
2. Some persons criminal responsibility for the act
THE CRIME
PROOF OF THE CORPUS DELICTI
What proof is required to prove the corpus delicti?
RULE: CORPUS DELICTI, AND ALL THE ELEMENTS THEREOF, MAY BE PROVED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
What is circumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an
inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established. When the evidence is circumstantial, a fact
is established by making an inference from a previously established fact.
But such proof must be convincing and compatible with the nature of the case
The testimony of a single person, if credible and positive and if it satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.In determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are
to be weighed, not numbered (People vs Lorenzo 1995)
The corpus delicti may be proven by the credible testimony of a sole witness, not necessarily by physical
evidence. (Rimorin vs People 2003)
At any rate, an extrajudicial confession forms but a prima facie case against the party by whom it is made. Such
confessions are not conclusive proof of that which they state; it may be proved that they were uttered in ignorance,
or levity, or mistake; and hence, they are, at best, to be regarded as only cumulative proof which affords but a
precarious support and on which, when uncorroborated, a verdict cannot be permitted to rest. In the cases cited by
the trial court, the convictions were based on circumstantial evidence in addition to the appellants
confessions, or the extrajudicial confessions were reduced to writing and were replete with details which
only appellants could have supplied. In the case at bar, however, there was no circumstantial evidence to
corroborate the extrajudicial confession of appellant. More importantly, the said confession does not contain details
which could have only been known to appellant. Indeed, an extrajudicial confession will not support a
conviction where it is uncorroborated. There must be such corroboration that, when considered in
connection with confession, will show the guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial
evidence may be sufficient corroboration of a confession. It is not necessary that the supplementary evidence
be entirely free from variance with the extrajudicial confession, or that it show the place of offense or the
defendants identity or criminal agency. All facts and circumstances attending the particular offense charged are
admissible to corroborate extrajudicial confession. (People vs Satorre 2003)
CLARENCE TIU
159 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
SUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS BASIS FOR CONVICTION
RULE: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION IF:
1. There is more than one circumstances

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
4. It excludes the possibility that some other person has committed the crime (jurisprudence)
It is a settled rule that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, and that direct evidence is not
always necessary. This is but a recognition of the reality that in certain instances, due to the inherent attempt to
conceal a crime, it is not always possible to obtain direct evidence. (Zabala vs People 2015)
The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused cannot be proved by
evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, because circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence. The crime charged
may also be proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence.
Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which "goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in
issue, which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue. (Zabala vs People 2015)
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence
presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the
possibility that some other person has committed the crime. (Zabala vs People 2015)
True, a person may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence; but the proven circumstances should
inexorably lead to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person, to the exclusion of
all others. Where the evidence presented admits of other conclusions, the accused must be acquitted. The proof
against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. What is
required then is moral certainty. (People vs Quizon)
But it is the rule of law that while a conclusion as to an ultimate fact may be based upon an inference from
circumstantial evidence, in reaching such conclusion the inference as to the ultimate fact may not be based on an
inference as to the existence of the circumstantial facts. The prior inferences must be established to the exclusion of
any other reasonable theory rather than merely by a probability, in order that the last inference of the probability of the
ultimate fact may be based thereon. The test is that: while it is permissible to draw successive inferences, each
inference, except the last one, in order to be used as a link in a chain of inferences, must be established to the
exclusion of any other reasonable theory, rather than merely by a probability (New York Life Insurance v.
McNeely)
Sufficiency of Evidence as Basis for Conviction

EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Sufficient only if it is corroborated by evidence of the

corpus delicti
Sufficient only if:

There is more than one circumstances
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
4. It excludes the possibility that some other person has
committed the crime
1.
2.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES; SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Section 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)
Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. 07-9-12-SC)
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties shall establish their claims by
substantial evidence.
Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
CLARENCE TIU
160 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

SEC. 16. Judgment. - The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall
enjoin the act complained of, or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of the erroneous data or
information and grant other relevant reliefs as may be just and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ
shall be denied.
RULE: IN CASES FILED BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES, AMPARO OR HABEAS DATA
PROCEEDINGS, A FACT MAY BE DEEMED ESTABLISHED IF IT IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Such as before the NLRC or Labor Arbiters in Labor Cases

Note that the quantum of substantial evidence also applies to proceedings of amparo and habeas data, even
though they are judicial proceedings
Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion
EXCEPTION: IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE HIGHLY PENAL IN CHARACTER OR INVOLVE GRAVE
OFFENSES, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT APPLIES
Administrative proceedings against judges are highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules
applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support administrative charges against judges should
thus, be more than substantial and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt (Duduaco v. Laquindanum)
An administrative case filed against a sheriff for harassment and misconduct where the court ruled that
administrative proceedings against judicial employees are, by nature, highly penal in character and are to be
governed by the rules governing criminal cases. (Arnado v. Suarin)
While substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice to support a finding of guilt, the rule is different where the
proceedings involve judges charged with a grave offense. Administrative proceedings against judges are highly
penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required
to support the administrative charges or to establish the ground/s for the removal of a judicial officer should thus be
more than substantial; they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt (Alcuizar v. Carpio)
When the liability of a person in the administrative case against him was not established by substantial
evidence, will the criminal case necessarily fall, demanding as it does, a heavier quantum of proof, proof
beyond reasonable doubt.?
NO. It is indeed a fundamental principle that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the
same act or omission. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or
vice versa. One thing is administrative liability; quite another thing is the criminal liability for the same act. (Paredes
v. Court of Appeals)
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

MEANING OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to
allegations sought to be established.
It is intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond
reasonable doubt as in criminal cases
RECOGNIZED CASES WHERE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
1.
2.
Application for Bail in Extradition Proceedings

An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither
be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in
civil cases. While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases
cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing
Philippine jurisdiction. In his separate opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S.
Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed clear and convincing evidence should be used in granting
bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but
higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition
court. (Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia)
Proving a claim of Self-Defense
CLARENCE TIU
161 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

One recent case makes a more liberal use of the clear and convincing evidence rule when it declared: Once an
accused in a prosecution for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal injuries, he assumed the burden
to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance that would avoid his criminal
liability (People v. Fontanilla 2012)
While accused-appellant invokes the justifying circumstances of self-defense, it is a well-settled doctrine that when
an accused invokes self-defense, the onus is on him to establish by clear and convincing evidence his justification
for the killing. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the
prosecution. For self-defense to prevail, three (3) requisites must concur, to wit: 1) unlawful aggression; 2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself (People v. Tomolin)
Overcoming presumption of facts in a Notarized Document, its genuineness and due execution
A notarized instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution, is conclusive as to the
truthfulness of its contents, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth
of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. To overcome this
presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld
(Chua v. Westmont Bank)
Overcoming presumption of Good Faith; Alleging bad faith
Bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary. Bad faith has to be established by the claimant with clear and
convincing evidence, and this necessitates an examination of the evidence of all the parties. This is best passed
upon after a full-blown trial on the merits (Belle Corporation v. De Leon- Banks)
To warrant an award of moral damages, it must be shown that the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad
faith, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence
for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish
or, serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such action must be shown to have
been willfully done in bad faith or with ill-motive, and bad faith or ill-motive under the law cannot be presumed but
must be established with clear and convincing evidence (Resolution of the Supreme Court in Cual v. Leonis
Navigation
Bias and Partiality of Judges
Bare allegations of bias and partiality of the judge are not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence
to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and
evidence and without fear or favor. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and
partiality. Extrin- sic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the
palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself (Rivera v. Mendoza)
Allegations of Fraud
Mere allegations of fraud in assailing the land title of the adverse party are not enough. Fraud is never presumed
but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate
(Alfonso v. Cebu Country Club)
Allegations of Forgery
Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the
same (Sumbad v. Court of Appeals)
Allegations of Frame-up or extortion
An allegation of frame-up and extortion by police officers is a common and standard defense in most dangerous
drug cases. It is, however, viewed by the Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such
defense, including instigation, the evidence must be clear and convincing (People v. Boco)
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties will stand if the defense failed to present clear
and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an
improper motive (People v. Concepcion
Defense of Alibi
The shopworn rule is that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused was at some place else at the time of the
commission of the crime. It must also be proved by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible
for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and commit the crime (People v.
Agunos)
Clear and convincing evidence is required to show that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the
crime scene (People v. Cacayan)
Denial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The
defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as
easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CLARENCE TIU
162 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Dangerous Drugs Act. Accused-appellant claims that he was framed and that the arresting officers motive in
framing him is to extort PI million from him. This defense requires strong and convincing evidence because of the
presumption that the law enforcement agents acted in the regular performance of their official duties (People v.
Mustapa)
POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP INTRODUCTION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE

Section 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
Section 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)
CLARENCE TIU
163 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
MEANING OF DISCOVERY
In general, a discovery is a device employed by a party to obtain information about relevant matters on the case from
the adverse party in preparation for the trial.
As contemplated by the Rules, the device may be used by ALL the parties to the case.
PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY
The broad purpose of discovery procedures is to permit mutual knowledge before trial of all relevant facts gathered by
both parties so that either party may COMPEL the other to disgorge facts whatever he has in his possession
In the practical sense, the modes of discovery are designed to serve as an additional device aside from a pretrial.
Remember that a pre-trial is designed to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, to ascertain the
facts relative to the issues and to enable the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts
before civil trials and thus prevent the said trials to be carried on in the dark. It is intended to make certain that all
issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly raised.
Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pretrial conference all issues of law
and fact that they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matters
DUTY OF THE COURT IN RELATION TO THE MODES OF DISCOVERY
The modes of discovery are considered by the Supreme Court as vital components of case management in pre-trial
courts.
Hence, aside from preparing the summons within one (1) day from the receipt of the complaint, the court is required to
issue an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request for admission by
adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under
Rules 27 and 28 within five (5) days from the filing of the answer. A copy of this order shall be served upon the
defendant together with the summons. A copy of the order shall also be served upon the plaintiff (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC,
July 13, 2004).
The policy now is to encourage the use of the modes of discovery
SUMMARY OF THE MODES OF DISCOVERY UNDER THE RULES OF COURT

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Depositions pending action (Rule 23)

Depositions before action or pending appeal or Perpetuation of Testimony (Rule 24 & Rule 134)
Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25)
Admission by adverse party (Rule 26)
Production or inspection of documents and things (Rule 27)
Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28)
CLARENCE TIU
164 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
OVERVIEW OF DEPOSITIONS
A deposition is the taking of the testimony of any person, whether he be a party or not, but at the instance of a party to
the action.
This testimony is taken out of court.
The rule provides for either of two methods for taking deposition. It may be either by
1. An oral examination
2. A written interrogatory
A deposition may be sought for use either:
1. In a pending action (Rule 23)
2. A future action (Rule 24), or
3. For use in a pending appeal (Rule 24).
If the deposition is for use during a pending action, it is commonly called a deposition de benne esse and is governed
by Rule 23.
If it is to perpetuate a testimony for use in future proceedings as when it is sought before the existence of an action, or
for cases on appeal, it is called a deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam and is governed by Rule 24.
Does Rule 23 apply in criminal cases?
No it does not (At least it didnt in Manguerra v Risos, 2008, wherein the prosecuting witness was deposed in
Makati but the case was in Cebu. Court held that Rule 119, Sec 15 must be followed. The prosecuting witness must
be examined before the court where the case is pending.)
The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of subpoenas
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION, WHEN MAY BE TAKEN

SECTION 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. - By leave of court after jurisdiction has been
obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an
answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of
any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories.
The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions
shall be taken only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a person confined in prison may be
taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes. (1a, R24)
WHEN A DEPOSITION PENDING ACTION IS TAKEN
RULE: DEPOSITIONS MAY BE TAKEN ANY TIME AFTER INSTITUTION OF ANY ACTION.
Difference lies if leave of court is necessary

It can even be used in a hearing for a motion to quash execution. (Jonathan Land Oil v Mangudadatu, 2004)
Can non-resident foreign corporations use depositions for their witnesses who live abroad?
Yes, there is no distinction as to who can use Rule 23. (San Luis v Rojas, 2008, where written interrogatories were
to be used)
HOW A DEPOSITION PENDING ACTION IS TAKEN
1.
AFTER JURISDICTION OVER ANY DEFENDANT OR OVER PROPERTY: BY MOTION WITH LEAVE OF COURT
2.
You need to file a motion

When else do you need leave of court?
If deposition of a prisoner is needed
Leave of court is not required after an answer has been served but leave of court is required before the service of
an answer but after jurisdiction has been acquired over any defendant or over the property subject of the action
AFTER AN ANSWER HAS BEEN SERVED: BY MERE NOTICE
This becomes a mater of right, since issues have already been joined
What if what was filed was an answer ad cautelam, with leave of court or by mere notice?
CLARENCE TIU
165 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

By mere notice. An answer ad cautelam is still an answer. It doesnt make it less of an answer. (Rosete v Lim,
2006)
So, it's like the reverse of an amendment. The line whether its a matter of right or a matter of discretion is also the
filing of the answer
SCOPE OF EXAMINATION
SECTION 2. Scope of examination. - Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by Section 16 or 18 of
this Rule, the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject
of the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and
the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts. (2, R24)
SUBJECT OF THE DEPOSITION
RULE: THE DEPONENT MAY BE EXAMINED REGARDING ANY MATTER, PROVIDED SUCH MATTER IS:
1.
2.
Not privileged, and

Relevant to the subject of the pending action
EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

SECTION 3. Examination and cross-examination. - Examination and cross-examination of deponents may
proceed as permitted at the trial under , Sections 3 to 18 of Rule 132. (3a, R24)
The deponent may be examined or cross examined following the procedures for witnesses in a trial.
He may be asked questions on direct, cross, re-direct or re-cross.
He has the same rights as a witness and may be impeached like a court witness because Secs. 3 to 18 of Rule 132
apply to a deponent
USE OF DEPOSITIONS
SECTION 4. Use of depositions. - At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding,
any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party
who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance
with any one of the following provisions:
a.
Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of
deponent as a witness;
b.
The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or
managing agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or association which is a party may be
used by an adverse party for any purpose;
c.
The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court
finds:
1.
That the witness is dead; or
2.
That the witness resides at a distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of
trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was procured by the
party offering the deposition; or
3.
That the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment;
or
4.
That the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by
subpoena; or
CLARENCE TIU
166 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

5.
Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in
the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of
witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used; and
d.
If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, the adverse party may require him to
introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.
(4a, R24)
AGAINST WHOM CAN YOU USE THE DEPOSITION?
RULE: ANY PART OR ALL OF THE DEPOSITION, SO FAR AS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, MAY BE USED
AGAINST:
1.
2.
Against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition, or
Against one who had due notice of the deposition
WHEN CAN YOU USE THE DEPOSITION?
RULE: THE DEPOSITION OR ANY OF ITS PARTS, MAY BE USED AT THE TRIAL OR UPON THE HEARING OF A MOTION OR
AN INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDING
FOR WHAT PURPOSE CAN YOU USE THE DEPOSITION?

For contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness
See rule 132, sec 11 and 13. There are 3 ways to impeach a witness. Impeach his credibility, by contrary evidence,
and on prior inconsistent statement.
This falls under the third way of impeaching a witness. You use his deposition (which is a prior statement) to
impeach what such deponent is now telling the court as a witness.
Can you use a deposition in another case to impeach the testimony of a witness in your case?
Yes but only if the witness is dead or unable to testify and there was an opportunity to cross-examine him.
Rule 130, Sec 47
2. For any purpose by the adverse party where the deponent is a party or at the time of the deposition was an
officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, partnership or association which is a
party
3. For any purpose by any party, where the deponent is a witness, whether or not a party, if the court finds that
the witness:
a. Is dead
But to use his deposition, it is necessary that he was cross-examined (so it wont be hearsay)
b. Lives more than 100KM from the place of trial or is out of the Philippines
Unless the absence was procured by the party offering the deposition
c. Unable to testify or attend due to age, sickness, imprisonment

d. Could not be compelled to attend through a subpoena
e. Exceptional cases
But take note, general rule is that you still have to put the witness in the stand. Thats the priority.
Depositions are not meant to substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness
If a part of a deposition is offered in evidence, the adverse party may require the party to introduce ALL of it.
Mere failure to appear after a subpoena was issued is insufficient to prove inability to testify. The court can exercise its
coercive power to arrest. There must be efforts to have the witness arrested.
1.
EFFECT OF SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES

SECTION 5. Effect of substitution of parties. - Substitution of parties does not affect the right to use
depositions previously taken; and, when an action has been dismissed and another action involving the same
subject is afterward brought between the same parties or their representatives or successors in interest, all
depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the former action may be used in the latter as if originally taken
therefor. (5, R24)
RULE: THE SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT TO USE THE DEPOSITIONS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN.
CLARENCE TIU
167 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

When an action has been dismissed and another action involving the same subject and between the same parties
or their representatives or successors in interest, is afterwards brought, all the depositions lawfully taken and duly
filed in the former action may be used in the latter as if originally taken.
OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY
SECTION 6. Objections to admissibility. - Subject to the provisions of Section 29 of this Rule, objection may be
made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would
require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying. (6, R24)
EFFECT OF TAKING AND USING DEPOSITIONS

SECTION 7. Effect of taking depositions. - A party shall not be deemed to make a person his own witness for
any purpose by taking his deposition. (7, R24)
SECTION 8. Effect of using depositions. - The introduction in evidence of the deposition or any part thereof for
any purpose other than that of contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes the deponent the witness of
the party introducing the deposition, but this shall not apply to the use by an adverse party of a deposition as
described in paragraph (b) of Section 4 of this rule. (8, R24)
EFFECT OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS
RULE: A PERSON WHOSE DEPOSITION IS TAKEN BY A PARTY DOES NOT, BY REASON OF SUCH DEPOSITION, MAKE
SUCH PERSON THE WITNESS OF SAID PARTY.
Note that taking a deposition is different from using one.
EFFECT OF USING DEPOSITIONS
RULE: IF YOU USE THE DEPOSITION OF A DEPONENT, THE DEPONENT BECOMES YOUR WITNESS.
UNLESS its for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching.

You are not compelled to use the deposition in court if you dont want.
If you use a deposition, the opposing lawyer can cross-examine on the deposition again, so its a matter of need
and strategy.
REBUTTING DEPOSITION
SECTION 9. Rebutting deposition. - At the trial or hearing, any party may rebut any relevant evidence
contained in a deposition whether introduced by him or by any other party. (9, R24)
PERSONS BEFORE WHOM DEPOSITIONS MAY BE TAKEN

SECTION 10. Persons before whom depositions may be taken within the Philippines. - Within the Philippines,
depositions may be taken before any judge, notary public, or the person referred to in Section 14 hereof. (10a,
R24)
SECTION 14. Stipulations regarding taking of depositions. - If the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions
may be taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, at any time or place, in accordance with these
Rules, and when so taken may be used like other depositions. (14a, R24)
SECTION 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in foreign countries. - In a foreign state or
country, depositions may be taken
a.
On notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice- consul, or consular
agent of the Republic of the Philippines
CLARENCE TIU
168 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

b.
Before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory; or
c.
The person referred to in Section 14 hereof. (11a, R24)
SECTION 13. Disqualification by interest. - No deposition shall be taken before a person who is a relative
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or employee or counsel of any of the parties; or who is a
relative within the same degree, or employee of such counsel; or who is financially interested in the action.
(13a, R24)
IN THE PHILIPPINES, WHO CAN TAKE DEPOSITIONS?

1.
2.
3.
Any judge
Notary public, or
Person authorized to administer oaths stipulated and agreed upon in writing by the parties
ABROAD, WHO CAN TAKE DEPOSITIONS?

1.
2.
3.
Secretary of an embassy/legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul or consular agent

Such person or officer as appointed by a commission or under letters rogatory, or
Person authorized to administer oaths stipulated and agreed upon in writing by the parties
PERSONS DISQUALIFIED FROM TAKING DISPOSITIONS; DISQUALIFIED DEPOSITION OFFICERS

1. Sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity from party
2. Sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity from counsel or employee of counsel
3. One financially interested in the action
When should objections based on a disqualification be raised?
1. Before the taking of the deposition, or
2. As soon as the disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with reasonable diligence.
If not, waived.
COMMISSION OR LETTERS ROGATORY

SECTION 12. Commission or letters rogatory. - A commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only when
necessary or convenient, on application and notice, and on such terms and with such direction as are just and
appropriate.
Officers may be designated in notices or commissions either by name or descriptive title and letters rogatory
may be addressed to the appropriate judicial authority in the foreign country. (12a, R24)
No order of preference before you use this mode.
1.
COMMISSION
2.
Issued by the court as a directive to an official of the Philippines, authorizing him to take the deposition of the
witness
Taken in accordance with the rules of the court issuing the commission
Must observe Philippine rules
LETTERS ROGATORY
Form of request to foreign tribunals to give its aid in securing the desired information
Must observe the rules of the foreign jurisdiction
Request from local court to a foreign court
See Dulay v Dulay, (2005), where letters rogatory were sent to Boston but was ignored, so the deposition was taken
before a NY notary, who was duly certified by the Philippine Consul and under Philippine rules. It was allowed by
the SC because there was no consular office in Boston and it wasnt the fault of the respondent that the Boston
court ignored the letters rogatory.
CLARENCE TIU
169 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
ORAL DEPOSITIONS
DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION; NOTICE AND PLACE
SECTION 15. Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time and place. - A party desiring to take the
deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to
the action.
The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to
be examined, if known, and if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify him or the
particular class or group to which he belongs.
On motion of any party upon whom the notice is served, the court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the
time. (15, R24)
RULE: A PARTY DESIRING TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF ANY PERSON UPON ORAL EXAMINATION SHALL GIVE
REASONABLE NOTICE IN WRITING TO EVERY PARTY TO THE ACTION STATING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR TAKING THE
DEPOSITION AND THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON TO BE EXAMINED
After the notice is served, the court may make any order for the protection of the parties and the deponents (Sec.
16)
All objections with the notice must be promptly served in writing upon the party giving the notice, or else it is
WAIVED
OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION

SECTION 16. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents. - After notice is served for taking a
deposition by oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined
and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make an order that the deposition
shall not be taken, or that it may be taken only at some designated place other than that stated in the notice,
or that it may be taken only on written interrogatories, or that certain matters shall not be inquired into, or that
the scope of the examination shall be held with no one present except the parties to the action and their
officers or counsel, or that after being sealed the deposition shall be opened only by order of the court, or that
secret processes, developments, or research need not be disclosed, or that the parties shall simultaneously
file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court;
or the court may make any other order which justice requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance,
embarrassment, or oppression. (16a, R24)
SECTION 18. Motion to terminate or limit examination. - At any time during the taking of the deposition, on
motion or petition of any party or of the deponent and upon a showing that the examination is being
conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or
party, the court in which the action is pending or the Regional Trial Court of the place where the deposition is
being taken may order the officer conducting the examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition, or
may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition, as provided in Section 16 of this Rule.
If the order made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in
which the action is pending.
Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time
necessary to make a notice for an order.
CLARENCE TIU
170 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In granting or refusing such order, the court may impose upon either party or upon the witness the
requirement to pay such costs or expenses as the court may deem reasonable. (18a, R24)
OBJECTIONS TO TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION; ORDERS FOR THE PROTECTION OF PARTIES AND DEPONENTS
Presupposes that the deposition hasnt been conducted yet
RULE: ANY PARTY OR THE PERSON TO BE EXAMINED, WHO OBJECTS TO THE DEPOSITION, MAY FILE A MOTION
BASED ON GOOD CAUSE TO THE COURT IN WHICH THE ACTION IS PENDING. SUCH COURT MAY EITHER:
1. ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITION SHALL NOT BE TAKEN
2. LIMIT THE MANNER OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Court may provide that the deposition:

It may be taken only at some designated place other than that stated in the notice,
It may be taken only on written interrogatories
Certain matters shall not be inquired into,
The scope of the examination shall be held with no one present except the parties to the action and their
officers or counsel.
After being sealed the deposition shall be opened only by order of the court,
Secret processes, developments, or research need not be disclosed
The parties shall simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be
opened as directed by the court
Any other order which justice requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or
oppression.
OBJECTIONS DURING THE EXAMINATION; MOTION TO TERMINATE OR LIMIT THE EXAMINATION
Presupposes that the deposition is in the process of being conducted
RULE: AT ANY TIME DURING THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION, ON MOTION OR PETITION OF ANY PARTY OR OF THE
DEPONENT, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE OFFICER CONDUCTING THE EXAMINATION TO:
1. Cease from taking the deposition

2. Limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition
This may be based on the following grounds:
1. To protect the party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or
2. That what is sought is irrelevant in the action.
This may applied for either in the:
1. Court in which the action is pending or
2. RTC of the place where the deposition is being taken
If the order made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which
the action is pending.
Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time
necessary to make a notice for an order.
See also Sec. 29 for grounds to contest a defective deposition
DUTY OF THE OFFICER TAKING THE ORAL DEPOSITION

SECTION 17. Record of examination; oath; objections. - The officer before whom the deposition is to be taken
shall put the witness on oath and shall personally, or by some one acting under his direction and in his
presence, record the testimony of the witness.
The testimony shall be taken stenographically unless the parties agree otherwise.
All objections made at the time of the examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, or
to the manner of taking it, or to the evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other
objection to the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition.
Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections.
CLARENCE TIU
171 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In lieu of participating in the oral examination, parties served with notice of taking a deposition may transmit
written interrogatories to the officers, who shall propound them to the witness and record the answers
verbatim. (17, R24)
SECTION 19. Submission to witness; changes; signing. - When the testimony is fully transcribed, the
deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by him, unless such
examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the parties.
Any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered upon the deposition by
the officer with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making them.
The deposition shall then be signed by the witness, unless the parties by stipulation waive the signing or the
witness is ill or cannot be found or refuses to sign.
If the deposition is not signed by the witness, the officer shall sign it and state on the record the fact of the
waiver or of the illness or absence of the witness or the fact of the refusal to sign together with the reason
given therefor, if any, and the deposition may then be used as fully as though signed, unless on a motion to
suppress under Section 29(f) of this Rule, the court holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign require
rejection of the deposition in whole or in part. (19a, R24)
SECTION 20. Certification and filing by officer. - The officer shall certify on the deposition that the witness was
duly sworn to by him and that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness.
He shall then securely seal the deposition in an envelope indorsed with the title of the action and marked
"Deposition of (here insert the name of witness)" and shall promptly file it with the court in which the action is
pending or send it by registered mail to the clerk thereof for filing. (20, R24)
SECTION 21. Notice of filing. - The officer taking the deposition shall give prompt notice of its filing to all the
parties. (21, R24)
SECTION 22. Furnishing copies. - Upon payment of reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall furnish a
copy of the deposition to any party or to the deponent. (22, R24)
DUTIES OF THE OFFICER IN CONDUCTING THE ORAL DEPOSITION

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The officer before whom the deposition is taken shall put the witness on oath;
The testimony of the witness or deponent must be recorded and shall be taken stenographically unless the party
agree otherwise;
All objections made at the time of the examination shall be noted;
Evidence objected to shall be taken but subject to the objections.
In lieu of participating in the oral examination, parties served with notice of taking a deposition may transmit written
interrogatories to the officers, who shall propound them to the witness and record the answers verbatim.
OBJECTIONS DURING THE ORAL DEPOSITION
RULE: ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS OBJECTED TO SHALL STILL BE TAKEN BUT SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTION. ANY
OBJECTIONS SHALL BE NOTED BY THE OFFICER UPON THE DEPOSITION.
The officer before whom the deposition is taken has no authority to rule on the objections interposed during the
course of the deposition
Objections to the competency of a witness or the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are NOT
waived,
Unless the ground of the objection is one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.
DUTIES OF THE OFFICER AFTER THE ORAL EXAMINATION
When the testimony is fully transcribed, the deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be
read to or by him, unless such examination is waived by the witness and by the parties.
CLARENCE TIU
172 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The witness may desire some changes in form and substance, in which case such changes shall be entered upon the
deposition by the officer with a statement of the reasons of the witness for making such changes.
The deposition shall be signed by the witness unless the signing is waived by the parties by stipulation or the
deposition cannot be signed because the witness is ill, cannot be found or if he refuses to sign
If the deposition is not signed by the witness, the officer shall sign it and state on the record the attendant facts
together with the reason given for the non-signing of the deposition.
This having been done, the deposition may be used as fully as though it was signed unless on a motion to suppress
under Sec. 29[f] of Rule 23 and the court holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign require rejecting the
deposition in whole or in part
The officer is required to certify on the deposition that the witness was duly sworn to by him and that the deposition is a
true record of the testimony given by the witness.
He shall then securely seal the deposition in an envelope indorsed with the title of the action Deposition of (name of
witness).
He shall likewise promptly file it with the court in which the action is pending or send it by registered mail to he clerk
thereof for filing
All parties shall promptly be notified of its filing by the officer taking the deposition and upon payment of reasonable
charges, the officer shall furnish a copy of the deposition to any party or to the deponent
SIGNATURE OF THE WITNESS
RULE: THE DEPOSITION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE WITNESS.

UNLESS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Parties stipulated the waiver of the signing, or

Witness is ill,
Cannot be found, or
Refuses to sign
In these cases, the officer will sign instead, and it can be used. Unless a motion to suppress is duly granted
by the court.
FAILURE OF PARTY GIVING NOTICE TO ATTEND AND TO SERVE SUBPOENA

SECTION 23. Failure to attend of party giving notice. - If the party giving the notice of the taking of a
deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and another attends in person or by counsel pursuant to the
notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay such other party the amount of the reasonable
expenses incurred by him and his counsel in so attending, including reasonable attorney's fees. (23a, R24)
SECTION 24. Failure of party giving notice to serve subpoena. - If the party giving the notice of the taking of a
deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon him and the witness because of such failure does not
attend, and if another party attends in person or by counsel because he expects the deposition of that witness
to be taken, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay such other party the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred by him and his counsel in so attending, including reasonable attorney's fees.
(24a, R24)
DEPOSITION UPON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES

WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
SECTION 25. Deposition upon written interrogatories; service of notice and of interrogatories. - A party
desiring to take the deposition of any person upon written interrogatories shall serve them upon every other
party with a notice stating the name and address of the person who is to answer them and the name or
descriptive title and address of the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken.
CLARENCE TIU
173 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Within ten (10) days thereafter, a party so served may serve cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to
take the deposition.
Within five (5) days thereafter the latter may serve re-direct interrogatories upon a party who has served
cross-interrogatories.
Within three (3) days after being served with re-direct interrogatories, a party may serve recrossinterrogatories upon the party proposing to take the deposition. (25, R24)
SECTION 26. Officers to take responses and prepare record. - A copy of the notice and copies of all
interrogatories served shall be delivered by the party taking the deposition to the officer designated in the
notice,who shall proceed promptly, in the manner provided by Sections 17, 19 and 20 of this Rule, to take the
testimony of the witness in response to the interrogatories and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the
deposition, attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the interrogatories received by him. (26, R24)
SECTION 27. Notice of filing and furnishing copies. - When a deposition upon interrogatories is filed, the
officer taking it shall promptly give notice thereof to all the parties, and may furnish copies to them or to the
deponent upon payment of reasonable charges therefor. (27, R24)
SECTION 28. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents. - After the service of the interrogatories and
prior to the taking of the testimony of the deponent, the court in which the action is pending, on motion
promptly made by a party or a deponent, and for good cause shown, may make any order specified in Sections
15, 16 and 18 of this Rule which is appropriate and just or an order that the deposition shall not be taken
before the officer designated in the notice or that it shall not be taken except upon oral examination. (28a,
R24)
DEPOSITIONS UPON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
A deposition need not be conducted through an oral examination. It may be conducted through written interrogatories
A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon written interrogatories shall serve the interrogatories upon
every other party with a notice stating the name and address of the person who is to answer them, the name and
descriptive title and address of the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken
The party served with the interrogatories may also serve cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the
deposition within ten (10) days from service of the written interrogatories.
The latter may, within five (5) days, serve re-direct interrogatories. Within three (3) days after being served with redirect interrogatories, a party may serve recross interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the deposition
A copy of the notice and copies of all interrogatories served shall be delivered by the party taking the deposition to the
officer designated in the notice. He shall proceed promptly to take the testimony of the witness in response to the
interrogatories and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the deposition, attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the
interrogatories received by him
EFFECT OF ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES IN DEPOSITIONS

SECTION 29. Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions.
a.
As to notice. - All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written
objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice.
b.
As to disqualification of officer. - Objection to taking a deposition because of disqualification of the officer

before whom it is to be taken is waived unless made before the taking of the deposition begins or as soon
thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with reasonable diligence.
c.
As to competency or relevancy of evidence. - Objections to the competency of a witness or the

competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during
the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one which might have been obviated or
removed if presented at that time.
CLARENCE TIU
174 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

d.
As to oral examination and other particulars. - Errors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination
in the manner of taking the deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or affirmation,
or in the conduct of the parties and errors of any kind which might be obviated, removed, or cured if
promptly prosecuted, are waived unless reasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the
deposition.
e.
As to form of written interrogatories. - Objections to the form of written interrogatories submitted under
Sections 25 and 26 of this Rule are waived unless served in writing upon the party propounding them
within the time allowed for serving succeeding cross or other interrogatories and within three (3) days
after service of the last interrogatories authorized.
f.
As to manner of preparation. - Errors and irregularities in the manner in which the testimony is transcribed
or the deposition is prepared, signed, certified, sealed, indorsed, transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with
by the officer under Sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of this Rule are waived unless a motion to suppress the
deposition or some part thereof is made with reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with due
diligence might have been, ascertained. (29a, R24)
OBJECTIONS TO A DEFECTIVE DEPOSITION
RULE: PARTY MAY FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE DEFECTIVE DEPOSITION BASED ON THE GROUNDS IN SEC. 29,
OTHERWISE SUCH ERROR AND IRREGULARITIES IN TERMS OF THE PREPARATION ARE DEEMED WAIVED
Note that objections to errors and irregularities are waivable.

Error and irregularities in terms of the preparation are waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some
part thereof is made with reasonable promptness after discovery of the error.
Can counsel object to the admissibility of a deposition if he actively cross-examined in the taking of the
deposition?
Yes. Taking is different from using.
EXCEPT: OBJECTIONS TO THE COMPETENCY OR RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE DURING THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION.
THESE ARE NOT WAIVED
UNLESS the ground of the objection is one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.
CLARENCE TIU
175 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION
VERIFIED PETITION FOR DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION
SECTION 1. Depositions before action; petition. - A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or
that of another person regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines, may file a
verified petition in the court of the place of the residence of any expected adverse party. (1a, R134)
NATURE OF DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTIONS; PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY
Depositions before actions are also called perpetuation of testimony.

This type of depositions is availed of when a person desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another person
regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines
Rule 24 has already superseded Rule 134 (Also on Perpetuation of Testimony)
There is no pending case, so if you want to perpetuate testimony, you file a case for the purpose of such.
Usually availed of when the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court in the Philippines but is presently
unable to bring it cause it to be brought.
HOW TO AVAIL OF DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTIONS
RULE: THE PERPETUATION OF A TESTIMONY, IS DONE BY FILING A VERIFIED PETITION IN THE PLACE OF THE
RESIDENCE OF ANY EXPECTED ADVERSE PARTY
CONTENTS OF THE PETITION

SECTION 2. Contents of petition. - The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show:
a.
That the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines but is presently unable
to bring it or cause it to be brought;
b.
The subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein;
c.
The facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to
perpetuate it;
d.
The names or a description of the persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as
known; and
e.
The names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he
expects to elicit from each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of
the persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony. (2,
R134)
NOTICE AND SERVICE; ORDER OF THE COURT

SECTION 3. Notice and service. - The petitioner shall serve a notice upon each person named in the petition as
an expected adverse party, together with a copy of the petition, stating that the petitioner will apply to the
court, at a time and place named therein, for the order described in the petition. At least twenty (20) days
before the date of the hearing, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served on the parties and prospective
deponents in the manner provided for service of summons. (3a, R134)
SECTION 4. Order and examination. - If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may
prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall make an order designating or describing the persons whose
deposition may be taken and specifying the subject matter of the examination and whether the depositions
CLARENCE TIU
176 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

shall be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The depositions may then be taken in
accordance with Rule 23 before the hearing. (4a, R134)
SECTION 5. Reference to court. - For the purpose of applying Rule 23 to depositions for perpetuating
testimony, each reference therein to the court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to the
court in which the petition for such deposition was filed.
SECTION 6. Use of deposition. - If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this Rule, or if,
although not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be used in any action involving the same
subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 23. (6a,
R134)
RULE: AFTER THE VERIFIED PETITION IS FILED, NOTICES SHALL BE SENT. IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE
PERPETUATION OF THE TESTIMONY MAY PREVENT A FAILURE OR DELAY OF JUSTICE, IT SHALL MAKE THE APPROPRIATE
ORDER FOR THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION.
The notice shall be sent according to the rules

Such deposition taken is admissible in evidence in any action subsequently brought involving the same subject
matter
SECTION 7. Depositions pending appeal. - If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of a court, including
the Court of Appeals in proper cases, or before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not expired, the
court in which the judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their
testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party who desires to
perpetuate the testimony may make a motion in the said court for leave to take the depositions, upon the same
notice and service thereof as if the action was pending therein. The motion shall state (a) the names and
addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from
each; and (b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that the perpetuation of the
testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice, it may make an order allowing the depositions to be
taken, and thereupon the depositions may be taken and used in the same manner and under the same
conditions as are prescribed in these Rules for depositions taken in pending actions. (7a, R134)
RULE: THE COURT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED OR THE COURT OF APPEALS, MAY ALLOW THE TAKING
OF DEPOSITIONS OF WITNESSES TO PERPETUATE THEIR TESTIMONY FOR USE IN THE EVENT OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
1. If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of a court

2. Before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not expired,
This pertains to depositions after judgment in the trial court has been rendered
Basically, it must be availed of before judgment becomes final and executory
It is also called perpetuation of testimony.
What if pending case for certiorari, can you take a deposition pending appeal?
No, because its not an appeal. Just go for Rule 23 or Rule 25
HOW TO AVAIL OF DEPOSITIONS PENDING APPEAL
RULE: THE PARTY WHO DESIRES TO PERPETUATE THE TESTIMONY MAY MAKE A MOTION IN THE COURT WHICH
RENDERED THE JUDGMENT FOR LEAVE TO TAKE THE DEPOSITIONS
Notice and service thereof should be made as if the action was pending therein
If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice, it may make an
order allowing the depositions to be taken, and thereupon the depositions may be taken and used in the same
manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed in the Rules for depositions taken in pending actions.
CLARENCE TIU
177 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

*This is the same as Rule 24. Placed this here just for reference
Section 1. Petition. A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another person
regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines, any file a verified petition in the
court of the province of the residence of any expected adverse party.
Section 2. Contents of petition. The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show:
(a) That the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines by is presently unable to
bring it or cause it to be brought;
(b) The subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein;
(c) The facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to
perpetuate it;
(d) The names of a description of the persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as
known; and
(e) The names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he
expects to elicit from each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of
the persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony.
Section 3. Notice and service. The petitioner shall thereafter serve a notice upon each person named in the
petition as an expected adverse party, together with a copy of a petition, stating that the petitioner will apply
to the court, at a time and place named therein, for the order described in the petition. At least twenty (20)
days before the date of hearing the notice shall be served in the manner provided for service of summons.
Section 4. Order of examination. If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may prevent
a failure or delay of justice, it shall make an order designating or describing the persons whose deposition
may be taken and specifying the subject matter of the examination, and whether the depositions shall be taken
upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The depositions may then be taken in accordance with Rule
24 before the hearing.
Section 5. Reference to court. For the purpose of applying Rule 24 to depositions for perpetuating
testimony, each reference therein to the court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to the
court in which the petition for such deposition was filed.
Section 6. Use of deposition. If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this rule, or if, although
not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be used in any action involving the same subject
matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 24.
Section 7. Depositions pending appeal. If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of the Regional Trial
Court or before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not expired, the Regional Trial Court in which
the judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for
use in the event of further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party who desires to perpetuate the
testimony may make a motion in the said Regional Trial Court for leave to take the depositions, upon the same
notice and service thereof as if the action was pending therein. The motion shall show (a) the name and the
addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from
each; and (b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that the perpetuation of the
testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice, it may make an order allowing the depositions to be
taken, and thereupon the depositions may be taken and used in the same manner and under the same
conditions as are prescribed in these rules for depositions taken in actions pending in the Regional Trial
Court. (7a)
CLARENCE TIU
178 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
SERVICE OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

SECTION 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof . - Under the same conditions specified in Section 1 of
Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse parties shall file and serve
upon the latter written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or
private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf.
(1a)
NATURE OF SERVICE OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
This mode of discovery is availed of by a party to the action for the purpose of eliciting material and relevant facts from
any adverse party
Limited application. Does not cover oral depositions
Not a deposition per se, but requesting information from adverse party. Party will just prepare a written set of questions
to the adverse party who is then obliged to answer them.
No opportunity to cross-examine
Existing rules consider this mode of discovery as important because within one day from receipt of the complaint, the
rule mandates not only the preparation of the summons but also the issuance of an order requiring the parties to avail
of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request for admission by adverse party under Rule 26. The parties
however, may use at their discretion, depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rule 27 and 29 within five (5)
days from the filing of the answer (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, IA, 1,1.1,1.2).
DIFFERENCE WITH DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION UNDER RULE 23

Rule 23: Depositions Pending Action
Rule 25: Interrogatories to Parties
To whom addressed?
To parties or witnesses, any person
To parties, always and only to parties
How must questions

be answered?
Direct, cross, re-direct and re- cross
Its just one set of questions to be

answered by the other party
Time to answer
No fixed time to answer (depends on the officer taking the

deposition)
15 days to respond
10 days to oppose
Uses
Same
DIFFERENCE WITH BILL OF PARTICULARS UNDER RULE 12
A bill of particulars is directed to a pleading and is designed to seek for a more definite statement or for particulars of
any matter not averred with sufficient definiteness in a pleading.
Interrogatories to parties are not directed against a particular pleading. Instead, they seek the disclosure of all
material and relevant facts from a party
DIFFERENCE WITH WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES IN A DEPOSITION
Written interrogatories in a deposition are not served upon the adverse party directly. They are instead delivered to
the officer designated in the notice
The service of written interrogatories is a mode of deposition separate and distinct from interrogatories to parties.
Interrogatories to parties are served directly upon the adverse party
HOW TO AVAIL OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
RULE: THE MODE OF DISCOVERY IS AVAILED OF BY FILING AND SERVING UPON THE ADVERSE PARTY WRITTEN
INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED BY THE PARTY SERVED.
If the party is a juridical entity, the written interrogatories shall be answered by any of its officers competent to testify
in its behalf
CLARENCE TIU
179 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RESPONSE BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES: ANSWER OR OBJECT
SECTION 2. Answer to interrogatories. - The interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall be
signed and sworn to by the person making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served
shall file and serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days
after service thereof, unless the court, on motion and for good cause shown, extends or shortens the time.
(2a)
SECTION 3. Objections to interrogatories. - Objections to any interrogatories may be presented to the court
within ten (10) days after service thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and answers shall be deferred
until the objections are resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is practicable. (3a)
RULE: THE ADVERSE PARTY UPON WHOM THE WRITTEN INTERROGATORY IS ADDRESSED MAY EITHER :
1.
2.
Answer within 15 days from service of the interrogatories

Object within 10 days from service of the interrogatories
Once the objections are resolved, he is then required to file an answer if the court doesnt find the objections
meritorious
The interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the person
making them.
The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall file and serve a copy of the answers on the party
submitting the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after service thereof.
This period may, upon motion and for good cause shown, be extended or shortened by the court
The party against whom it is directed may make objections to the interrogatories. If he does so, said objections
shall be presented to the court within ten (10) days after service of the interrogatories.
The filing of the objections shall have the effect of deferring the filing and service of the answer to the
interrogatories until the objections are resolved
NUMBER OF INTERROGATORIES
SECTION 4. Number of interrogatories. - No party may, without leave of court, serve more than one set of
interrogatories to be answered by the same party. (4)
SCOPE AND USE OF INTERROGATORIES

SECTION 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. - Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired
into under Section 2 of Rule 23, and the answers may be used for the same purposes provided in Section 4 of
the same Rule. (5a)
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES

SECTION 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. - Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good
cause shown and 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. (n)
RULE: A PARTY NOT SERVED WITH WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES MAY NOT BE COMPELLED BY THE ADVERSE PARTY TO
GIVE TESTIMONY IN OPEN COURT, OR TO GIVE DEPOSITION PENDING APPEAL
EXCEPT: IF ALLOWED BY THE COURT FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND TO PREVENT A FAILURE OF JUSTICE
Once you receive an interrogatory, you should be alerted because the other party will probably call you to testify in
court
CLARENCE TIU
180 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Interrogatories are served so that the one serving them can call the adverse party to testify in court. Because if
an interrogatory was not served on the party, such party cannot be called to testify in court, unless court allows
it for good cause.
What is the effect of failure to serve written interrogatories?
A party not served may NOT be compelled by the adverse party to give either:
1. Testimony in open court or

2. A deposition pending appeal
What is the effect of failure to answer specific questions in written interrogatories? (Read with Rule 29)
Not default yet, Proponent must first move to compel the other party to answer. (Jaravata v Karolus, 2007. See Rule
29, Sec 1 & 3.
What is the effect of failure to answer ALL questions in written interrogatories?
Rule 29, Sec 5 should apply, not Rule 29, Sec 3. (Zepeda v China Banking, 2006)
CLARENCE TIU
181 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

SECTION 1. Request for admission. - At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve
upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and
relevant document described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant
matter of fact set forth in the request.
Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless copies have already been furnished. (1a)
PURPOSE OF ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
The purpose of this mode of discovery is to allow one party to request the adverse party in writing to admit certain
material and relevant matters which most likely will not be disputed during the trial.
To avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the parties in going through the rigors of proof, before the trial, a party may
request the other to:
1. Admit the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request; or
2. Admit the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request
BUT, no request for admission on matters which are:
1. Precisely the issues in the cases, or
2. Irrelevant matters, or
3. Opinions,or
4. Conclusions of law,or
5. Privileged matters,or
6. Merely reiterations of allegations in the complaint. (Sime Darby v NLRC, 2006; DBP v CA, 2005; Limos v Spouses)
WHEN ADMISSIONS MAY BE REQESTED
RULE: A PARTY MAY FILE AND SERVE THE WRITTEN REQUEST ONLY AFTER THE ANSWER IS FILED.
This is when the issues are joined

Compare to depositions, which can be before or after answer if filed
Who do you address it to?
The adverse party not the counsel
IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT ADMITTED?

The genuineness of any material/relevant document
Not the contents of the document, just the genuineness.
When you want to present a document, you should first authenticate and prove it is genuine but its substance is a
different matter
There is a long procedure on how to authenticate documents under Rule 132
Genuineness is different from the substance of the document. Even if the adverse party admits the genuineness of
the document, he can still contest the substance and circumstances of the document (Same rule as in Actionable
Documents)
Party requesting must attach the document
2. Truth of any material and relevant matte
1.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

SECTION 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission. - Unless otherwise allowed by the court
for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails to file and serve a request for
admission on the adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be, within the
personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on such facts. (n)
CLARENCE TIU
182 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EFFECT OF NOT FILING A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
This the consequence of the failure to avail of this mode of discovery
RULE: THE PARTY WHO FAILS TO FILE AND SERVE THE REQUEST SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
ON FACTS THAT ARE:
1.
2.
Material and relevant; and

Those which are, or ought to be within the personal knowledge of the other party
EXCEPT: UNLESS OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE COURT FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND TO PREVENT A FAILURE OF
Note too that within one day from receipt of the complaint, the rule mandates not only the preparation of the summons
but also the issuance of an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request
for admission by adverse party under Rule 26. The parties, however, may use at their discretion, depositions under
Rule 23 or other measures under Rules 27 and 29 within five (5) days from the filing of the answer (A.M. No. 03-1-09SC, IA, 1,1.1, 1.2, July 13, 2004).
JUSTICE
RESPONSE OF THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE REQUEST IS DIRECTED; FAILURE TO ANSWER
SECTION 2. Implied admission. - Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after
service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is
directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he
cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the party requested within the
period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his
compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as
early as practicable. (2a)
SECTION 3. Effect of admission. - Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose
of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the
same be used against him in any other proceeding. (3)
RESPONSE OF THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE REQUEST IS DIRECTED
He can either file an answer or object
RULE: THE PARTY TO WHOM THE WRITTEN REQUEST IS DIRECTED MAY EITHER:
1. ANSWER BY SWORN STATEMENT OF ADMISSION OR DENIAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM SERVICE OF THE REQUEST
He should file and serve upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either:
Admitting the matters requested to be so admitted
Specifically denying the matters of which admission is requested, or
If he does not deny the same, to set forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny
those matters.
This sworn statement shall be filed and served within the period designated in the request but which shall not be
less than fifteen (15) days from the service of such request, or within such further time as the court may allow
Note that the answer must be under oath
a.
b.
c.
2.
OBJECT WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM SERVICE OF THE REQUEST
The party requested may have the compliance of the filing and service of the sworn statement deferred (This is
to avoid the adverse consequences of the failure to file the sworn statement of denial, which amounts to an
implied admission)
Compliance shall be deferred until such objections are resolved by the court
Note: compare the period to objection with opposing written interrogatories to parties under Sec. 25, which gives
only 10 days
CLARENCE TIU
183 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ANSWER TO THE REQUEST
RULE: IF THE PARTY TO WHOM THE WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION DOES NOT FILE THE REQUIRED SWORN
STATEMENT, EACH OF THE MATTERS OF WHICH AN ADMISSION IS REQUESTED SHALL BE DEEMED ADMITTED
It amounts to an implied judicial admission (remember Rule 129?, remember that this is made in the course of the
proceedings)
BUT, ANY ADMISSION MADE BY A PARTY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST IS
ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PENDING ACTION
It shall not be deemed an admission for any other purpose.

The admission cannot be used against the admitting party in any other proceeding
Facts or documents admitted need not be proved anymore in trial
WITHDRAWAL
SECTION 4. Withdrawal. - The court may allow the party making an admission under this Rule, whether
express or implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may be just. (4)
Admissions made under this mode of discovery, whether express or implied are not final and irrevocable. The court
may allow the party making the admission to withdraw or amend the admission upon such terms as may be just
To effect the withdrawal, the admitting party should file a motion to be relieved of the effects of his admission.
CLARENCE TIU
184 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE 27: PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. - Upon motion of any party showing good cause
therefor, the court in which an action is pending may
a.
Order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of
the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the
action and which are in his possession, custody or control; or
b.
Order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the
purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant
object or operation thereon.
The order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies and
photographs, and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just. (1a)
PURPOSE OF AN ORDER FOR PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
The purpose of this mode of discovery is to allow a party to seek an order from the court in which the action is pending
to:
1. Order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the
moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which
are in his possession, custody or control;
2. Order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the
purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or
operation thereon
This mode of discovery is not only for the benefit of a party, but also for the court and for it to discover all the relevant
and material facts in connection with the case before it.
Thus, while the granting of a motion for production or inspection is discretionary on the court, it should be liberally
construed as to provide the litigants with information essential to the fair and amicable settlement or expeditious trial of
the case.
The court cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable in denying the motion because it would bar access to relevant
evidence that may be used by the party and thus impair his fundamental right to due process.
The test to be applied by the judge should be one of reasonableness and practicability
APPLYING FOR THE ORDER OF PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
RULE: A MOTION SHOWING GOOD CAUSE MUST BE FILED BY THE PARTY SEEKING THE PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS.
If the court grants it, the order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies
and photographs, and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just
What is applied for?
1. Production and permission to inspect documents, papers, objects, other tangible things
2. Permit entry into a place under control of the other party and allow inspections
The documents to be produced should be described with particularity.
It should not be a blanket request or inspection. (Solidbank v Gateway, 2008, where a request for all documents
was asked)
Requirements of the Documents Requested:
1. It should NOT be privileged
2. It should contain or constitute evidence material to any matter involved in the action
3. It should be in the possession, custody, or control of the other party
Privileged documents?
See Section 24 of Rule 130 which draws the types of disqualification by reason of privileged communication,
CLARENCE TIU
185 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

1. Communication between husband and wife
2. Communication between attorney and client
3. Communication between physician and patient
4. Communication between priest and penitent; and
5. Public officers and public interest.
There are, however, other privileged matters that are not mentioned by Rule 130. Among them are the following:
1. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news;
2. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted;
3. Trade secrets;
4. Information contained in tax census returns; and
5. Bank deposits
Are you required to present the evidence which you obtained using Rule 27 in court?
No obligation to present.
If you want to, how do you present it in court?
A document cannot speak for itself, there must be a witness who will testify and report on it and identify it
The writ of amparo is likened to a production order. (Sec of National Defense v Manalo, 2008)
It is not an unreasonable search under the Constitution.
The production order is not the same as a subpoena duces tecum.
Subpoena is a form of compulsion. Production order is a mode of discovery
CLARENCE TIU
186 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

WHEN EXAMINATION MAY BE ORDERED
SECTION 1. When examination may be ordered. - In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a
party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may in its discretion order him to submit to a
physical or mental examination by a physician. (1)
SECTION 2. Order for examination. - The order for examination may be made only on motion for good cause
shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all other parties, and shall specify the time, place,
manner, conditions and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. (2)
APPLICABILITY OF PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
RULE: THIS MODE OF DISCOVERY APPLIES TO AN ACTION IN WHICH THE MENTAL OR PHYSICAL CONDITION OF A
PARTY IS IN CONTROVERSY
Examples of this action would be:

1. An action for annulment of a contract where the ground relied upon is insanity.
2. A petition for guardianship of a person alleged to be insane;
3. An action to recover damages for personal injury where the issue is the extent of the injuries of the plaintiff.
HOW TO OBTAIN AN ORDER FOR EXAMINATION?
RULE: COURT CAN MOTU PROPRIO ISSUE AN ORDER OR ANY PARTY MAY FILE A MOTION SHOWING GOOD CAUSE FOR
THE EXAMINATION,
This must be with notice to the other parties as well aside from the party to be examined.
Note that this is the only mode where the court can motu propio issue (Sec. 1)
The others, you always have to apply for.
It can also be by motion of any party (Sec. 2)

The motion shall likewise specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and by the
person or persons by whom it is to be made

Such motion is to be filed with the court where the action is pending
REPORT OF FINDINGS; WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE

SECTION 3. Report of findings. - If requested by the party examined, the party causing the examination to be
made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting out his
findings and conclusions.
After such request and delivery, the party causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon request
to receive from the party examined a like report of any examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same
mental or physical condition.
If the party examined refuses to deliver such report, the court on motion and notice may make an order
requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report the court
may exclude his testimony if offered at the trial. (3a)
SECTION 4. Waiver of privilege. - By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by
taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or
any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or
may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical examination. (4)
CLARENCE TIU
187 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
REQUEST OF THE FINDINGS BY THE PARTY EXAMINED
RULE: THE PARTY EXAMINED MAY REQUEST THE PARTY CAUSING THE EXAMINATION TO BE MADE TO DELIVER TO HIM
A COPY OF A DETAILED WRITTEN REPORT OF THE EXAMINING PHYSICIAN SETTING OUT HIS FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS.
After such request and delivery, the party causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon request to
receive from the party examined a like report of any examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same mental
or physical condition
If the party examined refuses to deliver the report, the court may make an order requiring the delivery on such
terms as are just.
If it is the physician who fails or refuses to make a report, the court may exclude his testimony if offered at the trial
CONSEQUENCE OF REQUESTING OF THE FINDINGS BY THE PARTY EXAMINED
RULE: BY REQUESTING AND OBTAINING A REPORT OF THE EXAMINATION OR BY TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF THE
EXAMINER, THE PARTY EXAMINED WAIVES ANY PRIVILEGE HE MAY HAVE IN THAT ACTION OR ANY OTHER INVOLVING
THE SAME CONTROVERSY, REGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS EXAMINED OR MAY
THEREAFTER EXAMINE HIM IN RESPECT OF THE SAME MENTAL OR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
Because of the request of the party examined and his obtaining of the findings, the other party can now also ask for
previous or subsequent examination.
If the requesting party refuses and his physicians were allowed to testify, their testimonies can be excluded.
The moment you request, you practically open all previous and subsequent examinations
CLARENCE TIU
188 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

REFUSAL TO ANSWER
SECTION 1. Refusal to answer. - If a party or other deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral
examination, the examination may be completed on other matters or adjourned as the proponent of the
question may prefer.
The proponent may thereafter apply to the proper court of the place where the deposition is being taken, for
an deposition is being taken, for an order to compel an answer. The same procedure may be availed of when a
party or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory submitted under Rules 23 or 25.
If the application is granted, the court shall require the refusing party or deponent to answer the question or
interrogatory and if it also finds that the refusal to answer was without substantial justification, it may require
the refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising the refusal, or both of them, to pay the proponent the
amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees.
If the application is denied and the court finds that it was filed without substantial justification, the court may
require the proponent or the counsel advising the filing of the application, or both of them, to pay to the
refusing party or deponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the application,
including attorney's fees. (1a)
What if there was a refusal to answer any question upon an oral deposition or written interrogatory?
Proponent must first apply to the proper court of the place where the deposition is being taken for an order to
compel an answer.
If granted and court finds that there was no justification for the refusal, the deponent or the counsel (or both) will
pay the expenses.

If denied and the application was unjustified, it is the proponent who will pay.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
SECTION 2. Contempt of court. - If a party or other witness refuses to be sworn or refuses to answer any
question after being directed to do so by the court of the place in which the deposition is being taken, the
refusal may be considered a contempt of that court. (2a)
Refusal to be sworn in or refusal to answer after being ordered to do so will bring about contempt
OTHER CONSEQUENCES
SECTION 3. Other consequences. - If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey an
order made under Section 1 of this Rule requiring him to answer designated questions, or an order under Rule
27 to produce any document or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be
done, or to permit entry upon land or other property, or an order made under Rule 28 requiring him to submit
to a physical or mental examination, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and
among others the following:
a.
An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character or description of the
thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mental condition of the party, or any other
designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the
claim of the party obtaining the order
CLARENCE TIU
189 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

b.
An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or
prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony, or
from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition
c.
An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed,
or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the
disobedient party; an
d.
In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of any party or
agent of a party for disobeying any of such orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental
examination. (3a)
Upon refusal to comply with an order (like to answer a specific question), the court can also order the following:
Contempt
Dismissal of the case if refusal by plaintiff
Judgment by default if refusal by defendant
Pleadings be stricken out
In lieu of all of this, the disobeying party can be arrested
Except if based on refusal to submit to a physical or mental examination
1.
2.
3.
4.
EXPENSES ON REFUSAL TO ADMIT

SECTION 4. Expenses on refusal to admit. - If a party after being served with a request under Rule 26 to admit
the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter of fact, serves a sworn denial thereof and if the
party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of such document or the truth of any such
matter of fact, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay him the reasonable
expenses incurred in making such proof, including reasonable attorney's fees.
Unless the court finds that there were good reasons for the denial or that admissions sought were of no
substantial importance, such order shall be issued. (4a)
FAILURE OF PARTY TO ATTEND OR SERVE ANSWERS

SECTION 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. - If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party
wilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with a proper notice,
or fails to serve answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of such
interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or
dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party, and in
its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorney's fees. (5)
If the party refuses to appear or fails to serve answers to interrogatories (here, no need for order, the violation is more
blatant), the court can order:
1. Dismissal of the case if refusal by plaintiff
2. Judgment by default if refusal by defendant
3. Pleadings be stricken out
4. Pay reasonable expenses
EXPENSES AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SECTION 6. Expenses against the Republic of the Philippines. - Expenses and attorney's fees are not to be
imposed upon the Republic of the Philippines under this Rule. (6)
CLARENCE TIU
190 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
SUMMARY OF THE SANCTIONS/REMEDIES AGAINST THE PERSON REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THE MODE
OF DISCOVERY
NOTE: The matter of how, and when, the sanctions should be applied is one that primarily rests on the sound discretion
of the court where the case is pending, having always in mind the paramount and overriding interest of justice.
For while the modes of discovery are intended to attain the resolution of litigations with great expediency, they are not
contemplated, however, to be ultimate causes of injustice. It behooves trial courts to examine well the circumstances of
each case and to make their considered determination thereafter
REFUSAL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION (SEC. 1 AND 2)

Order to Compel Answer
If a party refuses to answer any question upon oral examination, the proponent (person applying for the mode of
discovery), may apply for an order to compel answer
He can also avail of this if the person refuses to answer any interrogatory submitted
If the application is granted, the court shall ORDER the refusing person to answer the question or
interrogatory
2. Pay for Reasonable Expenses
If the refusal was unjustified, the court may require the refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising the
refusal, or both of them, to pay the proponent the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order,
including attorney's fees.
The reverse also applies in that if the application for an order to compel was unjustified, the court may require
the person applying or his counsel to pay.

1.
REFUSAL TO ANSWER DESIGNATED OR PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OR REFUSAL TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS

OR TO SUBMIT TO PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION (SEC. 3)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The court may order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked shall be taken as established for
purposes of the action in accordance
The court may issue an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to refuse or support designated claims or
defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony, or
from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition
The court may issue an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof;
The court may issue an order staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
The court may issue an order dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof; or
The court may issue an order rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.
The court may direct the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of the orders of the court, except an
order to submit to a physical or mental examination
REFUSAL TO BE SWORN (SEC. 2)
A refusal of a party to be sworn after being directed by the court may be considered as contempt of court
REFUSAL TO ADMIT,
IF THE OTHER PARTY LATER ON PROVES THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENT OR THE TRUTH
OF SUCH MATTER OF FACT
(SEC. 4)
If a party refuses to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter of fact and serves a sworn denial
thereof and if the other party later on proves the genuineness of the document or the truth of such matter of fact, the
court upon proper application, may order the former to pay the reasonable expenses in making such proof, including
attorneys fees
FAILURE TO ATTEND DEPOSITIONS OR TO SERVE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES (SEC. 5)
The court may:

1. Strike out all or any part of the pleading of that party,
2. Dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof,
3. Enter a judgment by default against that party, and in its discretion,
4. Order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorneys fees
NOTE: The consequences under Sec. 5 of Rule 29 will apply if a party refuses to answer the WHOLE set of written
interrogatories, and not just a particular question.
CLARENCE TIU
191 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Where the party upon whom the written interrogatories is served, refuses to answer a PARTICULAR question in
the set of written interrogatories and despite an order compelling him to answer the particular question, still refuses
to obey the order, Sec. 3(c) of Rule 29 will apply
The following are the consequences provided for in Sec. 3(c) of Rule 29:
a. The court may issue an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof;
b. The court may issue an order staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
c. The court may issue an order dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof; or
d. The court may issue an order rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.
Refusal to
Answer
Questions in
Oral
Examination
Provision
Sanctions/
Remedies
against the
person
that eye be
issued by
the Court
Refusal to:
Answer questions
Produce document/things
Submit to physical or
mental examination
1.
2.
3.
Sec. 1 and 2
1.
2.
Order to
compel
answer
Order to
pay for
reasonable
expenses
Sec. 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Matters will be taken as

established
Court may refuse to allow the
disobedient party to refuse or
support designated claims or
defenses or prohibiting him
from introducing in evidence
designated documents or
things or items of testimony,
or from introducing evidence
of physical or mental
condition
Order striking out pleadings
or parts thereof;
Order staying further
proceedings until the order is
obeyed;
Order dismissing the action or
proceeding or any part
thereof; or
Order rendering a judgment
by default against the
disobedient party
Order arrest of any party or
agent of a party for
disobeying any of the orders
of the court, except an order
to submit to a physical or
mental examination
Refusal to
be Sworn
Refusal to
Admit*
Failure to attend
depositions or
Serve answers to
Interrogatories
Sec. 2
Sec. 4
Sec. 5
Contempt
Order to pay
for
reasonable
expenses
1.
2.
3.
4.
Order striking
out pleadings
or parts
thereof;
Order
dismissing the
action or
proceeding or
any part
thereof; or
Order
rendering a
judgment by
default against
the disobedient
party
Order to pay
for reasonable
expenses
* If the other party later on proves the genuineness of the document or the truth of such matter of fact
CLARENCE TIU
192 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RULE 116: Arraignment and Plea
Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution. Upon motion of the
accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or
alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any
written statement given by the complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the
prosecution or other investigating officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to
any matter involved in the case and which are in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or
other law investigating agencies. (11a)
RULE 119: Trial
Section 12. Application for examination of witness for accused before trial. When the accused has been held to
answer for an offense, he may, upon motion with notice to the other parties, have witnesses conditionally examined
in his behalf. The motion shall state: (a) the name and residence of the witness; (b) the substance of his testimony;
and (c) that the witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for believing that he will not be able to attend
the trial, or resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial and has no means to attend the
same, or that other similar circumstances exist that would make him unavailable or prevent him from attending the
trial. The motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the accused and such other evidence as the court may require.
(4a)
Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for the
prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the order of the court, or has to leave the
Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the
case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to
attend the examination has been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the
trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The
statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused. (7a)
CLARENCE TIU
193 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
*These are other rules and laws which pertain to evidence found in other rules, the constitution, and statutes
CONSTITUTIONAL RULES RELATED TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 3: BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.
Section 12.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to
the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE UNDER THE WIRE-TAPPING LAW AND HUMAN SECURITY ACT
REPUBLIC ACT No. 4200 (1965): AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED
VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly
known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next
preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record,
or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of
this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person:
CLARENCE TIU
194 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation
or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
Section 2. Any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the
acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section
or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be
punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty
of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the
commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
Section 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer,
who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two
preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case
of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised
Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against
national security:
Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the
examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
(1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has
been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed:
Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to
sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of
sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed;
(2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and
(3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
The order granted or issued shall specify:
(1) the identity of the person or persons whose communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words
are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications,
the telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its location;
(2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear, intercept, or record the communications,
conversations, discussions, or spoken words;
(3) the offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented; and
(4) the period of the authorization. The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order
which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the order, unless extended or renewed
by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest.
All recordings made under court authorization shall, within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period
fixed in the order, be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope or sealed package, and shall be
accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating the number of recordings
made, the dates and times covered by each recording, the number of tapes, discs, or records included in the
deposit, and certifying that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if
made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or package deposited with the court. The
envelope or package so deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or
their contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with
due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have
been recorded.
The court referred to in this section shall be understood to mean the Court of First Instance within whose
territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are to be executed.
CLARENCE TIU
195 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any
person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
Republic Act No. 9372: "Human Security Act of 2007
SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. -The provisions of
Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement
official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and
record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or
intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a
judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person
charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients,
doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be
authorized.
SEC. 8. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization. - The written order of the authorizing division of the
Court of Appeals to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record communications, messages,
conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words of any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or
the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of
Appeals upon an ex parte written application of a police or of a law enforcement official who has been duly
authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in Section 53 of this Act to file such ex parte
application, and upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may
produce to establish: (a) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, or is
being committed, or is about to be committed; (b) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any charged or
suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will be obtained; and, (c) that there
is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence.
SEC. 15. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials. - Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded
communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part or parts
thereof, or any information or fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance, purport,
effect, or meaning, which have been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall
absolutely not be admissible and usable as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
SEC. 35. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Bank Materials. - Any information, data, excerpts, summaries, notes,
memoranda, work sheets, reports, or documents acquired from the examination of the bank deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records of: (1) a person charged or suspected of the crime of terrorism
or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism; (2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization,
association, or group of persons; or (3) a member of such organization, association, or group of persons,
which have been secured in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall absolutely not be admissible and
usable as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation,
inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
CLARENCE TIU
196 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
PROHIBITED ACTS UNDER THE ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW
RULE: IT IS CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL TO DO THE FOLLOWING ACTS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF ALL THE PARTIES TO
SUCH PRIVATE COMMUNICATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tap any wire or cable or by using any other device or arrangement in order to
a. Secretly overhear,
b. Intercept
c. Record private communication or spoken word
Knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any such record, or copies thereof of any
communication or spoken word secured or obtained in a manner violative of the law.
Replay the same to any other person or persons.
Communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing to another.
Furnishing of transcriptions of the recorded communication, whether complete or partial, to any other person.
If only one party authorizes the recording and the other does not, there is a violation of the law.
Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the
inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Republic Act 4200
It is not unlawful to record open and public communications. What the law protects are private conversations and
communications.
Sec. 1 of the same law mentions certain modes of recording the private conversations: dictaphone, dictagraph,
detectaphone, walkie-talkie, tape recorder, any device otherwise described
EXCEPT: THE ACTS MENTIONED WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW IF DONE BY A PEACE OFFICER
AUTHORIZED BY A WRITTEN ORDER OF THE COURT IN CASES INVOLVING:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Treason
Espionage
Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
Piracy
Mutiny in the high seas
Rebellion
Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
Inciting to rebellion
Sedition
Conspiracy to commit sedition
Inciting to sedition, and
Kidnapping
Note that it is important that the court order be issued in accordance with the guidelines set forth
INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW
RULE: EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF R.A. 4200 SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IN THE
FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS:
1. Judicial
2. Quasi-judicial,
3. Legislative, or
4. Administrative hearing or investigation
What about in criminal proceedings?
People vs Enojas
Such incompetent evidence covers:
1. Any communication or spoken word;
2. The existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the communication or spoken word or any part thereof;
or
3. Any information contained, obtained or secured by any person in violation of Secs. 1, 2, and 3 of R.A. 4200
Note that even the existence of the communication is inadmissible.
SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS, INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS IN THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT
RULE: THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. 4200 NOTWITHSTANDING, A POLICE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL MAY LISTEN
TO, INTERCEPT AND RECORD, ANY COMMUNICATION, MESSAGE, CONVERSATION, DISCUSSION, OR WRITTEN OR
SPOKEN WORDS BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING:
1.
Members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons; or
CLARENCE TIU
197 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

2. Any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
In the interception and recording of communications, the officer may do so with the use of any mode, form, kind or type
of electronic or other surveillance equipment or interception and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable
ways and means for that purpose.
Any of the above acts may not, however, be done without a written order of the Court of Appeals (Sec. 7, R.A. 9372).
Such written order of a division of the Court of Appeals shall be granted only upon a written application by a police or
law enforcement official. This official must be one who is authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file such
application. Note that Sec. 8 of R.A. 9372 requires only an ex parte application.
Before the written order is issued, the applicant and the witnesses he may produce shall be examined under
oath or affirmation to establish the following matters (Sec. 8, RA 9372):
1. There is a probable cause to believe that the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been
committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed. The finding of probable cause must be shown based
on the personal knowledge of the applicant of facts and circumstances indicating the same.
2. There is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that evidence
essential to the conviction of the charged or suspected person, or evidence that would solve or prevent the crime,
will be obtained; and
3. There is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence
The authorization granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall be effective for the length of time
specified in the written order which shall not exceed thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order by the
applicant. The period may be renewed for a non- extendible period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the original
period upon proper application under the conditions set forth in Sec. 10 of R.A. 9372.
The authorization, order of extension or renewal, and applications filed, including authorizations of the Anti- Terrorism
Council are considered as classified information. The person under surveillance or whose communications are
intercepted has the right to be informed of the acts done by the law enforcement authorities, or challenge the legality of
the interception before the Court of Appeals which issued the written order
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
See Sec. 4 of the Anti-Wiretapping Law and Sec. 15 of the Human Security Act
RULE: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW AND HUMAN
SECURITY ACT SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IN ANY JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION, INQUIRY, PROCEEDING, OR HEARING:
Communication or spoken word;
The existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof;
Any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person
Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or
written words; or
5. Any part or parts thereof, or any information or fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning
But note the afore-mentioned exceptions, in these cases, it is not obtained in violation of such laws, thus
admissible
1.
2.
3.
4.

A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC (July 17, 2001): 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.
Section 2. Cases covered. These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasijudicial and administrative cases.
Section 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
CLARENCE TIU
198 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

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.
(d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electromechanical 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 signer's public key can accurately determine:
i. whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer's 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 Rules, the term "electronic document" may be
used interchangeably with "electronic data message.
(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.
Section 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.
CLARENCE TIU
199 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
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.
Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
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 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
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.
Section 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.
CLARENCE TIU
200 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Section 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 person's 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.
Section 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:
(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.
Section 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;
(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.
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.
CLARENCE TIU
201 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Section 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.
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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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: 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.
Section 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.
APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE?
RULE: THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE SHALL APPLY TO ALL CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS
QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CASES, BUT NOT TO CRIMINAL ACTIONS.
See Rule 1, Sec. 2

The application of the rules on evidence in the Rules of Court contrasts with the application of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence.
CLARENCE TIU
202 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

While the definition of evidence under the Rules of Court makes reference only to judicial proceedings, the
provisions of the Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial
and administrative cases.
The Rules on Electronic Evidence does not apply to criminal actions. They apply only to civil actions, quasijudicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings (Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835)
WHAT ARE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS?
RULE: ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS REFER 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.
See Sec. 1(h), Rule 2: "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 Rules, the term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably
with "electronic data message.
An electronic document, also known interchangeably as electronic data message, based on the definition of the Rules,
does not only refer to the information itself. It also refers to the representation of that information.
Whether it be the information itself or its representation, for the document to be deemed electronic, it is important
that it be received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically
The rule does not absolutely require that the electronic document be initially generated or produced electronically.
A contract, for instance, prepared through the traditional written way may be converted to an electronic document if
transmitted or received or later recorded electronically.
The rule also emphasizes that an electronic document is one that may be used for any of the following
purposes:
1. To establish a right;
2. To extinguish an obligation; or
3. To prove or affirm a fact
Is a printout of a facsimile transmission an electronic data message or electronic document?
NO. The terms electronic data message and electronic document, as defined under the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission and 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.
Accordingly, the congressional deliberations on the Electronic Commerce Act show that when Congress formulated
the term electronic data message, it intended the same meaning as the term electronic record in the Canada law
which excludes telexes or faxes, except computer-generated faxes from the term, electronic data message. While
Congress anticipated future developments in communications and computer technology when it drafted the law, it
excluded the early forms of technology, like telegraph, telex and machine transmission, when it defined the term
electronic data message. 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 fax transmission not electronic evidence.
To determine whether photocopies of facsimile transmissions are admissible in evidence, the Court applies the
ordinary Rules on Evidence, since the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 and the Rules on Electronic Evidence
cannot be applied to facsimile transmissions.(MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssanyong Corporation)
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AS FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS OF PAPER-BASED DOCUMENTS
RULE: ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ARE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS OF PAPER-BASED DOCUMENTS
See Sec. 1, Rule 3: 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.
Since an electronic document is the functional equivalent of a paper-based document, whenever a rule of evidence
makes reference to the terms of a writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing,
such terms are deemed to include electronic documents.
It is therefore, but logical to consider the rules on evidence in the Rules of Court, including statutes containing rules
of evidence, to be of suppletory application to the Rules on Electronic Evidence in all matters not specifically
covered by the latter.
CLARENCE TIU
203 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
MANNER OF AUTHENTICATING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
See Rule 5
RULE: THE PERSON OFFERING THE DOCUMENT HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE ITS AUTHENTICITY. BEFORE ANY PRIVATE
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT OFFERED AS AUTHENTIC IS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE, ITS AUTHENTICITY MUST BE PROVED BY
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS:
1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
2. 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
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
EXCEPTION:
1. DOCUMENT IS NOT OFFERED AS AUTHENTIC
2.
The rigorous requirements for the authentication of an electronic document do not apply to all electronic
documents. It will obviously apply only when the document is a private electronic document and the same is
offered as an authentic document.
If the electronic document is offered simply for what it is or for what it is claimed to be without regard to whether
or not it is authentic, Sec. 2 of Rule 5 on manner of authentication finds NO relevance.
In such a case, the electronic document has only to be identified pursuant to the suppletory application of Sec.
20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, under the said provision, Any other private document need
only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
When, for instance, a document is electronically notarized, the manner of authentication under Sec. 2 of Rule 5
will not likewise apply. When so notarized, it is transformed into a public document and is to be proved not in
accordance with the Rules on Electronic Evidence but in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Rule 5, 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.
Sec. 30 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides for the manner of proving notarial documents. In distinct
terms, the provision categorically states that Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as
provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being
prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved
WHAT ARE CONSIDERED ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS IN RELATION TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
See Rule 4
RULE: AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT SHALL BE REGARDED AS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNDER
THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE IF IT IS:
1. A PRINTOUT OR OUTPUT READABLE BY SIGHT OR OTHER MEANS, SHOWN TO REFLECT THE DATA ACCURATELY (SEC.
1)
Note that it must be shown to reflect the data accurately
2. COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL EXECUTED AT OR ABOUT THE SAME TIME WITH IDENTICAL CONTENTS, OR IS A
COUNTERPART PRODUCED BY THE SAME IMPRESSION AS THE ORIGINAL (SEC. 2)
The copies of the printout or output readable by sight are also deemed originals where the copies were
executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart reproduces the original
Such copies must be 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 copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
EXCEPT: IN THESE INSTANCES, THE COURT MAY NOT CONSIDER THE COPIES AS HAVING THE SAME EFFECT
AS ORIGINALS:
a. A genuine question as to the authenticity of the original is raised, or
b. That the circumstances would make it unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
RULE: THE CONFIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION IS NOT LOST SOLELY ON THE GROUND
THAT IT IS IN THE FORM OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT.
See Sec. 3, Rule 3

Privileged communications apply even to electronic evidence.
CLARENCE TIU
204 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULE: IN ASSESSING THE EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, CERTAIN FACTORS MAY BE CONSIDERED,
LIKE:
1. The reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated;

2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
3. The integrity of the information and communication system;
4. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and information system;
5. The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information system; and
6. Other factors which the court may consider (Sec. 1, Rule 7)
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. 1, Rule 9)
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 (Sec. 2, Rule 9)
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (2 October 2007): RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence, as defined in Section 3 hereof, is offered,
used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as well as special
proceedings.
Sec. 2. Application of other Rules on Evidence. In all matters not specifically covered by this Rule, the Rules
of Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall apply.
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Rule, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
(a) Biological sample means any organic material originating from a persons body, even if found in
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva and other body fluids,
tissues, hairs and bones;
(b) DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the
body. The totality of an individuals DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins;
(c) DNA evidence constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information directly
generated from DNA testing of biological samples;
(d) DNA profile means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a
person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person;
(e) DNA testing means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from
biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from
the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or
not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct
identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis); and
(f) Probability of Parentage means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative
parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a given population.
Sec. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on
application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order
shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii)
was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case; and
CLARENCE TIU
205 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy of
integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party,
including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.
Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied
with, the court shall
(a) Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any person or crime scene evidence;
(b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrity of the biological sample,
the testing process and the reliability of the test results, including the condition that the DNA test results
shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties involved in the case; and
(c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing by
the other or the adverse party and where additional biological samples of the same kind can no longer be
obtained, issue an order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be
conducted.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable. Any petition for
certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the implementation thereof, unless a higher court
issues an injunctive order. The grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof.
Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior
court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that
(a) a biological sample exists,
(b) such sample is relevant to the case, and
(c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.
Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. In assessing the probative value of the DNA
evidence presented, the court shall consider the following:
(a) The chair of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
possibility of contamination of the samples;
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages
and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting
the tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and
(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily.
Sec. 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is
reliable, the court shall consider the following:
(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or technique can be and has
been tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community;
(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated;
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles
and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.
CLARENCE TIU
206 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Sec. 9. of DNA Testing Results. In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the
following:
(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence;
(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case; and
that
(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If
the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be
considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher there
shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.
Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. The convict or
the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the postconviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. In the case the court, after due hearing finds the petition
to be meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict,
unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.
A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said
courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the
appropriate orders.
Sec. 11. Confidentiality. DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall be
confidential. Except upon order of the court, a DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from
DNA testing shall only be released to any of the following, under such terms and conditions as may be set
forth by the court:
(a) Person from whom the sample was taken;
(b) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
(c) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
(d) Other persons as determined by the court.
Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA profile without the
proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was offered,
presented or sought to be offered and presented.
Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written verified request to the court that
allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all results or other information
obtained from the DNA testing, he same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified
request.
Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including
all biological samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. For
this purpose, the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as
follows:
(a) In criminal cases:
(i) for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense; or
(ii) in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has served his sentence;
In
all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has
(b)
become final and executory.
The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set
forth above, provided that:
(a) A court order to that effect has been secured; or
(b) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA
evidence.
CLARENCE TIU
207 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES ON DNA EVIDENCE
The SC published the Rules on DNA evidence (RDE) in 2007
RULE: THE RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE IS THE PRIMARY RULE TO BE APPLIED WHENEVER DNA EVIDENCE IS OFFERED,
USED, OR PROPOSED TO BE OFFERED OR USED AS EVIDENCE IN:
1. Criminal actions
2. Civil actions
3. Special proceedings
When a matter is not specifically governed by the Rule on DNA Evidence, the Rules of Court and other pertinent
provisions of law on evidence shall apply
DEFINITION OF DNA
DNA refers to deoxyribonucleic acid which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body
DNA profile is the genetic information derived from DNA testing of biological samples obtained from a person where
such biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person (Sec. 3[d], RDE).
The totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information directly generated from the DNA testing of
biological samples is called DNA evidence
SIGNIFICANCE OF DNA
The significance lies in the uniqueness of the totality of the DNA of a person. It is a scientific fact that the totality of an
individuals DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins
DNA TESTING ORDER
RULE: A PERSON WHO HAS A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE LITIGATION MAY FILE AN APPLICATION FOR DNA TESTING
ORDER BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE COURT, AT ANY TIME
Note that the court may also motu proprio order a DNA testing
The order for a DNA testing shall not, however, be issued as a matter of course and from the mere fact that the
person requesting for the testing has a legal interest in the litigation. For the order to be issued, there must be
a further showing that:
1. A biological sample exists that has relevance to the case;
2. The biological sample (i) was not previously subjected to the DNA testing requested; or (ii) if it was previously
subjected to DNA testing, the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
3. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
4. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of
the case; and
5. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy and
integrity of the DNA testing
Finding that the above requirements have been complied with, the court shall now issue an order, if appropriate, to
a. Take biological samples from any person or crime scene evidence; and
b. Impose reasonable conditions on the testing to protect the integrity of the biological sample and the liability of
the test results
A court order is NOT always required before undertaking a DNA testing
The rules allow testing without a prior court order if done before a suit or proceeding is commenced at the request
of any party, including law enforcement agencies.
This also means that a litigation need not exist prior to DNA testing. Thus, a court order shall be required only if
there is a pending litigation, but not before the litigation.
A court order for DNA testing is NOT appealable
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable
The remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court but under Sec. 5 any petition for
certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an
injunctive order
POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING
A person who has already been convicted under a final and executory judgment, may still avail of DNA testing
It may be available without need of prior court order.
The test after his conviction is termed a post-conviction DNA testing
CLARENCE TIU
208 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

It may be available to (a) the prosecution, or (b) the person convicted by a final and executory judgment,
provided that the following requirements are met:
1. A biological sample exists;
2. Such sample is relevant to the case; and
3. The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction
If the results of the DNA testing are favorable to the convict, he may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the court of origin.
The court shall then conduct a hearing and in case the court finds, after due hearing, that the petition is meritorious,
it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless his detention is
justified for a lawful cause
The petition shall be filed in the court of origin as a rule. However, the rule also allows the petition to be filed either
in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts.
A hearing may be conducted by the latter courts or by any member thereof or instead of conducting a hearing,
may instead remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders
Note that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus may also be filed by the prosecution.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA EVIDENCE
There is NO automatic admission of the DNA evidence obtained in the testing

The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any
component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result of the testing.
This necessarily means that the court will still have to evaluate the probative value of the proposed evidence before
its admission.
The determination of the probative value of the DNA evidence rests upon sound judicial assessment taking into
consideration the following matters:
1. The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
possibility of contamination of the samples;
2. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and
disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
3. The forensic DNA laboratory, including its accreditation and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the test;
if the laboratory is not accredited, the court shall consider the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic
casework and its credibility shall be properly established; and
4. The reliability of the testing result
CONFIDENTIALITY OF DNA PROFILES
The DNA profiles of a person are NOT open to public scrutiny

DNA profiles and all the results or other information obtained from DNA testing are confidential.
Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court
order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to
be offered and presented
Except upon order of the court, the DNA profiles and other results shall only be released to any of the following:
1. The person from whom the sample was taken;
2. Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to
be offered and presented;
3. Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
4. Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
5. Other persons as determined by the court
The person from whom the biological sample was taken may also request that his DNA profile and all results or other
information obtained from the DNA testing be disclosed to the person designated in his request.
This request, however, must be in writing and verified and filed with the court that allowed the DNA testing
The trial court is mandated to preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles
and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing in accordance with Sec. 12 of the RDE.
BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE
The term biological sample means any organic material originating from a persons body, even if found in inanimate
objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.
(Sec. 3(a), Rules on DNA Evidence)
What if the person whose DNA biological sample is to be tested has died?
CLARENCE TIU
209 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Petitioner argues that a remand of the case to the RTC for DNA analysis is no longer feasible due to the death of
Rogelio. The death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there
exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA.Even, if Rogelio (the alleged father of the person trying to establish
paternal filiation) already died, any of the biological samples in the 3(a) of the Rules of DNA Evidence, which
includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones, as may be available, may be used for DNA
testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that
can be utilised for the conduct of DNA testing. (Estate of Ong vs Diaz)
RULES ON PROOF OF PATERNAL FILIATION

FAMILY CODE
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by
the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children.
Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws may consist of the childs baptismal certificate, a
judicial admission, a family bible in which the childs name has been entered, common reputation respecting the childs
pedigree, admission by silence, the testimony of witnesses, and other kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court. (Cruz vs Cristobal 2006)
RULE ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG CASES

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/
or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/
paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/
team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that 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/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items;
(b) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/ paraphernalia and/or
CLARENCE TIU
210 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination;
(c) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s:
Provided, that when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory:
Provided, however, that a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(d) After the filing of the criminal case, the court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular
inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall, within twenty- four (24) hours thereafter, proceed with
the destruction or burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the
guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the
offender:
Provided, that those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or
recycled for legitimate purposes;
Provided, further, that a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(e) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject
item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to
the court having jurisdiction over the case. In cases of seizures where no person is apprehended and no
criminal case is filed, the PDEA may order the immediate destruction or burning of seized dangerous
drugs and controlled precursors and essential chemicals under guidelines set by the Board. In all
instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(f)
The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the
above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said
offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused
or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence
in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorneys office to represent
the former;
(g) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was
presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the
case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the
PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty- four (24) hours from receipt of the same;
PURPOSE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUGS CASES
The confiscation and seizure of drugs require a specific chain of custody. Courts to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases
so an innocent person is not made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offense.
A police buy-bust operation carries a built-in danger for abuse because, by its very nature, anti-narcotics operation
involves the need for entrapment procedures and the use of shady characters as informants and the secrecy that
shrouds drug deals enables the planting of marijuana or heroin in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting persons. Such
operations, therefore, have to be governed by a specific procedure with respect to the seizure and custody of
the drugs. The required procedure is embodied in Sec. 21, paragraph 1, Art. II of R.A. 9165, Comprehensive Drugs
Act of 2002, as supplemented by Sec. 21 of its implementing rules and regulations.
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable, hence, in authenticating the same, a more stringent standard than that
applied to readily identifiable objects is necessary. This exacting standard entails a chain of custody of the item with
sufficient completeness to render it improbable for the original item to be exchanged with another, contaminated or
tampered with (Malillin v. People)
CLARENCE TIU
211 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its
existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of custody performs
this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The
rule seeks to settle definitively whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and presented
in court is the same object allegedly seized from the accused (Fajardo v. People)
For an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of drugs, it is necessary that the following elements be
established:
1. The accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug
2. Such possession is not authorized by law
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug
MEANING OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/
confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who
held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition (Sec. 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 implementing R.A. 9165)
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to
be.
It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition
of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same
In drug cases, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The mere fact of
unauthorized possession is not sufficient to create the moral certainty that would sustain a finding of guilt. More than
just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance said to be illegally possessed is the very same substance
offered in court as exhibit must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. The
likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and has physical
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily life (Malillin v.
People)
PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN CHAIN OF CUSTODY
1.
MARKING, PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DRUGS UPON SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof (Sec. 21[1 ], Article II of R.A. 9165)
Note that the law requires the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs to conduct a physical
inventory of the drugs as well as to photograph the same.
Such acts are to be done immediately and in the presence of the persons enumerated in the law as
witnesses. Such persons are required to sign the copies of the inventory and shall each be given a copy of the
same.
a. Accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel
b. A representative from the media and
c. A representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
d. Any elected public official (usually a kagawad or other baranagay official)
The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items.
CLARENCE TIU
212 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
2.

Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseurbuyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended
violator immediately upon arrest.
The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or
related items will use the marking as reference.
Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from
the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby
forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is
indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value
LABORATORY EXAMINATION
3.
Within twenty-four (24) hours upon the confiscation or seizure of the drugs, the same shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination (Sec. 21[2 ], Article II of R.A. 9165)
The forensic laboratory examiner is required to issue within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the drugs, a
certification of the forensic laboratory examination results which shall be done under oath (Sec. 21[3], Article II of
R.A. 9165)
OCULAR INSPECTION BY THE COURT, THEN DESTRUCTION

After the filing of the criminal case, the court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of
the confiscated drugs, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours proceed with the destruction of the
same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such drugs were confiscated, his representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official (Sec. 21[4
], Article II of R.A. 9165)
The Dangerous Drugs Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the
substances. The certification shall be submitted to the court. Also to be submitted are the representative samples of
the substances in the custody of the PDEA. Such samples shall be of a minimum quantity as determined by the
Board (Sec. 21[6 ], Article II of R.A. 9165)
Right of the Accused to Personal Observe the Chain of Custody Proceedings
The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above
proceedings.
His presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. However, after having been duly notified in accordance with
law and said alleged offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative within seventy-two (72) hours
before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a
member of the public attorneys office to represent the former (Sec. 21[5 ], Article II of R.A. 9165)
EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURE
RULE: IN CASE THERE IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW IN THE HANDLING OF
CONFISCATED DRUGS, THE IMPLEMENTING RULES REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE NON-COMPLIANCE MUST BE BECAUSE OF JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS; AND
2. THE APPREHENDING OFFICER/TEAM MUST HAVE PROPERLY PRESERVED THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE
OF THE SEIZED ITEMS.
Failure to comply to the Chain of Custody Procedures provided under the law is not fatal and will not render the items
seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony,
the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting
officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition;
and up to the time these are offered in evidence.
For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, even though the procedural requirements provided for in
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected. The integrity of
the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the
evidence has been tampered with.
If sufficient explanation is given by the prosecution for the non-compliance with the required procedure in the
handling of the seized items, such non-compliance shall not render the seizure and custody of the seized items void
and invalid. But a mere statement that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence has been preserved is not
enough. It must be accompanied by proof.
The saving clause in the implementing rules and regulations of R.A. 9165 applies only where there were procedural
lapses committed in the process of seizure and confiscation of the illegal items. The prosecution must thereafter cite
CLARENCE TIU
213 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

justifiable grounds for the non-compliance of the law and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized have been preserved.
Non-compliance with the required procedure will not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render
accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the
implementing rules offer some flexibility.
The issue if there is non-compliance with the law is not admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or
probative value
The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a
judgment of conviction

This is long, I just put the important parts below

A.M. NO. 004-07-SC November 21, 2000
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. - Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of
child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all
criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses.
Section 2. Objectives. - The objectives of this Rule are to create and maintain an environment that will allow
children to give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage children to testify in
legal proceedings, and facilitate the ascertainment of truth.
Section 3. Construction of the Rule. - This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best interests of the
child and to promote maximum accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to the constitutional
rights of the accused.
Section 4. Definitions. (a) A "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18) years.
In child abuse cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to
fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition.
(b) "Child abuse" means physical, psychological, or sexual abuse, and criminal neglect as defined in Republic
Act No. 7610 and other related laws.
Section 5. Guardian ad litem. (a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a victim of, accused of, or a witness to a crime
to promote the best interests of the child. In making the appointment, the court shall consider the
background of the guardian ad litem and his familiarity with the judicial process, social service programs,
and child development, giving preference to the parents of the child, if qualified. The guardian ad litem may
be a member of the Philippine Bar. A person who is a witness in any proceeding involving the child cannot
be appointed as a guardian ad litem.
(b) The guardian ad litem:
(1) Shall attend all interviews, depositions, hearings, and trial proceedings in which a child participates;
(2) Shall make recommendations to the court concerning the welfare of the child;
(3) Shall have access to all reports, evaluations, and records necessary to effectively advocate for the
child, except privileged communications;
(4) Shall marshal and coordinate the delivery of resources and special services to the child;
(5) Shall explain, in language understandable to the child, all legal proceedings, including police
investigations, in which the child is involved;
CLARENCE TIU
214 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(6) Shall assist the child and his family in coping with the emotional effects of crime and subsequent
criminal or non-criminal proceedings in which the child is involved;
(7) May remain with the child while the child waits to testify;
(8) May interview witnesses; and
(9) May request additional examinations by medical or mental health professionals if there is a compelling
need therefor.
(c) The guardian ad litem shall be notified of all proceedings but shall not participate in the trial. However, he
may file motions pursuant to sections 9, 10, 25, 26, 27 and 31(c). If the guardian ad litem is a lawyer, he
may object during trial that questions asked of the child are not appropriate to his developmental level.
(d) The guardian ad litem may communicate concerns regarding the child to the court through an officer of the
court designated for that purpose.
(e) The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding concerning any information, statement, or opinion
received from the child in the course of serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary
to promote the best interests of the child.
(f) The guardian ad litem shall be presumed to have acted in good faith in compliance with his duties
described in sub-section (b).
Section 6. Competency. - Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a
competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt
exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood,
or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.
(a) Proof of necessity. - A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of
competency examination. The age of the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency
examination.
(b) Burden of proof. - To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on
the party challenging his competence.
(c) Persons allowed at competency examination. Only the following are allowed to attend a competency
examination:
(1) The judge and necessary court personnel;
(2) The counsel for the parties;
(3) The guardian ad litem;
(4) One or more support persons for the child; and
(5) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence.
Conduct
of examination. - Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted only by the
(g)
judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion,
ask the child.
(h) Developmentally appropriate questions. - The questions asked at the competency examination shall be
appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child; shall not be related to the issues at trial; and
shall focus on the ability of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood,
and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
(i) Continuing duty to assess competence. - The court has the duty of continuously assessing the competence
of the child throughout his testimony.
Section 7. Oath or affirmation. - Before testifying, a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.
Section 8. Examination of a child witness. - The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any
proceeding shall be done in open court. 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.
The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may, however, move the
court to allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 9. Interpreter for child. CLARENCE TIU
215 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(a) When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said
languages due to his developmental level, fear, shyness, disability, or other similar reason, an interpreter
whom the child can understand and who understands the child may be appointed by the court, motu
proprio or upon motion, to interpret for the child.
(b) If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only person who can serve as an interpreter for the
child, he shall not be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the child. The interpreter, however,
who is also a witness, shall testify ahead of the child.
(c) An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to make a true and accurate interpretation.
Section 10. Facilitator to pose questions to child. (a) The court may, motu proprio or upon motion, appoint a facilitator if it determines that the child is unable to
understand or respond to questions asked. The facilitator may be a child psychologist, psychiatrist, social
worker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader, parent, or relative.
(b) If the court appoints a facilitator, the respective counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the child
only through the facilitator. The questions shall either be in the words used by counsel or, if the child is
not likely to understand the same, in words that are comprehensible to the child and which convey the
meaning intended by counsel.
(c) The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose questions to the child according to the meaning
intended by counsel.
Section 11. Support persons. (a) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by
one or two persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional support.
(1) Both support persons shall remain within the view of the child during his testimony.
(2) One of the support persons may accompany the child to the witness stand, provided the support person
does not completely obscure the child from the view of the opposing party, judge, or hearing officer.
(3) The court may allow the support person to hold the hand of the child or take other appropriate steps to
provide emotional support to the child in the course of the proceedings.
(4) The court shall instruct the support persons not to prompt, sway, or influence the child during his
testimony.
(b) If the support person chosen by the child is also a witness, the court may disapprove the choice if it is
sufficiently established that the attendance of the support person during the testimony of the child would
pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting the content of the testimony of the child.
(c) If the support person who is also a witness is allowed by the court, his testimony shall be presented ahead
of the testimony of the child.
Section 19. Mode of questioning. - The court shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as to
(1) facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the
developmental level of the child, (3) protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid
waste of time. The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form.
Section 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.
Section 21. Objections to questions. - Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to
mislead, confuse, frighten, or intimidate the child.
Section 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:
(a) 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. If the child
is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the
CLARENCE TIU
216 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;
(2) The general character of the declarant child;
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness;
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant
child misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe
(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his
attendance by process or other reasonable means.
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by
other admissible evidence.
Section. 30. Sexual abuse shield rule.
(a) Inadmissible evidence.The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
(b) Exception.Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a
person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible.
A party intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial, specifically describing the evidence and stating
the purpose for which it is offered, unless the court, for good cause, requires a different time for filing or
permits filing during trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the
motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child, his
guardian ad litem, the parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. The motion and the record of
the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in Section
31(b).The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent.
RA 8505: Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998
Section 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion
thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that
such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
put comments of rain
WHO IS A CHILD WITNESS?
RULE: A CHILD WITNESS IS ANY PERSON WHO, AT THE TIME OF GIVING TESTIMONY, IS BELOW THE AGE OF
EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS (Sec. 4[a])
May a person over eighteen (18) years old be sometimes considered as a child?
CLARENCE TIU
217 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Yes, he may. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable
to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of
a physical or mental disability or condition (Sec. 4[a])
COMPETENCY OF A CHILD WITNESS; COMPETENCY EXAMINATION
RULE: EVERY CHILD IS PRESUMED QUALIFIED TO BE A WITNESS.
This is the presumption established by the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (Sec. 6) and to rebut the
presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence
BUT, WHEN THE COURT FINDS THAT SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT EXISTS REGARDING THE ABILITY OF THE CHILD TO PERCEIVE,
REMEMBER, COMMUNICATE, DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD, OR APPRECIATE THE DUTY TO TELL THE TRUTH IN
COURT, THE COURT SHALL CONDUCT A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION OF THE CHILD.
The court may do so motu propio or on motion of a party (Sec. 6)
A party who seeks a competency examination must present proof of necessity of a competency examination.
Proof of such necessity must be grounded on reasons other than the age of the child because such age, in itself, is
not a sufficient basis for a competency examination (Sec. 6[a])
The competency examination of a child witness is not open to the public. Only the following are allowed to
attend the examination:
1. The judge and necessary court personnel
2. The counsel for the parties
4. One or more support persons for the child; and
5. The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence (Sec. 6[c])
The competency examination of the child shall be conducted only by the judge. If the counsels of the parties
desire to ask questions, they cannot do so directly. Instead, they are allowed to submit questions to the judge which
he may ask the child in his discretion (Sec. 6[d])
The questions asked at the competency examination shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level of the
child. The questions shall not be related to the issues at the trial but shall focus on the ability of the child to remember,
communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully (Sec. 6[e])
The assessment of the competency of the child is designed to be a continuing one. The court has the duty of
continuously assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony (Sec. 6[f])
Note: The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial
prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of
the testimony of the child (Sec. 25[f]
See Sec. 30
RULE: THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING INVOLVING ALLEGED CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE:
1.
2.
3.
Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation
EXCEPTION: EVIDENCE OF SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR BY THE ALLEGED VICTIM TO PROVE THAT A
PERSON OTHER THAN THE ACCUSED WAS THE SOURCE OF SEMEN, INJURY, OR OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHALL BE
ADMISSIBLE.
For rape cases, but only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE FOR CHILD WITNESSES
See Sec. 28
RULE: 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.
CLARENCE TIU
218 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the
3. In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and
(a) Whether there is a motive to lie
(b) The general character of the declarant child
(c) Whether more than one person heard the statement
(d) Whether the statement was spontaneous
(e) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness
(f) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child
(g) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote
(h) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child
misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
4. The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(a) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe
(b) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable means.
(c) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other
admissible evidence.
2.
RULE: THE EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS PRESENTED IN A HEARING OR ANY PROCEEDING SHALL BE DONE IN
OPEN COURT. THE ANSWER OF THE WITNESS SHALL BE GIVEN ORALLY, UNLESS THE WITNESS IS INCAPACITATED TO
SPEAK, OR THE QUESTION CALLS FOR A DIFFERENT MODE OF ANSWER
See Sec. 8, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness

Same general rule as with examination of ordinary witnesses (Rule 132[a]), but there are special rules for
child witnesses
Note that the examination in this provision does not refer to the competency examination of the child pursuant to
Sec. 6 of the same rule, but to a situation where the child is already testifying in court. Only specified persons are
allowed to attend the competency examination of the child and is obviously not an open court examination. (Sec.
6(c), Rule on Examination of a Child Witness)
SPECIAL RULES IN CASE OF EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESSES:

The court may basically order and allow the following:
1. Exclude the public
See Sec. 23, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
When the child is testifying, the court may exclude the public and persons who do not have a direct interest in
the case, including members of the press.

The order shall be made if the court determines on the record that to testify in open court would cause
psychological harm to him, hinder the ascertainment of truth, or result in his inability to effectively communicate
due to embarrassment, fear or timidity.
The court may also motu proprio exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during
trial is of such character as to be offensive to decency or public morals.

The court may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from trial, except court personnel and the
counsel of the parties

2. Close the courtroom
The court may also order that persons attending the trial shall not enter or leave the courtroom during the
testimony of the child (Sec. 24, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness).

3. Appoint an interpreter
When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said
languages due to his developmental level, fear, shyness, disability, or other similar reason, an interpreter whom
the child can understand and who can understand the child may be appointed by the court, motu proprio or
upon motion, to interpret for the child (Sec. 9[a], Rule on Examination of a Child Witness).
Being another witness in the same case or a member of the family of the child is not in itself a disqualification.
Such a person may be an interpreter if he is the only one who can serve as interpreter. If the interpreter is also a
witness, he shall testify ahead of the child (Sec. 9[b], Rule on Examination of a Child Witness)
3. Appoint a facilitator
CLARENCE TIU
219 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

If the court determines that the child is unable to understand or respond to questions asked, the court may, motu
proprio or upon motion, appoint a facilitator. The facilitator may be a child psychologist, psychiatrist, social
worker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader, parent, or relative (Sec. 10, Rule on Examination of a
Child Witness)
Allow support persons
A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by one
or two persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional support. Said support persons shall remain within
the view of the child during his testimony. One of the support persons may even accompany the child to the
witness stand and the court may also allow the support person to hold the hands of the child or to take other
appropriate steps to provide emotional support to the child in the course of the proceedings but the court shall
instruct the support persons not to prompt, sway, or influence the child during his testimony (Sec. 11, Rule on
The support person may be another witness but the court shall disqualify him if it could be sufficiently
established that the attendance of such support person would pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting
the content of the testimony of the child. If the support person who is also a witness is allowed by the court, he
shall testify ahead of the child (Sec. 11 [b][c], Rule on Examination of a Child Witness)
Allow testimony by live-link television
An application may be made for the testimony of the child to be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be
televised to the courtroom by live-link television. The application may be made by the prosecutor, counsel or
guardian ad litem at least five (5) days before the trial date (Sec. 25[a], Rule on Examination of a Child Witness)
The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial
prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma should be of a kind which would impair the completeness or
truthfulness of the testimony of the child (Sec. 25[f], Rule on Examination of a Child Witness)
If the child is testifying by live-link television and it is necessary to identify the accused at trial, the court may
allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying the accused, or the court may allow
the child to identify the accused by observing his image on a television monitor (Sec. 25[g][3], Rule on
The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices which shall be
made part of the court record and be subject to a protective order (Sec. 25[h], Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness).
Allow testimony behind one-way mirrors
To shield the child from the accused, the court may allow the child to testify in such a manner that the child
cannot see the accused by testifying through one-way mirrors, and other devices (Sec. 26, Rule on Examination
of a Child Witness).
Confidentiality of Testimony
Reports regarding a child shall be confidential and kept under seal. Except upon written request and order of the
court, a record shall only be released to the following (Sec. 31[a], Rule on Examination of a Child Witness):
1. Members of the court staff for administrative use
2. The prosecuting attorney
3. Defense counsel
5. Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies; and
6. Other persons as determined by the court
Whoever publishes or causes to be published in any format the name, address, telephone number, school, or
other identifying information of a child who is or is alleged to be a victim or accused of a crime or a witness
thereof, or an immediate family of the child shall be liable to the contempt power of the court (Sec. 31[d], Rule
on Examination of a Child Witness).
Where a youthful offender has been charged before any city, or provincial prosecutor or any municipal judge
and the charges have been dropped, all the records of the case shall be considered as privileged and may not
be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone for any purpose whatsoever. If he is charged and acquitted or the
case is dismissed, the records are also privileged, as a rule (Sec. 31[g], Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness).
The youthful offender, who fails to acknowledge the case against him or to recite any fact related thereto in
response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose, shall not be held under any provision of law to be guilty of
perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation (Sec. 31[g], Rule on Examination of a Child Witness)
4.
6.
7.
8.
CLARENCE TIU
220 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Whereas, case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each
year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place;
Whereas, about 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that complainants simply give
up coming to court after repeated postponements;
Whereas, few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines because its courts are
unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their investments, keeping its people poor;
Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under
litigation, on February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the
compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;
Whereas, it is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used
for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases;
Whereas, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, headed by Senior Associate
Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and the Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules on Civil Procedure, headed by
Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, have recommended for adoption a Judicial Affidavit Rule that will replicate
nationwide the success of the Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court En Banc finds merit in the recommendation;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby issues and promulgates the following:
Section 1. Scope. (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims cases
under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate Courts;
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including
the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the
Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be
uniformly referred to here as the "court."
Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. (a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier
service, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with
respect to motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses' direct
testimonies; and
(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits
and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits
1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.
CLARENCE TIU
221 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his possession, he
may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit
that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In
addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for comparison during the
preliminary conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be
admitted.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when allowed by
existing rules.
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the
witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain
the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the
place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so
under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance
with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by
law to administer the same.
Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or
supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers
that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the
latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the
witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available
for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the
issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his
deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shal1 be understood to be ex parte.
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit
of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the
presentation of the witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit
or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and,
if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an
authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132
of the Rules of Court.
CLARENCE TIU
222 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to
cross- examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who
presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in
examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the
answers that it needs for resolving the issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of
evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the
purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if
any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate
them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections,
and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or (3)
With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the pretrial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to
the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and
so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution,
he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court
within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private
prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so
on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear
before the court to testify.
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. (a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have
waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same
provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting
party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of
the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to
have waived his client's right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content requirements of
Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however, allow only once the
subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the
delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that
public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P
1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of
procedure governing investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence
are repealed or modified insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule. The rules of
procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.
CLARENCE TIU
223 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Section 12. Effectivity. - This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two
newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.
RATIONALE OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
The most basic reason for the adoption of the Rule is to decongest the courts of cases and to reduce delays in the
disposition of cases.
See the whereas clauses
EFFECTIVITY OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
By the terms of the Rule, the Judicial Affidavit Rule took effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two
newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012 (Sec. 12, Judicial Affidavit Rule).
The Rule shall also apply to existing cases (Sec. 12, Judicial Affidavit Rule).
The provision suggests that the application of the Rule to existing cases is not barred by the fact that other direct
testimonies have already been conducted orally before the effectivity of the same. The remaining direct testimonies
shall hence, be done by means of judicial affidavits.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE USE OF A JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
RULE: THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT SHALL TAKE THE PLACE OF THE DIRECT TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES (SEC. 2 [A][L],
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE).
It takes the place of direct examination

The rule, therefore, modifies the existing practice in the conduct of a trial and reception of evidence by doing away
with the usual oral examination of a witness in a direct examination.
To be attached to the judicial affidavit are the documentary or object evidence of the parties which shall be
marked as Exhibits A, B, C and so on in the case of the complainant or plaintiff. In the case of the respondent or the
defendant, the evidence shall be marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and so on (Sec. 2[a][2], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
The original document or object evidence need not be attached to the judicial affidavit. The party or witness may
keep the same in his possession after the exhibit has been identified, marked as an exhibit and authenticated. He
must however, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached is a faithful copy or
reproduction of the original (Sec. 2[b], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
Aside from the above requirement, the party or witness is required to bring the original document or object evidence
for comparison with the attached copy, reproduction or pictures, during the preliminary conference. In case of failure
to bring the originals for comparison, the attached copy, reproduction or pictures shall not be admitted (Sec. 2[b],
Judicial Affidavit Rule).
SCOPE/APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
RULE: THE RULE SHALL APPLY TO ALL ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS, OR INCIDENTS REQUIRING THE RECEPTION OF
EVIDENCE. IT APPLIES TO ALL COURTS AND ENUMERATED NON-JUDICIAL BODIES SUCH AS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and
the Sharia Circuit Courts
Regional Trial Courts and Sharia District Courts;
Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Court of Appeals and Sharia Appellate Courts;
Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines; and
Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the Supreme Court
(Sec. 1, Judicial Affidavit Rule).
EXCEPT: IT DOES NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:

1.
2.
Cases before the Supreme Court

Small Claims Cases
LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN CRIMINAL CASES
RULE: THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE SHALL APPLY TO CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE MAXIMUM OF THE IMPOSABLE
PENALTY DOES NOT EXCEED SIX YEARS (SEC. 9, JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE)
Criminal cases are actions which require the reception of evidence.

If the maximum imposable penalty exceeds 6 years, the use of judicial affidavits will now depend on the
accused.
CLARENCE TIU
224 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The Rule will apply, irrespective of the penalty involved, where the accused agrees to the use of judicial
affidavits (Sec. 9[2], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
With respect to the civil aspect of the criminal action, the Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply, irrespective of
the penalty involved (Sec. 9[3], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
Hence, with respect to the civil aspect, the penalty for the offense is not to be considered.
It is understood that the civil aspect of the criminal action refers to the action to recover civil liability arising from
the offense charged and which is deemed instituted with the criminal action as provided in Sec. 1 of Rule 111 of
the Rules of Court.
CONTENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
1.
LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
2.
A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness. If the affidavit is not in English or Filipino,
it shall be accompanied by a translation in either language (Sec. 3, Judicial Affidavit Rule)
DETAILS OF THE WITNESS
3.
The judicial affidavit shall contain the name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness
(Sec. 3[a], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
SWORN ATTESTATION OF THE WITNESS
4.
There must also be a statement in the affidavit that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully
conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury (Sec.
3[c], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
SIGNATURE OF THE WITNESS
5.
The judicial affidavit shall be signed by the witness over his printed name (Sec. 3[e], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
DETAILS OF THE LAWYER
6.
The judicial affidavit shall also contain the name and address of the lawyer. This is because the examination of the
witness shall be conducted and supervised by a lawyer (Sec. 3[b], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
SWORN ATTESTATION OF THE LAWYER
7.
The judicial affidavit, aside from the content requirements of Sec. 3 of the Judicial affidavit Rule, shall also contain a
sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who conducted and supervised the examination, to the effect
that there was a faithful recording of the questions and answers in the judicial affidavit and that there was no
coaching of the witness on what to answer.
Specifically, the sworn attestation shall attest to the following:
a. That he faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers
that the witness gave; and
b. That neither he nor any other person present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the latters
answers (Sec. 4[a], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
A false attestation shall subject the lawyer to disciplinary action, including disbarment (Sec. 4[b] Judicial Affidavit
Rule).
PLACE WHERE THE EXAMINATION TOOK PLACE
8.
The judicial affidavit shall also indicate the place where the examination is being held (Sec. 3[b], Judicial Affidavit
Rule).
QUESTIONS ASKED AND THE ANSWERS OF THE WITNESS
The judicial affidavit shall contain the questions asked of the witness and his answers to the questions, all
consecutively numbered.
The questions and answers shall:
a. Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
b. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
c. Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity (Sec. 3[d], Judicial
Affidavit Rule).
It is evident that the questions to be asked will determine whether or not the witness has personal knowledge of
the facts upon which he testifies, and thus, prevent the introduction into the record of mere hearsay testimonies.
The matters testified to should also be on matters relevant to the issues of the case.
The affidavit also requires that the witness not merely identify the exhibits but also authenticate the same for
evidentiary purposes.
Under the Rules of Court, proof of the due execution and authenticity of a private document shall be made in
case the document is offered as authentic. If not offered as authentic, the private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be (Sec. 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
Nothing in the provisions of the Judicial Affidavit Rule dispenses with the application of this principle.
CLARENCE TIU
225 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
9.
NOTARIZATION
The judicial affidavit shall contain a jurat, with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an
officer who is authorized to administer the same (Sec. 3[f], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTENT REQUIREMENTS OR ATTESTATION REQUIREMENTS
RULE: A JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CONTENT REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 3 OR THE
ATTESTATION REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 4 SHALL NOT BE ADMITTED BY THE COURT IN EVIDENCE (SEC. 10[C], JUDICIAL
AFFIDAVIT RULE).
The relevant provision, however, does not absolutely bar the submission of a compliant replacement judicial affidavit as
long as the replacement shall be submitted before the hearing or trial and provided further that the following requisites
are met:
1. The submission shall be allowed only once
2. The delay is for a valid reason
3. The delay would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and
4. The public or private counsel responsible for the preparation and submission of the affidavit pays a fine of not less
than PI,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court (Sec. 10[c], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
FILING AND SERVICE OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS; MODES OF SERVICE
RULE: THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS OF THE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTARY OR OBJECT EVIDENCE SHALL BE FILED
BY THE PARTIES WITH THE COURT AND SERVED ON THE ADVERSE PARTY, NOT LATER THAN FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE
PRE-TRIAL OR PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE OR THE SCHEDULED HEARING, WITH RESPECT TO MOTIONS AND INCIDENTS
(SEC. 2[A], JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE).
Under traditional rules, service of papers shall be made either personally or by mail (Sec. 5, Rule 13), and if service
cannot be made through such modes, service shall be done basically through substituted service by delivering a
copy of the paper to be served with the clerk of court (Sec. 8, Rule 13).
However, under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the filing of the judicial affidavit and its attached exhibits shall be done,
not only personally, but also by licensed courier service (Sec. 2[a], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
Note that service by mail is not mentioned in the Rule.
BUT, NOTE THE SPECIAL RULES IN CRIMINAL CASES:
In criminal cases, the prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days
before the pre-trial.
Copies of the judicial affidavits shall be served upon the accused.
To be attached to the judicial affidavits are such documentary or object evidence as the prosecution may have,
marking them as Exhibits A, B and C and so on (Sec. 9[b], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
In criminal cases, no further judicial affidavit, documentary or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial (Sec.
9[b], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
This means that even before the trial, the prosecution has to lay down on the table, all its evidence - testimonial,
documentary and object.

Since the accused is already aware of the evidence of the prosecution, he has the options to submit or not to
submit his judicial affidavits.
If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receiving the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, the
accused may submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses, including his documentary and object
evidences marking them as Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and so on.
The submission shall be done within ten days from receipt of the affidavits of the prosecution with service upon the
public and private prosecutor (Sec. 9[c], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS ON TIME
RULE: A PARTY WHO FAILS TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS ON TIME SHALL BE
DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED THEIR SUBMISSION (SEC. 10[A], JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE).
The waiver would mean that a party who failed to submit the judicial affidavit of a particular witness would have no
direct testimony for that witness and the documentary or object evidence integrated with such affidavit could not be
identified, marked as an exhibit, and authenticated.
In effect, the exhibit could not be offered in evidence.
If the waiver extends to the required affidavits of all the witnesses of a party because all the judicial affidavits were
not filed and served, then said party is deemed to have not presented his evidence-in-chief for his case.
Remedy in case of late submission
CLARENCE TIU
226 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

The failure of a party to submit a judicial affidavit on time does not mean a permanent waiver to submit the same.
He is given another chance to do so. The remedy is to move that the late submission of the judicial affidavit and its
exhibits be allowed.
The court may allow the late submission of the judicial affidavit and exhibits provided the following requisites
concur:
1. A late submission shall be allowed only once;
2. The delay is for a valid reason;
3. The late submission will not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and
4. The defaulting party pays a fine of not less than PI,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the
court (Sec. 10[a], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
OFFER OF TESTIMONY IN THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
RULE: PARTY USING THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF HIS WITNESS MUST:

1. PRESENT SUCH AFFIDAVIT AND STATE THE PURPOSE OF THE TESTIMONY CONTAINED THEREIN AT THE START OF
THE PRESENTATION OF THE WITNESS
2.
Instead of offering the oral testimony of the witness, the party using the judicial affidavit of his witness in place
of a direct testimony, shall present such affidavit and state the purpose of the testimony contained therein at the
start of the presentation of the witness (Sec. 6, Judicial Affidavit Rule)
MAKE AN ORAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF HIS LAST WITNESS
A party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in
their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.
The offer shall be made upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness (Sec. 8[a], Judicial Affidavit
Rule).
It is not necessary to describe each exhibit in the offer of evidence. It is sufficient that such exhibits are simply
cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each
exhibit since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate
them (Sec. 8[c], Judicial Affidavit Rule).
After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its
admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit ("Sec. 8[b], Judicial Affidavit
Rule).
Under Sec. 35 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the
presentation of a partys testimonial evidence. Such offer shall, as a rule, be done orally. The Judicial Affidavit
Rule likewise echoes the same principle, requiring that the offer of a partys documentary or object exhibits shall
be made upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness.
Be it noted, however, that while Sec. 35 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court allows the offer to be made in
writing, Sec. 8 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that the offer be made only orally.
OBJECTIONS TO TESTIMONY IN THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
RULE: THE ADVERSE PARTY MAY, ON THE GROUND OF INADMISSIBILITY, MOVE TO:
1. Disqualify the witness,

2. Strike out his affidavit, or
3. Strike out any of the answers found in the judicial affidavit (Sec. 6, Judicial Affidavit Rule).
The presentation of the judicial affidavit and the statement of the purpose of the testimony contained therein will give
the adverse party the opportunity to object to the testimony.
RULING OF THE COURT
RULE: THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO PROMPTLY RULE ON THE MOTION (OBJECTION) OF THE ADVERSE PARTY.
If it grants the motion, any excluded answer shall be marked by placing the same in brackets under the initials of
an authorized court personnel. The other party may, however, make a tender of excluded evidence under Sec. 40
of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 6, Judicial Affidavit Rule).
The term promptly, it is submitted, should be taken in its literal context and akin to the word, immediately, as used
in Sec. 38 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Under the said provision, the ruling of the court in case of an objection,
must be given immediately. The mandate on the giving of an immediate ruling is, however, qualified by the phrase,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. It is significant to
note that such qualification is not found in the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
CLARENCE TIU
227 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE
APPEARANCE OF THE WITNESS AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING
RULE: THE SUBMISSION OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE WITNESS AND THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS DOES NOT
EXEMPT THE WITNESS FROM APPEARING AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING. THE RULE STILL REQUIRES HIS APPEARANCE
(SEC. 10[B], JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE).
The appearance of the witness is necessary because the adverse party has the right to cross-examine him. The
cross-examination shall be on his judicial affidavit and on the attached exhibits.
After the cross-examination, the party presenting the witness may also examine him as on re-direct (Sec. 7,
Judicial Affidavit Rule).

A postponement of the cross-examination would be contrary to the spirit of the rule because the judicial affidavits
have been filed and served even before the scheduled hearing.
The court, under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, is not a mere passive entity that merely receives evidence from the
parties. The Rule integrates an element of the inquisitorial system which allows the court to have an active role
in the proceedings.
The Rule clearly mandates the court to take active part in examining the witness to (a) determine the (i) credibility of
the witness and (ii) truth of his testimony; and (b) elicit the answers that it needs in resolving the case (Sec. 7,
Judicial Affidavit Rule). The questions of the court shall not, therefore, be confined to mere clarificatory questions.
EFFECT OF FAILURE OF A WITNESS TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING; FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO APPEAR
RULE: THE COURT SHALL NOT CONSIDER THE AFFIDAVIT OF ANY WITNESS WHO DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE
SCHEDULED HEARING OF THE CASE AS REQUIRED (SEC. 10[B], JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE).
If the affidavit is not considered, it is as if no judicial affidavit has been executed by the absent witness. Such
witness, hence, shall be deemed as not having given a direct testimony in the trial.
It is the duty of counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing because of the adverse effect of his failure to do so on a
basic right of his client.
A counsel who fails to appear without a valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his clients
right to confront by cross-examination, the witnesses present (Sec. 10[b], Judicial Affidavit Rule)
CLARENCE TIU
228 OF 228
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Clarence Tiu - Evidence Notes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

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

Clarence Tiu - Evidence Notes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RULES OF

IS BASICALLY AN OUTLINE AND REVIEWER OF

OF THE CONTENT IS SOURCED FROM IT .

FROM CASES ASSIGNED IN OUR EVIDENCE CLASS UNDER

LEGENDARY BOOK ON THE RULES OF

INTEGRATED THE DOCTRINES

AND SEVERAL SPECIAL

WERE ALSO MADE FROM THE BOOK OF

THE ENDS OF THE EARTH WILL

CRY UNTO THEE , WHEN MY HEART IS OVERWHELMED : LEAD ME

TO THE ROCK THAT IS HIGHER THAN

THE GREATER GLORY OF

C LARENCE T IU A TENEO L AW 3B B ATCH 2017

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

RULE 130(A): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

RULE 130(B): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

RULE 130(C): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

NATURE AND DEFINITION OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY

ADMISSIONS AND THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE

HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

PARTS OF RES GESTAE

RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

RULE 132(A): EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

RULE 132 (B): AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

AUTHENTICATION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

RULE 132(C): OFFER AND OBJECTION

KINDS OF DOCUMENTS; PRESENTING PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

RULE 133: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

OVERVIEW OF THE MODES OF DISCOVERY

RULE 23: DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION

DEPOSITION UPON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES

DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION; NOTICE AND PLACE

RULE 24: DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL

DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION

DEPOSITIONS PENDING APPEAL

RULE 134: PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY

RULE 25: INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

VERIFIED PETITION FOR DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION

SERVICE OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

RULE 26: ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

RULE 27: PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION

RULE 28: PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS

WHEN EXAMINATION MAY BE ORDERED

RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MODES OF DISCOVERY

DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

CONSTITUTIONAL RULES RELATED TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE

WHEN EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHED FROM PROOF

FACTUM PROBANDUM VS FACTUM PROBANS

Evidence signifies a relationship between two facts, namely:

PRINCIPLES ON THE APPLICABILITY AND APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

UNIFORMITY AND APPLICABILITY OF RULES

NON-APPLICABILITY OF RULES TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES