LIST OF CASES

EVIDENCE
RULE 128
1. Reyes v. CA G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
Rules on evidence are not applicable to agrarian cases even in suppletory manner.
2. Agustin v. CA, GR No. 162571, June 15, 2005
DNA test is admissible in proving paternity and is not a violation of right against self-
incrimination and right to privacy.

Wire-tapping
3. Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, GR No. 110662, August 4,1994
Tape recordings of telephone conversations obtained through wiretapping are inadmissible.
4. Gaanan v. IAC, GR No. L-69809, October 16, 1986
The use of a telephone extension does not violate RA No. 4200 because a telephone
extension devise is not among those devices or arrangements enumerated therein.
5. Ramirez v. CA 248 S 590
Even a person privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another
without the knowledge of the latter will qualify as a violator under R.A. 4200.

RULE 129
6. Barioquinto v. Fernanez, G.R. No. L-1278, January 21, 1949
Pardon is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because
the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the President with the
concurrence of Congress is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice.
7. Torres v. CA, GR No. L-37421, July 31, 1984
Admissions in superseded pleadings are considered extrajudicial admissions which have to
be offered in evidence.
8. Tabuena v. CA, 196 S 650
Courts may take judicial notice of the proceedings of another case only when certain
conditions have been established.
9. Baguio v. Vda. De Jalagat, GR No. L-28100, November 29, 1971
When the ground of a motion to dismiss is a prior judgment rendered by the same court, the
taking of judicial notice of said prior judgment by the same court is proper.
10. BPI-Family Savings Bank v. CA, GR No. 122480, April 12, 2000
Courts may take judicial notice of a decision in another case attached to the petition as
provided in Section 2 that courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be known by
judges by reason of their judicial functions.
11. Calamba Steel Center v. CIR, GR No. 151857, April 28, 2005
Same doctrine with BPI

RULE 130
OBJECT EVIDENCE
12. Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, November 16, 1995
The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can
be proved prima facie, either by the photographer or by any other competent witness who
can testify to its exactness and accuracy.

1 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
13. US Case: Adam Schook v. Hollaway *** cant find this 1941
14. US Case: State of Washington v. Tatum 360 P.2d 754
The quantum of authentication courts require before a photograph may be admissible in
evidence is that that some witness (not necessarily the photographer) be able to give some
indication as to when, where, and under what circumstances the photograph was taken, and
that the photograph accurately portrays the subject or subjects illustrated.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Best Evidence Rule

15. People v. Tandoy, 192 S 28
Where the marked money was presented solely for the purpose of establishing its existence
and not its contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is admissible
without the need of accounting for the original.
16. US Case: Meyers v. US 171 F.2d 800
Where the issue was not the contents of the transcript but what the testimony had been, the
best evidence rule is inapplicable.
17. People v. Tan, G.R. No. L-14257, July 31, 1959
Duplicates or triplicates are regarded as originals.
18. US Case: Seiler v. Lucasfilm 797 F.2d 1504
Drawings are covered by the best evidence rule.
19. US v. Gregorio and Balistoy 17 P 522
In criminal proceedings for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the
document alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified is presented as
evidence.
20. Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers Union 77 S 24
For the exception under 3(c) to apply, the voluminous character of the records must be duly
established and the records and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party.
21. Villa Rey Transit v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-23893, October 29, 1968
For the exception under 3(b) to apply, it is not necessary for a party seeking to introduce
secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual possession of his adversary.
22. De Vera v. Aguilar 218 S 602
For the exception under 3(a) to apply, all duplicates or multiplicates must be unavailable.
23. Hutchison v. Buscas 459 S 214
Failure to adduce in evidence the original document or produce secondary evidence, after
proof of its loss, destruction or unavailability, in order to prove the identity of the land is
fatal in an action to recover ownership of real property.
24. Magdayao v. People 436 S 677
When adverse party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce
it, secondary evidence may be admitted.
25. Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga v. Reyes, 55 P 905
The best evidence in a libel case is the copy of the paper where the libelous article was
published.
26. Ebreo v. Ebreo, G.R. No. 160065, February 28, 2006
Annotation of the disputed Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is not sufficient proof of the
transfer of property where the party failed to prove the loss of the originals.
27. Michael & Co. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 10824, December 24, 1915
In establishing the execution of a document the same may be established by the person or
persons who executed it, by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, or by
any person who was present and saw it executed or who, after its execution, saw it and
recognized the signatures; or by a person to whom the parties to the instrument had
previously confessed the execution thereof.

Parol Evidence Rule

28. Yu Tek v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 9935, February 1, 1915

2 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
Written contract to deliver sugar
Parol evidence showing that the parties intended the sugar to be secured from the
plantation is not admissible.
29. Ortanez v. CA, G.R. No. 107372, January 23, 1997
Deed of sale of land
Parol evidence showing that the sale was subject to several conditions is not admissible.
30. Land Settlement and Development Corp. v. Garcia Plantation, G.R. No. L-17820, April 26,
1963
Letter
When the operation of the contract is made to depend upon the occurrence of an event,
which, for that reason is a condition precedent, such may be established by parol evidence.
31. Pastor v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 1256, October 23, 1903
Loan agreement
Parol evidence showing that a party to the contract was to become a partner instead of a
creditor of the firm is not admissible.
32. Eveland v. Eastern Mining Co., G.R. No. L-4976, November 27, 1909
Contract of employment
Parol evidence showing that the payment of the salary was contingent upon the success of
the business is not admissible.
33. Chiu Chiong v. National City Bank of NY, G.R. No. L-7485, August 23, 1956
Promissory note
Parol evidence showing that there was an agreement that should payments made during
the Japanese occupation be declared valid, the payments made on the promissory note
would be refunded is not admissible.
34. Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos, 50 P 387
Deed of conveyance of testamentary rights
Parol evidence showing that there was agreement on the compensation for improvements
and other property acquired by lease or purchase is admissible because it is a collateral
agreement which constituted an inducement to the making of the sale.
35. PNB v. Seeto, G.R. No. L-4388, August 13, 1952
Promissory note
Parol evidence showing that assurances were made that the amount will be refunded should
the check be dishonored is admissible because it is a collateral agreement by virtue of
which petitioner was induced to cash the check.
36. Woodhouse v. Halili, G.R. No. L-4831, July 31, 1953
Contract of partnership
Parol evidence (drafts of the contract) to prove fraud or false representation to secure the
other partys consent are admissible since the purpose of considering them is not to vary,
alter, or modify the agreement, but to discover the intent of the parties thereto and the
circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract.
37. Canuto v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-11346, March 21, 1918
Deed of sale with the right to repurchase
Parol evidence showing that the parties verbally agreed to extend the period of redemption
is admissible because it is an agreement entered into subsequent to the time when the
written instrument was executed.
38. Enriquez v. Ramos, G.R. No. L-18077, September 29, 1962
Deed of sale
Parol evidence to prove the promise of sellers to construct roads on the lots sold is
admissible because it was properly put in issue in the pleadings that the written agreement
did not express the true intention of the parties. (Sec. 9b)
39. Madrigal v. CA, G.R. No. 142944, April 15, 2005
Deed of sale
Parol evidence to prove that the instrument is one of equitable mortgage is admissible
because it was properly put in issue in the pleadings that the written agreement did not
express the true intention of the parties. (Sec. 9b)

3 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
40. Inciong v. CA, G.R. No. 96405, June 26, 1996
Promissory note
Parol evidence to show that the makers agreed to a different loan amount is admissible
because fraud was properly alleged in the pleading.
For the parol evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or
be signed by both parties.
41. Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 79962, December 1s0, 1990
Receipts
The parol evidence rule does not apply to documents not embodying the terms of an
agreement.
Statements of facts expressed in an instrument may be varied by parol evidence.
42. Lechugas v. CA, G.R. No. L-39972, August 6, 1986 !!!
Deed of Sale
The parol evidence rule does not apply where at least one of the parties to the suit is not
party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim
on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established
thereby.
43. Pioneer Savings and Loan Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 105419, September 27, 1993
Deed of sale
Parol evidence showing that the deed of sale merely served as security for the time deposit
placements is not admissible.
44. Maulini v. Serrano GR No. 8844 Dec. 16, 1914
Contract of indorsement of a promissory note
Parol evidence showing that the indorsement was wholly without consideration is admissible
because the purpose of presenting such evidence is to show that no contract of indorsement
ever existed. (Sec. 9c)
45. Bough v. Cantiveros, 40 P 209
Case in civpro actionable document, in relation to Maulini
46. Town Savings v. CA, Spouses Hipolito
Related to Maulini on accommodation party

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Qualification of Witnesses
Marital Disqualification Rule
47. Ordono v. Daquigan G.R. No. L-39012, January 31, 1975
When an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it
comes within the exception to the rule.
48. People v. Castaneda, GR. L-46306, February 27, 1979
The criminal case for Falsification of Public Document is considered as a criminal case for a
crime committed by a spouse against the other and therefore an exception to the rule.
49. Lezama v. Rodriguez, 23 S 1166
A wife, who is a co-defendant of her husband in an action, may not be examined as a hostile
witness by the adverse party applying the marital disqualification rule.
50. People v. Francisco 78 P 694
The defendant, in testifying on a new matter consisting in the imputation of the crime upon
his wife, is considered to have waived the objections to the latters testimony.

Dead Mans Statute

51. Reyes v. Wells, G.R. No. 30587, December 4, 1929
The dead mans statute does not apply to the testimony of a witness who has no interest in
the case.
52. Guerrero v. St. Clares Realty, G.R. No. L-58164, September 2, 1983
The dead mans statute does not apply because (1) the witnesses are not parties or
assignors of parties to the case, or persons in whose behalf a case is being prosecuted and

4 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
(2) the defendants are not executors or administrators or other representatives of the
deceased person.
53. Abraham v. Recto-Kasten, G.R. No. L-16741. January 31, 1962
Cross-examination of the witness by the defendant amounts to waiver of prohibition of the
testimony.
54. Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf, G.R. No. L-2016, August 23, 1949
President and accountant of the corporation testified on the advances made by Fritz Simons
while he was the president. One of the claims against the estate of Simons. Whether pres.
and accountant are disqualified being officers of Atlantic Golf. No, bec. prohibition only
applies to the plaintiff. They are persons merely employed by the plaintiff.
55. Goni v. CA, G.R. No. L-27434, September 23, 1986
56. Londres v. CA
Plaintiff is the estate, DMS not applicable
57. Razon v. IAC G.R. No. 74306, March 16, 1995
Estate of Chuidian is one who claims against the estate of Irazon, the latters lips are not
sealed
58. Tongco v. Liangson 50 P 698, Justice Malcolm
DMS does not apply to cadastral proceedings, only in ordinary civil proceedings

Marital Privilege
59. People v. Carlos 47 P 626 March 17, 1925
Where a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into the hands of a
third party, the privilege is thereby extinguished and the communication becomes
admissible.

Attorney-Client
60. Barton v. Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Company 46 P 938 March 22, 1934
Communications between attorney and client which came to the hands of the adverse party
is not covered by the privilege.
61. Orient Insurance Co. v. Revilla and Teal Motor Co. 54 P 919
The presentation in evidence of a part of a letter containing communications between the
lawyer and his client amounts to waiver of the privilege which will permit the other party to
examine the entire letter; contract for fees not privileged.
62. US Case: Hickman v. Taylor 329 US 495, January 13, 1947
Information obtained from witnesses in anticipation of litigation are not covered by the
privilege.
63. US Case: Upjohn Co. v. US 449 US 383, January 13, 1981
Communications by employees to counsel are covered by the attorney-client privilege.
64. People vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 115439-41, July 16, 1997
Communications between attorney and client having to do with the client's contemplated
criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the privilege.
65. Uy Chico v. Union Life Insurance Society 29 P 163, Jan. 6, 1915
Communications made by a client to his attorney for the purpose of being communicated to
others are not privileged.
66. Regala vs. SB, G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1996
Disclosure of the identity of clients in this case is a violation of the privilege because it
would lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of the case and
would provide the necessary link for the prosecution to build its case, where none otherwise
exists.
67. Disini v. Sandiganbayan Bersamin
In house counsel

Physician-Patient
68. Krohn v. CA G.R. No. 108854. June 14, 1994

5 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
Where the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery, or obstetrics, (the husband in this case) the privilege will not
apply.
69. Lim v. CA 214 S 273 Sept. 25, 1992
The privilege is not violated by permitting a physician to give expert opinion testimony in
response to a strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental
condition of a patient whom he has attended professionally.

Public Officer
70. US Case: US v. Nixon 418 US 683 July 24, 1974
A generalized claim of public interest is not within the ambit of the privilege.
71. Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board G.R. No. L-70054, July 8, 1986
Where public interest has not been established, the documents are not covered by the
privilege.

Other Privileged Communication

72. People v. Ong 432 SCRA 470
Informers privilege: Where the disclosure of an informer's identity, or the contents of his
communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair
determination of a cause, the privilege must give way.
73. US Case: New York Times Co. and Farber v. Jascalevich, 439 US 1331, August 4, 1978
Farbers investigation as reporter; right of reporter not to disclose vis--vis right of accused
to present a witness; the latter prevails

Admissions and Confessions

Admissions by third-party
74. People vs. Alegre G.R. No. L-30423 November 7, 1979, 84 S 105
The silence of an accused under custody cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his
participation in the commission of the crime because of his right against self-incrimination.
75. People v. Raquel G.R. No. 119005, December 2, 1996
The extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized
against the latter, unless these are repeated in open court.

Admission by conspirator
76. People vs. Cabrera G.R. No. L-37398. June 28, 1974
A statement not made during the existence of the alleged conspiracy, such as when the co-
conspirator was already in the hands of the authorities, is not admissible in evidence.
77. People v. Yatco G.R. No. L-9181, November 28, 1955
Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if the confession may not be
competent as against co-accused, being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy
between them without the conspiracy being established by other evidence, the confession
is, nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarant's own guilt.
78. People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, G.R. No. L-19590, April 25, 1968
Conspiracy was not proved by independent evidence
79. People v. Serrano 105 P 531
The rule on admission by conspirator applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration, but
not to testimony given on the stand at the trial where the defendant has the opportunity to
cross-examine the declarant.

Admission by privies
80. Alpuerto v. Pastor 38 P 785
Privy denotes the idea of succession, not only by right of heirship and testamentary legacy,
but also that of succession by title derived from acts inter vivos and for special purposes.
81. City of Manila v. Del Rosario G.R. No. 1284, November 10, 1905

6 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
Declarations made by the predecessor in interest during the time when he is not holding
title to the property in question are not admissible.

Admission by silence
82. People v. Paragsa 84 P 105
The rape victim did not rebut the testimony of the accused that they have a relationship

Confession
83. People v. Compil 244 S 135
An extrajudicial confession obtained without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible even if
a counsel was present prior to the signing.
84. People v. Wong Chuen Ming G.R. Nos. 112801-11
An act amounting to a tacit admission of the crime charged, such as the affixing of signature
of the accused on the bags containing the illegal drugs, is inadmissible as an extrajudicial
confession if the accused were not informed of their Miranda rights.
85. People v. Yip Wai Ming 264 S 224
Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to
counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence
86. People v. Endino 352 S 307
Videotaped confession to the media is admissible because it does not form part of the
custodial investigation.
87. People v. Abulencia 363 S 496
A confession to a radio reporter is admissible where it was not shown that said reporter was
acting for the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances where it is
apparent that the suspect confessed to the killing out of fear.
88. People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, March 22, 1995
Admissions obtained not in the course of an investigation but in connection with a plea to be
utilized as a state witness are admissible.
89. People v. Mones
On corpus delicti Criminal connection of the accused with the crime charged link not
necessary furnished by the extrajudicial confession, corpus delicti of one component offense

Offer of compromise
90. People v. Godoy 250 S 678 December 6, 1995
No implied admission can be drawn from the efforts to arrive at a settlement outside the
court, where the accused did not take part in any of the negotiations; the accused is
permitted to show that the offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to
avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment.
91. People v. De Guzman 265 S 228 December 2, 1996
A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise.
92. People v. Yparraguirre, G.R. No. 117702, February 10, 1997
An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the
offer can be received in evidence against the offeror.
93. US v. Maqui 27 Phil. 97 (1914)
94. People v. Torres
These two cases appear to have been overturned by the 3 previous cases
95. Edward A. Keller and Co. v. COB Group Marketing, Inc. 141 S 86, Jan. 16, 1986
A second mortgage, although did not become effective, may serve the purpose of being
admissions of the liability.

Previous Conduct as Evidence

96. US v. Evangelista G.R. No. 8132. March 25, 1913
Fire
97. US v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-12858, January 22, 1918

7 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
Evidence as to other offenses committed is admissible where the purpose is to ascertain
knowledge and intent.
98. People vs. Irang, G.R. No. 45179, March 30, 1937
Evidence of another crime is admissible where it tends to identify the accused as the
perpetrator or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the
time charged.
99. People v. Valencia
To prove scheme, cigarette
100. Santos v. Fernando
Offer in writing if rejected is equivalent to tender

Hearsay Evidence Rule

Dying Declaration
101. People v. Damaso 212 S
102. People vs. Devaras, 27 S 697
103. People vs. Sabio G.R. No. L-26193. January 27, 1981
A dying declaration which includes a question Who slashed you and robbed you? is not
admissible to prove the crime of robbery.
104. People vs. Laquinon G.R. No. L-45470. February 28, 1985
The dying declaration is not admissible where the deceased answered I dont know when
asked whether he would survive from the gunshot wounds he suffered because the same
was not made under the consciousness of an impending death. It is, however, admissible as
part of the res gestae.
105. People v. Agripa G.R. No. 72244, May 8, 1992
The statement is not admissible where it does not show that it was made by the declarant
under the consciousness of impending death although it is true that the declarant was near
death at the time. It is, however, admissible as part of the res gestae.
106. People vs. De Joya G.R. No. 75028. November 8, 1991
Under the doctrine of completeness, a dying declaration to be admissible must be a full
expression of all that a declarant intended to say.

Declaration against interest

107. People v. Toledo G.R. No. L-28655 August 6, 1928 ***
Dying declaration also considered a declaration against interest
108. Viacrucis vs. CA, G.R. No. L-29831. March 29, 1972 ***
Ownership of property

Act or declaration about pedigree

109. People vs. Alegado G.R. Nos. 93030-31. August 21, 1991 ***
Age of a child

Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

110. Ferrer vs. Inchausti G.R. No. 12993. October 28, 1918 ***
Entry in a diary

Part of the res gestae

111. People vs. Putian, G.R. No. L-33049, November 29, 1976
Putian argues not spontaneous several hours after the statement; spontaneous v. verbal
acts
112. People v. Peralta 94570, September 28, 1994
Testimony of the mother of the deceased that the daughter of the deceased told her that her
father is strangling her mother; statement before the judge after the incident, retraction 7
years after
113. Dusepet v. People 39 P
Verbal act; anak ko to

8 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
Learned Treatises
114. Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. 55960, November 24, 1988
An unwritten foreign law is proved by testimony of expert witness under Section 46 of Rule
130 while a written foreign law is proved in accordance with Section 24 of Rule 132.

Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

115. Tan vs. CA, G.R. No. L-22793, May 16, 1967
116. People vs. Liwanag, G.R. No. L-27683, October 19, 1976

Rule 131
Burden of Proof
117. IFC vs. Tobias, G.R. No. L-41555, July 27, 1977
Civil: No knowledge of the accident not required to be proved because his cause of action is
not founded on it
118. People vs. Pajenado, G.R. Nos. L-27680-81, February 27, 1970
Criminal: No license in the possession of firearm, alleged not proved, should be proved
because it is an essential ingredient of the crime illegal possession of firearm
119. Domingo v. Robles, G.R. No. 153743, March 18, 2005
120. People vs. Verzola, G.R. No. L-35022, December 21, 1977
Burden of proof in evidence where accused admitted the killing; establish exculpation

Conclusive Presumptions
121. Molina vs. CA, G.R. No. L-14524, October 24, 1960
On 2a, Estoppel by deed
122. Figue v. CA, G.R. No. 107951, June 30, 1994
On 2b, Tenant should surrender first possession

Disbutable Presumptions
123. People vs. Padiernos, G.R. No. L-37284, February 27, 1976
3e; Requisites: wilful, not merely corroborative, at the disposal only of the suppressing party
124. People v. Pablo G.R. No. 91129. August 25, 1992
3e; No suppression merely corroborative
125. Angpin v. CA
3m; On substituted service under Civpro
126. Suntay v. Suntay
3n; On will probated in foreign court under Specpro; There is error in this case because the
presumption that the foreign court has jurisdiction was not applied

Rule 132
127. People v. Estenzo G.R. No. L-41166. August 25, 1976
Purposes of oral examination witness: (1) To give the other party the opportunity to cross-
examine (2) To allow the court to observe the witness

Cross-examination
128. Dela Paz v. IAC, G.R. No. 71537, September 17, 1987
Failure to cross-examine after several postponements due to cross-examiners fault
amounts to waiver of the right to cross-examine.
129. Fulgado v. CA, G.R. No. 61570, February 12, 1990
Failure to cross-examine due to cross-examiners inaction amounts to waiver of the right to
cross-examine.

9 | Page J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
Recalling witness
130. People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 98376, August 16, 1991
The discretion to recall a witness is not properly invoked or exercisable by an applicant's
mere general statement that there is a need to recall a witness "in the interest of justice," or
"in order to afford a party full opportunity to present his case," or that, as here, "there
seems to be many points and questions that should have been asked" in the earlier
interrogation.

Evidence of inconsistent statements

131. People v. Resabal, G.R. No. 26708, September 29, 1927
Impeachment of witness by evidence of inconsistent statements is not proper where the
declarations were not read to him and he was not given an opportunity to explain the
discrepancies.
132. VIllalon v. IAC, G.R. No. 73751, September 24, 1986
An order to strike evidence offered to show inconsistent statements, while interlocutory,
may be the subject of a certiorari if made with patent abuse of discretion.

Rule of completeness
133. Orient Insurance Co. v. Revilla and Teal Motor Co., supra No. 53
The provision making the whole of a declaration, conversation, or writing admissible when
part has been given in evidence by one party, makes no exception as to privileged matter.

Ancient document
134. Bartolome v. IAC, G.R. No. 76792, March 12, 1990
A private document which has a missing page cannot be considered as ancient because it
does not comply with the 3rd requisite that a document must be unblemished by any
alterations or circumstances of suspicion.
135. Heirs of Lacsa v. CA, G.R. Nos. 79597-98, May 20, 1991
The 3rd requisite 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 are free from any blemish or circumstances
of suspicion.

Public document
136. Chua v. CA, G.R. No. 88383, February 19, 1992
The due execution of notarial instruments is already presumed and need not be proven.
137. Garcia v. Recio, GR No. 138322, October 2, 2001
A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself which must conform to
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 since it is a public record of a foreign country.
138. Wild Valley Shipping vs. CA, GR No. 119602, October 6, 2000
Copies of foreign statutes are not admissible in the absence of a certificate that the person
who attested the documents is the officer who had legal custody of the records 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.
139. Pacific Asia v. NLRC, GR No. 76595, May, 6, 1988
Foreign judgment is not properly proved where there is no attestation issued by the proper
official having legal custody of the original of the decision that the copy presented is a
faithful copy of the original decision, which attestation must furthermore be authenticated
by a Philippine Consular Officer having jurisdiction in the foreign country.
140. Zalamea v. CA, GR No. 104235, November 18, 1993
Overbooking regulation testified to by a person who is not the custodian is not admissible.

Private document
141. Bunag v. CA, G.R. No. L-39013, February 29, 1988

10 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
The minimum proof to establish authenticity of a deed of sale where the vendor is illiterate
should, in the least, include evidence that the document was duly read, explained and
translated to him.

Documentary evidence in an unofficial language

142. Pacific Asia v. NLRC, supra No. 113
Documents in an unofficial language should be translated by the official interpreter of the
court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and
translation sent to the court.
143. People vs. Monleon G.R. No. L-36282. December 10, 1976
A confession in Cebuano without a translation is not admissible.

Offer of evidence
144. People v. Franco, GR No. 118607, March 4, 1997
Extrajudicial confession that has not been formally offered cannot be used as basis for
conviction of the accused.
145. Tabuena v. CA, supra No.8
The mere fact that a particular document is marked as an exhibit does not mean it has
thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party.
146. People v. Marcos 212 S 748 read to 753
Oral testimony not objected upon offer
147. P vs. Java, GR No. 104611, 11/10/1993
The testimony of a witness not formally offered may be considered by the court in the
absence of the objection of the other party.
148. Catuira vs. CA, GR No. 105813, 9/12/1994
Oral testimony not objected when the gournds for objection became reasonably apparent
without any offer having been made
149. Interpacific v. Aviles, G.R. No. 86062, June 6, 1990
Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered as an
exhibit and not before, objection prior to that time is premature.

11 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester
Not discussed
150. US vs. Suan, G.R. No. 9201, March 3, 1914
151. Tiu vs. PBC, GR No. 151932, 8/19/2009
152. Mendoza vs. Alarma, GR No. 151970, 5/7/2008
153. Tin-Congco vs. Trillana G.R. No. 4776. March 18, 1909
154. Kiel vs. SabertG.R. No. L-21639. September 25, 1924
155. Municipality of Victoria vs. CA, 149 S 32
156. People vs. Del Castillo G.R. No. L-16941. October 29, 1968
157. People v. Solomon 229 S 403
158. People vs. Mate G.R. No. L-34754. March 27, 1981
159. PBCOM vs. CA G.R. No. 92067. March 22, 1991
160. People v. Java227 S 668
161. People v. Yap 229 S 787
162. People vs. Salomon G.R. No. 96848. January 21, 1994
163. ATCI Overseas Corp. vs. Ecchin, 10/11/2010
164. Financial vs. Rudling, 10/4/2010
165. Lesuagas vs. CA, 143 vs. 335
166. P vs. Extenso, 72 S 428
167. Phil American Gen Insurance vs. Sweet Lines, GR No. 87434, 8/5/1992

12 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 2 n d
Semester