Session 1

Evidence
What is the difference between proof and evidence?

Rule 128 Section 1. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth Proof (the Effect of providing Evidence
respecting a matter of a fact. evidence)
The result of the probative See definition
Other definitions effect of evidence and is the
Anything that may legally be submitted to a court to prove conviction of persuasion of
an assertion about a matter of fact. the mind resulting fro a
Any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or logical consideration of the matter
principle considered with a view to its being offered before When the requisite quantum
the tribunal for the purposes of producing persuasion, of evidence of a particular
positive or negative, on the part of the tribunal as to the fact has been duly admitted
truth of a proposition, not of law of logic, on which the ad given weight, the result is
determination of the tribunal is to be asked. the proof of that fact
Not all facts connected with the truth or falsity of a

Section 2. The rules in evidence shall be the same in all courts
fact is considered as evidence. To be considered as such
and on all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law
it must be sanctioned by the rules of court or by law.
or these Rules.
Purpose: to ascertain the truth repsecting a mater of fact in
a judicial proceeding
Principle of uniformity
GR: the same for the trial of civil and of criminal cases not
o the truth is to be determined by the rules of
only principle, but also in spiritthat is the relation between
admissibility and and proof
o court is not aware of the veracity of the facts the Evidentialry fact and the Proposition is always the same
without regard to any kind of litigation.
involved in the case hence, incumbent upon the
Not however that Section 4 of Rule 1 provides for the
parties to prove a fact in issue through presentation
non-applicability of the Rules of Court, including the
of evidence
o to ascertain the judicial or legal truth: the rules on evidence to specified proceedings such as:
o Election cases, land registration proccedings,
limitation of human judicial systems cannot always
cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings,
guarantee knowledge of the actual or real truth;
and other cases , except in analogy or in a suppletory
legal truth is what is proven by the evidence
character
admitted to the court
o Administrative agencies are not also bound by the
technical rules of evidence, it can choose to give
Sources
weight or disregard evidence, depending on the
1. Constitution
2. General Laws trustworthiness
3. Special Laws
4. Difference between Factum Probandum and Factum Probans
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 1
Evidence is always a relative term and it signifies a relation
between two facts, the factum probandum and the factum Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is
probans admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
Factum probandum Factum probans excluded by the law of these rules.
Proposition to be established Materials evidencing the
proposition Two Elements/ requisites of Admissibility of evidence:
Necessarily hypothetical; it is brought forward as a reality to 1. Substantial requirement: It is relevant and material to
that which one party affirms or convince the tribunal that the the issue of fact raised in the pleadings; has rational and
denies fact being asserted is real probative value
2. Procedural requirement: it is competent meaning to
Note however that an evidentiary fact may in turn be say, that it is not excluded by rules of evidence
an evidentiary proposition until some final ultimate
evidentiary fact is reached.
In practical terms: 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
Civil Cases Criminal Cases matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any
The factum probandum refers to Factum probandum includes all reasonable degree to establish the probability or
the elements of the cause of matters that the prosecution improbability of the fact in issue.
action from the point of view of must prove beyond reasonable
the plaintiff and the elements of doubt in order to justify a
the defense in the standpoint of conviction when the accused Test of Relevance:
the defendant pleads not guilty Must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence
It is clearly one of logic and reasoning because it deals with
Rules on evidence must also be liberally construed similar to the rational relationship between the evidence and the fact
all other provision of the Rules of Court because they are to be proven
mere rules to facilitate justice and to prevent the frustration Irrelevant facts and circumstances are those which do not
of the same because of strict adherence to the court throw any light upon or have any logical relation to , the fact
There is no vested right in the rules of evidence such in issue which must be established by one party or
that it may subject to changes by the court pursuant to its disproved by the other which are remote and collateral
power to promulgate rules of procedure Evidence adduced should be directed to the matters in
o However, it must be subject to the dispute and any evidence which has neither direct nor
constitutional limitation of ex post facto laws indirect relationship to such matters shall be considered as
which includes the alteration of the rules of evidence irrelevant
that receives less or different testimony than that Immediate fact presented must have a connection with the
required at the time of the commission of the offense ultimate issue
in order to convict an accused o Example: a car caused an accident
Rules of evidence may be waived. The car was alleged to be running beyond the
speed limit
The driving beyond the speed limit is The proponent of the evidence may ask the court that
the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime
Collateral matters subject to the condition that he is going to establish its
Matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered relevancy and competency at a later
as a basis merely for inference as to the existence or non- o When relevance of a piece of evidence is not
existence of the facts in issue apparent at the time it is offered, but the
Parallel or diverging line, merely additional or auxiliary; relevance of which will readily be seen when
absence of direct connection between the evidence and the connected to the other pieces of evidence not yet
matter in dispute offered
o E.g., motive; bad reputation of the accused;
resemblance of the child to prove paternity; flight of 3. Curative Admissibility
the accused Doctrine allows a party to introduce otherwise
General Rule: not allowed because it has no direct inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing partys
relevance with the issue of the case previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would
o Exceptions: there may be cases when they may remove any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of
be allowed if it tends in any reasonable degree the earlier introduced inadmissible evidence
to establish or induce belief of the probability
or improbability of the fact in issue
Competent Evidence RULE 129 SECTIONS 1 & 2 JUDICIAL NOTICE

One that is not excluded by the rules
If relevance is determined by logic, competence is Judicial Notice; in general
determined by law it is the cognizance of certain facts by the courts without
Note however that in usage, there is no incompetent proof because they are facts, which by common
evidence but only inadmissible evidence. Incompetence experience, are of universal knowledge or that which the
refers to the person who could not be a witness courts already have knowledge
under the present rules, there are facts which the courts
Doctrines: must now take judicial notice and of which they may
take judicial notice
1. Multiple admissibility purpose: convenience and expediency
Evidence proffered is admissible for two or more requisites:
purposes a. must be a matter of common knowledge
Evidence may also be admissible for one party and b. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
inadmissible for another (e.g., extrajudicial admission of doubted or uncertain
one of the two accused only binds him, not the other one c. it must be known within the limited jurisdiction of the
res inter alios acta rule) courts
2. Conditional Admissibility

What Need Not Be Proved b. In case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferioir court took judicial notice of an ordinance
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court involved in said case
shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of c. Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of municipal or
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, city ordinance not where the lower courts took judicial
their political history, forms of government and symbols of notice thereof but because these are facts capable of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime unquestionable demonstration.
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution
and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, RULES AS TO FOREIGN LAWS
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the Our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like
laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical any other facts, they myst be alleged and proved.
divisions. Otherwise, it will be presumed that it is the same as the
Philippine Law (processual presumption doctrine)
Mandatory Judicial Notice 1
no motion or hearing necessary for the court to take judicial Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court
notice of the fact may take judicial notice of matters which are of public
however, the court may receive evidence upon any of the knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable
following subjects, when it shall find it necessary for its own demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of
information, and may resort for its aid to appropriate books their judicial functions.
or documents for reference:
a. existence and territorial extent of states
b. their political history When is judicial notice discretionary?
c. forms of government and symbols of nationality Requisites:
d. the law of nations (general principles of international
a. The matter must be one of common knowledge; of universal
law under the constition)
notoriety
e. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
b. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt
their seals
because if there is uncertainty, presentation of evidence
f. the political constitution and history of the Philippines
g. the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial would be necessary or that generally accepted as true and
departments of the Philippines are capabe of ready and unquestioned demostration
c. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court

h. the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the or capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting
geographical divisions to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonable by
questionable
RULES AS TO ORDINANCES
a. municipal trial courts are reuired to take judicial notice of
the ordinances of the municipality or city in which they sit. Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration
b. RTCs, they must take such judicial notice only when: pertains to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. As to
a. Required to do so by statute matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions, e.g., ascertainable from the records of court proceeding.
(People vs Tundag)
1. State Prosecutors vs. Muro 236 S 505
Judicial notice is different knowledge of the judge
Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought to The present case is an administrative case filed by the State
know because of their functions Prosecutors against the RTC Judge Muro, the respondent of the this
Note however that the personal knowledge of the case.
judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and
he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge Facts:
of the fact, not generally or professionally known, as 1. the State Prosecutors charged Judge Muro fo the RTC of
the basis of his action. Manila with ignorance of the law, grave misconduct and
violation of provisisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct
alleging that:
a. Judge Muro issued an order dismissing 11 cases filed
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. by the prosecutors against accused Imelda Marcos
During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on for violation of provisions of the Central Bank Foreign
request of a party, may announce its intention to take Exchange Restrictions in Central Bank Circular no.
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be 960.
heard thereon. b. That judge Muro based his orders of dismissal solely
on the basis of newspaper reports (Philippine Daily
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the Inquirer and the Daily Globe) concerning the
proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, announcement by the President of the Philippines of
may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties the lifting of all foreign exchange restrictions
c. That the said circular which purportedly lifted the
to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
restrictions under which the accused Marcos is being
issue in the case.
prosecuted has not been officialy issued yet
d. That the said Judge Muro gravely erred in taking
Judicial notice of a fact may be taken by a court on its own judicial notice of the said announcement by the
motion or when it is requested or invited by the parties or president as a matter of public knowledge a mere
either of them to do so. In either case, the court may allow newspaper account that the president lifted the said
the parties to be heard on the matter in question restrictions before it si officially released by the
o It must be exercised with caution and reasonable
Central Bank and its full text published as required by
doubt on the subject must be resolved in the
law to take effect
negative
2. Argument of Judge Muro: there was no need to await
publication of the Central Bank circular repealing the
When is judicial notice taken?
existing law on foreign exchange controls for the simple
1. It may be taken during the trial of the case
reason that the public announcement made by the President
2. It may also be taken after the trial and before the judgment;
3. It may also be taken durig appeal in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign
exchange controls was total, absolute, without qualification,
and was immediately effective; that having acted only on
the basis of such announcement, he cannot be blamed for reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly
relying on the erroneous statement of the President that the resolved in the negative.
new foreign exchange rules rendered moot and academic 2. Requisites enumerated:
the cases filed against Mrs. Marcos, and which was a. the matter must be one of common and general
corrected only after respondent judge had issued his order knowledge
b. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
of dismissal
doubtful or uncertain;
3. Decision of the CA: the orders of dismissal by Judge Muro c. it must be known to be within the limits of the
were also assailed by the State Prosecutors and the CA jurisdiction of the court.
3. What are things of common knowledge to be considered as
found that the respondent Judge Muro acted in excess of
notorious?
jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the said
a. Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take
orders of dismissal because:
judicial notice, may be matters coming to the
knowledge of men generally in the course of the
a. Aside from the fact that the order was issued motu
ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters
proprio without giving the prosecutors a chance to be
which are generally accepted by mankind as true and
heard, thedecision was solely based on the
are capable of ready and unquestioned
newspaper reports which is not the publication
demonstration.
required by law in order that the enactment can i. Example: Thus, facts which are universally
become effective and binding. known, and which may be found in
encyclopedias, dictionaries or other
Issue: Should Judge Muro be held administratively liable? publications
b. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
Controlling issue: Was judge Muro wrong in taking judicial notice of judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not
the newspaper reports and in using the same as basis for the authorized to make his individual knowledge of a
dismissal of the criminal cases against the accused Marcos? fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis
of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of
Ruling: Yes. it was wrong for Judge Muro to take judicial notice of those matters which are "commonly" known.
the newspaper reports about the purported lifting of the Foreign
Exchange Restrictions in dismissing the criminal cases against the In the present case: the contents of the reports are not
accused. considered as common knowledge. A law not yet in force
cannot be considered as common knowledge capable of
Ratio: the newspaper reports and its contents announcing ready and unquestionable demonstration.
the lifting of the restrictions did not pass the requisites of
judicial notice 1. Respondent judge, in the guise of exercising discretion and
on the basis of a mere newspaper account which is
1. Test of Notoriety: The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the sometimes even referred to as hearsay evidence twice
wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take removed, took judicial notice of the supposed lifting of
judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care foreign exchange controls, a matter which was not and
must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every

cannot be considered of common knowledge or of general to pass through the town proper, the two (2) said they would
notoriety. just get off at the nearest intersection.
2. Worse, he took cognizance of an administrative regulation
which was not yet in force when the order of dismissal was 2. After negotiating some 500 meters, one of the hitchhikers
issued. Jurisprudence dictates that judicial notice cannot be pointed a .38 caliber revolver at Gregorio while the other poked a
taken of a statute before it becomes effective. balisong at Lilia's neck and ordered Gregorio to stop the vehicle.
3. The reason is simple. A law which is not yet in force and Two (2) other persons, one of whom was later identified as accused
hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge Armando Reanzares, were seen waiting for them at a distance.
capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration, which
is one of the requirements before a court can take judicial 3. As soon as the vehicle stopped, the accused and his companion
notice of a fact. approached the vehicle. Gregorio was then pulled from the driver's
seat to the back of the vehicle. They gagged and blindfolded him
and tied his hands and feet. They also took his Seiko wristwatch
2. People vs. Reanzares 334 S 624 worth P2,500.00. The accused then drove the vehicle after being
told by one of them, "Sige i-drive mo na."
[doctrine] The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko
wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the 4. During the entire trip, his wife kept uttering, "Maawa kayo sa
absence of receipts or any other competent evidence aside from amin, marami kaming anak, kunin nyo na lahat ng gusto ninyo."
the selfserving valuation made by the prosecution. An ordinary Immediately after the last time she uttered these words a
witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can commotion ensued and Lilia was heard saying, "aray!" Gregorio
only take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of heard her but could not do anything. After three (3) minutes the
public knowledge or is capable of unquestionable demonstration. commotion ceased. Then he heard someone tell him, "Huwag kang
The value of jewelry therefore does not fall under either category of kikilos diyan, ha," and left. Gregorio then untied his hands and feet,
which the court can take judicial notice. removed his gag and blindfold and jumped out of the vehicle. The
culprits were all gone, including his wife. He ran to San Roque East
shouting for help.
5. When Gregorio returned to the crime scene, the jeepney was still
CASE 2: PEOPLE v. REANZARES (2000) there. He went to the drivers seat. There he saw his wife lying on
FACTS: the floor of the jeepney with blood splattered all over her body. Her
1. On 10 May 1994 at around 8:10 in the evening, the Tactacan bag containing P1,200.00 was missing. He brought her immediately
spouses closed their store and left for home in Barangay San to the C. P. Reyes Hospital where she was pronounced dead on
Roque, Sto. Tomas, Batangas on board their passenger-type arrival.
jeepney. As Gregorio was maneuvering his jeep backwards from
where it was parked two (2) unidentified men suddenly climbed on 6. Subsequently, two (2) Informations were filed against accused
board. Armando Reanzares and three (3) John Does in relation to the
incident.
-His wife Lilia immediately asked them where they were - The first was for violation of PD 532 otherwise known as
going and they answered that they were bound for the town the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 for
proper. When Lilia informed them that they were not going
allegedly conspiring, with intent to gain and armed with impossible for him to be at the crime scene on the date and time of
bladed weapons and a .38 caliber revolver, to rob and carry the incident.
away one (1) Seiko wristwatch owned by Gregorio Tactacan
and P1,000.00 cash of Lilia Tactacan, and on the occasion Indeed the accused is guilty. But that the accused was guilty of
thereof, killed her. Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532 was erroneous. As
held in a number of cases, conviction for highway robbery requires
- The second was for violation of RA 6539, An Act Preventing proof that several accused were organized for the purpose of
and Penalizing Carnapping, for taking away by means of committing it indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case
violence and intimidation of persons one (1) passenger-type that the accused and his cohorts organized themselves to commit
jeepney with Plate No. DBP 235 owned and driven by highway robbery.
Gregorio Tactacan and valued at P110,000.00. Only the
accused Armando Reanzares was arrested. The other three Consequently, the accused should be held liable for the special
(3) have remained unidentified and at large. complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 as the allegations in
7. The accused testified in his defense and claimed that he could the Information are enough to convict him therefor.
not have perpetrated the crimes imputed to him with three (3)
others as he was in Barangay Tagnipa, Garchitorena, Camarines
Sur, for the baptism of his daughter Jessica when the incident 3. People vs. Tundag 342 S 704
happened.
[doctrine] In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is
ISSUE: WON the amount of the amount of P2,500.00 as improper, despite the defense counsels admission, thereof
reimbursement for the Seiko wristwatch taken from Gregorio acceding to the prosecutions motion. As required by Section 3 of
Tactacan must be deleted. Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required
before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the
HELD: Yes. age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal
certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing
RATIO: The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other documentary
wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
absence of receipts or any other competent evidence aside from
the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution. An ordinary FACTS:
witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can Mary Ann Tundag filed 2 separate complaints for incestuous rape
only take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of against her father, Tomas Tundag. She alleged that she was 13
public knowledge or is capable of unquestionable demonstration. years old at the time of rapes. However, the prosecution failed to
The value of jewelry therefore does not fall under either category of secure the Birth Certificate of the victim. Thus, the Fiscal requested
which the court can take judicial notice. for judicial notice that the victim was below 18 years old. The
defense counsel admitted the request. After the trial, the trial court
Thus the trial court was correct in disregarding the alibi of the rendered its decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
accused not only because he was positively identified by Gregorio doubt for two counts of rape, and sentenced him to death twice.
Tactacan but also because it was not shown that it was physically Thus, the accused appealed.

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall
ISSUE: take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence, of the
WON judicial notice of the age of the victim is proper. (WON the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
penalty of death imposed on the accused is correct.) forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
HELD: political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts
NO. Judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper. Failure of the of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
prosecution to sufficiently establish victims age by independent Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
proof is a bar to conviction for rape in its qualified form. Hence, the geographical divisions.
penalty of death should not have been imposed.
Section 2 of Rule 129 enumerates the instances when
courts may take discretionary judicial notice of facts
The Court found the appellant guilty for the crime of rape but
modified the judgment sentencing the accused to reclusion SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. - A
perpetua. court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
RATIO: demonstration or ought to be known to judges
Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 because of their judicial functions.
of R.A. No. 7659, penalizes rape of a minor daughter by her
father as qualified rape and a heinous crime. In proving such Thus, it can be considered of public knowledge and judicially
felony, the prosecution must allege and prove the elements of rape: noticed that the scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily
(1) sexual congress; (2) with woman; (3) by force or without her isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of time or place. The
consent and in order to warrant the imposition of capital offense of rape can and has been committed in places where
punishment, the additional elements that: (4) the victim is under 18 people congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are occupants,
years of age at the time of the rape and (5) the offender is a parent a five (5) meter room with five (5) people inside, or even in the
of the victim. same room which the victim is sharing with the accuseds sister.
In this case, it was sufficiently alleged and proven that the offender The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the Filipinas inbred
was the victims father. But the victims age was not properly and modesty and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts
sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt. She testified that she which blemish her honor and virtue.
was thirteen years old at the time of the rapes. However, she
admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born because On the other hand, matters which are capable of unquestionable
her mother did not tell her. She further said that her birth certificate demonstration pertain to fields of professional and scientific
was likewise with her mother. In her own words, the victim testified. knowledge. For example, in People v. Alicante, the trial court took
judicial notice of the clinical records of the attending physicians
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may concerning the birth of twin baby boys as premature since one of
properly take and act on without proof because they already know the alleged rapes had occurred 6 to 7 months earlier.
them. Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may either be
As to matters which ought to be known to judges because of their
mandatory or discretionary. Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of
judicial functions, an example would be facts which are
Court provides when court shall take mandatory judicial notice of
ascertainable from the record of court proceedings, e.g. as to when
facts -
court notices were received by a party.
With respect to other matters not falling within the mandatory or RULE 129 SECTION 4 JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
discretionary judicial notice, the court can take judicial notice of a
fact pursuant to the procedure in Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules Section 4. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party
of Court which requires that - on the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same
case does not require proof. The admission may be
SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. - During the
contradicted only by showing that it was made though
trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
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, Definition:
on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial Admission are confessions, concession, or voluntary
notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of certain
such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. facts
It is not essential that an admission be contrary to the
In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, interest of one of the parties at the time it is made; it is
despite the defense counsels admission, thereof acceding to the enough that it be inconsistent with the position which a
prosecutions motion. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as party takes wither in pleadings or at trial
to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required General Rule: they do not require proof
before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, o Unless: admissions in the pleading were withdrawn
the age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal and amendments were made because they are
certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing considered as extrajudicial admissions and requires
that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other documentary proof
or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
Considering the statutory requirement in Section 335 of the

Elements:
Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659 and R.A. No.
1. party: it must be made by one of the parties to the case
8353, the Court reiterate here what the Court has held in Javier
(admission by a non- party is not what is contemplated by
without any dissent, that the failure to sufficiently establish
this Rule)
victims age by independent proof is a bar to conviction for 2. same case: the admission, to be judicial, must be made in
rape in its qualified form. For, in the words of Melo, J., the course of the proceedings in the same case in which it is
independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital offered.
and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the case falls 3. No particular form: it may be done orally or in writing
under the qualifying circumstances for the imposition of the death 4. When made: (a)in the pleadings; (b)during the trial by
penalty set by the law. verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; (c)in other
stages of the judicial proceeding
made in the same case in which it is offered

Admission made in another judicial proceedings will not be
deemed a judicial admission in another case where the
admission was not made. Instead it will be considered as an o Exceptions: immaterial allegations, conclusions,
extrajudicial admission for purposes of other proceedings non-ultimate facts, amount of unliquidated damages
where such admission is offered Admissions made by a party to his pleading cannot be
Judicial admissions made in one case is admissible at the controverted by the party making such admission in
trial of another case provided that: conclusive as to him; all other proofs submitted by him
a) They are proved and inconsistent with such admission shall be ignored
b) Are pertinent to the issue involved in the latter (remember however, the exceptions, when they may be
Unless:
allowed to be controverted by the admitter)
a) The said admissions were made only
Note however that an answer is a mere statement of a fact
for purposes of the first case (as in the
which the party filing it expects to prove. And in spite the
rule in implied admissions and their
presence of judicial admissions in a partys pleading, the
effects); or
trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence
b) The same were withdrawn with the
presented
permission of the court therein; or
c) The court deems it proper to relieve
the party therefrom (b) during trial
Is admission same with confessions? (c) other stages of the trial
NO. admissions as applied in criminal cases are avowals of facts

from which guilt may be inferred, tending only to prove the offense 1. Pretrial
Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into
charged but not amounting to the confession of guilt. Admissions
are insufficient itself to authorize conviction by the parties at the pre-trial of the case constitute
judicial admissions by them
In criminal cases, an admission made by the accused in
Form
the pre-trial of a criminal case must be reduced in
a) Direct or express- admissions made in direct terms
b) Implied admissions- are those made in some other writing and signed by the accused and counsel to be
connection or involved in the admission of some other fact admitted. However, this does not apply equally to
stipulation of facts made during trial.
When made
2. Modes of Discovery
(a) in pleadings and motions Admissions in written interrogatories, depositions, or
Acknowledgment or recognition by one party of the truth of
requests for admissions are considered as judicial
some matter alleged by the opposite party, made in admissions
pleading, the effect of which is to narrow the area of facts of
allegations required to be proved by evidence (statements 3. offer of plea of guilt
in the pleadings uncontroverted is deemed admitted)
Allegation not denied is deemed not controverted, and the
silence of the pleader is deemed as and admission against How are judicial admission controverted?
him General Rule as to the effects of judicial admission:
1. they do not require proof
2. they cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive severally with Intertrade to pay Metrobank whatever obligation
upon the party making it Intertrade incurs.
Exceptions; How they may be controverted 3. The aforementioned LOC covered by said trust receipts were
1. by showing that the admission made by palpable mistake settled fully up to this point.
one that is clear to the mind or plain to see 4. Later, Arrieta (the VP) and one Lilia Perez (a bookkeeper of the
readily perceived by the senses or the mind same company) obtained a P500k loan from Metrobank. Both
2. by showing that no such admissions was made executed a Promissory Note in favor of the bank promising to
such that when the statement of the person taken pay the said amount plus interest per annum.
out of the context or that his statement was made 5. Arrieta and Perez defaulted which prompted Metrobank to file a
not in the sense it is made to appear by the other case against Intertrade, Arrieta, Lilia Perez and her husband to
party collect the unpaid principal obligation, interests, fees, penalties
not denying the statement but the meaning attached and exemplary damages. Later, Metrobank also impleaded
to his statement as what appears to or made by the Aguenza as liable on the account of the Continuing Surety
adverse party Agreement previously executed by him.
6. The trial court absolved Aguenza and Intertrade from
liability and dismissed Metrobanks complaint as against both
1. Aguenza vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. 271 S 1 and found Arrieta and the Perez as jointly liable for the amounts
in their personal capacity.
[doctrine] In the case at bench, we find that the respondent Court 7. Arrieta and Perez appealed the foregoing to the CA.
of Appeals committed an error in appreciating the "Answer" filed by 8. The CA REVERSED the TC decision holding Aguenza and
the lawyer of Intertrade as an admission of corporate liability for Intertrade jointly and severally liable to Metrobank and in turn
the subject loan. A careful study of the responsive pleading filed by absolved Arrieta and Perez. The CA found that Intertrade
Atty. Francisco Pangilinan, counsel for Intertrade, would reveal that admitted in its answer that the loan in question was a
there was neither express nor implied admission of corporate corporate liability.
The Decision states: it seems clear from its answer that
liability warranting the application of the general rule. Thus, the
the loan evidenced by the note was a corporate
alleged judicial admission may be contradicted and controverted
liability. Paragraph 1.3 of the answer admits 'x x x
because it was taken out of context and no admission was made at
defendant's obtention of the loan from the plaintiff x x x';
all.
the affirmative defenses admit default, and invoking the
defense of usury, plead adjustment of excessive interest
CASE 04: Aguenza vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (1997)
which Intertrade refused to make.
FACTS:
On the basis of this admission, it is no longer in point
1. The board of directors of Intertrade authorized and empowered
to discuss the question of the capacity in which
Aguenza (the President thereof) and Arrieta (Executive VP
Arrieta and Perez signed the promissory note,
thereof) to jointly apply for and open credit lines with
Intertrade's admission of its corporate liability being
Metrobank.
2. Pursuant to such authority, the two executed several trust admission also that the signatories signed the note in a
receipts with Intertrade as entrustee and Metrobank as representative capacity. The Bank itself gave
entruster. The two also executed a Continuing Suretyship corroboration with its insistence on Intertrade's liability
Agreement whereby both bound themselves jointly and under the note. x x x
such ratification or authority, such admission does not bind the
corporation.
DOCTRINE: The general rule that "the allegations, statements, or
admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the o The respondent appellate court likewise adjudged Intertrade
pleader is not an absolute and inflexible rule and is subject to liable because of the two letters emanating from the office
exceptions. Rule 129, Section 4, of the Rules of Evidence, provides: of Mr. Arrieta which the respondent court considered "as
indicating the corporate liability of the corporation.
"Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written,
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, "Ratification can never be made on the part of the
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by corporation by the same persons who wrongfully assume
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such the power to make the contract, but the ratification must
admission was made." (Underlining supplied) be by the officer as governing body having authority to
make such contract." (Vicente vs. Geraldez)
In other words, an admission in a pleading on which a party The unauthorized act of respondent Arrieta can only be
goes to trial may be contradicted by showing that it was ratified by the action of the Board of Directors and/or
made by improvidence or mistake or that no such admission petitioner Aguenza jointly with private respondent
was made, i.e., "not in the sense in which the admission was made Arrieta (which was the practice of the company).
to appear or the admission was taken out of context."
o The enabling corporate act on this transaction has not been
ISSUE: WON there was an admission in the answer by Intertrades obtained (VP alone without concurrence from the President).
counsel as to the corporate liability of the same on the loan
obtained by Arrieta and Perez. 2. Philamgen vs. Sweet Lines, Inc. 212 S 195
RULING: NO. The Court of Appeals committed an error in 1. A maritime suit was commenced by the herein petitioner
appreciating the "Answer" filed by the lawyer of Intertrade as an against the respondents. The former is seeking recovery of
admission of corporate liability for the subject loan. A careful study the cost of lost or damaged shipment plus exemplary
of the responsive pleading filed by Atty. Francisco Pangilinan, damages, attorney's fees and costs allegedly due to
counsel for Intertrade, would reveal that there was neither express defendants' negligence.
nor implied admission of corporate liability warranting the 2. It would appear that in or about March 1977, the vessel SS
application of the general rule. Thus, the alleged judicial admission "VISHVA YASH" belonging to or operated by the foreign
may be contradicted and controverted because it was taken out common carrier, took on board at Baton Rouge, LA, certain
of context and no admission was made at all. cargoes which belonged to Tagum Plastics (one of the
petitioners). The cargoes were likewise insured by the
Assuming arguendo that there was an admission, the same may Tagum Plastics Inc. with plaintiff Philippine American General
not still be given effect at all. The alleged admission made in the Insurance Co., Inc.
answer by the counsel for Intertrade was "without any enabling 3. In the course of time, the said vessel arrived at Manila and
act or attendant ratification of corporate act, as would discharged its cargoes in the Port of Manila for
authorize or even ratify such admission. In the absence of transshipment to Davao City. For this purpose, the foreign
carrier awaited and made use of the services of the vessel

called M/V "Sweet Love" owned and operated by defendant RATIO: Although the bills of lading were not offered in evidence,
interisland carrier. the litigation obviously revolves on such bills of lading which are
4. Subject cargoes were loaded in Holds Nos. 2 and 3 of the practically the documents or contracts sued upon, hence, they are
interisland carrier. These were commingled with similar inevitably involved and their provisions cannot be disregarded in
cargoes belonging to Evergreen Plantation and also the determination of the relative rights of the parties thereto.
Standfilco. The bills of lading can be categorized as actionable documents
5. At the time when the shipment was already discharged from which under the Rules must be properly pleaded either as causes of
the interisland carrier into the custody of the consignee, it action or defenses, and the genuineness and due execution of
was discovered that the cargo is incomplete. which are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath
6. The Bill of lading of the said shipment states that there
by the adverse party.
should be a total number of 7,000 bags. What happened
was that, of said shipment totalling 7,000 bags, originally
Philamgens failure to specifically deny the existence, much less
contained in 175 pallets, only a total of 5,820 bags were
the genuineness and due execution, of the instruments in question
delivered to the consignee in good order condition, leaving a
amounts to an admission. Judicial admissions, verbal or written,
balance of 1,080 bags.
made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or
7. Some bags were either shortlanded or were missing, and
other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence
some of the 1,080 bags were torn, the contents thereof
being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted
partly spilled or were fully/partially emptied, but, worse, the
unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that
contents thereof contaminated with foreign matters and
no such admission was made. Moreover, when the due execution
therefore could no longer serve their intended purpose. The
and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of
position taken by the consignee was that even those bags
the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial
which still had some contents were considered as total
thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence
losses as the remaining contents were contaminated with
for it may be considered an admitted fact.
foreign matters and therefore did not (sic) longer serve the
intended purpose of the material.
8. PHILAMGENs CONTENTION: SLI (respondent) failed to
adduce any evidence in support f the ground of prescription The Court of Appeals resolved that although the bills of lading were
and that the bills of lading said to contain the shortened not offered in evidence, the litigation obviously revolves on such
periods for filing and for instituting a court action against bills of lading which are practically the documents or contracts sued
the carrier were never offered in evidence. upon, hence, they are inevitably involved and their provisions
9. SLIs CONTENTION: It is standard practice in its operations cannot be disregarded in the determination of the relative rights of
to issue bills of lading for shipment s entrusted to it for the parties thereto.
carriage and that it issued bills of lading.
Petitioners' failure to specifically deny the existence, much less the
ISSUE/S: WON the bill of lading may be considered as evidence genuineness and due execution, of the instruments in question
though not formally offered. amounts to an admission. Judicial admissions, verbal or written,
made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or
HELD: YES. The bill of lading may be considered as evidence other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence
though not formally offered. being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted
unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that

no such admission was made. Moreover, when the due execution determine his guilt in the estafa case (if there is no sale to
and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of Carlos, there is no estafa)
the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial 3. Decision of the RTC and the CA; denial of the motion: the
thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence RTC rendered a decision denying the motion to suspend
for it may be considered an admitted fact. proceedings. This was upheld by the CA upon the filing of
Alano of a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Thus, while petitioners objected to the validity of such agreement a. Ratio of the CA (very important): although there
for being contrary to public policy, the existence of the bills of seems to be merit with the contention of Alano
lading and said stipulations were nevertheless impliedly admitted raising the issue of prejudicial question, the same
by them. cannot be upheld for the purpose of suspending the
criminal proceedings because during the pre-trial
Hence, for the reasons already advanced, the noninclusion of the conference and as seen in the pre-trial order of the
controverted bills of lading in the formal offer of evidence cannot, criminal case, Alano admitted to the validity of his
under the facts of this particular case, be considered a fatal signature in the first deed of sale between him and
procedural lapse as would bar respondent carrier from raising the Carlos, as well as his subsequent acknowledgment of
defense of prescription. Petitioners' feigned ignorance of the his signature in twentythree (23) cash vouchers
provisions of the bills of lading, particularly on the time limitations evidencing the payments made by Carlos. Moreover,
for filing a claim and for commencing a suit in court, as their excuse it was also noted by the Court of Appeals that
for noncompliance therewith does not deserve serious attention. petitioner even wrote to the private respondent
offering to refund whatever sum the latter had paid.
Being a judicial admission, it is binding to Alano.
3. Arturo Alano vs. CA, Roberto Carlos 283 S 269
Issue: Should the criminal proceedings be suspended? No.
1. the criminal case: Alano was charged with estafa in the Controlling issue: Is Alano bound by his admissions during the pre-
RTC of Manila. The information alleged that Alano first sold a trial conference? Yes.
parcel of land to private respondent Carlos which the latter
was able to fulfill payment. In spite of the sale, Alano Ruling: The Criminal proceedings should not be suspended by
subsequently sold the same parcel of land to a certain reason of the prejudicial question posed by the pending civil
Erlinda Dandoy, thereby depriving Carlos of rightful action-- that is the validity of the deed of sale to Carlosbecause
ownership and possession of the said land. Alano made admissions during the pre-trial conference of the
2. The motion to suspend the criminal proceedings: Alano criminal proceeding and such is binding to him.
then filed a motion with the RTC to suspend proceedings due
to a pending civil action filed 5 years prior to the present Ratio:
criminal action. the said pending civil action concerns the
nullity of the sale made by Alano to Carlos. It was alleged by In this regard, the pretrial provision on criminal procedure found in
Alano in such case that Carlos forged his signature in the Rule 118 of the Rules of Court provides:
Deed of sale and never sold the lot to Carlos. According to
Alano, the civil action poses a prejudicial question which shall Sec. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects. x x x. The pre-
trial conference shall consider the following:

(a) Plea bargaining; (b)Stipulation of facts negative in the pleading and which forms an essential ingredient of
the crime charged.
1. From the foregoing, there is no question that a stipulation of
facts by the parties in a criminal case is recognized as declarations This Court answers both questions in the negative. By its very
constituting judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the parties nature, an "admission is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or of
and by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed with the circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, tending to
introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to establish his
right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statement contained guilt." In other words, it is a "statement by defendant of fact or
in the exhibit. facts pertinent to issues pending, in connection with proof of other
facts or circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself,
2. Accordingly, the stipulation of facts stated in the pretrial order insufficient to authorize conviction."
amounts to an admission by the petitioner resulting in the waiver of
his right to present evidence on his behalf. From the above principles, this Court can infer that an admission in
criminal cases is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
3. Accordingly, petitioners admission in the stipulation of facts commission of the crime charged.
during the pretrial of the criminal amounts to a waiver of his
defense of forgery in the civil case. Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in nature. As such, it does
not fall under Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court
4. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the pretrial order was which states:
signed by the petitioner himself. As such, the rule that no proof "An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of
need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pretrial hearing the trial or other proceedings in the same case does not require
applies. proof."
Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused appellant

4. People vs. Solayao 262 SCRA 255 does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of
illegal possession of firearm. It does not even establish a prima
[doctrine] In the case at bar, the prosecution was only able to prove facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution but does
by testimonial evidence that accusedappellant admitted before not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a license.
Police Officer Nio at the time that he was accosted that he did not
have any authority or license to carry the subject firearm when he This Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that
was asked if he had one. In other words, the prosecution relied on "while the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the
accusedappellant's admission to prove the second element. subject firearm was seized by the police from the possession of
appellant, without the latter being able to present any license or
Is this admission sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof
second element of illegal possession of firearm which is that that he was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other
accusedappellant does not have the corresponding license? words, such fact does not relieve the prosecution from its duty to
Corollary to the above question is whether an admission by the establish the lack of a license or permit to carry the firearm by clear
accusedappellant can take the place of any evidentiary means and convincing evidence, like a certification from
establishing beyond reasonable doubt the fact averred in the the government agency concerned.

CASE 7: PEOPLE v. SOLAYAO (1996) 6. This court, in the case of People v. Lualhati ruled that in crimes
FACTS: involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the
1. The lone prosecution witness, SPO3 Jose Nio, narrated that at burden of proving the elements thereof, viz: (a) the existence of the
about 9PM of July 9, 1992, with CAFGU members, he went to subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or
Barangay Caulangohan, Caibiran, Biliran. They were to conduct an possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to
intelligence patrol as required of them by their intelligence officer possess the same.
to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around
the barangays of Caibiran. 7. In the case at bar, the prosecution was only able to prove by
testimonial evidence that accused-appellant admitted before Police
2. From Barangay Caulangohan, the team of Police Officer Nio Officer Nio at the time that he was accosted that he did not have
proceeded to Barangay Onion where they met the group of any authority or license to carry the subject firearm when he was
accused-appellant Nilo Solayao numbering five. The former became asked if he had one. In other words, the prosecution relied on
suspicious when they observed that the latter were drunk and that accused-appellant's admission to prove the second element.
accused-appellant himself was wearing a camouflage uniform or a
jungle suit. Accused-appellant's companions, upon seeing the ISSUE/S: Is this admission sufficient to prove beyond reasonable
government agents, fled. doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm which is
that accused-appellant does not have the corresponding license?
3.Police Officer Nio told accused-appellant not to run away and
introduced himself as "PC," after which he seized the dried coconut Corollary to the above question is whether an admission by the
leaves which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49- accused-
inch long homemade firearm locally know as "latong." appellant can take the place of any evidentiary means establishing
beyond reasonable doubt the fact averred in the negative in the
-When he asked accused-appellant who issued him a license pleading and which forms an essential ingredient of the crime
to carry said firearm or whether he was connected with the charged.
military or any intelligence group, the latter answered that
he had no permission to possess the same. Thereupon, RATIO: This Court answers both questions in the negative. By its
SPO3 Nio confiscated the firearm and turned him over to very nature, an "admission is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or
the custody of the policemen of Caibiran who subsequently of circumstance from which guilt may be inferred, tending to
investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to establish his
firearm. guilt." In other words, it is a "statement by defendant of fact or
4. Accused-appellant, in his defense, did not contest the facts pertinent to issues pending, in connection with proof of other
confiscation of the shotgun but averred that this was only given to facts or circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself,
him by one of his companions, Hermogenes Cenining, when it was insufficient to authorize conviction." From the above principles, this
still wrapped in coconut leaves. He claimed that he was not aware Court can infer that an admission in criminal cases is insufficient to
that there was a shotgun concealed inside the coconut leaves since prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime
they were using the coconut leaves as a torch. charged.
5. RTC: found accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of
firearm under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866.

Moreover, said admission is extra-judicial in nature. As such, it does 2. Testimonial Evidence- testimony of persons whether oral or
not fall under Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court written
3. Circumstantial evidence- by inference from other facts
which states: An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in
which are known
the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case does 4. Documentary evidence- offer of documents
not require proof.
Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant RULE 130 SECTION 1 OBJECT EVIDENCE
does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of
illegal possession of firearm. It does not even establish a prima Section 1. Objects as evidence are addressed to the senses of the
facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution but does court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to or examined or viewed by the court.
not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a license.
What is object evidence?
This Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that Evidence furnished by the thing the things themselves, on view or
"while the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the inspection
subject firearm was seized by the police from the possession of Is what which is directly to the senses of the court, as by actual
appellant, without the latter being able to present any license or sight, hearing, taste, smell, or touch
permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof
that he was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other In contrast with other sources of evidence:
words, such fact does not relieve the prosecution from its duty to It is not a description of them by the mouth of a witness
It does not refer to a perception of the witness and a recollection of
establish the lack of a license or permit to carry the firearm by clear
that perception
and convincing evidence, like a certification from the government Not a reconstruction of past events as related by a witness
agency concerned."
What is the rationale behind the admissibility of Real/ Object
Putting it differently, "when a negative is averred in a pleading, or a Evidence?
plaintiff's case depends upon the establishment of a negative, and It allows the court, instead of relying on the recollection of
the means of proving the fact are equally within the control of each the witness, to have its own firsthand perception of the
party, then the burden of proof is upon the party averring the evidence
to a rational man of perfect organization, the best and the highest
negative."
proof of which any fact is susceptible is the evidence of his senses.
In this case, a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit of o This is the ultimate test of truth, and is, therefore, the first
the Philippine National Police that accused-appellant was not a principle in the philosophy of evidence
licensee of a firearm of any kind or caliber would have sufficed for o The evidence from ones own senses furnishes the
the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second strongest probability and indeed the only perfect and
element of the crime of illegal possession of firearm. indubitable certainty of the existence of any sensible fact
Some examples:
1. exhibition of the person to show his missing limbs, scars, wounds,
Rule 130. skin color
2. the weapon used in attacking the victim
3. in infringement cases of musical compositions, the music may be
There are four sources of evidence that may be presented in court:
listened to by the court
1. Real or Object Evidence- the presentation of a physical
4. examination of the anatomy of a person or of any sibstance taken
object in court
therefrom
5. conduct of tests, demostrations, or experiments
6. examination of representative portrayals of the object in question Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial
7. Documentsonly of the same are presented for the following evidence alone if:
purposes: 1. exhibition is contrary to public policy, morals, or decency
a. To prove their existence or condition or the nature of the a. but if viewing is necessary in the interest of justice, the
handwritings evidence may be exhibited by the court may exclude the
b. To determine the age of the paper used or the blemishes or
public from such view
alterations b. viewing may not be refused if the indecent or immoral
object constitutes the very basis for the criminal or civil
action
Probative Value of Object Evidence 2. If it would result in delays, inconvenience and expenses out of
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, proportion to the evidentiary value of the object
and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence such that 3. Such would be confusing or misleading
when physical evidence contradicts the testimonial evidence, the 4. Testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly
physical evidence should prevail portrays the object as to render viewing unnecessary
but failure to present will not necessarily weaken the evidence
presented Categories of Object Evidence
1. Unique Objects- readily identifiable marks
Requisites for the admissibility of object evidence a. Ex: caliber revolver with serial number
2. Objects made Unique- objects that are made readily identifiable
1. the evidence must be relevant and not excluded by the rules or the
a. Ex: knife with the name of the owner
law 3. Non-Unique Objects objects with no identifying marks and
2. the evidence must be authenticated
cannot be marked
3. the authentication must be made by a competent witness
a. Ex: Drugs in powder form
4. the object must be formally offered in evidence.
Demonstrative Evidence
Authentication
Threshold question: is it the actual object that it is claimed to be? Is is evidence in the form of a representation of an object. This is, as
it the real thing? opposed to, real evidence, testimony, or other forms of evidence
It must be shown that it is the very thing that is either the subject used at trial
o photos, x-rays, videtapes, movies, sound recordings,
matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in
the case diagrams, forensiv animations, maps, drawings, graphs,
animation, simulations, and models
Authentication by a competent witness
To authenticate the object, there must be someone who should Autoptic Preference
identify the object to be the actual thing involved in the litigation. Simply means a tribunals self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself
The witness must have the capacity to identify the object as the It is referred to as the evidential datum which decision-makers will perceive
very thing involved in the litigation. using their five senses
o He must have actual and personal knowledge of the thing
he is presenting CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
the following may be Real Evidence: requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
1. Articles or persons which may be exhibited inside or outside sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
the courtroom the proponent claims it to be.
2. Inspection of objects or places It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
3. Experiment 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 accused. Generally, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was performed their duty, but this is a mere procedural presumption which
and what happened to it while in the witnesses' possession, the cannot overturn the constitutionally recognized presumption of innocence
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was of the accused where lapses in the buy bust operation are shown. An effect
delivered to the next link in the chain. of this lapse, as held in Lopez v. People, is to negate the presumption that
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. Any
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have presumption unavailable (People v. Martin, G.R. No. 193234, 19 October
possession of the same. (People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, 19 2011).
January 2010).
Essential links in the chain of custody of seized illegal drugs

1. FIRST, the seizure and marking, of practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer 5. People vs. Manalo 219 S 656
2. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer Facts:
3. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug 1. the Accused Manalo was charged with two counts of murder of the
to the forensic chemist to the court; victims Bonilla and Diomampo. Both informations stated that
4. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
Manalo shot both victims using a an unlicensed pistolized Colt
seized from the forensic chemist to the court
Caliber .45, with Serial No. 362134.
2. During the trial, the court gave credence to the testimony of the
Strict compliance of the requisites can be disregarded as long as witness Carlos Lacbay. He stated that, and as the court has
the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly summarized:
preserved; and its preservation can be well established of the chain a. one night of November 1981, Lacbay visited the victims to
of custody of illegal drug was unbroken. pick up some camote and wine. After their conversation,
o Testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard the victims decided to accompany Lacbay home and each
as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken rode their respective tricycles.
chain...what is of utmost importance is the preservation of b. When they arrived to the place of delivery of the camotes,
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized appellant Manalo approached the victims and Lacbay and
items. invited them to his home for drinks.
Is the presentation of the informant necessary? c. After Diomampo and Bonilla entered the house of
No. appellant and were about to reach the interior portion
thereof, appellant, who was then at the doorway followed
behind by Lacbay, suddenly and without any warning shot
Failure to immediately mark seized drugs as well as to take Diomampo once on the head and then Bonilla also once on
photographs will not automatically impair the integrity of the the temple at a distance of about three (3) meters from
chain of custody. behind, with a .45 caliber pistol with a magazine.
Diomampo and Bonilla fell down to the floor dead.
Thereafter, appellant again fired one more [shot] at
Diomampo. Lacbay who was standing a meter behind
Presumption of regularity, standing alone cannot defeat the appellant, was so shocked that he was unable to move.
presumption of innocence 3. Decision of the Trial Court; guilty: the trial court found the
The presumption that the police officers regularly performed their duty accused Manalo guilty of 2 counts of Murder beyond reasonable
cannot, standing alone, defeat the presumption of innocence of the doubt.

4. Hence, the present action by accused praying for the reversal of admission as evidence of the victims wallet with its contents, and
the finding of guilt of Manalo. He assigns as error, among all a bunch of keys violates his right against self- incrimination.
others, the absence of physical evidence showing that he himself
fired a gun using the paraffin test. Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to the
admission of object evidence?
Issue: Should the appellant be acquitted by reason of the failure to present
physical evidence that he indeed fired the gun that killed the two victims? Ruling: No.
Ruling: No. The right against selfincrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law
finds no application in this case. It is simply a prohibition against legal
The absence of physical evidence showing that he fired a gun would not process to extract from the [accused]'s own lips, against his will, admission
prove his innocence. In fact, even if he were subjected to a paraffin test of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought
and the same yields a negative finding, it cannot be definitely concluded to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence.
that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be Wigmore, discussing the question now before us in his treatise on
negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before evidence, thus, said:
the test.
If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his
The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be no [physical control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his
paraffin traces on the hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was fired physical control in whatever form exercise, then, it would be
from a .45 Caliber pistol possible for a guilty person to shut himself up in his house,
with all the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy the
authority of the law to employ in evidence anything that
People vs. Malimit 264 S 167 might be obtained by forcibly overthrowing his possession and
compelling the surrender of the evidential articles a clear
Facts: reduction ad absurdum. In other words, it is not merely
1. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime of compulsion that is the kernel of the privilege, . . . but
robbery with homicide of the victim Malaki. testimonial compulsion
2. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two
witnesses Batin the home cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a Furthermore, the Miranda Rights will also not apply as to the admissibility
neighbor that: of evidence as violations of Miranda rights will only have the effect of
a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to his making the extrajudicial confession or admissions during custodial
store, Batid proceeded to the said store to ask if he was to investigation inadmissible.
prepare supper. Much to his surprise, he saw the appellant
Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo, while his boss Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his
was bathing in his own blood on the floor. rights, these constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of
b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away
Malaki's wallet, identification card, residence certificate and keys for the
from the store, also saw appellant Jose Malimit rushing out
purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime. Thus, the wallet is
through the front door of Malaki's store with a bloodstained
admissible to establish the fact that it was the very wallet taken from
bolo. Rondon clearly recognized Malimit
Malaki on the night of the robbery. The identification card, residence
3. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit with
certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on the other hand, are
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and was
admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki.
sentenced with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
4. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all
others to support his prayer for acquittal, he argues that the Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are
inadmissible, the same will not detract from appellant's culpability
considering the existence of other evidence and circumstances with an unlicensed firearm, thereby inflicting upon the latter
establishing appellant's identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime multiple gunshot wounds which caused his death. Such proof was
charged. all that was needed for the conviction of the accused.
People vs. Jumamoy 221 S 333 People vs. Flores 328 S 461
Facts: Facts:
1. Jumamoy was charged with Murder and Qualified Illegal Possession 1. the Appellant Jianggo Flores was charged with the crime of Murder
of Firearm and Ammunition. of Antonio Garcia using a handgun
2. It as established during trial that: 2. it was established during the trial that:
a. One evening of April 1987, victim Miel with his brother and a. Antonio Garcia, the victim, was celebrating his birthday
some other companions went to the disco of St. Paul and having a drinking spree with his invited guests. They
Academy in the Cultural Center if Inabanga Bohol. were all at the backyard of the house of Garcia.
b. While the friends were conversing with each other, all of a b. Myla is the daughter of Jianggo who positively identified
sudden, the appellant Jumamoy appeared in front obliquely him as the assailant when, according to her testimony, she
to the right of the victim and fired three successive shots saw Flores stading at arms length away from her and 3
at the latter who slumped and fell to the ground. arms length away from his father holding and pointing a
3. The trial court rendered a decision finding guilt on both charges. gun towards him.
4. Hence, the present action by the appellant Jumamoy arguing c. She tried to warn his father but Jianggo already fired his
among all others that he should be acquitted because the gun.
prosecution failed to present and introduce as evidence the firearm d. He died of hemorrhage due to gunshot wound caused by a
which was allegedly used in killing the victim. bullet fired from a handgun believed to be a .38 caliber.
The bullet hit first the left arm of Antonio Garcia towards
Issue: Should the appellant Jumamy be acquitted on the failure of the the left side of his stomach and landed on his left lung. A
prosecution to present the firearm used? deformed slug measuring 0.2 centimeter by 2 centimeters
was extracted from his left leg.
Ruling: No. 3. The trial court found him guilty of the murder of Antonio Garcia.
4. Hence the present appeal by the appellant Jianggo Flores
1. There is no law or rule of evidence which requires the prosecution contending among all others, that the gun supposedly used to kill
to do so; there is also no law which prescribes that a ballistics the victim and the slugs were never presented in evidence as well
examination be conducted to determine the source and trajectory as he tested negative during the paraffin test.
of the bullets.
2. For conviction to lie it is enough that the prosecution establishes by Issue: Was the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the appellant?
proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and
that the accused is the author thereof.
3. The production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime Ruling: Yes. The fact that accusedappellant tested negative in the paraffin
is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of such a burden test; that the prosecution did not present the gun used in the commission
for the weapon may not have been recovered at all from the of the crime and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is of no
assailant. moment.
4. If the rule were to be as proposed by the accused, many criminals
would go scotfree and much injustice would be caused to the It has been held that the negative findings of the paraffin test do not
victims of crimes, their families and society. conclusively show that a person did not discharge a firearm at the time the
5. In the instant case, it was established with moral certainty that crime was committed for the absence of nitrates is possible if a person
the accused attacked, assaulted and shot the victim Rolando Miel discharged a firearm with gloves on, or if he thoroughly washed his hands
thereafter. Since accusedappellant submitted himself for paraffin test 3 Applies only when the contents of a document is the subject of
days after the shooting, it is likely that he has already washed his hands inquiry
thoroughly and removed all traces of nitrates in his hand. It must be offered as the proof of their contents .
If it is offered for some other purpose the writings or materials
would not be deemed as documentary evidence but merely an
It has also been held that the nonpresentation by the prosecution of the object evidence.
gun used and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is not fatal to Note however that the private document may be offered and
the case when there is positive identification of the assailant, as in the admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
instant case. evidence depending on the purpose for which it is offered.
o When the purpose of the document is offered to show its
existence, condition other than as proof of its contents, it is
object evidence.
Why is it important to differentiate and distinguish one from the
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE other? rules are different. Best evidence rule, hearsay rule, and
parol evidence rule does not apply in object evidence
RULE 130 SECTION 3 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Requisites of admissibility of document as documentary evidence:
Take note of the pre-trial provision: 1. the document must be relevant
No Evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial 2. the evidence must be authenticated
in support of a partys evidence in- chief other than those that had been 3. it must be authenticated by a competent witness
earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial except if allowed by 4. the document must be formally offered in evidence
the court for good cause shown. 5. it is competent as such document is not excluded by the rules of
Note however, that this rule will not apply for documents presented court or by law (e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay, and parol
and offered as rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence. evidence rule)
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
BPI v Reyes GR 157177 February 11, 2008
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.
1. Best Evidence Rule
What is a documentary evidence?
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions.
Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
material like objects as long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures,
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the
symbols or other modes of written expression and offered as proof of their
following cases:
contents.
RA 8792 gave recognition of the admissibility of electronic
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
documents and electronic data messages as evidence. It shall
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
function equivalent to a written paper-based document under
existing laws.
(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;
Purpose
The subject of the inquiry must be the contents and not the truth of
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other the documents itself
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss The best evidence does not apply to external or collateral
of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the facts about the document
general result of the whole; and o When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns some
external fact about the document such as existence,
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public execution, or delivery without reference to its terms, the
officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a) best evidence rule cannot be invoked.
Section 4. Original of document. What is the effect of the best evidence rule?
It prevents the party from proving the contents of the writing by
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are oral testimony or by using a copy thereof if the original itself is
the subject of inquiry. available.
(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 What are the documents that are considered as original?
regarded as originals.
Generally, it refers to the original as the first one written from which mere
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, copies are made, transcribed or imitated.
one being copied from another at or near the time of the
transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as However, subsequent documents may also regarded as originals:
originals.
Also called the original document rule or the primary evidence rule (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about
The rule means that no evidence which is merely substitutionary in the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
its nature shall be received so long as original evidence can be regarded as originals.
had.
The only rule which requires the production of the original writing.
The rule does not pertain to the weight or probative value of the (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business,
document but merely requires that the original document is what one being copied from another at or near the time of the
should be presented transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.
What is the rationale behind the best evidence rule? Hence, the following are considered as originals:
There is a need to present to the court the actual and exact words o when a document is executed in several duplicate originals
of the writing so as prevent fraud or mistake in the proof of the o writings with identical contents by mass production (e.g.,
contents of the writing newspapers)
To prevent erroneous interpretations or distortions of a writing o copies through carbon sheets
o documents executed in duplicate or multiplicate form
o printout of an electronic document
When does the Best Evidence Rule apply?
not originals:
The law only applies when the subject of the inquiry is the contents
o photocopies of a form
of the document
o facsimile
o certified true copies of public documents
How should the best evidence rule be applied? Section 5. When original document is unavailable. When the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
First. Determine the matter inquired into. If it involves a document, court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of
and the contents thereof are the subjects of the inquiry, then the best its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
evidence must be applied. copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
The rule requires that the original document must be presented
and not merely a copy thereof.
Other evidence can be substituted for the original for as long as Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence in case of loss,
destruction, or unavailability of the original
the latter is available.
Second. If for one reason or another, the original document cannot be
1. the offeror must prove the execution and the existence of the
presented in court, the party must:
original document
a. find an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present
2. the offeror must show the cause of its unavailability or loss
the original of the document and 3. the offeror must show that the unavailability was not caused by his
b. present secondary evidence as provided for by the
bad faith
Rules of Court
after establishing the said requisites, the contents of the documents may
now be proven by secondary evidence.
What are the adequate legal excuses for the failure to present the
original of the document for the court to allow presentation of
The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must be strictly
substitutes or secondary evidence?
followed:
1. copy of the original
1. when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be 2. a recital of the contents of the document in some authentic
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror document
2. when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party 3. testimony of witnesses.
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice
3. when the original consists of numerous accounts or other
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or
documents ehich cannot be examined in court without great loss of
control. If the document is in the custody or under the control of
time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such
general result of the whole (e.g., the best evidence of elections
notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the
results are the ballots themselves, however, checking each and
document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
every ballots would be impractical. Hence, the returns may be used
instead)
4. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public Mere fact that the document is in the custody or under the control
officer or is recorded in a public office of the adverse party will not ipso facto authorize the presentation
other reasons: of secondary evidence. The following must be shown:
(1) That the original exists
the document is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts
(2) That the said document is under the custody or control of
when the original consists of inscriptions on immovable objects and
the adverse party
monuments such as tombstones (3) That the proponent/ offeror of the secondary evidence have
the adverse party notice to produce the original document
i. May be done through a motion to produce the
2. Secondary Evidence document
ii. Subpoena duces tecum A It is only verbal. (TSN, p. 47, Aug. 25, 1980)
(4) The adverse party failed or refused to produce the original
document despite the reasonable notice
Facts:
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public 1. Borje was charged with the crime of Falsification of Public
record. When the original of document is in the custody of public officer Document before the RTC. during the trial of the case, it was
or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified established by the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. that:
a. The accused, being the Provincial Plant industry Officer of
Why? There are instances when the original of a document is a public the Bureau of Plant Industry in San Fernando La Union,
record or is recorded in a public place. Public records are generally not to falsified the Timebook, Payroll, and the Daily Time Record
be removed from the placed where they are recorded. of his office for the periods January to March of 1977 and
made it appear that the complainaint Ducusin worked for
Hence, certified true copies issued by the public officer is sufficient such period of time.
as secondary evidence b. Ducusin alleged that the accused made it appear that he
has claimed his wages for such period, contrary to the fact
that by January until April of 1977, he was detailed in
Requisites for presenting secondary evidence for originals another position by a only a verbal order. Hence, he could
consisting of numerous accounts not have signed the Daily Time Record and accept the
(1) Original consists of numerous accounts or other documents incentives and wages therein.
(2) They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
(3) The fact sought to be established from them is only the general 2. The trial court rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as
result of the whole charged.
Hence, in this case, the court may allow a witness to offer a 3. The Sandiganbayan upheld the decision of the lower court in
summary of a number of documents. Note however that the finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Hence, the present action by the accused Borje arguing that:
voluminous records must be made available to the adverse party
a. The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the
for verification and tested for cross examination.
crime charged because of its failure to present the original
Example: accountant may present a written summary of some
copies of the alleged falsified documents.
sales invoices b. And the accused, as the Provincial Plant Officer merely
affixed his signature as part of the Standard Operating
Procedure of the office payroll. He contended that there
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. A was no actual order known by him that Ducusin was
party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is already detailed in another position to the effect that it
not obliged to offer it as evidence. would be established that Ducusin was no longer entitled
to incentives and payroll
1. Borje vs. Sandiganbayan 125 S 763 Issue: Was the prosecution able to adduce evidence sufficient to convict
the accused Appellant Borje of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
JUSTICE ESCAREAL: Ruling: No.

Q What evidence do you have that you were removed in 1977 and you
were no longer
performing your duties as technician?

1st Issue: It was not established that the complainant had in fact been and OCT 351. The decree itself was not submitted as
ordered to be detailed in another position so as to render him without right evidence.
to receive the incentives and be included in the payroll. 3. Decision by the trial court: denied that motion to dismiss of the
petitioner Ortigas holding that the TCTs registered in the name of
The alleged verbal order is doubtful for under normal and usual official Ortigas were not derivatives of the subject property and are in fact
procedure, a written special order issued by a government office is derivatives of other parcels of land.
cancelled, amended or modified only by another written special order, not 4. Not satisfied, Ortigas filed an action for certiorari before
only for purposes of record on file but also to prevent conflict and the CA to annul the decision of the RTC.
a. The CA ruled that the TCTs of Ortigas were derivative of ICT
confusion in government operations. Moreover, under the best evidence
No. 351 which covers the same parcel of land of Widora. It
rule, Section 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the supposed verbal order
ruled that OCT 351 is allegedly a copy of Decree 1425, the
cannot prevail over the written Special Order No. 172 stated above.
mere fact that the original copy of Decree 1425, or a
certified copy thereof, can no longer be produced, does not
2nd Issue:
mean that the Decree covering the lots subject of this case
was not issued.
In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable
b. That although the TCTs of Ortigas did not reflect that it was
that the judges and the courts have before them the document alleged to
derived from OCT 351, the facts remains that the parcel of
have been simulated, counterfeited or falsified, in order that they may find,
land covering OCT 351 includes the 2 parcels of land of
pursuant to the evidence produced at the trial, whether or not the crime of
Ortigas. Hence, there was a mistake in the recording of the
falsification was actually committed; in the absence of the original
TCTs of Ortigas which stated that it was not derived from
document, it is improper to conclude, with only a copy of the said original
OCT 351 but of other OCTs.
in view, that there has been a falsification of a document which was
neither found nor exhibited, because, in such a case, even the existence of
5. the petitioner elevated the case with the Supreme Court. the
such original document may be doubted.
Supreme court initially held that :
a. Undoubtedly, the evidence (i.e., plan submitted by
respondent Ortigas, testimony of its surveyor and OCT 351)
adduced by private respondent to prove the contents of
2. Widows and Orphans Association (Widora), Inc. vs. CA and Decree 1425 and admitted by respondent court is merely
Ortigas and Company 212 S 360 secondary and should not have been admitted in the first
place.
Facts:
1. Widora filed before the RTC an application for registration of title of Hence, the present Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ortigas questioning
a parcel of land alleging that they have acquired the subject parcel the ruling of the Supreme Court holding the OCTs and the survey of the
of land from the heirs of the registered owner, Mariano San Pedro engineer as inadmissible.
as seen in the Titulo Propriedad Numero 4136 or OCT no. 351. They
prayed that the parcel of land be registered in Widoras name. Issue: Should the evidence submitted by Ortigas be admitted in court?
2. Opposition by Ortigas: Ortigas field a motion to dismiss alleging
that land being applied for registration by Widora have already
Ruling. Yes.
been registered under the TCT 77652and TCT 77653 by the Decree
1425. Hence, the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide on such.
After careful re-examination of the evidence of record and applicable rules
a. Ortigas submitted the following evidence to
of evidence, the Court considers that the word "secondary evidence" was
establish the contents of Decree 1425 which
inaccurate. The copy of OCT No. 351 offered by Ortigas was a certified true
purportedly included his lands in OCT 351: plan
copy of the original thereof found in the Registration Book of the Register
submitted by respondent Ortigas, testimony of its surveyor
of Deeds of Rizal. 18 The admissibility of such a copy in court proceedings

is an exception to the ordinary rule on secondary evidence; 19 such Court which excludes the introduction of secondary evidence except in the
admissibility is in fact mandated by Section 47 of Act No. 496 (The Land five (5) instances mentioned therein.
Registration Act). 20 Under the Land Registration Act which was in force at
the time OCT No. 351 was issued, the original thereof found in the The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are
Registration Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal was an official transcript the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such
of Decree No. 1425, with respect to the land covered by such decree document was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances
situated in the Province of Rizal. 21 relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
Thus, OCT No. 351 constitutes direct proof of the existence of Decree No. Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution solely
1425 upon which the Ortigas TCTs (Nos. 77652 and 77653) are based. We for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents, other
believe further that the Court of Appeals was justified in relying upon the substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible
plotting prepared by Engineer Carlos Angeles and his testimony explaining without the need of accounting for the original.
the significance thereof, notwithstanding the secondary nature of that
plotting and testimony. For, as will be seen shortly, authenticity and
correctness of this survey plans and of Engineer Angeles's explanation Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the "buy-bust money" was not
thereof had already been judicially sustained in previously decided cases. indispensable to the conviction of the accused-appellant because the
sale of the marijuana had been adequately proved by the testimony of the
police officers. So long as the marijuana actually sold by the accused-
3. People vs. Tandoy 192 S 28 appellant had been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to produce the
marked money itself would not constitute a fatal omission.
Facts:
1. Tandoy was charged with the crime of violating the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972. The information stated that the Tandoy sold 4. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and Construction
pieces of dried marijuana flowering tops which is a prohibited drug Corp. 301 S 537
for, and in consideration of P20.00
a. It was established during the trial that the accused was 1. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the
accosted through a buy- bust operation by the Makati petitioner Bank so reimburse it the value of the alleged forged
Police. checks drawn against Triumphs account in the petitioner Bank.
b. During the trial, the marked money was not presented in a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks which
court but merely the photocopy of the same. were drawn against the account of the accused were all
2. The trial court rendered a decision convicting Tandoy guilty beyond forged per findings of the PC Crime Laboratories. That the
reasonable doubt. signatures of its authorized signatories were all forged.
3. Hence, the present action by Tandoy arguing among all others that b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged were
it was an error for the trial court to admit the photocopy of the not submitted in court. instead, mere photocopies of the
marked money as such is contrary to the best evidence rule. checks were presented as evidence.
2. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no
Issue: Was the court wrong to admit as evidence the photocopy of the preponderance of evidence to support the complaint of the
marked money used in the buy bust operation? petitioner. It ruled that the private respondent failed to show that
the signatures on the subject checks were forged. It did not even
Ruling: No. the best evidence rule does not apply when the evidence is present in court the originals of the checks. Neither did it bother to
offered as an object evidence. explain its failure to do so. Thus, it could be presumed that the
original checks were wilfully suppressed and would be adverse to
Apparently, appellant erroneously thinks that said marked money is an private respondents case if produced.
ordinary document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of

3. on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court 4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
and ordered the petitioner to reimburse the private officer or is recorded in a public office.
respondent. It held that it was not necessary for the respondent
to prove that the checks were forged because of the admissions
made by the petitioner Bank and the unrebutted testimony of the In the present case, the originals of the alleged forged checks had
expert witness. to be produced, since it was never shown that any of these
4. Hence the present action by the petitioner Bank arguing exceptions was present. What the private respondent offered were
that: mere photocopies of the checks in question marked as Exhibits A,
that the best evidence of the forgery were the original B, and C. It never explained the reason why it could not produce
checks bearing the alleged forged signatures of private the originals of the checks.
respondents officers. In spite of the timely objection made
by the petitioner, the private respondent introduced in
evidence mere photocopies of the questioned checks. The
failure to produce the originals of the checks was a fatal
omission inasmuch as there would be no evidentiary basis
for the court to declare that the instruments were
forgeries.
Issue: was the respondent able to establish the forgery on the checks?
Controlling issue: was is necessary for the respondent to present as
evidence the original checks?
Ruling: The respondent was not able to establish the forgery because it did
not present the original checks subject to the alleged forgery contrary to
the best evidence rule of the Rules of Court.
First, Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court was not complied with by
private respondent. The Section explicitly provides that when the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself. This is what is known as the best
evidence rule. This is however, subject to the exceptions stated in the
same rule when secondary evidence may be presented instead:
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be

produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. 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;
3. 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

RULE 130 SECTION 9 PAROL EVIDENCE RULE 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.
3. Parol Evidence Rule
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
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms for disqualification. (18a)
of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between Testimonial Evidence
the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such Evidence elicited from the mouth a witness distinguished from real
and documentary evidence
terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
Also called the viva voce evidence
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add Theory and Basis
to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: Rests upon our faith in human testimony as sanctioned by
experience; that the general truth that men are of integrity, having
capacity and having opportunity to pervert the truth
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement; Elements of Testimonial Evidence
1. Observation
2. Recollection
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true
3. Narration
intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
Hence, the witness must have observed the events to which he is
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or testifying, he must recollect the events at the time he was testifying, and
he must be able to communicate or narrate the said events in the court.
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or Hence, the basic qualifications of a witness as provided for in this rule:
their successors in interest after the execution of the written 1. can perceive
agreement. o a witness must be able to perceive an event
o the witness must have personal knowledge of the the facts
surrounding the subject matter of the testimony; those
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a) which were derived from his own perception
2. and in perceiving, can make known his perception to

1. Inciong, Jr. vs. CA 257 S 578 others.
2. National Irrigation Administration vs. Gamit 215 S o This process involved two factors: First, ability to
436 remember what he perceived; and (2) ability to
communicate the remembered perception
3. Gurango vs. IAC 215 S 332 i. Deafmutes are not necessarily incompetent
4. CKH Industrial and Development Corp. vs. CA 272 S as witnesses if they can understand and
appreciate the sanctity of the oath;
333 comprehend the facts; they are going to
testify to; and communicate their ideas
through a qualified interpreter
RULE 130 SECTION 20 WITNESSES 3. possesses none of the disqualifications provided for by the
rules

4. must take either an oath or an affirmation as provided by o parties to the case may testify without restriction
the Rules o the relationship of a witness with a party does not ipso
o necessary for the witness to recognize the obligation to tell the facto render him a biased witness in criminal and civil
truth cases
o must understand the nature of the oath and realizes the moral o bias is not even a basis for declaring a witness
duty to tell the truth, and understands the prospects of being incompetent to testify
punished for falsehood
o oath if with religion; affirmation if no belief B. Religious belief
o a witness is not disqualified because he does not believe in
God or in a future retribution or punishment
take note of the difference between competence and credibility
Competence Credibility C. persons pecuniarily Interested
Matter of law or rule refers to the weight and o a person interested in the outcome of the suit is allowed to
trustworthiness; reliability of the testify the same as a disinterested person, but the adverse
testimony party may show by cross-examination the extent of that
o hence, a witness with interest as affecting the credibility of witnesses
varying and conflicting
testimonies is still a D. Conviction for a crime
competent witness. o Formerly, a person convicted of perjury was disqualified
However, his testimonies from testifying in court as a part of his penalty. However,
may not be given that much when the RPC was amended, the said penalty was
weight removed. Hence, a person convicted of perjury may testify
Has reference to the basic Believability of the witness and has o The fact that the witness has been convicted of a
qualifications of a witness as his nothing to do with the rules felony is a circumstance to be taken into
capacity to perceive and consideration as affecting his character and
communicate what he perceived; as credibility
well as the absence of any of the
disqualifications imposed upon a
witness Disqualifications of Witnesses
Provided by the rules Discretion of the court: the
manner of assigning values to the Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
declarations of witnesses is best immaturity. The following persons cannot be witnesses:
and competently performed by the
trial judge who has the unique and (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
unmatched opportunity to observe production for examination, is such that they are incapable of
the demeanor of the witnesses and intelligently making known their perception to others;
assess their credibility (hence,
observations of trial court judges (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them
are given weight when the cases incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are
are put on appeal) examined and of relating them truthfully.
Other factors not affecting the competency of witnesses o Note that in both cases, the incapacity that is referred must be at
the time he is produced in court to testify and not at the time the
1. being a party to the case subject of the testimony happened. However, the incapacity during
2. religious belief the occurrence of the event may affect his credibility
3. interest in the outcome of the case
4. conviction of a crime, unless provided for by law (i.e.,
perjury) 1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity
Elements:
A. being a party to the case
a. The person must be incapable of intelligently making
known his perception to others
b. His incapability must exist at the time of his production for
examination
Rulings:
Insanity Imbecility Deaf mute Under the

influence of
alcohol/ drugs/
hypnotism
(a) complete Marked by Not by mere Affects
deprivation of deficiency in reason of being competence if it
intelligence; and mental capacity deaf-mute that affects the
(b) complete one is already mental capacity 1. People vs. Taneo 218 S 494- BALDEO
deprivation of incompetent as of the witness at
volition a witness the time of the
taking testimony
Note however
that the courts
had not yet
take judicial
notice of the
effects of
hypnotism
2. Disqualification by reason of immaturity

Elements:
a. the mental maturity of the witness must render him
incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which he is
examined
b. he is incapable of relating his perception truthfully
A child witness
o is any person who, at the time of giving testimony, is below the
age of eighteen (18)
AM NO. 004-07 (Rule on Examination of Child Witness:

o presumes that ever child a is presumed qualified to be a witness
o to rebut this, the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the
childs competence

2. People vs. Balanon 233 S 679- MEDRANO 3. People vs. Baid 336 S 656- PASCUAL

4. People vs Lolito Honor 584 S 547- SALTERAS 5. People vs Solomon Dioneda 587 S 312- ARANETA
Facts:
1. Appellant Dioneda was charged with the crime of rape of a minor, 6

years of age, named in the case as AAA.
2. During the trial of the case, it was established that:
a. AAA, on August 27, 2000, went to the 3- storey house of
their neighbor Ruth Dajao to play with latters child named
Iking in Novaliches, Quezon City.
b. Upon reaching the first floor of the house, AAA met
Dioneda, 17 y/o who was the helper of the Dajao family.
c. AAA then proceeded to the third floor of the house and
discovered that Iking was already asleep. Hence, she
decided to just go home.
Take note of this difference, because this is the

issue:
During the direct examination, AAA stated that when

she went down the house and reached the first floor,
Dioneda prevented her and forced her to return to the
second floor.
However, during the cross examination, AAA stated

that she met Dioneda in the 2nd floor and that is where she
was prevented from going home.
d. nonetheless, AAA was brought by Dioneda to the 2nd floor

bed room into his double-deck bed and there he had carnal
knowledge of her.
e. She went home crying and told her mother that her vagina
was aching and that kuya jong referring to Dioneda, did
something to her.
3. The RTC rendered a decision finding the appellant Dioneda
guilty of rape as charged but his minority during the time
of the rape mitigated the penalty.
a. The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of AAA and
the Expert witnesses.
4. The CA upheld the conviction of the accused Dioneda.
5. Hence, the present action by Dioneda arguing that the both
lower courts erred in giving full credence to the testimony
of AAA considering that there were inconsistencies in her
statements as to her account of the events prior to the
rape, specifically, as to the floor where she was prevented
to go down (kung sa 1st floor or sa second floor).
Issue: Should the testimony of AAA still be considered in view of

the inconsistency between the statements as alleged by the
accused Dioneda?
Ruling: Yes. The place where AAA met appellant when she was about to
leave the Dajao residence, whether on the ground or second floor is a
trivial matter. AAA, a child of tender age, could not be expected to give a
perfect recollection of the exact floor of the house where she met
appellant.
Ratio: the inconsistencies were immaterial and inconsequential

and do not affect the credibility of the witness. Forthright witnesses
are not immune from committing minor inaccuracies in their narration of
events. Trivial inconsistencies and inconsequential discrepancies on minor
details in the testimonies of witness do not impair their credibility.
They could, in fact, be badges of truth for they manifest

spontaneity and erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
As long as the inconsistencies are immaterial or irrelevant to the elements

of the crime and do not touch on material facts crucial to the guilt or
innocence of the accused as in the present case, these are not valid
grounds to reverse a conviction.
In the present case, The place where AAA met appellant when she was
about to leave the Dajao residence, whether on the ground or second floor
is a trivial matter.

RULE 130 SECTION 22 DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF information subject of the testimony
MARRIAGE was acquired and may refer to
information acquired prior to or
Marital Disqualification Rule during the marriage
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. During their

marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the Requisites in order for the Marital Privilege under Section 22 be
other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by applied:
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one 1. that the spouse for or against whom the testimony of the other is
against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. offered, is a party to the case
2. that the spouses are legally married
There are two types of incompetency by reason of marital a. hence, it does not cover illicit cohabitation
relations under this rule but must be differentiated as different b. but it does cover spouses who were estranged as
rules apply: separation de facto does not sever marital relations
3. that the case is not one against the other
Incompetency to testify as to Incompetency to testify as to
anti-marital facts (Anti marital matters concerning marital
privilege or Spousal Immunity) confidential communications Requisites in order for the Privilege under Section 24 (a) be
between husband and wife applied:
(confidential communication) 1. there must be a valid marriage between the husband and the wife
Section 22. Disqualification by Section 24. Disqualification by 2. there is a communication received in confidence by one form the
reason of marriage. During their reason of privileged communication. other (clearly, not of and with third persons);
marriage, neither the husband nor The following persons cannot 3. the confidential communication was received during the marriage
the wife may testify for or against testify as to matters learned in
the other without the consent of the confidence in the following cases:
affected spouse, except in a civil (a)The husband or the wife, during Rationale
case by one against the other, or in or after the marriage, cannot be o there is identity of interests between the spouses
a criminal case for a crime examined without the consent of o hence, in the case of Alvarez vs Ramirez where the
committed by one against the other the other as to any communication wife filed a case for arson against her estranged
or the latter's direct descendants or received in confidence by one from husband for 6 months, the SC allowed the testimony of
ascendants. the other during the marriage the wife ruling that the fact that the marital and domestic
except in a civil case by one against relations between her and the husband has become so
the other, or in a criminal case for a strained that there is no more harmony, peace, and
crime committed by one against the tranquility to be preserved. Hence, identity of the interests
other or the latter's direct of the spouses are no longer existing (Note however that
descendants or ascendants; this is an exception and still a case when filed by one
Applicable only when one of the applicable even if any of the against the other)
spouses is a party to the case spouses are not a party to the case o that there is consequent danger of perjury
Refers to adverse or favourable refers to marital communications o policy of the law which deems it necessary to guard the security
marital testimony in general (e.g. only; what is prohibited is the and confidence of private life even at the risk of an occasional
testify as to what the spouse saw testifying as to the privileged failure of justice, and which rejects such evidence because its
etc.) and may also cover communications made between the admission would lead to domestic disunion and unhappiness
testimonies involving marital spouses o because where a want of domestic tranquility exists, there is
communication; what is prohibited danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of
is the mere act of testifying for or the other
against the spouse
Exists only during marriage Continues even after the dissolution
of the marriage EXCEPTION TO THE MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE:
Tenor of Section 22 does not that the communication was done o in the following circumstances, the spouse may testify for or
distinguish as to when the during the marriage against the other spouse:
a. in a civil case against each other
b. in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the person
other, or the latters direct descendants or ascendants is too narrow; and the rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting
o note, the injury need not amount to a physical domestic harmony comes within the exception is too broad. The better
wrong upon the person. When the offense rule is that, when an offense directly attack or directly and vitally
directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs the impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the
conjugal relations, it comes within the exception statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in
to the statute (Ordoo vs Daquigan) a criminal prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against the
o the disqualification also applies where the other.
spouse is a co-accused
1. Ordoo vs. Daquigan 62 S 270 Thus, in this case, the rape of the daughter by the father is an
undeniably abominable and revolting crime with incestuous implications
Facts: andpositively undermines the connubial relationship, is a proposition too
obvious to require much elucidation.
1. Avelino Ordono was charged in the MTC of San Gabriel La Union for
having raped his daughter Leonora.
2. In support of the complaint of Leonora, Catalina, the wife of
Avelino, executed a sworn statement wherein she disclosed that on As an exception, that the civil case or criminal case is one not
that same date, Leonora apprised her of the rape, but she made no against the other, therefore, although the marital relations exists,
denunciation because they were threatened one of the spouses may still testify for or against the other
a. She also stated that during the investigation, she also without the other spouses consent if:
mentioned the rape Avelino did to their other daughter,
Rosa There is a dictum that "where the marital and domestic relations
3. The defense counsel then objected to the competency of are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor
Catalina as a witness. He invoked marital disqualification found peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based
in the ROC wherein the spouses cannot testify for or against each upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case identity of
other without each others consent, except in a civil case by one interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based
against the other or in a criminal case for a crime committed on that identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the
by one against the other. security and confidences of private life which the law aims at
a. He stated that Avelino did not consent to the testifying of protecting will be nothing but ideals which, through their absence,
Catalina against him merely leave a void in the unhappy home"
Issue: whether the rape committed by the husband against his

daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife within the 2. People vs. Castaeda Jr. 88 S 562
meaning of the exception found in the marital disqualification
rule. Facts:
1. Victoria Manaloto filed a criminal complaint against her husband,
Controlling issue: Should the phrase "in a criminal case for a crime Benjamin Manaloto, before the CFI of Pampnga, with the crime of
committed by one against the other" be restricted to crimes Falsification of Public Document. She alleged that:
committed by one spouse against the other, such as physical a. Benjamin forged her signature in the Deed of Sale of house
injuries, bigamy, adultery or concubinage, or should it be given a and lot belonging to the conjugal partnership and making it
latitudinarian interpretation as referring to any offense causing appear as though she consented to the sale.
marital discord? 2. At the trial, the prosecution called the complainant-wife to
the witness stand.
Ruling: the present case comes within the exception provided for by the 3. However, the defense moved to disqualify her a witness
rules. hence, the testimonial disqualification by reason of Marital relations invoking the rules of court which provides the
will not apply in the present case. disqualification of a spouse to be examined without the
other spouses consent, except when the case is a civil
case by one against the other or in a criminal case for a With more reason must the exception apply to the instant case
crime committed by one against the other. where the victim of the crime and the person who stands to be
4. Decision of the trial court judge: the trial court judge granted directly prejudiced by the falsification is not a third person but the
the motion disqualifying the wife Victoria from testifying against wife herself. And it is undeniable that the act comp of had the effect of
her husband without the latters consent. directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. This is apparent not only
5. The motion for reconsideration by the People, having been in the act Of the wife in personally lodging her complaint with the Office of
denied, they filed the present action questioning the the Provincial Fiscal, but also in her insistent efforts in connection with the
decision of the judge. instant petition, which seeks to set aside the order disqualified her from
testifying against her husband.
Issue: was the trial court correct in disqualifying Victoria, wife of

the accused, to testify against her husband in the Falsification
case filed by her?
Ruling: NO, the trial court erred in disqualifying her as a witness because
the crime of Falsification of Public Document that she filed against her
husband may be considered as a criminal case for a crime committed by a
husband against his wife and, therefore, an exception to the rule on marital
disqualification.
Ratio and explanation as to what may fall under the exceptions of

Marital Disqualification:
The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the is too
narrow; and the rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting
domestic within the exception is too broad. The better rule is that, WHEN
AN OFFENSE DIRECTLY ATTACKS, OR DIRECTLY AND VITALLY IMPAIRS, THE
CONJUGAL RELATION, IT COMES WITHIN THE EXCEPTION to the statute that
one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal
prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against the other.
In the present case, The act complained of as constituting the crime of

Falsification of Public Document is the forgery by the accused of his wife's
signature in a deed of sale, thereby making it appear therein that said wife
consented to the sale of a house and lot belonging to their conjugal
partnership when in fact and in truth she did not. It must be noted that had
the sale of the said house and lot, and the signing of the wife's name by
her husband in the deed of sale, been made with the consent of the wife,
no crime could have been charged against said husband Clearly, therefore,
it is the husband's breach of his wife's confidence which gave rise to the
offense charged. And it is this same breach of trust which prompted the
wife to make the necessary complaint with the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal which, accordingly, filed the aforesaid criminal case with the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga. To rule, therefore, that such criminal case is
not one for a crime committed by one spouse against the other is to
advance a conclusion which completely disregards the factual antecedents
of the instant case.

RULE 130 SECTION 23 DEAD MAN STATUTE RULE 3. the witness is the plaintiff in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted; and
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of hence, if the witness being called for the prosecution is
adverse party. Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or a third person, present rule will not apply
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor intended exclusively for the plaintiff, the assignors of
or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or the case, or persons whose behalf the case is
against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand prosecuted
against the estate of such deceased person or against such person 4. the subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact
of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring occurring before the death of such deceased person or
before the death of such deceased person or before such person before such person became of unsound mind (and adverse)
became of unsound mind. prohibited matters: are those occurring in the
presence or within the hearing of the decedent/ insane
Elements: person
1. the defendant in the case is the executor or administrator temporal element: hence, if the subject of the
or representative of the deceased or the person unsound
testimony is something that which transpired after the
mind;
death or the time when the person became insane,
plaintiff of the case is the person who has a claim may be allowed by the court
against the estate of decedent or of the insane person topical element: testimony in favour of the estate of
defendant is the representativeadministrator or the deceased or insane person is not precluded
executor (may even extend to the heirs themselves altogether; subject on the basis of his knowledge of
(Go Chi Gum vs Go Cho)of the decedent or the other subjects and not about the transaction or dealing
insane person; the party entitled to invoke protection with the dead or insane person
of the Dead Mans Statute
it also does not matter if the person died or became
insane subsequently to the institution of the case as
fact of death or insanity remains Reason for the rule:
if death has closed the lips of one party, the policy of the law is to
o hence, close the lips of the other, and that the temptation to falsehood
o if it is the administrator or the executor who filed a suit and concealment in such cases is considered too great to allow the
against another, the defendant may be a witness against surviving party to testify in his own behalf
the decedent intends to protect the representatives of the deceased person
o the protection of the dead mans statute is also when sued in such capacity or a person of unsound mind on a
removed when the administrator sets up a claim against the estate of the decedent or a claim against the
counterclaim and the plaintiff is allowed to testify as to insane person
occurrences to defeat the counterclaim (in the comment: there is a question on the justness of the rule because it
counterclaim, the representative becomes the plaintiff)
ignores the rights of those who may have legitimate claims against
the decedents or insane persons estate
nevertheless, the plaintiff is not completely bereft of any
2. the suit is a civil action or special proceedings upon a claim
remedy: he may present other witnesses and other forms
by the plaintiff against the estate of the deceased person
of evidence
or person of unsound mind
what is contemplated is a suit against the estate, its
The Dead Mans Statute may be waived
administrator or executor, but not when the
By:
administrator or executor files an action against
(a) failing to object to the testimony
anothers estate
(b) cross examining the witness on the prohibited testimony
necessarily therefore, the action is civil and not (c) offering evidence to rebut the testimony
criminal because it is a claim against the estate
1. Razon vs. IAC 207 S 234

1 Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
st
39
such deceased person or before such person became of unsound
Facts: mind."
1. Vicente Chuidian, the administrator of the estate of decedent Juan
T. Chuidian, filed an action against the defendants Razon for them
to be ordered to deliver certificates of stocks representing the Limitation on the application of the Rule:
shareholding of the Juan T. Chuidian. The rule, however, delimits the prohibition it contemplates in that it is
2. It was the defense of Razon that during Juans lifetime, they have applicable to a case against the administrator or its
agreed that Juan will be one of the nominal shareholders of the representative of an estate upon a claim against the estate of the
corporation considering that the original incorporators started to deceased person.
withdraw from the corporation.
a. Furthermore, they argue that it was Razon who actually in the present case, the case is filed by the administrator of the
paid for the shares, hence, he has the possession of the estate of the decedent, not against the decedents estate.
certificates of stock to show signify his ownership.
However, this was not registered in the books of the The testimony excluded by the appellate court is that of the
corporation. defendant (petitioner herein) to the affect that the late Juan
3. The RTC of Manila rendered a decision declaring Razon as the Chuidian, (the father of private respondent Vicente Chuidian, the
owner of the stocks subject of the case and dismissed the administrator of the estate of Juan Chuidian) and the defendant
complaint of administrator Chuidian. agreed in the lifetime of Juan Chuidian that the 1,500 shares of
4. However, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled in stock in E. Razon, Inc. are actually owned by the defendant unless
favour of Chuidian. It applied the Deadmans Statute against the deceased Juan Chuidian opted to pay the same which never
Razon. happened. The case was filed by the administrator of the estate of
5. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Razon assailing the the late Juan Chuidian to recover shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc.
appellate court's decision on its alleged misapplication of the dead allegedly owned by the late Juan T. Chuidian.
man's statute rule under Section 20(a) Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court. According to him, the "dead man's statute" rule is not It is clear, therefore, that the testimony of the petitioner is not
applicable to the instant case. Moreover, the private respondent, within the prohibition of the rule. The case was not filed against the
as plaintiff in the case did not object to his oral testimony administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims against the
regarding the oral agreement between him and the deceased Juan estate.
T. Chuidian that the ownership of the shares of stock was actually
vested in the petitioner unless the deceased opted to pay the Secondly, the plaintiff is deemed to have waived his objections to
same; and that the petitioner was subjected to a rigid cross the testimonies made by Razon.
examination regarding such testimony.
The records show that the private respondent never objected to
the testimony of the petitioner as regards the true nature of his
Issue: Is petitioner Razon barred by the Dead mans statute? transaction with the late elder Chuidian. The petitioner's testimony
was subject to cross examination by the private respondent's
Ruling: No. counsel. Hence, granting that the petitioner's testimony is within
the prohibition of Section 20(a), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the
Section 20(a) Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (Section 23 of the Revised private respondent is deemed to have waived the rule.
Rules on Evidence) States:
Sec. 20. Disqualification by reason of interest or relationship The Nevertheless, the SC upheld the decision of the CA because Razon
following persons cannot testify as to matters in which they are interested failed to register the transaction between Juan and him in the
directly or indirectly, as herein enumerated. records of the corporation. Hence, the alleged transfer of shares is
(a) Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose not binding.
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 accruing before the death of
RULE 130 SECTION 24 DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF it is proper that all marital communications be presumed as
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION confidential unless the contrary appears
3. the confidential communication was received during marriage
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged 4. that the action where the privilege is claimed is not by one against
communication. The following persons cannot testify as to the other
matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(1) husband and wife Effect of third persons:

(2) attorney-client the protection of the privilege does not apply when the
(3) physician-patient communications is made in the presence of third persons
(4) priest/ minister-penitent overhearing accidentally, unintended, unknown by the
spouses, through a voice carrying device- the third
Object of the Rule: person may be examined
communications originate in confidence, the confidence is to commit conversation to a third person to be transmitted to
essential to the relation; the relation is a proper object of his wife destroys the protection already
encouragement by the law and the injury that would injure it by communication intended for third persons although transmitted
disclosure is probably greater than the benefit that would result in
through the wife is not privileged so far as it was to be told to
the judicial investigation of the truth
others
the purpose is to insure subjectively the free and unrestrained
privacy of communication, divested of any apprehension of
compulsory nature Waiver of the privilege
and if the communication is not intended to be a private one, the Who has the right to invoke this privilege? The spouse who
privilege has not application to it communicated the privileged communication to the other
spouse, the addressee of the communication
The addressee of the communication is not entitled to object,
A. Husband-Wife
unless his silence is considered or treated as an assent and an
adoption of the statement, which this makes it doubly a
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be
communication and doubly privilege
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
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon
ascendants;
in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an
attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
Object: consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge
secure domestic happiness by placing the protecting seal of the of which has been acquired in such capacity;
law upon all communication between husband and wife; and
whatever has come to the knowledge of either by means of
hollowed confidence which the relation inspires B. attorney-client relationship
protection of freedom of private communication; prevent
compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
and this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or
to the other 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
Elements client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
1. there must be a valid marriage between the husband and the wife which has been acquired in such capacity;
2. there is a communication received in confidence by one from the
other
Wigmores statement of the rule: (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or
1. where legal adcise of any kind is sought afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence, when
2. from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
3. the communication relating to that purpose
4. made in confidence
5. by the client
6. are at his instance permanently protected
7. from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser
8. except that the protection may be waived
Requisites:
1. there must be a communication made by the client or the attorney,
or an advice given by the attorney to the client
2. the communication or advice must be given in the course of the
professional employment or with the view to professional
employment
Objective:
in order to promote freedom of consultation of legal advisers by
clients, the apprehension of compelled disclosure by the legal
adviser must be removed
if the communications made to legal advisers were not protected,
no one would date to consult a legal adviser nor could any one
safely come into court if he should have sought his advise
with the view of professional employment

it is not necessary that there be a perfected relationship to exist,
but the advise was nevertheless sought in such view
extended to communications even if later on, the lawyer declines
to handle the case or no actual professional employment followed
payment of fee is not even essential
it may also extend to cases where the client reasonable believes
that the person consulted is a lawyer, although in fact he is not as
he is merely pretending to be one
(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;
(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;

This case does not fall with the text of the statute or the reason upon which
1. US vs. Antipolo 37 P 726 it is based. The purpose of section 58 is to protect accused persons against
FACTS: statements made in the confidence engendered by the marital relation,
1. The appellant was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of the and to relieve the husband or wife to whom such confidential
Province of Batangas, charged with the murder of one Fortunato communications might have been made from the obligation of revealing
Dinal. them to the prejudice of the other spouse. Obviously, when a person at the
2. The trial court convicted him of homicide and from that decision he point of death as a result of injuries he has suffered makes a statement
was appealed. regarding the manner in which he received those injuries, the
3. One of the errors assigned is based upon the refusal of the trial communication so made is in no sense confidential. On the contrary, such
judge to permit Susana Ezpeleta, the widow of the man whom the a communication is made for the express purpose that it may be
appellant is accused of having murdered, to testify as a witness on communicated after the death of the declarant to the authorities
behalf of the defense concerning certain alleged dying concerned in inquiring into the cause of his death.
declarations. On grounds of public policy the wife cannot testify against her husband as
to what came to her from him confidentially or by reason of the marriage
4. The witness was called to the stand and having stated that she is relation, but this rule does not apply to a dying communication made by
the widow of Fortunato Dinal was asked: "On what occasion did the husband to the wife on the trial of the one who killed him. The
your husband die?" To this question the fiscal objected upon the declaration of the deceased made in extremes in such cases is a thing to
following ground: be proven, and this proof may be made by any competent witness who
heard the statement. The wife may testify for the state in cases of this
I object to the testimony of this witness. She has character as to any other fact known to her. . . . It cannot be contended
just testified that she is the widow of the deceased, that the dying declaration testified to by the witness was a confidential
Fortunato Dinal, and that being so I believe that she is not communication made to her; on the contrary, it was evidently made in the
competent to testify under the rules and procedure in furtherance of justice for the express purpose that it should be testified to
either civil or criminal cases, unless it be with the consent in the prosecution of the defendant.
of her husband, and as he is dead and cannot grant that
permission, it follows that this witness is disqualified from
testifying in this case in which her husband is the injured
party. 2. Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of
Pangasinan, and Juan Lim 214 S 273
5. Counsel for defendant insisted that the witness was competent,
Facts:
arguing that the disqualification which the fiscal evidently had in
1. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to
mind relates only to cases in which a husband or wife of one of the
each other.
parties to a proceeding is called to testify; that the parties to the
2. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition
prosecution of a criminal case are the Government and the
for annulment of their marriage on the ground that his
accused; that, furthermore the marriage of Dinal to the witness
wife, the petitioner, was suffering from schizophrenia
having been dissolved by the death of her husband, she is no
before, during, and after the celevration of the marriage,
longer his wife, and therefore not subject to any disqualification
and until the present
arising from the status of marriage.
3. the expert witness: during the trial, the private
ISSUE/S: WON the wife of the deceased (Susana) is allowed to be a respondent presented 3 witnesses, among them was Dra.
witness. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist II and in-charge of
HELD: YES. The wife is allowed to be a witness. Disqualification by reason the Female Service of the National Center for Mental Health
of privileged communication a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist Association and a
RATIO: The great object of the rule is to secure domestic happiness by Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. She was
placing the protecting seal of the law upon all confidential communications summoned as an expert witness. However, she also
between husband and wife; and whatever has come to the knowledge of happened to be the attending psychiatrist of the
either by means of the hallowed confidence which that relation inspires, petitioner Nelly Lim.
cannot be afterwards divulged in testimony even though the other party be 4. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend
no longer living. proceedings: the counsel of the petitioner then filed a
motion to quash subpoena to be issued for Dra. Acampado
so that she may not be allowed to appear as a witness in Ruling: Dra. Acampado is not disqualified from testifying because she
court. testified as an expert witness and the information she disclosed did not fall
5. During the hearing for the motion: within the privileged communication rule.
a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is
barred from testifying under the rule on the Ratio:
confidentiality of a physician-patient relationship
b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is The Law, Rules of Court, Rule 130:
appearing as an expert witness and would not be
testifying on any information acquired while "SECTION 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.
attending to her patient Nelly Lim in her The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in
professional capacity. the following cases:
6. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court
judge denied the motion and stated in his order that: the (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
respondents motion [is denied] and forthwith allowed Dr. cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
Acampado to testify. However, the Court advised counsel examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
for respondent to interpose his objection once it becomes information which he may have acquired in attending such patient
apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to
covered by the privileged communication rule. enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the
7. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was reputation of the
established by the RTC and the CA that Dra. Acampado was patient."
qualified by counsel for private respondent as an expert
witness and was asked hypothetical questions related to
her field of expertise. She neither revealed the illness she The object of the law: intended to facilitate and make safe full and
examined and treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the confidential disclosure by the patient to the physician of all facts,
results of her examination and the medicines she had circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their
prescribed. subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand,
8. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and be enabled
testimony of the Dra. Acampado when the petitioner filed safely and efficaciously to treat his patient
before the said court a petition for certiorari and prohibition to
nullify the order denying the motion to exclude Dra. Acampado. It Therefore, in order that this privilege be invoked successfully, the
stated that: following requisites must concur:
a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential
nature of the testimony of Dra. Acampado 1. the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do 2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly
not fall within the realm of privileged communication authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
because the information she disclosed were not obtained 3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the
from the patient while attending her in her professional patient in his professional capacity;
capacity and neither where the information necessary to 4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that
enable the physicial to prescribe or give treatment of the capacity; andthe information was confidential, and, if disclosed,
patient Nelly Lim. And neither does the information would blacken the reputation (formerly character) of the patient."
obtained from the physician tend to blacken the character
of the patient or bring disgrace to her or invite reproach. In relation to requisite no. 1, what are the requisites in order to be
9. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim. considered as a privileged communication?
1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will
Issue: Is Dra. Acampado, the attending psychiatrist of the petitioner, be a not be disclosed.
witness in the present case of annulment? 2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and
Controlling Issue: is she barred by the privileged communication rule? satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties.
3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community
ought to be sedulously fostered

4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the On 2 November 1978, presenting the report among others, he obtained a
communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained decree ("Conclusion") from the Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale in
for the correct disposal of litigation Manila nullifying his church marriage with Ma. Paz on the ground of
"incapacitas assumendi onera conjugalia due to lack of due discretion
In the present case, the said requisites were not complied with. existent at the time of the wedding and thereafter." The decree was
confirmed and pronounced "Final and Definite."
Firstly, Dra. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. Meanwhile, on 30 July 1982, the then RTC issued an order granting the
As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything voluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership.
obtained in the course of her examination, interview and treatment of the On 23 October 1990, Edgar filed a petition for the annulment of his
petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the hypothetical marriage with Ma. Paz before the trial court. In his petition, he cited the
problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever information or Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report which Ma. Paz merely denied in
findings the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. her Answer as "either unfounded or irrelevant."
At the hearing, Edgar took the witness stand and tried to testify on the
Secondly, it is quite clear from Dr. Acampados testimony that the contents of the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report.
petitioner was never interviewed alone. Nelly would go together with his -This was objected to on the ground that it violated the rule on
father, Dr. Lim. There is authority to the effect that information elicited privileged communication between physician and patient.
during consultation with a physician in the presence of third parties Subsequently, Ma. Paz filed a Manifestation expressing her "continuing
removes such information from the mantle of the privilege. objection" to any evidence, oral or documentary, "that would thwart the
physician-patient privileged communication rule," and thereafter submitted
Thirdly, nothing specific or concrete was offered by the petitioner to show a Statement for the Record asserting among others that "there is no
that indeed, the information obtained from Dr. Acampado would blacken factual or legal basis whatsoever for petitioner (Edgar) to claim
the formers "character" (or "reputation"). Dr. Acampado never disclosed 'psychological incapacity' to annul their marriage, such ground being
any information obtained from the petitioner regarding the latters ailment completely false, fabricated and merely an afterthought." 6 Before leaving
and the treatment recommended therefor. for Spain where she has since resided after their separation, Ma. Paz also
authorized and instructed her counsel to oppose the suit and pursue her
Lastly, it would appear that the counsel made no objections to the counterclaim even during her absence.
questions asked to Dra. Acampado on that ground that it elicited an answer Edgar opposed Ma. Paz' motion to disallow the introduction of the
what would violate the privilege, despite the trial courts advise that the confidential psychiatric report as evidence, and afterwards moved to strike
said counsel may interpose his objection to the testimony "once it becomes out Ma. Paz' Statement for the Record.
apparent that the testimony, sought to be elicited is covered by the The RTC issued an Order admitting the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation
privileged communication rule. Since the object of the privilege is to Report in evidence. CA affirmed RTCs decision.
protect the patient, it may be waived if no timely objection is made to the Petitioners claim: Petitioner now seeks to enjoin the presentation and
physicians testimony. disclosure of the contents of the psychiatric report and prays for the
admission of her Statement for the Record to form part of the records of
the case. She argues that since Sec. 24, par. (c), Rule 130, of the Rules of
3. Krohn vs. CA 233 S 146 Court 11 prohibits a physician from testifying on matters which he may
have acquired in attending to a patient in a professional capacity, "WITH
MORE REASON should be third person (like respondent-husband in this
KROHN v. CA (1994) particular instance) be PROHIBITED from testifying on privileged matters
FACTS: between a physician and patient or from submitting any medical report,
On 14 June 1964, Edgar Krohn, Jr., and Ma. Paz Fernandez were married at findings or evaluation prepared by a physician which the latter has
the Saint Vincent de Paul Church in San Marcelino, Manila. The union acquired as a result of his confidential and privileged relation with a
produced three children. Their blessings notwithstanding, the relationship patient."
between the couple developed into a stormy one. In 1971, Ma. Paz Respondents defense: The rules are very explicit: the prohibition
underwent psychological testing purportedly in an effort to ease the applies only to a physician. Thus . . . the legal prohibition to testify is not
marital strain. The effort however proved futile. In 1973, they finally applicable to the case at bar where the person sought to be barred from
separated in fact. testifying on the privileged communication is the husband and not the
In 1975, Edgar was able to secure a copy of the confidential psychiatric physician of the petitioner."
report on Ma. Paz prepared and signed by Drs. Cornelio Banaag, Jr., and
Baltazar Reyes.
ISSUE/S: WON the husband can be enjoined to disclose the contents of the
psychiatric report on the ground that it violated the rule on privileged FACTS:
communication between physician and patient. 1. Petitioner Stanley Fortich was employed as an area salesman of
soft drinks division of San Miguel Corp., a job which required him to
HELD: No. collect various sums of money from the retailers and buyers of the
RATIO: Petitioner's discourse while exhaustive is however misplaced. Lim company along his designated route.
v. Court of Appeals clearly lays down the requisites in order that the 2. One day, petitioner received a Memo ordering him to stop plying
privilege may be successfully invoked: his route and collecting sums owed by customers to the company
(a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; because of Non-issuance of either change refund nor official
(b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized receipt for empties retrieved from outlets with temporary credit
to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; sales. It likewise directed petitioner to instead report directly to
(c) such person acquired the information while he was attending to the the sales office every working day at the prescribed company
patient in his professional capacity; time.
(d) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; 3. Following up on his first memo and alleging that petitioner
and, misappropriated P1,605 from his collections (through non-issuance
(e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the of invoices to several customers) private respondent Felix Galleron
reputation (formerly character) of the patient. submitted a second Inter-office Memo addressed to the Regional
In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not Sales Manager:
one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is In addition, I would like to further inform management
simply the patient's husband who wishes to testify on a document that S/M Stanley Fortich is an avid mahjong player and a
executed by medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly, this does not fall cockfighting enthusiast. Inspite of several advices, there
within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a seems to be no change in his lifestyle. Also, respondent
circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the had a similar case last September 11, 1978.
force and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the 4. After further investigation, petitioner was found guilty of
patient and executed the report. misappropriating company funds. He was preventively suspended
Counsel for petitioner indulged heavily in objecting to the testimony of from his job and the said order also decreed his dismissal.
private respondent on the ground that it was privileged. In his 5. Claiming that the second memo was willful, malicious and done in
Manifestation before the trial court dated 10 May 1991, he invoked the rule gross bad faith, petitioner filed a complaint for damages arising
on privileged communications but never questioned the testimony as from libel.
hearsay. It was a fatal mistake. For, in failing to object to the testimony on 6. RTC: ruled in favor of petitioner.
the ground that it was hearsay, counsel waived his right to make such 7. Private respondent appealed to the CA: that no actual malice
objection and, consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted. existed or had been shown in respect to the second memo and that
in any case, the assailed letter was protected by the privileged
communication rule.
8. CA: reversed the TC. The memo was not libelous being within the
ambit of privileged communications
ISSUES: WON Gallerons second memo is libelous. WON Gallerons

second memo falls within the ambit of privileged communications.
RULING:
The second memo was not libelous in the absence of the key
element of publicity.
The right hand caption of the memorandum clearly shows the
phrase Interoffice Memorandum, implying confidentiality.
Petitioner was unable to prove that the letter was circulated or
publicized, much less read by officers of the corporation other than
4. Fortich vs. CA 268 S 152 those involved in the investigation or those directly supervising the
petitioners work.
FORTICH vs. CA (1997)
Moreover, it was not proven that the issuance of the letter and its 3. Admissions and Confessions
offending paragraph was motivated by malice.
Section 26. Admission of a party. The act, declaration or
While the law presumes every defamatory imputation to be malicious, omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
there are exceptions. against him. (22)
The case at bar falls under the settled exceptions to the rule: the private
respondents inter-office memorandum falls within the ambit of
privileged communication rule. 1. People vs. Agustin 240 S 541- PASCUAL
A privileged communication is one made bona fide upon any subject PEOPLE vs. AGUSTIN (1995)
matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to
which he has a duty. In Mercado vs. CFI of Rizal, the court explained that: FACTS:
Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is probable 1. In 5 separate informations, the accused were charged with murder in
cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, two cases, frustrated murder in another, and attempted murder in two
the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. But more cases.
the statements must be made under an honest sense of duty; 2. The crimes were allegedly committed in Baguio City and resulted in the
deaths of Dr. Bayquen and Anna Francisco, and the wounding of three
In the instant case, the private respondent was, as the District Sales others.
Supervisor in Dipolog City, immediate supervisor of petitioner. In this 3. The informations in the murder cases charged the accused, Jaime
capacity, respondent was charged with the duty to carry out and enforce Agustin, as having acted in conspiracy with the alleged shooter,
company rules and policies, including the duty to undertake initial Wilfredo Quiano.
investigation of possible irregularities in customer accounts in order to 4. Quiano allegedly confessed during the investigation conducted by the
suggest further action which could be taken by the company. In fact, the Baguio City fiscal in his office, that he was the triggerman in the fatal
communications initially submitted by the private respondent to his shooting, but claims he was engaged to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee by a
superiors prompted the investigation which eventually led to petitioners bagman and also named Freddie Cartel who provided him with the
preventive suspension and to the decision by the companys proper armalite. He also implicated a certain Jimmy, who turned out to be
officers to terminate the latters employment. Jaime Agustin, herein accused.
5. Quiano was assisted by Atty. Cajucom and a stenographic reporter who
Even granting that the questioned memorandum contains statements took down stenographic notes of the proceedings. Her transcription
which could be slanderous and therefore actionable were they not became the sworn statement of Quiano, which he signed.
protected by the rule on privileged communications, still as no malice was 6. On the basis of Quianos confession, Jaime Agustin was picked up by
shown, the Court agreed with the respondent courts conclusion that the military personnel in Pangasinan and brought to Baguio City where he
assailed memorandum report was an official act done in good faith, an was taken to the City Fiscal and investigated in connection with the
honest innocent statement arising from a moral and legal obligation which said crime.
the private respondent certainly owed to the company in the performance 7. Atty. Cajucom assisted Agustin during the said investigation and the
of his duties. stenographic reporter took down stenographic notes.
8. Agustin allegedly narrated his knowledge of the shooting and revealed
identities of his cohorts in the crime.
9. The stenographic notes consisting of 22 pages was signed by Agustin.
2. Testimonial Privilege The same was subsequently transcribed and later offered into
evidence.
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. No person may be 10. Before Quiano could be arraigned, he was able to escape. The
compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, consolidated cases proceeded only against Agustin.
children or other direct descendants. (20a) 11. Agustin impugned the validity of his extrajudicial statement for
allegedly having been given in violation of his Constitutional rights,
alleging:
RULE 130 SECTION 26 ADMISSIONS OF A PARTY a) That he was a farmer whose highest educational attainment was
grade 4;

b) That in the morning of his arrest, two armed men picked him up A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in
and taken to a car where two more armed men were waiting; a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an
c) That along Kennon Road, he was made to kneel at gunpoint in admission is a statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts
order to admit his involvement in the shooting, which he did out of pertinent to the issue, and tending, in connection with proof of
fear; other facts, to prove his guilt. In other words, and admission is
d) That he was brought to the City Fiscal of Baguio, where the armed something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment
men stayed with him, which deterred him from telling the of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to
investigating fiscal that he was being threatened; authorize a conviction, and which tends only to establish the
e) That Atty. Cajucom who supposedly assisted him and who was not ultimate fact of guilt.
his own choice, only stayed with him for 2 minutes and interviewed
him in English and Tagalog, but not Ilocano, the dialect he Nothing in Agustins extrajudicial statement indicates that he expressly
understands; acknowledged his guilt; he merely admitted some facts or
f) That he was told and promised by his captors that he would be circumstances which in themselves are insufficient to authorize a
discharged as state witness if he cooperates, but the plan did not conviction and which can only tend to establish the ultimate fact
push through since Quiano escaped. of guilt.
12. Agustins wife corroborated his story.
13. The Trial Court nevertheless admitted Agustins extrajudicial Nevertheless, when what is involved is the issue of admissibly in evidence
statement, and gave scant consideration to his claim of force, under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, the distinction is irrelevant
intimidation and other irregularities. The TC concluded that there was because Paragraph 3 thereof expressly refers to both confession and
conspiracy and the accused was a direct participant in the crime, that admission. Thus:
his extrajudicial confession shows that he was in on the plan and
even expected to be paid and that he decided to give a statement (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
only when he was not given money. Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
14. TC convicted Agustin of murder.
The first two paragraphs of Section 12 read:
ISSUE: WON the extrajudicial confession is admissible. (N) If so, should
he be acquitted? (Y) Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain
HELD: The extrajudicial statement is inadmissible in evidence because it silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
was obtained in violation of Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution. of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
Since it is the only evidence which links him to the crimes of which he was counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
convicted, he must then be acquitted. waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No
torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
RATIO: The extrajudicial ADMISSION NOT extrajudicial confession which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
of the appellant, which is the only evidence of the prosecution linking him detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms
to the commission of the crime charged, is wholly inadmissible because of detention are prohibited.
it was taken in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. We also
see in these cases a blatant disregard of the appellant's right under CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 2 of Article III when he was unlawfully arrested. Agustine was not fully and properly informed of his rights.
o He was not explicitly told of his right to have
The SC pointed out that, contrary to the pronouncement of the trial court a competent and independent counsel of his choice.
and the characterization given by the appellant himself, the assailed o He was not categorically informed that he could waive his
extrajudicial statement is not extrajudicial confession. It is only an rights to remain silent and to counsel and that this waiver
extrajudicial admission. must be in writing and in the presence of his counsel.
o He had, in fact, waived his right to remain silent by
In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt of the agreeing to be investigated. Yet, no written waiver of such
accused or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which right appears in the transcript and no other independent
he is charged. Wharton defines a confession as follows: evidence was offered to prove its existence.
That there is doubt that Atty, Cajucom is independent counsel
and his willingness to assist the accused is questionable:
o he being an associate of the private prosecutor in that the first ten years of their marriage and actually begot two children
case; during this period; that it was only in 1982 that they began to have
o doubtful that Agustin even understood him when he was serious personal differences when his wife did not accord the
informed of his Constitutional Rights in English and respect and dignity due him as a husband but treated him like a
Tagalog, when the dialect he understood was Ilocano, nor persona non grata.
were the same properly explained. 4. The wife presented four witnesses, namely, herself; Dr. Samuel
o it also appears that the lawyer made it seem to Agustin Wiley, a Canon Law expert and marriage counselor of both private
that he was a witness rather than an accused. respondent and petitioner; Ms. Adelita Prieto, a close friend of the
o for not bringing up the warrantless arrest and pushing for spouses, and Atty. Jose F. Racela IV, private respondents counsel.
Agustins immediate release; it was very apparent that Private respondent likewise submitted documentary evidence
such was the case (the shooting having been 5 months consisting of newspaper articles of her husbands relationship with
prior to the arrest). other women, his apprehension by the authorities for illegal
Agustin was arrested 5 months after the shooting, there should possession of drugs; and copies of a prior church annulment
have been a warrant of arrest. decree. The parties marriage was clerically annulled by the
Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale which was affirmed by the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal in 1986.
5. RULING OF THE RTC: the trial court, on the ground of
psychological incapacity, rendered judgment declaring the nullity
2. Tuason vs. CA 241 S 695- SALTERAS of private respondents marriage to petitioner and awarding
custody of the children to private respondent.
FACTS: 6. RULING OF THE CA: affirmed the decision of the RTC.
1. Private respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed with the 7. Hence, the present petition. He argues that he was deprived of due
Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, Makati a petition for annulment or process because he was not given the opportunity to present his
declaration of nullity of her marriage to petitioner Emilio R. Tuason. evidence. It is worth noting that the reason why he was not able to
2. CONTENTION OF WFE: She alleged that petitioner was already present evidence is due to the fact that he was absent in the
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital supposed hearings of the said annulment case.
obligations which became manifest afterward and resulted in
ISSUE/S: WON respondent court erred in affirming the decision of the RTC.
violent fights between husband and wife; that in one of their fights,
HELD: NO. The CA did not err in affirming the decision of the RTC.
petitioner inflicted physical injuries on private respondent which
RATIO: In the case at bar, the decision annulling petitioners marriage to
impelled her to file a criminal case for physical injuries against him;
private respondent had already become final and executory when
that petitioner used prohibited drugs, was apprehended by the
petitioner failed to appeal during the reglementary period. Petitioner
authorities and sentenced to a one-year suspended penalty and
however claims that the decision of the trial court was null and void for
has not been rehabilitated; that petitioner was a womanizer, and in
violation of his right to due process. He contends he was denied due
1984, he left the conjugal home and cohabited with three women
process when, after failing to appear on two scheduled hearings, the trial
in succession, one of whom he presented to the public as his wife;
court deemed him to have waived his right to present evidence and
that after he left the conjugal dwelling, petitioner gave minimal
rendered judgment on the basis of the evidence for private
support to the family and even refused to pay for the tuition fees of
respondent. Petitioner justifies his absence at the hearings on the ground
their children compelling private respondent to accept donations
that he was then confined for medical and/or rehabilitation reasons.
and dole-outs from her family and friends; that petitioner likewise
The failure of petitioners counsel to notify him on time of the adverse
became a spendthrift and abused his administration of the conjugal
judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not
partnership by alienating some of their assets and incurring large
excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client and
obligations with banks, credit card companies and other financial
the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment
institutions, without private respondents consent; that attempts at
resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a
reconciliation were made but they all failed because of petitioners
judgment valid and regular on its face.
refusal to reform. In addition to her prayer for annulment of
Petitioner also refutes the testimonies of private respondents witnesses,
marriage, private respondent prayed for powers of administration
particularly Dr. Samuel Wiley and Ms. Adelita Prieto, as biased, incredible
to save the conjugal properties from further dissipation
and hearsay.Petitioner alleges that if he were able to present his evidence,
3. CONTENTION OF HUSBAND: Petitioner answered denying the
he could have testified that he was not psychologically incapacitated at the
imputations against him. As affirmative defense, he claimed that
time of the marriage as indicated by the fact that during their first ten
he and private respondent were a normal married couple during
years, he and private respondent lived together with their children as one Among the arguments of Chua, he now contends that since the NBI
normal and happy family, that he continued supporting his family even Forensic Chemist did not testify, his findings that the specimens submitted
after he left the conjugal dwelling and that his work as owner and operator to him were indeed shabu and weighed so much, did not longer have
of a radio and television corporation places him in the public eye and
probative value.
makes him a good subject for malicious gossip linking him with various
women. These facts, according to petitioner, should disprove the ground He also insists that he never waived the presentation of the
for annulment of his marriage to petitioner. chemist during the pre-trial and that they only stipulated that the
Suffice it to state that the finding of the trial court as to the existence or said confiscated bags be marked as part of the prosecutions
non-existence of petitioners psychological incapacity at the time of the evidence.
marriage is final and binding on us. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown
that the trial courts factual findings and evaluation of the testimonies of
On the other hand, it is the argument of the OSG for the People
private respondents witnesses vis-a-vis petitioners defenses are clearly
and manifestly erroneous. that when the parties stipulated during the trial that the said
plastic bags be marked as evidence for the prosecution, and that
the chemist Bravo no longer be presented in court, such is
considered as an admission of the findings of Bravo that those
3. People vs. Chua Uy 327 S 335- ARANETA were indeed shabu and that the said plastic bags containing the
shabu were the drugs that were confiscated from him.
Facts:
Issue: did the act of stipulating during the pre-trial by the parties that the
1. Chua was arrested in a buy bust operation by the elements of the
plastic bags be marked as well the non-presentation of the chemist amount
Anti- Narcotics Units of the Philippine National Police. He was
to admission of the findings of the said Chemist as well as the same being
charged with drug pushing and illegal possession of shabu.
the actual evidence confiscated from him?
2. During the pre-trial, as indicated in the pre-trial order,
prosecution and defense agreed to stipulate on the and make the
Ruling: No.
markings of the following prosecution's exhibits: The five (5)
plastic bags with markings containing methamphetamine
It may at once be noted that neither Chua nor his counsel made
hydrochloride with a total weight of 401 grams.
a. The parties also agreed that they dispense with the express admission that the contents of the plastic bags to "be
testimony of Forensic chemist Bravo and that the same marked" as contain methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
need not testify in court. they admitted, instead, as That Chua agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic
evidence the final report of the said chemist. Chemist Bravo may not be considered an admission of the findings
b. However, said pretrial order was not signed of Bravo on the contents of the plastic bag.
3. During the trial, the prosecution provided as witnesses the
policemen who did the buy-bust operation, as well the marked 5 Even granting for the sake of argument that Chua admitted during the pre-
transparent bags of shabu. On the other hand, the defense was trial that the exhibits contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, the
trying to establish that the buy bust operation set him up and admission cannot be used in evidence against him because the Joint Order
those confiscated plastic bags were all planted in his attach case. was not signed by Chua and his counsel.
4. Decision of the trial court: found as credible the witnesses of
the prosecution and convicted the accused. It also cited the Final Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court expressly provides: Sec. 4. Pre-
Report of the Forensic Chemist Bravo that the packets of Shabu trial agreements must be signed. No agreement or admission made or
bought and tested from Chua was tested positive for entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against
metamphetamine hydrochloride. the accused unless reduced to writing and signed and his counsel.
5. By reason of the penalty of the crime, the case was
automatically elevated up to the Supreme Court. The purpose of this requirement is to further safeguard the rights of the
accused against improvident or unauthorized agreements or admissions
which his counsel may have entered into without his knowledge, as he may
have waived his presence at the pretrial conference; and eliminate any 7. Regina Carba confirmed this narration of the complainant on the aspect
doubt on the conformity of the accused to the facts agreed upon. that at [a]bout 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 2, 1994, she was at
Conchita's house to discuss the gift they would give their neighbor who
was getting married. Cepeda arrived and asked Conchita to give his wife a
Nevertheless, the petition of the accused must be denied in light
massage as she was having stomach pains. Conchita had been a masseuse
of the belated objection made on the admission of Bravos final since 1979. On complainant's request, she accompanied her to Cepeda's
report and of the plastic bags containing the shabu. During the house. Upon arrival, the accused told her to leave as his Muslim wife gets
trial, the petitioner made no objections as to the admissibility of angry when there are plenty of people in their house. Both she and
such pieces of evidence and that the same was only raised during Conchita protested but Cepeda insisted on it several times forcing her to
this appeal. leave the house of the accused.
8. CEPEDAS DEFENSE: This charge is refuted by the accused
claiming that he and Conchita are lovers. The complainant has gone
Petition denied. to their house four times in February 1994. The fifth time the
complainant went to their house on March 6, he courted her by
saying: "Sing, I knew that you like me and I like you." Then they
had sexual intercourse. The next time Conchita came to see him
4. People vs. Cepeda 324 S 290- BALDEO and had sexual intercourse with him was on March 13, then March
17, March 29 and March 27 when on this date, she asked him to
FACTS: leave his wife to elope with her as she would also leave her
husband. He rejected this proposal because he loved his wife and
1. Conchita Mahomoc claims that at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of Conchita had three daughters. Conchita, according to him, was displeased
April 2, 1994, Dante Cepeda went to her house at Buhang, Magallanes, because he would not elope with her. On April 2, 1994, Conchita again
Agusan del Norte, and asked her to [go to] his house to massage (hilot) his came to his house and while they were petting, somebody outside
wife who was suffering from stomach ache. his house said: "You there, what are you doing? At this Conchita left his
2. Regina Carba, her neighbor, was in her house and she asked her to go house and went home. At about 10:00 o'clock that evening, he was
with her. arrested.
3. Cepeda was at his kitchen door when they reached his house. He told 9. RTC rendered judgment against accused Dante Cepeda.
Gina to leave as his wife, who was Muslim, would get angry if there were
many people in their home. He insisted on this many times so that Gina
had to leave. ISSUE/S: WON Dante Cepeda is guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Cepeda led the complainant to his bedroom. At the door, Conchita

peeped inside and saw a figure covered by a blanket whom she presumed HELD: Yes.
was Cepeda's wife.
RATIO: Accused-appellant's allegation of an illicit amorous relationship is
5. At that instance, accused immediately placed his left arm around her too shopworn to deserve serious consideration and is totally unworthy of
shoulders and pointed a knife at the pit of her stomach saying: "Just keep credence. A circumspect scrutiny of the record discloses that the 'illicit love
quiet, do not make any noise, otherwise I will kill you." She elbowed him, affair' angle appears as a fabrication by accused- appellant. As an
stooped and shouted "Help!" three times but Cepeda covered her mouth affirmative defense, the alleged 'love affair' needs convincing proof.
then carried her to the room by her armpits. Shaking herself free from his Having admitted to having had carnal knowledge of the
grasp, she hit her left shin at the edge of the floor of the bedroom. complainant several times, accused-appellant bears the burden of
6. Inside the room, he threatened her with a knife and ordered her to proving his defense by substantial evidence. The record shows
remove her panty and lie on the bed. Afraid, she did as ordered and the that other than his self-serving assertions, there is no evidence to
accused also removed his pants and brief. He placed himself on top of her, support the claim that accused-appellant and private complainant
spread her legs with his legs, inserted his penis inside her vagina and had were in love.
sexual intercourse with her at the same time embracing and kissing her. It must be noted that accused-appellant and private complainant are both
After he was through, she ran towards the kitchen with Cepeda chasing married and are living together with their respective spouses. In this case,
her. other than accused-appellant's self-serving testimony, no other evidence

like love letters, mementos or pictures were presented to prove his alleged Q.......I will ask you a candid question, Mrs. Marohomoc. Is it not a fact that
amorous relationship with private complainant. Neither was there any at one time you gifted Dante Cepeda with a Herway lotion?
corroborative testimony supporting this pretended illicit affair. If accused-
A.......No, sir.
appellant were really the paramour of private complainant, she would not
have gone to the extent of bringing this criminal action which inevitably Q.......So you will also deny that you gifted him with Mark cigarettes.
exposed her to humiliation of recounting in public the violation of her
womanhood. Moreover, she would not have implicated a person, who is A.......Oh no!
allegedly her lover, as the perpetrator of an abominable crime and thereby In a prosecution for rape, the evaluation of the evidence presented during
lay open their illicit relationship to public shame and ridicule not to trial ultimately revolves around the credibility of the complaining witness.
mention the ire of a cuckolded husband and the withering contempt of her When a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
children were it not the truth. necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is
Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that accused- appellant and sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to
private complainant were indeed sweethearts as he claims, this convict the accused.
fact alone will not extricate him from his predicament. The mere
assertion of a 'love relationship' would not necessarily rule out the
use of force to consummate the crime. It must be stressed that in Admissions, Confessions, and the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
rape cases, the gravamen of the offense is sexual intercourse with
a woman against her will or without her consent. Thus, granting Rule 130.
arguendo that the accused and the victim were really lovers this
Court has reiterated time and again that "[A] sweetheart cannot Section 26. Admissions of a party- the act, declaration or omission of a
be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot party as to the relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
demand sexual gratification from a fiancee, worse, employ
violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for Admissions Confessions
lust." A statement, or written, made In criminal cases, there is an
Succinctly stated, in rape the prosecution must rule out the victim's by a party, or by someone for acknowledgment of guilt,
consent to the sexual act. In the case at bar, the testimony of private whom he is responsible, as to
complainant was clear: she did not consent to penile invasion. Assuming the existence of a relevant fact
for argument's sake that accused-appellant and private Voluntary acknowledgment in Statement that the accused
complainant were sweethearts, rape was nevertheless committed express terms or implication, by engaged in conduct which
because accused-appellant had sex with the victim by force and a party in interest or by another constituted the crime
against her will. by whose statement he is
legally bound, against his
As aptly pointed out in People v. Mendoza, a married woman with a interest or the existence o trust
husband and three (3) daughters would not , publicly admit that she had of a fact in dispute material to
been criminally abused unless that was the truth. Similarly, it defies reason the issue
in this case why a mother of four (4) would concoct a story of defloration, Broader term Specific type of admission,
allow the examination of her private parts and publicly disclose that she referring only to an
has been sexually abused if her motive were other than to fight for her acknowledgment of guilt
honor and bring to justice the person who defiled her. Thus not surprisingly May be implied Always express and unequivocal
when she was queried as to how much would she claim for her defilement In itself is insufficient to
in terms of moral damages, she emphatically declared as follows: authorize conviction, and which
Q.......If you were to ask for moral damages from the court, how much tends only to establish the
would you claim for moral damages? ultimate fact of guilt
Judicial confession may sustain
A.......I do not need payment it is Justice that I ask. the finding of guilt;
She, likewise, flatly denied the existence of an illicit affair with the accused- Extrajudicial confession may not
appellant in face of the not too subtle insinuations of defense counsel to and must be corroborated with
this effect on cross-examination, viz: evidence of the corpus delicti

May an admission be for the party who made them? Effects of admissions made by a party
NO. Because then, it would then be self-serving. Generally, they would no longer require proof and cannot be contradicted
o For example, a diary may not be considered as an Unless, it is previously shown that such was made through palpable
admission for him, but may be used against him mistake, ignorance or innocent mistake
o An admission made by the party may not be controverted by the
same party who made them RULE 130 SECTION 27 OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE
Classifications of Admissions
Rule 130. Section 27. OFFER TO COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSION
A. Judicial and Extrajudicial
In a civil case, an offer to compromise is not an admission of any liability,
and is not admissible in evidence against the offer.
Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions
One made in pleadings filed or Made one out of the court or in In Criminal Cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
in the progress of the trial or another judicial proceeding negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
course of the proceeding so as compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
to dispense with the admission of the guilt.
introduction of evidence
otherwise necessary to dispense A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to
with some rule of practice a lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who
necessary to be observed and made the plea or offer.
complied with
Generally conclusive against the May be disputed and there must An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses
party making them be proof occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or
criminal liability for the injury.
Reason for the rule in civil cases:

Manner o it is the policy of the law to favour the settlement of disputes, to
Expres Implied Adoptive foster compromises and to promote peace. To permit the
s introduction of offers to of compromise tends to discourage the
Made by One in which may be A third partys statement adjustment of suits and for that reason, against public policy
a inferred from the becomes the partys admissions o furthermore, an offer of compromise does not ordinarily proceed
positive declarations or acts of when: from an implied belief that the adversarys claim is well founded,
stateme a person 1. the party expressly agrees to but rather the belied that the further prosecution of the claim
nt or act a or concurs in in an oral whether well founded or not will cause more annoyancedesire for
statement made by another peace and not concession of the wrong done
2. hears a statement and later o not a proof of the debt or the obligation unless coupled with such
on essentially repeats it
recognition of the debt
3. replies by way of rebuttal to
some specific points raised by
Reason for the rule in criminal cases, why admissible as evidence
another but ignores the
against the accused:
further points which he or she
has heard the other made
o in the matter of public crimes, which directly affects public interst,
4. reads and subsequently signs
insofar as public vengeance and private interests are concerned,
a written statement by
no compromise whatever may be entered into as regards the penal
another
action, however it may be with respect to the civil liability
Conduct, silence,
o exceptions, if allowed by statute, the compromise is not
acquiescence
admissible against the accused:
a. opium and usury laws allowing compromise 4. During the trial, Transpacific argued that they have already made
b. criminal laws regarding customs the payments to the Bank by the selling of the parcels of land used
as security prior to the restructuring of the loans.
1. People vs. Lase 219 S 584 a. That as proof of the payment, the three duplicate copies of
the promissory notes were returned by the Bank to
Facts: Transpacific with the stamp PAID
1. The accused was charged with murder of for the stabbing of Dante 5. On the other hand, the respondents argue that:
Huelva. a. the stamp were merely on the duplicate copies
2. During the trial, one of the prosecution witnesses, Godofredo b. submitted also as evidence the letter of the petitioner
Huelva the relative of the victim, stated that the accused offered to offering as a settlement or payment by way of dacion en
settle the case for the sum of P10,000.00 for which he refused. pago, expressly stating therein that they recognize their
a. The accused only offered alibi as a defense obligations and that they have not faithfully complied with
b. But as a surrebuttal to the testimony of Godofredo Huelva, them.
denied having made the offer, but he did insinuate that he 6. The RTC upheld the presumption of payment
could offer a higher amount. even if it is true, I am going 7. The CA reversed by reason of the letter.
to pay them P50k
3. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him of murder. Issue: Should the offer of compromise in the letter by Transpacific be
4. Hence the present action by the appellant. admitted against them?
In relation to our topic: THE SC UPHELD THE FINDING OF GUILT of the Ruling: yes.
accused by sufficient evidence of the guilt to prove such beyond
reasonable doubt. The petitioner claims that in civil cases, an offer of compromise is not
admissible against the party making the offer.
Among such evidence that worked against the accused was the offer of
compromise made by Lase to the family of the victim. However, such rule is not an iron-clad rule and admits of exceptions.
The accused appellant offered to compromise the case for the amount of To determine the admissibility and the non-admissibility of a an offer to
P10k. The second paragraph of Section 27 Rule 130 states: compromise, the circumstances of the case and the intent of the party
making the offer must be considered.
In Criminal Cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of Thus, if a party making the offer for the purpose of buying peace and
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied avoiding litigation, the same is not admissible.
admission of the guilt.
However, if in the course of the offer, the party making the offer admits to
Murder is not among those criminal cases which may be compromised. the liability, then the offer of compromise is admissible against the party
making the offer.
2. Trans Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. vs. CA and the

Associated Bank 235 S 494 3. People vs. Buemio 265 S 582
Facts:
1. Transpacific Industrial obtained several loans from the Associated
Bank in the amount of P1.3 Million pesos secured by several Complaints Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope may have a change of
promissory notes and mortgages. heart insofar as the offense wrought on their person is concerned when
2. The loans were restructured such that the total amount was they executed their joint affidavit of desistance but this will not affect the
lessened. Three promissory notes were issued by Transpacific. public prosecution of the offense itself. It is relevant to note that the right
3. The Associated Bank then filed a complaint for the collection of of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a
sum of money against Transpacific. natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctly charged by the
common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the
interest of the community, the individual and social rights and liberties of o Such person is under the same circumstances as the person
every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights. The cardinal against whom it is offered. Such circumstances give him
principle which states that to the State belongs the power to prosecute and substantially the same interest and the same motive to make a
punish crimes should not be overlooked since a criminal offense is an statement about certain matters.
outrage to the sovereign State. As provided by the Civil Code of the
Philippines:
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or
Art. 2034. There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his
an offense; but such compromise shall not extinguish the public action for authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be
the imposition of the legal penalty. 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
4. People vs. Amaca 277 S 215 person jointly interested with the party. (26a)
2 branches of the res inter alios acta rule: Requisites for Admissibility:
First: rights of the party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or First, that the partnership, agency, or joint interest is proven by
omission of another (Section 28) evidence other than the act or declaration sought to be admitted;
Second: Evidence of previous conduct, or similar conduct at one time is Second, that the admission is within the scope of the partnership,
not admissible to prove that one did or di not do the same act at another agency, or joint interests
time. (Section 34)
Third, that the admission was made while the agency,
partnership, or joint interest was in existence.
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. RULE 130 SECTION 30 ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR
Res inter alios acta alteri necere non debet- the transaction Section 30. Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a
between two parties will not operate to the disadvantage of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be
third given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown
by evidence other than such act of declaration.
Reason for the rule:
o A mans own acts, declaration and conduct, are binding upon him Reason for the Admissibility
as a matter of good faith and mutual convenience. o Where a body of men assume the attribute of individuality,
o Yet it would not only rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly whether for commercial, business, or commission of a crime, the
unjust that a man should be bound by the acts of mere association should be bound by the acts of one of its members in
unauthorized strangers carry9ing out the design; and the legal principle governing in cases
Note however that this rule only applies to extrajudicial where several are connected to one of those concerned in the
declarations. Hence, statements made in an open court by a witness furtherance of the original enterprise with reference to the
implicating persons aside from his own admissions, are admissible as common object is, in the contemplation of law, the act or
declarations from one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to. declaration of all
Exceptions to this rule: Requisites for admissibility:

1. Admission by partner, agent, or other person jointly interested with
the party First, that the conspiracy is first proven by evidence other than
2. Admission by co-conspirator the admission itself;
3. Admission by successor- in-interest
Second, that the admission relates to the common object;
Reason for the exceptions:
Third, that it has been made while the declarant was engaged in Extrajudicial confessions, independently made without collusion, which are
carrying out the conspiracy identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by
other evidence on record, are admissible as circumstantial evidence
against the person implicated to show the probability of the latter's actual
Conspiracy, defined. participation in the commission of the crime. As this Court has said:
o Exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. While confession of a coconspirator are not ordinarily admissible as
o Once the conspiracy is proven the act of one is the evidence against another coconspirator, the fact that they
act of all. Hence, an exception to the res inter alios implicate the latter and were made soon after the commission of
acta rule. the crime, is circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
their coconspirator having actually participated therein.
Similarly this rule applies only in extrajudicial
confessions/admissions. Why? Because he may well be considered as a The commission of the crime was attended by treachery. The act of the
regular witness testifying to the facts known to him. accused in suddenly rushing towards the victim, then two of them, each
holding the hands of the victim, and the third of them stabbed the victim,
is characterized by treachery insuring the accomplishment of their purpose
Section 31. Admission by privies. Where one derives title to property without risk to themselves from any defense or retaliation the victim might
from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding offer.
the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. (28)
The conspiracy among the accused is evident and equally proven. Their
What are privies? acts collectively and individually executed have clearly demonstrated the
o Are persons who are partakers or have an interest in the any action existence of a common design towards the accomplishments of the same
or thing, or any relation to another unlawful purpose and objective to rob the house of Lamoste. Altho the
o Pertains not only to succession in right of heirship or testamentary killing of Fermin Lamoste was accomplished by only three of the intruders
legacy, but also by virtue of acts inter vivos such as assignment, without any physical participation thereof by the appellant Simplicio Aniel,
subrogation, or purchase however, as conspiracy has been established, the crime committed is
robbery in band, and the homicide was committed on the occasion thereof,
Requisites in order that the admissions of predecessor-in-interest all the members of the band are liable for robbery with homicide (People
be admissible against the successor-in-interest: vs. Evangelista, et al., L 2489, April 12, 1950).
1. FIRST: there must be an act, declaration or omission by a
predecessor in interest And
2. SECOND: the act, declaration or omission of the predecessor must ... any member of a band who is present at the commission of a
have occurred while he was holding the title to the property robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the
3. THIRD: the act, omission or declaration, must be in relations to assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he
property attempted to prevent the same. (Art. 296, Revised Penal Code.)
o the property must still be holding title to the property when he the appellant Simplicio Aniel is liable as principal because the evidence
made such act, declaration or omission. Otherwise, the general does not show that he had attempted to prevent the assault and the killing
rule of res alios inter acta will apply. of Fermin Lamoste.
2. People vs. Provo 37 S 19

1. People vs. Condemena 23 S 910
As regards the admissibility of Exhibits C and E as evidence against
Mesina, it should be noted that, although extrajudicial confessions are in
The positive identification of appellant Simplicio Aniel was further bolstered general admissible only against those who made the same, this rule is
when Pelagio Condemena and Casamero Patino, in their sworn statements subject to an exception. As pointed out and applied in People v.
Exhibits "B" and "C", named Simplicio Aniel as one of them in the group Condemena:
when they killed Fermin Lamoste and robbed the house of P200.00 on
October 6, 1962, at about 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion, which are
identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by
other evidence on record, are admissible as circumstantial evidence He narrated how the plan to rob the Macias family was conceived, as well
against the person implicated to chow the probability of the latter's actual as the manner in which they implemented the plan. The person referred to
participation in the commission of the crime. as "Felimon", he said, was appellant Filomeno Macalinao, Jr. (p. 731, t.s.n.).
Thus, in the tape recorded confession of appellant Jose Gustilo, he declared
that his confederates in the crime were Arcadio Puesca alias "Big Boy",
3. People vs. Puesca 87 S 130 Magno Montao alias "Edol", Filomeno Macalinao, Mariano, Carding and
others
The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the appellants
were engaged in a conspiracy to effect the object of their criminal purpose. And thus, in the confession of Magno Montao alias "Edol", which was in
Since conspiracy by its very nature is formed in utmost secrecy, it can his own handwriting and which was also tape recorded, he mentioned
seldom be Arcadio Puesca alias "Big Boy", Jose Gustilo alias "Peping" and Felimon
proved by direct evidence. 4 Conspiracy is "generally proved by a number Macalinao as his confederates in staging the hold up (pp. 9991005, 1119-
of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances which vary according to 1120, 1122, t.s.n.; Exhibit "Q", folder of exhibits). According to his
the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved that the defendants confession, it was Gustilo who shot to death the late Candido Macias (pp.
pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part and 1002, 11221123, t.s.n.), and that it was Macalinao who got the 38 caliber
another a part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to the pistol of the deceased (p. 1128, t.s.n.). Both declarants corroborated the
attainment of the narration given by Puesca.
same object, one will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged It is true that an extrajudicial confession is admissible only against the
in a conspiracy to effect the object ..." 5 In contrast with evidence person who made it, but it is also settled that such confession is admissible
premeditation, which requires as an essential condition that a sufficient as corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to establish the guilt of
period of time must elapse to afford full opportunity for premeditation and his co defendants. 7 This Court has also allowed its admission against a co-
reflection on the possible consequences of the intended criminal act, accused as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-
conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or conspirator having
impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to accomplish it. Once actually participated in the commission of the crime. 8
this is established, each and everyone of the conspirators is made
criminally liable for the crime committed by any member of the conspiracy. RULE 130 SECTION 32 ADMISSION BY SILENCE
Second, the confessions of appellant Arcadio Puesca (Exhibit "L"), appellant Section 32. Admission by silence. An act or declaration made in the
Magno Montao (Exhibit "Q") and appellant Jose Gustilo (Exhibit "R") admit presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says
their participation in the commission of the crime at the house of Macias nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or
(pp. 924992, 9881133, t.s.n.). The confession of Jose Gustilo, however, was comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may
the only one which was unsigned as he afterwards refused to affix his be given in evidence against him.
signature thereto; but his confession was tape recorded and from the
replay of the recording made during the trial, it may be seen that his Reason:
confession was freely and voluntarily given (pp. 732, 748 749, 782, 791, o The rule that silence is construed as an admission of the truth of
816817, 828836, 924992, t.s.n.). the assertion rests on the instinct of our nature, which leads us to
resist an unfounded demand.
The confessions of Arcadio Puesca, Magno Montao and Jose Gustilo are o Silence gives consent
admissible against them. Their confessions could be considered as
corroborative evidence of the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Requisites for admissibility:
pointing to them as the culprits who participated in the commission of the 1. he heard and understood the statement;
crime. 2. he was at liberty to interpose a denial;
Third, the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses find corroboration in the 3. that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his
extrajudicial confessions of appellants Puesca alias "Big Boy", Gustilo alias rights or in which he was then interested, and calling naturally for
"Peping", and Montao alias "Edol", insofar as said confessions tell about an answer
the participation of their other companions in the commission of the crime. 4. that the facts are within his knowledge; and
Thus, Arcadio Puesca, in his extrajudicial confession, named Jose Gustilo 5. that the fact admitted or the influence to be drawn from his
alias "Peping", Magno Montao alias "Edol", Felimon, Carding, Mariano and silence would be material to the issue.
two others whose names he did not know, as his companions in the
perpetration of the crime (Exhibit "L", folder of exhibits; pp. 774775, t.s.n.).
1. US vs. Bay 27 P 495 i. Are those made in conformity with the law before a
court in the course of legal proceedings
In a prosecution for rape it appears that a party, having been attracted by b. Extrajudicial- those made by a party elsewhere other
the cries of the alleged offended party, wne tot the scene of the crim, and than before a court
that one of them, seeing the defendant, got up form the alleged place c. When an extrajudicial confession is repeated in
where the woman claimed the crime was committed, and asked, What is court, it is converted into a judicial confession.
this? and the defendant made no explanation of his conduct or his
presence there, and left the place fortwith. B. How done (without reference to admissibility, definition only)
Held: the unexplained silence of a man surprised in company with a 1. Implied Confession
woman by whom he is there and then charged with rape, under o Where the defendant, in a case not capital, does not plead
circumstance which would naturally call for an indignant denial of such a guilty but indirectly admits his guilt by placing himself at the
charge by an innocent man, is evidence tending to establish the guilt of mercy of the court and asking for a light sentence
the crime thus charged. o Nature of plea bargaining inasmuch as confession is
already express and direct, never implied.
When not held to be applicable:
o During custodial investigations for constitutional reasons 2. Indirect confession
o If made in the course of judicial proceedings o One inferred from the counsel of the defendant
RULE 130 SECTION 33 CONFESSION 3. Involuntary confession

o Induced by hope, promise, fear, violence, torture, or threat
Section 33. Confession. The declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense 4. Naked confession
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against o Confession as an admission on the guilt of the party but is not
him. supported by any evidence on the commission of the crime
Reason For Admissibility 5. Simple confession

o If it made voluntarily and intelligently, the confession constitutes o Plea of guilty
an evidence of high order, since it is supported by the strong
presumption that no person of normal mind will deliberately and 6. Voluntary confession
knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime unless o One made spontaneously by a person accused of the crime,
prompted by truth and conscience. free form the influence of any extraneous disturbing cause, an
in particular, not influenced or extorted by threats, violence, or
In criminal cases: promises
o Acknowledgment in express words by the accused of the truth of
the offense charges, or of some essential part thereof.
o Voluntary statement made by a person charged with the
commission of the crime or misdemeanor, communicated to RULE 130 SECTION 43. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OR
another person wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of THE BUSINESS RECORDS RULE
the offense charged, and discloses the circumstances of the act or
thr share and participation which he had in it 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
In civil procedure: unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated,
o a formal admission of some allegations made by the other side. 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
Classification of Confessions: ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
A. When made: Reasons for Admissibility:

a. Judicial

They were made in the course of the business and part of the res business or occupation done; but
gestae refers to the act of keeping
Necessity: they are the best available evidence records as part of the business
o When the entrant cannot be had, to testify in court, a operations
necessity arises to take such other evidence from him as (4) the entries were made at or Records are made
his entries supply near the time of the transaction to contemporaneously with the
Reliability and trustworthiness: the habit and system of which it relates (before the transactions and assures a fairly
making regular entries for business purposes produces usually a controversy arose) accurate recollection of the
correct statement by the very trouble and difficulty of making false matter as well as trustworthiness
statement frequently, and by the usual absence of motive to do so.
o An erroneous entry, if made, is likely to be detected and Hence, entries made by a party
disputed by the associates or customers of the entrant after the rights of an opposite
o When the entry is by a clerk or agent, his responsibility to party had already accrued, after
his superior produces additional caution the dispute has arisen, or an
action begun, are inadmissible
Requisites of Admissibility: (5) the entrant must be in a Why? competency of the
position to know the facts stated entrant
Requisite Discussion therein entry is competent as an
(1) the person who made the original independent
entry must be dead or is unable to evidence only when the
testify enterer had personal
knowledge of the facts
(2) the entrant made the entries made the entries in his
in his professional capacity or entered, and when it is his
professional capacity,
duty duty to inform himself of
regular duty, or special
the truth of the matters
duty enjoined by law, or
he had undertaken to
other regular and ordinary
record
duties
(6) there must be more than one Entries must be a part of a series
there must have been a
entry of entries or reports, not casual or
special duty devolving isolated; not sporadic, and out of
upon the entrant to make usual order in which the
the entries that are transactions o f the business are
sought to be introduced recorded; why? Regularity of the
e.g. of not regular, hence, not record may be evidenced by the
admissibile: saloon keeper inspection and the fulfillment of
entered in his books items for this requirement
games and corn and money;
private diary of the employee
about the circumstances on such;
Will the Best Evidence Rule and/or parol evidence find application in this
bookkeeping entries by the
case?
treasurer which do not come
Yes.
within his authority
(3) the entries were made in the Entries must be in the way of
Other Notes:
ordinary course of business or business
duty Defined to mean a course of Rules on Electronic evidence also expressly exempt business
transactions performed in ones records from the application of the hearsay rule
habitual relations with others and
as a natural part of ones mode of
obtaining livelihood What is the probative value?
No reference as to the type of Creates a prima facie evidence of the fact stated therein

Considered as the truth on face value unless otherwise proven to tax records made by the tax officer
be untrue official cash-book kept by the disbursing officer of the coast guard
But may still be questioned by putting in issue the veracity and the and transportation department
truth of the facts notarial register
o Or other points showing that the entry was wrong records of birth, marriages and death kept by the municipal
secretary
priests or ministers administering marriages who are keeping the
RULE 130 SECTION 44 ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS hitd copy of the marriage contract and license
sheets of assessment revisions signed by the provincial assessor as
Section 44. Entries in official records. Entries in official records to the ownership of the land
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 Second Requisite: the entry must have been made in the performance of
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. duty
may be expressly stated by the law, the regulation, or statute
Reason for Admissibility
may be implied form the nature of the office of the officer
Necessity
Litigations are unlimited in which the testimony of public officials Third Requisite: the entrant must have sufficient knowledge of the facts
by him entered
would be daily needed
The knowledge may be:
If there is no exception for official statements, hosts of officials
would be found devoting the greater part attending as witness in (1) personally known to the entrant; or
court and delivering their depositions (2) when entry is made by one in the performance of duty, of his facts
Their work will suffer reported to him by another in the discharge of a duty devolving
upon such other by virtue of his employment, it is nevertheless
admissible
a. it is essential however that the report from which the entry
Trustworthiness is made should have been communicated under the
sanction of duty of obligation, and not causally or
the law reposes a particular confidence upon public officers that it voluntarily
presumes they will discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity
How are entries proved?
Production of the books or records themselves, or by production of
Requisites for Admissibility a copy certified by the legal custodian thereof
(1) the entry was made by a public officer or by another person
specially enjoined to do so
(2) it was made in the performance of his duties or by another person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law 1. People vs. Bernaldez 294 S 317
(3) the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of
the facts by him stated, acquired by him either personally or Facts:
through official channels connected with the exercise of his public (1) the accused Bernalez was charged with the crime of rape allegedly
functions committed against Maria Theresa Bernaldez, her niece, in
Barangay Sugcad, Municipliaty of Polanguio Province of Albay.
Discussion of the Requisites (2) During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented the
following:
First requisite: the entry must have been made by the public officer or a. Maria Teresa, the victim, and her father Pedro
by a private person by law specially enjoined to make such entry b. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Nancy Dela Paz, a
government doctor, who examined Maria Teresa.
Examples:

i. The medical Certificate stated that: there were old a. The lone testimony of Jaime Baillo, one of the victims, who
lacerations at 3:00 and 9 oclock and positively identified the assailant as the accused appellant
newlyhealed lacerations at 11 oclock on the b. Another evidence presented was the police blotter where
hymen of MARIA TERESA the statements of a certain Fr. Badoy, whose truck was
c. However, the medical doctor was not presented in used to return to the place where the shooting incident
court. happened were indicated.
(3) On the other hand, the defense presented the accused to establish i. the said police blotter stated that the shooting
an alibi as well as a certain Delfin Paular, the overseer of the rice incident happened at around 7:40 in the evening.
mill where the accused was working. (3) On the other hand, both the accused appellants tried to establish
(4) The Muniicipal Circuit Trial Court rendered a decision finding the alibi.
accued appellant guilty. The decision of the MCTC was based on (4) Both accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both
several grounds, among them, and giving much weight to the crimes.
medical certificate issued by the medical doctor. (5) Hence the present action by the accused appellants arguing
a. In considering the medical certificate despite the failure of among all others that the positive identification by Jaime Baillo was
the Dr. De La Paz to testify thereon, the trial court reasoned questionable because as stated in the police blotted, the shooting
that the document, being an act done by a public officer, incident happened at around 7:40 in the evening and not 6:30 as
was presumed to be done regularly, unless proved claimed by the prosection. Hence, it was not possible for the victim
otherwise. to have seen the accused without the aid of a lighted torch
(5) Because of the penalty of the crime, the case was automatically (madilim daw, so di sya naidentify hehe)
reviewed by the SC.
Decision of the Supreme Court:
Decision of the SC: Nevertheless, the SC upheld the decision of the The accused Mecrito is found not guilty.
MCTC in finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the part of the Accused Divina, however, is guilty beyond reasonable
accused appellant. doubt.
Issue related to our topic: was the MCTC correct in considering the In relation to our topic, what is the significance of the police
medical certificate issued by the government doctor who was never blotter as evidence presented by the prosecution:
presented in court?
A police blotter is a book which records criminal incidents reported
Ruling: No. the medical certificate is admissible. But it has no to the police. Entries in official records, as in this case of a police
probative value. blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
They are not conclusive.
1. The trial court erred in giving weight to the medical certificate
issued by Dr. De la Paz despite the failure of the latter to testify. It is undisputed that the alleged time of the commission of the
The certificate could be admitted as an exception to the hearsay
crime, i.e., 7:40 in the evening of June 17, 1988, was supplied only
rule.
by the parish priest Fr. Badoy who was neither present when the
2. However, since it involved an opinion of one who must first be
shooting incident happened nor presented as a witness during the
established as an expert witness, it could not be given weight or
trial. The information supplied is therefore hearsay and
credit unless the doctor who issued it be presented in court to
does not have any probative value.
show his qualifications.
2. People vs. Divina 221 S 209

3. People vs. Leones 117 S 382
Facts:
Facts:
(1) the Accused appellants Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga were
(1) Accused- appellant Joseph Leones was charged with the crime of
charged with the crime of the murder of Concepcion Baillo and the
rape of their 16 year- old saleslady employee, Irene Dulay.
crime of frustrated murder of Jaime Baillo.
(2) During the trial, the prosecution presented the following:
(2) During the trial of the case, the following were presented in court
a. Irene Dulay who alleges that she was drugged by the
as evidence for the prosecution:
appellant accused when they were in resort in La Union
i. That on the same day she was raped, she was 2. Application of the rule: The written entries in the clinical
brought to the hospital to be examined by the case record, Exh. "2", showing the date of her admission in
doctor the hospital on April 22, 1973, her complaint of vaginal
b. Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Cayao of the bleeding and the diagnosis of "Healing lacerated wide at 2 o'clock
Provincial Hospital of La Union which stated that there and 10 o'clock hymen" are prima facie evidence of the facts
were HEALING lacerations of the hymen at 2 oclock therein stated, the said entries having been made in official
position. records by a public officer of the Philippines in the
(3) The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused appellant performance of his duty especially enjoined by law, which is
guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that the evidence that of a physician in a government hospital. (Rule 130,
presented by the prosecution also clear and convincing. Sec. 38, Rules of Court). In the case at bar, Dr. Antonino
(4) Hence, the present action by the accused appellant. Estioco was the admitting physician but unfortunately, he
was not presented as a witness for the government.
Issue: was the guilt of the accused appellant proven beyond
reasonable doubt?
Ruling: No. the court noted a number of significant facts from 4. People vs. Crisostomo 160 S 47
which the recorded evidence of the prosecution materially and
substantially debunked and derailed the theory of the government Facts:
and gave considerable merit to the defense. 1. the accused- appellant was charged with the crime of the murder
of Romeo Geronimo. Romeo was shot once on Christmas day by
the appellant Eugenio Crisostomo.
In relation to our topic, which became also controlling in this case, a. During the trial, aside from the accounts of other
was whether indeed the rape had taken place on the date alleged witnesses, the admission of the accuseds shooting of the
by the complainant. victim, as well as the offer of plea of guilty of the same,
the death certificate and the notes of Dr. Santos, the
1. as the prosecution have pointed out, Irene was brought to the medical doctor who attended to the victim when he was
hospital on the day that she was raped. However, the lacerations, brought to the hospital and externally examined the body
as found by the medical examination of the doctor, were already of the victim was presented to establish the fact of death
healing as stated bythe medical certificate. as well as the cause of the death.
a. The clinical case record of Irene Dulay's admission and b. That the said documents stated that the cause of death
confinement at the Provincial Hospital of La Union, marked was a gun shot wound wherein there were two wounds: an
Exhibit "2", contain entries which totally and completely entry and an exit wound
belie the claim of the complainant that she was raped by 2. The Trial court rendered a decision finding him guilty of the crime
the accused in the afternoon of April 22, 1973. of murder.
b. Assuming that the victim was raped between 2 and 3 3. Hence the present action of Crisostomo. He avers that:
o'clock p.m., April 22, 1973 (the same day she was a. That the death certificate of the victim (Exhibit A) to which
admitted in the hospital), then the lacerations of the he offered no objection is admissible only to establish the
hymen at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock would not have been fact of death not the cause of the death of the victim.
described and indicated to be Healing in the clinical case b. He further avers that the testimony of Dr. Juan Santos who
record. It would be described as "laceration fresh" or by examined the body of the victim but did not perform an
similar words like "bloody or new lacerations." There is no autopsy shows that he did not qualify as an expert witness;
instant formula, technique or process known to medical and even if he were an expert witness there was no basis
science or by human experience to hasten the healing of a for him to render an opinion as to the cause of death of the
lacerated hymen within three (3) hours or so after victim
defloration.
c. it follows reasonably that the defloration occurred several
days before, which may have happened when Irene Dulay Issue: was the trial court correct in convicting the accused appellant?
took a weeklong vacation to her hometown in Pugo, La
Union Ruling: Yes.

In relation to the arguments and our topic: What is the significance of the a.
It ruled that there was sufficient evidence on record that
said documents presented by the prosecution? the petitioner was convicted of the crime.
(6) The CA upheld the decision of the RTC.
The death certificate and the notes issued by Dr. Santos after his external
examination of the body of the victim establish the cause of death of the
deceased contrary to the contention of the appellant. Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that his constitutional
rights are being violated for his continued detention without the valid
In this jurisdiction such death certificate and notes issued by said copies of the judgment convicting him.
municipal health officer in the regular performance of his duty are
prima facie evidence of the cause of death of the victim.
Issue: was there sufficient evidence showing his conviction and thereby
justifyinghis continued incarceration?
Ruling: Yes.
5. Feria vs. CA 325 S 525 Based on the records and the hearing conducted by the trial court, there is
sufficient evidence on record to establish the fact of conviction of petitioner
which serves as the legal basis for his detention. Petitioner made judicial
Facts: admissions, both verbal and written, that he was charged with and
convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and sentenced to suffer
(1) Petitioner Norberto Feria y Pacquing has been under detention imprisonment habang buhay.
since May 21, 1981, up to present by reason of his conviction of
the crime of Robbery with Homicide, in Criminal Case No. 60677,
by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, for the jeepney (1) The records contain a certified true copy of the Monthly Report
holdup and killing of United States Peace Corps Volunteer Margaret dated January 198519 of then Judge Rosalio A. De Leon, attesting
Viviene Carmona. to the fact that petitioner was convicted of the crime of Robbery
(2) However, it was later on discovered that the files and records of with Homicide on January 11, 1985.
the petitioner in relation to his charge and his conviction of the a. Such Monthly Report constitutes an entry in official records
robbery (information, commitment order or Mittimus and the copy under Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
of the judgment) were all missing. It was later on proven by the Evidence, which is prima facie evidence of facts therein
Clerk of the court of the RTC of Manila that the said records of the stated.
criminal case were all burned during the Manila City Hall fire on
November 3, 1986.
(3) Writ of Habeas Corpus: petitioner filed a Petition for the Other bases that the court used to prove the existence of conviction:
Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus5 with the Supreme Court
against the Jail Warden of the Manila City Jail, the Presiding Judge of A. Admissions:
Branch 2, Regional Trial Court of Manila, and the City Prosecutor of
Manila, praying for his discharge from confinement on the ground During the trial and on manifestation and arguments made by the
that his continued detention without any valid judgment is illegal accused, his learned counsel and Solicitor Alexander G. Gesmundo who
and violative of his constitutional right to due process. appeared for the respondents, it appears clear and indubitable that:
(4) The SC resolved to issue the Writ and ordered that the (A) Petitioner had been charged with Robbery with Homicide in
case be raffled on a scheduled date. Criminal Case No. 60677, Illegal Possession of Firearm in
(5) The RTC of Manila then rendered a decision dismissing the case for Criminal Case No. 60678 and Robbery in Band in Criminal Case
the Writ of Habeas Corpus stating that: the mere loss of the No. 60867. . . . In Criminal Case No. 60677 (Robbery with
records of the case does not invalidate the judgment or Homicide) the accused admitted in open Court that a decision
commitment nor authorize the release of the petitioner, and that was read to him in open Court by a personnel of the
the proper remedy would be reconstitution of the records of the respondent Court (RTC Branch II) sentencing him to Life
case which should be filed with the court which rendered the Imprisonment (Habang buhay) . . .
decision.

Petitioners declarations as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him under Section 23 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.
B. Hearsay
Public respondents likewise presented a certified true copy of Peoples

Journal dated January 18, 1985, page 2,20 issued by the National Library,
containing a short news article that petitioner was convicted of the crime
of Robbery with Homicide and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
However, newspaper articles amount to hearsay evidence, twice

removed and are therefore not only inadmissible but without any
probative value at all whether objected to or not, unless offered for a
purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted. In this case,
the news article is admissible only as evidence that such publication does
exist with the tenor of the news therein stated.

RULE 130 SECTION 45. COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE RULE 130 SECTION 46. LEARNED TREATISES
Section 45. Commercial Lists and the Like. Evidence of statements of Section 46. Learned treatises. A published treatise, periodical or
matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as
register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes
to prove the truth of any relevant matter as stated if that compilation is judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of
published for use by person engaged in that occupation and is generally the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
used and relied upon by them therein. profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Reason for the Admissibility Reasons for Admissibility
Necessity Necessity
The usual unavailability of the persons who make the final it is extremely inconvenient and costly to produce qualified expert
compilation on the basis of personal knowledge make it witness regarding the matter subject of the publication
tremendously inconvenient o an ordinary witness, is perhaps the larger proportion of the
Trustworthiness topics upon which he may questioned, has not a knowledge
Authors of the said compilations have no motive to deceive, and derived from personal observation. He virtually reproduced
they further realize that unless their lists registers, and reports are the conclusions of others which he accepts on authority of
prepared with care and accuracy, their work will have no the eminent names responsible for them.
commercial or professional value Trustworthiness
the writer publishes for his profession and he knows that this
Take note of the requisites for exception to the hearsay rule be publications are subject to careful professional ciritiscm and is
applied: open ultimately to certain refutation if not well founded
1. they are made by person engaged in that occupation his reputation is based on the correctness of his data and the
2. they are generally used and replied upon by them validity of his conclusions
3. those lists and reports are published
Requisites of Admissibility
(1) the Court takes Judicial Notice; OR
Examples: (2) qualified by another expert: A witness expert in the subject,
1. determination of the state of the market in market reports or testifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical
2. market reports or quotations as printed in newspaper trade or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in
circulars, trade journal, and similar publications which are known, the subject
reliable and of good repute
Example: history books, and published findings of scientists; almanacs;
encyclopedia; tide tables, etc.

RULE 130 SECTION 47 TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER The rule is already satisfied if the subsequent proceedings is
PROCEEDING between persons who represent the parties to the proceeding by
privity in law, blood, or estate
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, C. Relates to the Same Matter
given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving
the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the D. the Adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine
adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.
E. Unable to testify
Mere refusal to testify does not come within the purview of being
Take note also of the similar rule in Criminal Procedure: unable to testify
Such witnesses can be arrested and punished for contempt
Section 1 (f) Rule 115 of the ROC states:
Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness
who is deceased or outside the Philippines or unable to testify, or How do you prove the former testimony?
unavailable, given in another case, judicial or administrative, involving the Official transcript of the stenographic notes
same subject matter and the adverse party had the opportunity to cross-
May also be proven by the witnesses who heard the testimony and
examine him.
is able to recall and state it with satisfactory correctness
1. De Leon vs. People 210 S 151

Reasons for the Admissibility
Necessity The issue as to the admissibility of the sworn statements and testimonies
of Reyes and Quinto deserves scant consideration at this stage of the case
the witness could no longer testify and his former testimony should
because this Court had already put the issue to rest when it denied the
be admitted to prevent miscarriage of justice
petition for certiorari earlier filed by herein petitioners questioning the
Trustworthiness
decision of the Court of First Instance to admit the transcripts in question.
were already admitted in a previous case By the express provision of section 1 (f) Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, the
were already subject to a cross examination before testimonies given by witnesses during the preliminary investigation of the
case on trial should be admitted into evidence when such testimony was
taken by question and answer in the presence of defendant or his attorney,
Requisites for Admissibility and there was an opportunity for the defendant to cross examine the
(1) The testimony was rendered in a former case witness who is dead or incapacitated to testify or cannot with due
(2) There must be an identity of parties diligence be found in the Philippines (People v. Villaluz, 125 SCRA 116
(3) There must be an identity of the subject matter although different [1983]).
causes of action
(4) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine the witness
and
(5) The witness is dead, out of the Philippines, or unable to testify
Discussion of the Requisites RULE 130 SECTION 48 OPINION RULE
A. Former Case Section 48. General rule. The opinion of witness is not admissible,
Any former judicial proceedings (not legislative or administrative except as indicated in the following sections.
proceedings)
B. Same Parties Why the general rule?

This is because a witness must testify as to facts that were said court a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the order
observed by him and it is for the court to draw conclusion from the denying the motion to exclude Dra. Acampado. It stated that:
facts testified to. a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the
testimony of Dra. Acampado
b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within
the realm of privileged communication because the information she
(1) Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and disclosed were not obtained from the patient while attending her in her
Juan Lim 214 S 273 professional capacity and neither where the information necessary to
enable the physicial to prescribe or give treatment of the patient Nelly
Facts: Lim. And neither does the information obtained from the physician tend
10. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other. to blacken the character of the patient or bring disgrace to her or invite
11. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for reproach.
annulment of their marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, 18. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim.
was suffering from schizophrenia before, during, and after the
celevration of the marriage, and until the present Issue: May Dr. Acampado be a witness for the respondent Juan Lim?
12. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent
presented 3 witnesses, among them was Dra. Acampado who is a Ruling: Yes. As an expert witness.
Medical Specialist II and in-charge of the Female Service of the National
Center for Mental Health a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist Our careful evaluation of the submitted pleadings leads Us to no other
Association and a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. course of action but to agree with the respondent Courts observation that
She was summoned as an expert witness. However, she also the petitioner failed to discharge that burden. In the first place, Dr.
happened to be the attending psychiatrist of the petitioner Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly
Nelly Lim. held by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the
13. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the course of her examination, interview and treatment of the petitioner;
counsel of the petitioner then filed a motion to quash subpoena to be moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the hypothetical problem did
issued for Dra. Acampado so that she may not be allowed to appear as not refer to and had no bearing on whatever information or findings the
a witness in court. doctor obtained while attending to the patient. There is, as well, no
14. During the hearing for the motion: showing that Dr. Acampados answers to the questions propounded to her
a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from relating to the hypothetical problem were influenced by the information
testifying under the rule on the confidentiality of a physician- obtained from the petitioner. Otherwise stated, her expert opinion excluded
patient relationship whatever information or knowledge she had about the petitioner which was
b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship existing between
expert witness and would not be testifying on any information them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot
acquired while attending to her patient Nelly Lim in her then be excluded. The rule on this point is summarized as follows: chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
professional capacity.
15. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied "The predominating view, with some scant authority otherwise, is that the
the motion and stated in his order that: the respondents motion [is statutory physician-patient privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated
denied] and forthwith allowed Dr. Acampado to testify. However, the by permitting a physician to give expert opinion testimony in response to a
Court advised counsel for respondent to interpose his objection once it strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental
becomes apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered condition of a patient whom he has attended professionally, where his
by the privileged communication rule. opinion is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and
16. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established disregarding any personal professional knowledge he may have concerning
by the RTC and the CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by such patient. But in order to avoid the bar of the physician-patient privilege
counsel for private respondent as an expert witness and was where it is asserted in such a case, the physician must base his opinion
asked hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise. She solely upon the facts hypothesized in the question, excluding from
neither revealed the illness she examined and treated the consideration his personal knowledge of the patient acquired through the
petitioner for nor disclosed the results of her examination and the physician and patient relationship. If he cannot or does not exclude from
medicines she had prescribed. consideration his personal professional knowledge of the patients
17. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert opinion."
testimony of the Dra. Acampado when the petitioner filed before the
(4) By reason of the penalty imposed, the case was
automatically raised to the SC for automatic review.
(2) People vs. Galleno 291 S 762 a. Among the contentions of the accused appellant was
that the doctors made no conclusions as to what
really caused the lacerations in the vagina of the
Facts: victim.
(1) the accused appellant Galleno was charged with the crime of b. the testimony of the three expert witnesses presented by
Statutory Rape of the 5 year old child Evelyn Obligar Garganera. the prosecution, namely, Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma.
(2) During the trial, several witnesses were presented: Lourdes Laada, and Dr. Machael Toledo, which convinced
a. Evelyn Obligar who testified that when Galleno, a friend of the trial court that rape was committed against the
their family and neighbor, visited their house, he made her offended party, is not impeccable considering that they
sit on his lap facing him. When she was already sitting on found that there was no presence of spermatozoa, and that
his lap, he inserted his penis in his vagina. they were not sure as to what caused the laceration in the
i. That this caused lacerations and bleeding. She victims vagina; that Dr. Laada herself testified that
needed medical attention. Evelyn told her that it was the finger of accusedappellant
b. This is what is important: Three medical doctors who which caused the laceration. In addition, accusedappellant
were able to examine the victim Evelyn were also banks on the victims testimony on crossexamination, that
presented. They were the doctors to whom the parents of it was the finger of accused appellant which caused the
Evelyn brought her to treat her bleeding. laceration; and that she even disclosed this to accused-
i. Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health appellants father, Raul Galleno.
Physician of Maayon, Capiz stated that:
Evelyns vaginal laceration could have been caused Issue: what is the significance of the testimonies of the three
by a blunt instrument inserted into the vagina, that doctors? Are they admissible? What is their evidentiary weight?
it was possible that a human penis in full erection
had been forcibly inserted into her vagina, and that Ruling: They are admissible and sufficiently support the finding of
a human penis in full erection is considered a blunt guilt of the accused appellant.
instrument.
ii. Dr. Ma. Lourdes Laada of the Roxas General As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions
Hospital stated that: that there was a 3 cm. or give opinions. It is the courts duty to draw conclusions from the
lacerated wound at the left anterior onethird of the evidence and form opinions upon the facts proved.
vagina and the presence of about 1015 cc of
blood at the vaginal vault. Dr. Laada However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many
recommended that Evelyn be admitted for cases, and are not confined to expert testimony, based on the principle
confinement in the hospital because the wound in that either because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the witness,
her vagina, which was still bleeding or because of the nature of the subject matter under observation, or for
iii. Dr. Toledo of the Roxas General Hospital other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment.
stated that: the child suffered severe compound
laceration which could have been caused by a
normal and fully developed penis of a man in a In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with
state of erection that was forcibly inserted into her the aid of the expert testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the
vagina and that the insertion caused her vagina to possible cause of the victims laceration, but also the testimony of the
hemorrhage which thus required the transfusion of other prosecution witnesses, especially the victim herself. In other words,
255 cc of blood. the trial court did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert
c. Defense of the accused: the accused however, was witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the trial court in
tryoing to establish the fact the bleeding was not caused the exercise of its judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the
by his penis, but of his ring finger with a long nail experts enumerated various possible causes of the victims
accidentally penetrating the vagina of the victim while he laceration does not mean that the trial courts inference is wrong.
was playing with her and throwing/lifting her up and down.
(3) Decision of the RTC: the RTc rendered a decision against the
accused appellant and convicted him of the crime as charged.
Center for Mental Health a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist
Association and a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatrists.
RULE 130 SECTION 48 OPINION RULE She was summoned as an expert witness. However, she also
happened to be the attending psychiatrist of the petitioner
Section 48. General rule. The opinion of witness is not admissible, Nelly Lim.
except as indicated in the following sections. 22. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the
counsel of the petitioner then filed a motion to quash subpoena to be
issued for Dra. Acampado so that she may not be allowed to appear as
Why the general rule? a witness in court.
This is because a witness must testify as to facts that were 23. During the hearing for the motion:
observed by him and it is for the court to draw conclusion from the a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from
facts testified to. testifying under the rule on the confidentiality of a physician-
A witness is not allowed to express his opinions upon the very patient relationship
question to be determined by the court b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an
The witness may not state his interference from data observed by expert witness and would not be testifying on any information
him provided that the observed data on which the inference is acquired while attending to her patient Nelly Lim in her
based have been or cane be reproduced in court, by words or professional capacity.
24. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied
gestures of this witness or others, so fully, exactly, and adequately,
the motion and stated in his order that: the respondents motion [is
as a basis for the inference, that the witness opinion is merely
denied] and forthwith allowed Dr. Acampado to testify. However, the
superfluous to the assistance to the court In the ascertainment of
Court advised counsel for respondent to interpose his objection once it
the truth (W)
becomes apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered
by the privileged communication rule.
Exceptions to the opinion rule:
25. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established
a) Expert Opinion
by the RTC and the CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by
b) Opinion of Ordinary Witness on certain specific subjects
a. Identity of a person counsel for private respondent as an expert witness and was
b. Handwriting asked hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise. She
c. Mental sanity neither revealed the illness she examined and treated the
d. Impressions of emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance petitioner for nor disclosed the results of her examination and the
of a person medicines she had prescribed.
26. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the
testimony of the Dra. Acampado when the petitioner filed before the
said court a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the order
(3) Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and denying the motion to exclude Dra. Acampado. It stated that:
Juan Lim 214 S 273 a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the
testimony of Dra. Acampado
Facts: b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within
19. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other. the realm of privileged communication because the information she
20. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for disclosed were not obtained from the patient while attending her in her
annulment of their marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, professional capacity and neither where the information necessary to
was suffering from schizophrenia before, during, and after the enable the physicial to prescribe or give treatment of the patient Nelly
celevration of the marriage, and until the present Lim. And neither does the information obtained from the physician tend
21. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent to blacken the character of the patient or bring disgrace to her or invite
presented 3 witnesses, among them was Dra. Acampado who is a reproach.
Medical Specialist II and in-charge of the Female Service of the National 27. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim.
Facts:
Issue: May Dr. Acampado be a witness for the respondent Juan Lim? (5) the accused appellant Galleno was charged with the crime of Statutory
Rape of the 5 year old child Evelyn Obligar Garganera.
Ruling: Yes. As an expert witness. (6) During the trial, several witnesses were presented:
a. Evelyn Obligar who testified that when Galleno, a friend of their
Our careful evaluation of the submitted pleadings leads Us to no other family and neighbor, visited their house, he made her sit on his
course of action but to agree with the respondent Courts observation that lap facing him. When she was already sitting on his lap, he
the petitioner failed to discharge that burden. inserted his penis in his vagina.
i. That this caused lacerations and bleeding. She needed
In the first place, Dr. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert medical attention.
b. This is what is important: Three medical doctors who were
witness. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose
able to examine the victim Evelyn were also presented. They
anything obtained in the course of her examination, interview and
were the doctors to whom the parents of Evelyn brought her to
treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in
treat her bleeding.
the hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever
i. Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health Physician
information or findings the doctor obtained while attending to the patient.
of Maayon, Capiz stated that: Evelyns vaginal
There is, as well, no showing that Dr. Acampados answers to the questions
laceration could have been caused by a blunt
propounded to her relating to the hypothetical problem were influenced by
instrument inserted into the vagina, that it was
the information obtained from the petitioner. Otherwise stated, her expert
possible that a human penis in full erection had been
opinion excluded whatever information or knowledge she had about the
forcibly inserted into her vagina, and that a human
petitioner which was acquired by reason of the physician-patient
penis in full erection is considered a blunt instrument.
relationship existing between them. As an expert witness, her testimony ii. Dr. Ma. Lourdes Laada of the Roxas General
before the trial court cannot then be excluded. The rule on this point is Hospital stated that: that there was a 3 cm.
summarized as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary lacerated wound at the left anterior onethird of the
vagina and the presence of about 1015 cc of blood
"The predominating view, with some scant authority otherwise, is that the at the vaginal vault. Dr. Laada recommended that
statutory physician-patient privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated Evelyn be admitted for confinement in the hospital
by permitting a physician to give expert opinion testimony in response to a because the wound in her vagina, which was still
strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental bleeding
condition of a patient whom he has attended professionally, where his iii. Dr. Toledo of the Roxas General Hospital stated
opinion is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and that: the child suffered severe compound laceration
disregarding any personal professional knowledge he may have concerning which could have been caused by a normal and fully
such patient. But in order to avoid the bar of the physician-patient privilege developed penis of a man in a state of erection that
where it is asserted in such a case, the physician must base his opinion was forcibly inserted into her vagina and that the
solely upon the facts hypothesized in the question, excluding from insertion caused her vagina to hemorrhage which thus
consideration his personal knowledge of the patient acquired through the required the transfusion of 255 cc of blood.
physician and patient relationship. If he cannot or does not exclude from c. Defense of the accused: the accused however, was tryoing
consideration his personal professional knowledge of the patients to establish the fact the bleeding was not caused by his penis,
condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert opinion." but of his ring finger with a long nail accidentally penetrating
the vagina of the victim while he was playing with her and
throwing/lifting her up and down.
(7) Decision of the RTC: the RTc rendered a decision against the accused
(4) People vs. Galleno 291 S 762 appellant and convicted him of the crime as charged.
(8) By reason of the penalty imposed, the case was automatically
raised to the SC for automatic review.
a. Among the contentions of the accused appellant was RULE 130 SECTION 49 OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS
that the doctors made no conclusions as to what really
caused the lacerations in the vagina of the victim. Section 49. OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS. - The opinion of a witness
b. the testimony of the three expert witnesses presented by the on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which
prosecution, namely, Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma. Lourdes he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
Laada, and Dr. Machael Toledo, which convinced the trial court
that rape was committed against the offended party, is not Three things must concur in order for the opinion of the expert witness be
impeccable considering that they found that there was no admissible in court:
presence of spermatozoa, and that they were not sure as to
what caused the laceration in the victims vagina; that Dr. 1. Subject Matter: the subject under consideration must be one that
Laada herself testified that Evelyn told her that it was the requires that the court has the aid of knowledge or experience of
finger of accusedappellant which caused the laceration. In an expert which men not especially skilled do not have, and such
addition, accusedappellant banks on the victims testimony on therefore cannot be obtained from ordinary witness;
crossexamination, that it was the finger of accused appellant Experts may give their opinions and inference upon
which caused the laceration; and that she even disclosed this questions of science, skill or trade, or other of the like
to accusedappellants father, Raul Galleno. kind, or when the subject matter of the inquiry is such
that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove and
Issue: what is the significance of the testimonies of the three are incapable of forming a correct judgment upon it
doctors? Are they admissible? What is their evidentiary weight? without assistance, order to attain knowledge of it
Are not admissible when the inquiry is into a subject
Ruling: They are admissible and sufficiently support the finding of matter, the nature of which is not as to require any
guilt of the accused appellant. peculiar habits or study, in order to qualify a man to
understand
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions Example: in a case for annulment under Art. 36 of the
or give opinions. It is the courts duty to draw conclusions from the Family Code, the courts must consider as decisive
evidence and form opinions upon the facts proved. evience the expert opinion of the psychological and
mental temperaments of the parties; in identifying the
However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many blood stains in the clothing of the accused, a medical
cases, and are not confined to expert testimony, based on the principle expert is necessary for such; expert testimony as to
that either because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the witness, the identity of t fingerprint is admissible because the
or because of the nature of the subject matter under observation, or for method of identification of fingerprints is a science
other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment. requiring close study
2. An Expert: the witness called as an expert must posses the
knowledge, skill or experience needed to inform the court in the
In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with particular case under consideration;
the aid of the expert testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the Before a witness is presented as an expert can be
possible cause of the victims laceration, but also the testimony of the asked to give any opinion on the subject matter of the
other prosecution witnesses, especially the victim herself. In other words, inquiry, his qualification as an expert must first be
the trial court did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert shown and he may then state the facts showing his
witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the trial court in requisite knowledge and skill.
the exercise of its judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the upon such a question, the expert may testify not only
experts enumerated various possible causes of the victims as to the facts but also to his conclusions based on the
laceration does not mean that the trial courts inference is wrong. facts because the court is without knowledge

necessary to enable it to draw the conclusion for itself
without aid For example, cases of forgery will not depend entirely on the expert
not limited to classified and special profession but is opinion of a handwriting expert, and in fact, not indispensable
admissible wherever peculiar skill and judgment
applied to a particular subject are required to explain
the result by tracing them to their causes Case 1. Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. vs. William
there exists no test in determining such, but the court Lines, Inc. 306 S 762
considers an expert a person who in the opinion of the
court has a special acquaintance with the immediate Parties of this case:
line of inquiry; yet he need not be thoroughly o Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works (Cebu Shipyard) is a
acquainted with the differentia of the specific under domestic corporation engaged in the business of dry docking and
consideration repairing of marine vessels
one possessing, in regard to a particular subject o William Lines, the plaintiff, is the owners of the Vessel M/V Manila
department of human activity, knowledge not usually City
acquired by other persons o The private respondent Prudential is the insurer of William Lines
3. Relevance and is the issue: the testimony must be to a matter who is the subrogee
that is in issue.
The testimony is not admissible as to a matter not in 1. William Lines contracted with Cebu Shipyard for the repairs to be
issue done on the vessel M/V Manila City.
2. After the major repairs were done, it was then transferred from
Cebu Shipyards grave dock to the docking quay where the
Mode of Examining an Expert witness remaining repair to be done was the replating of the top of Water
Ballast No. 12. Such was done by JNB General Services, the
o The expert need not have personal observation on the data on subcontractor of Cebu Shipyard for the said repair and cleaning.
which his opinion is to be based a. At such time, the crew of MV Manila employed by William
o It is possible that the expert is stated with the data Lines were using the accommodations in the vessel
hypothetically, so that the court may be able to reject his 3. During the cleaning of Tank Top No. 12 where there cleaners were,
opinion later if he does not accept the data that were his basis a fire broke out and ultimately causing the destruction and the
and for the parties to be able to dispute the said data sinking of the said vessel.
4. Hence, William Lines filed a complaint against Cebu Shipyard for
complaint for damages against CSEW, alleging that the fire which
Probative Value of the Opinion of the Expert Witness broke out in M/V Manila City was caused by CSEWs negligence and
lack of care.
o Although meriting consideration, it is not conclusive, and must be
5. During the trial of the case, Cebu Shipyard introduced
weighed in relation to other proofs presented
expert witnesses Messrs, David Grey and Gregory
o The Court is not bound by the opinion of an expert and ordinarily
Southeard, fire experts, for the probable origin of the fire in MV
not conclusive
o The probative force of the testimony of the expert does not lie in a Manila City.
a. the said fire experts were one in their opinion that the fire
mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the aid that
did not originate in the area of Tank Top No. 12 where the
he can render to the courts in showing the facts which serve as a
JNB workers were doing hotworks but on the crew
basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his
accommodation cabins on the portside No. 2 deck.
conclusions is founded 6. The trial court rendered a decision against Cebu Shipyard and this
o Like any other testimony, in the light of the judges general
was upheld by the CA.
knowledge and experience on the subject of the inquiry, it will be 7. Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing among all
weighed especially when there are conflicting expert opinions others that the lower courts were wrong in disregarding that
testimonies of the expert witness in showing the origin of the fire RULE 130 SECTION 50. OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS.
and the negligence of the crew members of MV Manila City. The
said courts should have given weight to the said testimonies in its Section 50. The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given
decision. may be received in evidence regarding:
a) the identity of a person, about whom he has adequate knowledge;
Issue: What is the significance of the expert testimonies of the fire experts? b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted.
d) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion,
Ruling: Although admissible and entitled to consideration, probative
behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
value of the testimonies may still vary as the courts may still weigh the
expert testimonies in relation to other pieces of evidence presented in
Conditions for admissibility
court. And in this case, the other testimonies of the persons who were
1. the opinion is relevant
there at the time the fire broke out were of more value.
2. it is the best nature of the case admits of
3. must come from a competent witness
Courts are not bound by the testimonies of expert witnesses.
Although they may have probative value, reception in evidence of
expert testimonies is within the discretion of the court. Section RULE 130 SECTION 51. Character Evidence
49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides:
Definition:
SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness.The opinion of a witness on a matter o Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown
and distinguish an individual person; it refers to what a man is
to possess, may be received in evidence.
depends on the attributes he possesses
o Must be differentiated with reputation because such is the
The word may signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness as dependent on the view of the others as to the qualities he
evidence is a prerogative of the courts. It is never mandatory for judges to possesses.
give substantial weight to expert testimonies. If from the facts and o Character is what the person really is and reputation is what the
evidence on record, a conclusion is readily ascertainable, there is no need person based on others
for the judge to resort to expert opinion evidence.
In the case under consideration, the testimonies of the fire SECTION 51. Character Evidence not generally admissible;
experts were not the only available evidence on the probable exceptions
cause and origin of the fire. There were witnesses who were
actually on board the vessel when the fire occurred. Between the a) In Criminal Cases:
testimonies of the fire experts who merely based their findings 1. the accused may prove his good moral character which is
and opinions on interviews and the testimonies of those present pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
during the fire, the latter are of more probative value. Verily, the 2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral
trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in giving more character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
weight to said testimonies. 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 Good moral character of a party in a civil Weight:
case is admissible only when the issue of pertinent character is o The influence of good moral character of the accused as evidence
involved in the case. in criminal cases depends upon the nature and circumstances of
c) The character of Witnesses- in the case provided or in Rule 132, the crime charged and upon the probative force of the proof
Section 14. presented as to the circumstances of the crime charged and upon
Two issues to be resolved in relation to character evidence: (W) the probative force of the proof presented as to the guilt of the
accused;
1. Relevance and Admissibility: is a persons dispositioni.e., a o For example, if the crime charged is one which involves cool
trait, or group of traits, or the sum of his traits admissible and deliberation and involved in the common and daily life of the
relevant for certain purposes? accused, the same is strong; but when the crime is unusual that it
2. Mode of Proving: Whenever it is so admissible as an evidentiary must have been induced by motives not frequently operating on
fact and thus becomes its turn a proposition to be proved, how it is the accuseds mind, good character as an evidence is weak.
to be evidenced, -- by the communitys reputation, and by that Another example is that when the evidence of the crime is clear
only, and what conditions and convincing, character evidence will not be of use
o An accused is not entitled to acquittal because of his good moral
character and exemplary conduct alone
General Rule: Character evidence, as a rule, is not admissible
o Because it is generally irrelevant in determining c controversy
because the evidence of a persons character or trait is not
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad
admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with such moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait
character or trait in a particular issue involved in the offense charged;
o If the courts would be allowed to be influenced by the character or
reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects
The Prosecution is not allowed to initially attack the character of
of a popularity contest rather than rely on the factual inquiry onto
the accused Except when (concurrence of both):
the merits of the case
Reason for the rule: to prevent the prejudice that may be caused by the
showing of bad character
A. Criminal Cases
First: it is in rebuttal
1. Accused proving his good moral character pertinent o the purpose is to refute the claim that he accused has good
to the moral trait involved in the offense charged character and thus to prevent the court from drawing therefrom
the inference that the accused is innocent of the crime charged
Reason for allowing the Rule:
o The defendants character showing the probability of his doing or Second: when it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
not the act charged, is essentially relevant charge
o Hence. The defendant may give evidence as to his good o having reference and analogy to the moral trait involved in the
moral character to evidence the improbability of his doing crime charged
of the act charged, unless there is some collateral reason o for example, the defendants character for truth is irrelevant in a
for exclusion case for attempted murder
o Affords the presumption against the commission of
a crime; and strengthens the presumption of
innocence

RULE 131 SECTION 1 BURDEN OF PROOF
3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may

Section 1. Burden of proof. Burden of proof is the duty of a
be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree
the probability or improbability of the offense charged. party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law.
Character of the offended party o onus probandi refers to the obligation of a party to a litigation to
persuade the court that he is entitled to relief
o character of the offended party may only be proved if it tends to o the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right
establish the probability or the improbability of the offense charged o also called the risk of non-persuasion (W)
o must be related to the traits and characteristics involved in
the crime charged Burden of proof rule applies to both the plaintiff and the
o e.g., character of chastity on the crime of rape; character
defendant
for peaceableness or violence on the charge of assault; o It is inaccurate to state that the burden of proof lies only with the
character for honesty on a charge of embezzlement
plaintiff because the rules states not only of a claim but also of
defense
o He who asserts or denies must prove
b) In Civil Cases. Evidence of Good moral character of a o Whoever asserts the affirmative of an issue is the party who has
party in a civil case is admissible only when the issue the burden to prove it
of pertinent character is involved in the case. o Hence, the plaintiff always has the burden of proof for its
o character involved in the issue is a technical expression, which positive assertions
o On the other hand, the defendant:
does not mean simply that the character may be affected by the
in making affirmative defenses is not a denial of
result, but that it is of a particular importance in the suit itself, as
the plaintiffs cause of action but one which, if
the character of the plaintiff in an action for slander or that of a
established, will be a good defense as such is an
woman in an action for seduction
avoidance of the claim
o example:
in making his denials, he must also prove the same
1. action for defamation: bad reputation and character of the
plaintiff would entitle the plaintiff for lesser damages
2. action for breach of promise to marry or alienation of affection: Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
the plaintiffs dissolute character may lessen entitlement to Never shifts and it remains shifts to one party when the other
damages exactly throughout the entire case has produced sufficient evidence
3. prosecution for keeping a bawdy-house or gambling house- exactly where the pleadings to be entitled as a matter of law
reputation of the house is the actual issue (complaint and answer) placed it to a ruling in his favor
4. in a case for seduction- the reputation and character of the Civil cases The burden is on the Both civil and criminal cases The
woman is an issue party who would be defeated if no burden lies with the party who
evidence were given on either asserts an affirmative allegation.
side. Criminal cases The burden
is always on the prosecution.
The burden of proof does not shift The burden of evidence shifts
as it remains throughout the trial from party to party depending on
with the party upon whom it is the exigencies of the case in the
imposed. course of the trial.
The burden of proof is generally The burden of evidence is

determined by the pleading filed generally determined by the If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative
by the party. developments of the trial or by allegation or that a negative averment is an essential
provisions of law. element of the crime - the prosecution has the burden
of proving the charge.
Test for determining who has the burden of proof: Where the negative of an issue does not permit of
1. Lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the direct proof, or where the facts are more immediately
issue within the knowledge of the accused, the onus
a. The suitor who relies upon a fact should be called upon to probandi rests on him.
prove his own cause
b. Prove own affirmative allegations
2. Burden of proof in a proceedings lies first on that party against
B. Burden of proof in Criminal Cases
whom the judgment of the court would be given, if no evidence at
all were produced on either side
The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
Hence, the prosecution shall have the onus probandi of
establishing the guilt of the accused
What need not be proved:
1. those which are judicially noticed
2. those which are admitted
3. those which are presumed The Doctrine of Equipoise or Equiponderance Doctrine
o Refers to the situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly
balanced, or there is doubt on which side the evidence
A. Civil Cases preponderates (or weighs heavily). In this case the decision should
be against the party with the burden of proof
Negative Allegations o Hence, where the burden of proof is with the plaintiff and the
o general rule: they need not be proved evidence does not suggest that the scale of justivce should weigh
o Exception: it should be proved when it is an essential part of the in his favor, the court should render a verdict for the defendant
statement of the right or title upon which the cause of action or o In a criminal case, where the evidence is evenly balanced,
defense is founded the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales
o Example: allegation of the plaintiff that the debt has not yet in favor of the accused
been paid must be proven; plaintiff must show that in an action o Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or
for damages, failure of the defendant to follow the plans must there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates,
be proven; the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue
o Exception to the Exception: if it is denial of the existence of the (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115625, January
document, the custody of which belongs to the other party, it need not 23, 1998).
be proved o Finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances
are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
Note that a negative allegation does not have to be proven unless consistent with then innocence of the accused and the
the same is an essential part of the cause of action or defense. other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does
not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to
However, in civil cases, even if a negative allegation is
produce certainty, and does not suffice to produce a
an essential part of the defense, such does not have to
conviction (Bernardino v. People, 2006).
be proven if it is only for the purpose of denying the
existence of a document which would properly be in
the custody of the adverse party.
1. Jimenez vs. NLRC 256 S 84

As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.
Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule
FACTS: is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment,
1. Private respondents Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas, father and son, filed rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment. The debtor has
a claim for unpaid wages/commissions, separation pay and damages the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has
against petitioners JJs Trucking and/or Dr. Jimenez. been discharged by payment. When the existence of a debt is fully
Alleged that they were hired by Jimenez as driver/mechanic and established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving
helper, respectively, in JJs Trucking, where they were assigned to a that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who
10-wheeler truck to haul Coca-cola soft drinks and paid on offers such a defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor
commission basis, initially at 17% later increased to 20%. introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going
That they received only partial commission (P84k) from JJs total forward with the evidenceas distinct from the general burden of
gross income of almost P1M for 2 years. Consequently, there was proofshifts to the creditor, who is then under a duty of producing
unpaid balance of P106,211.86 some evidence to show nonpayment.
2. Jimenez and JJs contend:
that Fredelito was not an employee of the firm but was merely a
Although private respondents admit receipt of partial payment, petitioners
helper of his father; still have to present proof of full payment. Where the defendant sued for a
that all commissions were duly paid;
debt admits that the debt was originally owed, and pleads payment in
that the truck driven by Pedro was sold to a third person, therefore,
whole or in part, it is incumbent upon him to prove such payment. That a
they were not illegally dismissed.
plaintiff admits that some payments have been made does not
3. Labor Arbiter: ordered JJs and Jimenez to pay jointly and severally
change the burden of proof. The defendant still has the burden of
Pedro Juanatas a separation pay. Complaint of Fredelito was dimissed
establishing payments beyond those admitted by plaintiff.
for lack of merit.
4. NLRC: modified. Fredelito was declared an employee and shares in the
commission and separation pay awarded to Pedro; JJs and Jimenez are In this case, petitioners failed to present evidence to prove payment.
jointly and severally liable to pay complainants their unpaid
commissions (P84,387.05).
ISSUE: WON NLRC correctly ruled that private respondents were not paid 2. Mallari vs. CA 265 S 456
their commissions in full.
Facts:
RULING: YES. NLRC correctly ruled that the entire amount of 1. Sometime on December 27, 1990Pat. Manipon and Pfc. Esguerra,
commissions was not paid. who were both then assigned at the Capas Police Station, received
Reason: evident failure of herein petitioners to present reliable information that appellant Diosdado Mallari, who has a
evidence that full payment thereof has been made standing warrant of arrest in connection with Criminal for Homicide
in 1989, was seen at Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac.
2. The police officers immediately proceeded to Sitio 14, Sta. Rita,
It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative
Capas, Tarlac. Upon reaching the place, the arresting officers
allegation. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts
surrounded the house of appellant, arrested him and told him to
an affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his
remain stationary. Thereupon, the arresting officers searched
affirmative allegations in the complaint and the defendant or respondent
him and found a homemade gun (paltik) with one M16 live
has to prove the affirmative allegations in his affirmative defenses and
ammunition.
counterclaim. Considering that petitioners herein assert that the disputed
3. the petitioner was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of
commissions have been paid, they have the bounden duty to prove that
Firearms and Ammunition, and pleaded not guilty on arraignment.
fact. 4. The RTC rendered a decision convicting the appellant guilty of
Illegal possession of Firearms and Ammunition. This was upheld by
the CA. In its decision, the Court of Appeals held that the In the case at bench, the testimony of a representative of, or a
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Pfc. Manipon and Pat. certification from the PNP (FEU) that petitioner was not a licensee of
Esguerra "unequivocally proved that the handgun (paltik) and the the said firearm would have sufficed for the prosecution to prove
live M16 ammunition were recovered from the person of the beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of
appellant (herein petitioner). illegal possession.Presumptions
o Assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such
Hence, the present action by the appellant arguing, among all fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or
others, that even assuming that the handgun and ammunition had in otherwise established in the action
fact been found in his possession, the prosecution failed to prove that o It is not evidence and merely affects the burden of offering
he had no license therefor and absent this essential element of the evidence
crime of illegal possession of firearms, it was manifest error for the o During the trial of ana action, the party whi has the burden of proof
Court of Appeals to uphold his conviction. In other words, the upon an issue may be aided in establishing his claim or defense by
prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving that he did not the operation of presumption
have the requisite license for the firearm and ammunition found in his o Or the probative value of which the law attached to a
possession. specific state of facts
On the other hand, it is the position of the SOLGEN that as the Effect:
firearm involved is a homemade gun or "paltik" and is illegal per se. It o a party in whose favour the legal presumption exists may rely on
could not have been the subject of license. This, according to the Solicitor and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue
General, dispenses with the necessity of proving that petitioner had no o one need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a
license to possess the firearm. Hence, it does not even attempt to show presumption is prima facie proof of the fact assumed
evidence on record of petitioner's nonpossession of a license or permit for o It may operate against an adversary who has not introduced to
there really is no such evidence.
rebut the presumption
Issue: Who has the burden of proving that the appellant has no
license? Classes of presumptions:
1. Presumption of Law or juris: deduction which the law considers as
In criminal prosecutions, the prosecution has the burden of proving all of established from the facts given
the elements, even if they are in the negative. 2. Presumption of facts or hominis: deduction or inference which
reason or experience draws form other facts proved
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the
burden of proving the elements thereof, viz:
(a) the existence of the subject firearm and Classes of Presumption Juris
(b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not
have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same. Conclusive presumption Disputable presumptions
Absolute presumptions of law Which suffices until overcome
The latter is a negative fact which constitutes an essential which are not permitted to be by contrary evidence
ingredient of the offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty of overcome by any proof to the
the prosecution not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond contrary, however, strong
reasonable doubt. Considered as if it is not a
presumption at all; it is
substantive directing the rpoof of
certain basic facts conclusive
RULE 131. SECTION 2: CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS

(3) action or inaction based thereon of such character as o change the
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. The following are instances of position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury,
conclusive presumptions: detriment or prejudice
(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 (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it. intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. falsify it.
(3a)
example:
1. an accused who enters a plea of guilty under a wrong name is
Equitable Estoppel or Estoppel in Pais estopped form later on questioning the jurisdiction of the court
over his person;
Estoppel is a principle rooted upon natural justice, preventing a person 2. one who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent and
from going back upon his own acts and representations, to the prejudice of holds him as such in the public, cannot be permitted to deny the
others who have relied on them authority of such person to act as his agent to the prejudice of
o Denies the person the right to repudiate his acts, admission, or innocent third persons dealing with such agent in good faith and in
representations which have been relied upon by the person to honest belief that he is what he appears to be
whom they were directed and whose conduct they were intended 3. sale by minors of real estate who represented that they are
to, and did, influence capacitated, and if they have reached the ages of puberty and
adolescence then majority, cannot excuse themselves form the
Elements on the part of the person estopped: obligations assumed by them or seek annulment
(1) there must have been a false representation or concealment of 4. corporations by estoppel
material facts which are inconsistent with the position taken and
said party is subsequently asserting
(2) the representation must have been made with knowledge of the (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the
facts; time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between
(3) must have been made with intention that the other party would act them
upon it o the ROC sufficiently protects the lessor from being questioned by
(4) the party to whom it was made must have been ignorant of the
the lessee, regarding his title or better right of possession as lessor
truth of the matter
because having admitted the existence of lessor and lessee
relationship, the lessee is barred from assailing the lessors
Elements for the party claiming estoppel: one who was misled by the
title of better right of possession
misrepresentation o for as long as the lessor-lessee relationship exists, the
lessee cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn the
(1) lack of knowledge and the means of ascertaining the truth as to conclusive presumption that the lessor has valid title or
the facts in question better right of possession
(2) reliance in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party o it also applies even thought the lessor had no title at the
to be estopped
time the relation of the lessor and lessee was created

o why? Because the relationship between them is not 3. RULE 131 SECTION 3 DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
dependent on the ownership of the lessor but on the
agreement between them
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are
Example: satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by
1. in an action for ejectment, the plaintiff is presumed to be the other evidence:
owner of the property or that he at least, has the right to the
possession, and he cannot be compelled, and need not present (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
evidence showing his ownership
a. the tenant then cannot deny the title of his landlord at the
it is presumed that a person in innocent of a crime or wrong
time of the commencement of the relation
2. in an action brought by the Catholic Church against the priest who it is applicable in criminal and civil cases
was out in possession to administer the property, the latter is however, there is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law
estopped from alleging ownership at the time he took possession providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a
either to himself or in a third person contrary presumption founded upon human conduct
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
example: publication of defamatory matter was done with malice

presumably
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his

voluntary act;
hence, where an accused inflicts injuries upon a person other than

the one whom he intended to injure, he is liable for the act and all
its natural consequences
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
example, a person will not sell his land for 1/7 th of its value, and
less thatn of its annual revenue unless the sale is intended to be
made merely as a security
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if

produced;
failure to produce books and records in his possession gives rise to

the presumption that they would be adverse if produced
failure of the prosecution to present evidence to refute testimony
of appellant and his witness, despite being able to do so because it
had at its disposal the power to compel production of adverse

evidence necessarily constitutes an argument against said (j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the
prosecution doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of
partys fraud in preparation and presentation of his case, his the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person
fabrication and suppression of evidence possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by
production of fabricated documents him;
not applicable when: (People vs Naranja)
a. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties section has 2 parts:
b. the suppression is not willful
c. it is merely corroborative or cumulative
d. suppression is an exercise of privilege First: presumption from possession of stolen goods
e. failure to present witness listed in the information does not
give rise to such presumption unexplained possession of articles recently stolen creates
the presumption that the possessor is the author of the
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the theft or robbery
latter;
Second: presumption of ownership from possession or
exercise of acts of ownership
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to
the latter;
it is to be presumed that the articles, goods, or chattels
found in the store of a corporation is owned by the
hence, it may be shown that there is a mistake in the corporation, not of any members thereof
delivery or making of the act. If the presumption is continued occupation and use of public land by a
rebutted, there is solutio indebiti municipality gives presumption that such is owned through
a government grant in its favor
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid; (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;
possession by the debtor of the private document
evidencing the debt raises the presumption tat the creditor
voluntarily delivered the document to him; when creditor is bad faith or wrong is not presumed
in possession of the instrument, it is presume that the
amount of the debt has not yet been paid (l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly
how rebutted: the delivery of the instrument may be appointed or elected to it;
shown to be done demand payment and not to leave the
instrument evidencing credit (m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a when the law imposes certain duties and obligationsit will
receipt for the later one is produced; be presumed that such duties and obligation have been
performed
not applicable when the contracts are separate: by a how to rebut the presumption: it is expressly made to
contract separate and distinct form the contract of appear to the contrary
lease o evidence of ill-motive
o clear and convincing evidence that the police
officers did not properly perform their duty or that

there was deviation from their regular performance (r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
of business or that they were inspired by an
improper motive (s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for
o hence, defense of frame-up will require stronger a sufficient consideration;
proof because of the presumption of regularity in
the prefomance of duty
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was
made before the instrument was overdue and at the place
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the where the instrument is dated;
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise
of jurisdiction;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
it is established as a general rule, that where a court of

Dates written in the written instrument are presumed to be
general jurisdiction has exercised its powers, every step
correct and that such instruments are presumed to have
necessary to confer jurisdiction will be presumed to have
been executed at the times indicated by the dates they
been taken in the absence of proof to the contrary
bear
when not applicable:
It does not apply however, in the following:
i. cannot apply in a petition for writ of amparo under
a. Does not apply where a deed is offered to support an
Section 17 of the Rule of the Writ of Amparo
action against one who is neither a party nor privy to it
ii. People vs Camat: it is incumbent upon the
b. May not be invoked in forged instrument or if there is
prosecution to show that that prior to questioning
fraud or collusion
during the custodial investigation, all the c. May not be invoked also for truth of collateral facts
constitutionally protected rights were observed such as for example, the presence of alleged signers
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in
were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in the regular course of the mail;
like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a
dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the
When a letter or other mail matter is addressed and mailed
arbitrators and passed upon by them;
with postage prepaid there is a rebuttable presumption of
fact that it was received by the addressee as soon as it
Where nothing appears in the record as to whether or not could have been transmitted to him in the ordinary course
the accused was granted a preliminary investigation, it is of business
presumed that the procedure prescribed by law had been Provided that:
observed a. It is addressed properly
b. It is mailed
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown
Settlements of accounts are presumed to be correct whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered
It is the duty of the contracting parties to learn and know dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
the contents of the contract before signing and delivering
it The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed; disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five

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

(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother
and status
contracted another marriage within three hundred days
c. This disputable presumption arises only until the
after such termination of the former marriage, these rules
expiration of the seventh or tenth year, or fifth or
shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
fourth year
d. It is invoked either in an action or in a special
proceeding which is tried or heard by, and submitted (1) A child born before one hundred eighty days
for decision to a competent court after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage
is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the three 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the
hundred days after the termination of the former older is deemed to have survived;
marriage.
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days deemed to have survived;
following the celebration of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty,
during such marriage, even though it be born within the former is deemed to have survived;
the three hundred days after the termination of the
former marriage. 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the
sex be different, the male is deemed to have
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
is usual with things of the nature;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other
Hence, a person proven to be insane or sane is presumed between those ages, the latter is deemed to have
to be such until the contrary is proven survived.
(ff) That the law has been obeyed; (kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more
persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior
printed or published by public authority, was so printed or to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof,
published; they shall be considered to have died at the same time.
(5a)
(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; other presumptions under law and jurisprudence:
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to a) Art. 1387 of the Civil Code: All contracts by virtue of which the
convey real property to a particular person has actually debto alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to have
conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to been entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not
perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest; reserve sufficient property to pay all debts contracted before the
donation.
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two a. Also when there is alienation of property by onerous title
persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, made by a debtor against whom some judgment has been
or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment has
there are no particular circumstances from which it can be been issued . from the tenor of law, the decision or
inferred, the survivorship is determined from the arrangement need not refer to the property alienated and
probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the need not have been obtained by the party seeking
sexes, according to the following rules: rescission
b) A judgment or final order against a person, redender by a tribunal
of a foreign country with jurisdiction to render said judgment is

presumptive evidence of a right as between parties and their Lozano vs. De Los Santos 274 S 44
successors-in-interest
a. Unless it be shown that: (a) there is want of jurisdiction; (b) 1. The petitioner Reynaldo M. Lozano filed Civil Case for damages
want of notice to the other party; (c) collusion; (d) fraud; before the MTC against respondent Anda alleging that they were
(e) clear mistake of law or fact presidents of their respective PUJ Associations using the Mabalacat-
c) Common carriers are presumed to be negligent and at fault when Angeles route;
there is injury or damage to passengers or goods a. That they have agreed to consolidate their associations
d) It is presumed that when a driver is in violation of a law, he is and elect one set of officers who shall govern the
negligent consolidated association.
e) Res ipsa loquitur: b. That they had an election wherein the petitioner won as
a. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in
president.
the absence of someones negligence c. Alleging fraud, Anda protested and refused to recognize
b. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive
the results of the election and to abide by their agreement,
control of the defendant or defendants
and continued to collect the dues from the members of his
c. The possibility f contributing conduct which would make
previous association despite several demands to desist
the plaintiff responsible is eliminated
2. Private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, claiming that jurisdiction was lodged with the
General Rule on Presumptions Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). this motion to dismiss
o Presumptions are not admissible, except when the fact form which was denied by the MTC.
they are deduced are fully proved 3. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC
o No presumption can, with safety, be drawn from another finding that the dispute is intra-corporate in nature, hence, subject
presumption to the jurisdiction of the SEC.
4. Among the arguments of the private respondent was the doctrine
of corporation by estoppel, hence, for the present action, it must
be considered as an intracorporate case.
Issue: Should the doctrine of Corporation by estoppel apply?

Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy . There is
no presumption of legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days Ruling: No.
following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses.
Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his Corporation by estoppel is founded on principles of equity and is designed
allegation. (6) to prevent injustice and unfairness.19 It applies when persons assume to
form a corporation and exercise corporate functions and enter into
business relations with third persons. Where there is no third person
involved and the conflict arises only among those assuming the form of a
corporation, who therefore know that it has not been registered, there is no
corporation by estoppel.
Hence, the conclusive presumption of presence of corporate entity that will

bind the parties acting for such association will not apply.
5. LRT vs. Natividad 397 S 75

Ruling: The LRTA was not able to rebut the presumption of negligence
Transpo case to guys! Disputable presumption of negligence on common based on the civil code.
carriers if there is injury to passengers or damage to goods.
FACTS:
1. Nicanor Navidad entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a Ratio: the Civil Code States:
token (representing payment of the fare), who was at this time
drunk.
Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
2. While standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Escartin
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
(security guard assigned to the area) approached Navidad.
3. A misunderstanding or altercation apparently ensued that led to a negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
fist fight and later Navidad fell on the tracks. At that exact diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
moment, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Roman, was coming
in. The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the
4. Navidad was struck by the moving train and was killed utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all
instantaneously. circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its
5. Thereafter, respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so
filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, the LRTA, long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be
the Metro Transit Organization, and Prudent Security Agency for the in pursuance to the contract of carriage. The statutory provisions render a
death of her husband. common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through
6. The trial court rendered a decision finding Escartin and Prudent the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b) on account of
Security liable to the heirs of Navidad, but dismissing the complaint wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common
as against the LRTA and Roman. carriers employees through the exercise of due diligence could have
7. Upon appeal, the CA exonerated Prudent from any liability and
prevented or stopped the act or omission.
instead found the LRTA and Roman solidarily liable, explaining that
a contract of carriage already existed when Navidad entered the
place where passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare,
and that Roman failed to establish the fact that the application of
the emergency breaks could not have stopped the train. In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been
8. Hence, this appeal. at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the
LRTA: That it was Escartins assault upon Navidad which caused passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or
the latter to fall on the tracks; that such was an act of a stranger negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts
that could not have been foreseen or prevented. upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen
event or to force majeure. In the absence of satisfactory
explanation by the carrier on how the accident occurred, which
Issue: Should the LRTA be held liable? Yes petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show,
the presumption would be that it has been at fault, an exception
from the general rule that negligence must be proved.
Controlling Issue: was the petitioner able to rebut the presumption of

negligence occasioned by the death of passenger Navidad? There is no such showing of proof, in the present case, to rebut and
overcome the presumption of negligence to common carriers.

2. Delsan vs C&A Construction
monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules. Corollarily, in Ramos v. FACTS:

Court of Appeals, the Court stressed that once negligence on the part of
a) On October 9, 1994, M/V Delsan Express, a ship owned and
the employees is shown, the burden of proving that he observed the
operated by petitioner Delsan Transport Lines, Inc., anchored
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees shifts to the
at the Navotas Fish Port for the purpose of installing a cargo pump
employer.
and clearing the cargo oil tank.
In the case at bar, however, petitioner presented no evidence that it b) At around 12:00 midnight of October 20, 1994, Captain Demetrio T.
formulated rules/guidelines for the proper performance of functions of its Jusep of M/V Delsan Express received a report from his radio head
employees and that it strictly implemented and monitored compliance operator in Japan that a typhoon was going to hit Manila in about 8
therewith. Failing to discharge the burden, petitioner should therefore be hours.
held liable for the negligent act of Capt. Jusep. c) At approximately 8:35 in the morning of October 21, 1994, Capt.
Jusep tried to seek shelter at the North Harbor but could not enter
So also, petitioner cannot disclaim liability on the basis of respondents the area because it was already congested. At 10:00 a.m., Capt.
failure to allege in its complaint that the former did not exercise due Jusep decided to drop anchor at the vicinity of Vitas mouth, 4 miles
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. In Viron away from a Napocor power barge. At that time, the waves were
Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos, it was held that it is not necessary already reaching 8 to 10 feet high.
to state that petitioner was negligent in the supervision or selection of its d) Capt. Jusep ordered his crew to go full ahead to counter the wind
employees, inasmuch as its negligence is presumed by operation of law. which was dragging the ship towards the Napocor power barge. To
Allegations of negligence against the employee and that of an employer- avoid collision, Capt. Jusep ordered a full stop of the vessel. He
employee relation in the complaint are enough to make out a case of succeeded in avoiding the power barge, but when the engine was
quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. re-started and the ship was maneuvered full astern, it hit the
deflector wall constructed by respondent. The damage caused by
the incident amounted to P456,198.24.
e) Respondent demanded payment of the damage from
petitioner but the latter refused to pay. Consequently,
respondent filed a complaint for damages with the RTC.
f) In its answer, petitioner claimed that the damage was caused by a
fortuitous event.
RTC: complaint filed by respondent was dismissed. The trial court

ruled that petitioner was not guilty of negligence because it had taken all
the necessary precautions to avoid the accident. Applying the
emergency rule, it absolved petitioner of liability because the
latter had no opportunity to adequately weigh the best solution to
a threatening situation. It further held that even if the maneuver
chosen by petitioner was a wrong move, it cannot be held liable as the
cause of the damage sustained by respondent was typhoon Katring, which
is an act of God.
CA: the decision of the trial court was reversed and set aside. It
found Capt. Jusep guilty of negligence in deciding to transfer the
vessel to the North Harbor only at 8:35 a.m. of October 21, 1994
and thus held petitioner liable for damages.

2ND ISSUE: should the petitioner shipping company then be held
liable for the negligence of its employee, Capt. Jusep?
Hence, the present action by the petitioner.
Argument of the petitioner: No negligence on the party of Capt. Jusep

hence, it cannot be held vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Ruling: Yes.
Civil Code because respondent failed to allege in the complaint
we find petitioner vicariously liable for the negligent act of Capt.
that petitioner was negligent in the selection and supervision of
Jusep. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code an employer may be
its employees.
held solidarily liable for the negligent act of his employee. Thus
Granting that Capt. Jusep was indeed guilty of negligence,
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed in Article 2176 is demandable not only
petitioner is not liable because it exercised due diligence in the selection of
for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one
Capt. Jusep who is a duly licensed and competent Master Mariner, and was
is responsible.
able to rebut the presumption of negligence as an employer.
xxxxxxxxx
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
ISSUE/S: (1) Whether or not Capt. Jusep was negligent; (2) If yes, whether
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
or not petitioner is solidarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
the quasi-delict committed by Capt. Jusep?
xxxxxxxxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
RATIO:
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
FIRST ISSUE: YES. Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to

another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the
There is negligence on the part of the employee, Capt. Jusep. In
employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the
the case at bar, the CA was correct in holding that Capt. Jusep was
selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of
negligent in deciding to transfer the vessel only at 8:35 in the morning of
its employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his
October 21, 1994. As early as 12:00 midnight of October 20, 1994, he
employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by
received a report from his radio head operator in Japan that a typhoon was
presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and
going to hit Manila after 8 hours. This, notwithstanding, he did nothing,
diligence of a good father of a family in
until 8:35 in the morning of October 21, 1994, when he decided to seek
shelter at the North Harbor, which unfortunately was already congested.
The finding of negligence cannot be rebutted upon proof that the ship
First: selection of the employees and
could not have sought refuge at the North Harbor even if the transfer was
done earlier. Second: supervision of his employees
When he ignored the weather report notwithstanding reasonable foresight In the present case, the petitioner failed to prove the second
of harm, Capt. Jusep showed an inexcusable lack of care and caution which requisite. The defense raised by petitioner was that it exercised due
an ordinary prudent person would have observed in the same situation. diligence in the selection of Capt. Jusep because the latter is a licensed and
Had he moved the vessel earlier, he could have had greater chances of competent Master Mariner. Such is not enough. It is not enough that the
finding a space at the North Harbor considering that the Navotas Port employees chosen be competent and qualified, inasmuch as the employer
where they docked was very near North Harbor. Even if the latter was is still required to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees.
already congested, he would still have time to seek refuge in other ports.
So also, petitioner cannot disclaim liability on the basis of respondents
failure to allege in its complaint that the former did not exercise due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. Allegations of 6. People vs. De Guzman 229 S 795- MEDRANO
negligence against the employee and that of an employer-employee
relation in the complaint are enough to make out a case of quasi-delict FACTS:
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. 1. Accused-appellant de Guzman has been in the watch list of the police
authorities as a prohibited drug peddler. On 2 occasions, they tried to
entrap him without any success. On the third time, the police
officers succeeded in their buy-bust operation.
2. Pat. Manzon posed as a Metro Manila aide. Together with a confidential
informant, he casually approached de Guzman and asked if he could
score (buy) a deck of shabu. De Guzman informed him that a deck
would cost P50. Manzon then handed the accused a previously marked
P50 bill. In exchange, the accused gave him an aluminum foil
containing crystalline granules. Manzon scrutinized the contents of the
foil and then executed the prearranged signal to his companion,
Patrolman Chiapoco. The accused was forthwith arrested by Pat.
Chiapoco. The accused was frisked and the search yielded 4 aluminum
foils containing white crystalline granules. Accordingly, Manzon and
Chiapoco executed a Joint Affidavit of Apprehension leading to the
arrest of de Guzman. A Chemical analysis report confirmed that the 5
aluminum foils contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
3. Consequently, an information was filed against de Guzman.
4. RTC: de Guzman-guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
unlawfully selling shabu.
5. Hence, this appeal. De Guzman faults the TC for favoring the
arresting officers with the disputable presumption of regularity
in the performance of their official duty. He urges that this
presumption no longer subsist for certain irregularities were
committed by the two officers in the discharge of their duty,
(1) Chiapoco did not read the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension
before signing it; and (2) the police bungled its 2 previous
operations against him.
ISSUE: WON the TC erred in favoring the arresting officers with the
disputable presumption of regularity in the performance of their official
duty.
RULING: NO. The trial court correctly gave the apprehending

officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of their
duty.
A disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence

that may be accepted and acted on where there is no other
evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands, or one
which may be overcome by other evidence.

One such disputable/rebuttable presumption is that an official act 3. The police, however, were able to get his name from people in the
or duty has been regularly performed. neighborhood.
o Presumption of this nature is indulged by the law for the 4. The evidence confiscated (the item bought from Navaja) was
following fundamental reasons: submitted for field test examination. The same were found positive for
i. innocence, and not wrongdoing, is to be presumed; marijuana.
ii. an official oath will not be violated; and 5. A warrant of arrest was issued against Navaja and the same was
iii. a republican form of government cannot survive long subsequently apprehended.
unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain 6. During trial, the prosecution presented Pfc. Ranulfo Espina, a
trust and confidence reposed in each governmental member of the team which conducted the buy-bust operation, and the
department or agent by every other such department regional chemist and chief of chemistry to identify the pieces of
or agent, at least to the extent of such presumption. evidence as positive for marijuana.
7. The trial court convicted the accused Navaja finding him guilty of
The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by selling a prohibited drug in violation of the DDA, relying on the
affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. affirmative testimony of Pfc. Espina and his positive identification
The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less of the accused.
than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the 8. Hence this appeal.
presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable 9. Navaja contends that although Epsina had 5 other companions, none
intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of of them were presented as a witness; moreover, their non-presentation
doubt as to an officers act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be was not sufficiently explained. He concludes that the companions
in favor of its lawfulness. testimonies would have been adverse if presented in court.
In the case at bench, what is clearly established is that the drug pushing ISSUE: WON there is a presumption of adverse testimony because of non-
activities of the accusedappellant have long before been brought to the presentation of the other team members (for reason the same constitutes
attention of the police authorities and that accusedappellant had been the suppression of evidence).
subject of a continuing surveillance. There is not an iota of evidence
that the police authorities who apprehended accusedappellant had RULING: NO. The non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does
any illmotive against him. The records clearly show that accused- not constitute suppression of evidence and would not be fatal to the
appellant was finally caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, a prosecution's case. Besides, there is no showing that the other peace
regulated drug, without authority. He was rightfully convicted. officers were not available to the accused for the latter to present as his
own witnesses.
The rule is settled that the adverse presumption from a

suppression of evidence is NOT applicable when:
(1) the suppression is not willful,
(2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or
7. People vs. Navaja 220 S 624- PASCUAL cumulative,
(3) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties and
FACTS: (4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege.
1. Alexander Navaja was the object of a buy-bust operation conducted
by the Anti-Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section (ANDDRUS) of the There is no rule of evidence which requires the presentation of a
Cebu City Police Station. specific or minimum number of witnesses to sustain a conviction for
2. At the time the poseur buyer signaled to his companions after the any of the offenses described in the Dangerous Drugs Act. It is the
completed transaction with Navaja, the same was able to evade arrest prosecuting fiscal's prerogative to determine who or how many
and get away with the buy bust money. witnesses are to be presented in order to establish the quantum of
proof necessary for conviction. In this case, the prosecution deemed it 8. People vs. Castaeda 252 S 247- SALTERAS
sufficient to present Pfc. Espina alone since any other testimony
which would have been given by the other members of the Facts:
buy-bust team would be merely corroborative in nature. (1) the accused-appellant Castaeda was charged with the crime of
Robbery with Rape. The private complainant, Eugenia Sese alleged that
Furthermore, she was at home with her children and her home is well lit by three
Peace officers presumed to have done their duty. kerosene lamps and the moon was bright that night.
That at about 10pm n the evening, she went outside of
The accused was seennot caught as he had escapedin flagrante as a their house to expose their ampalaya leaces to dewdrop
result of the buybust operation. In such an operation, what is important is outside.
the fact that the poseurbuyer received the marijuana from the accused and That in no time, an intruder grabbed the complainant and
that the same was presented as evidence in court. This Court has poked a knife at her neck with his right hand and
consistently held in drug cases that absent any proof to the contrary, law demanded money
enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty. In the That since she had no money, they had to go inside the
instant case, there exists no such contrary proof. Accused has not house and get money from the apador
presented evidence of any ulterior motive that could have moved Ranulfo That the robber not satisfied with the measly amount,
Espina to testify against him. The rule is also settled that in the absence of ordered her to pull down her pants and raped her
evidence that would show why the prosecution witness would testify He then disappeared into the darkness.
falsely, the logical conclusion is that no improper motive existed and that (2) Private complainant woke up her children and sought help from
such testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Mariano Apolinar and his wife, Apong Gunding. The house of Apolinar is
forty (40) to fortyfive (45) meters away from her house. She recounted
her ordeal to them but sealed her lips about the threat. Apolinar, in
turn, summoned Barangay Captain Ponciano Cunanan and Councilman
Rodolfo Manaloto. She retold her story to the barangay officials, who
decided to report the matter to the police authorities.
(3) It was 11:00 p.m. The barangay officials walked with private
complainant to the police headquarters in Concepcion, Tarlac. On their
way, she saw a man wearing red shorts and white striped shirt passing
in front of a lighted house near the boundary of barangays San Jose
and Sta. Maria. She recognized the man as the one who robbed and
raped her. She pointed him to Mariano Apolinar. When they approached
him, it turned out to be the accused appellant.
(4) During the trial,
The defendant was trying to establish the alibi that he was
with his brother-in-laws birthday party and stayed there
On the other hand, the prosecution presented among all
others, the Barangay Tanod, that private complainant told
him that she could not identify the person who robbed and
molested her. She described the criminal to be tall, thin,
with a tie around his head, and that the suspect belonged
to the Llarves family.
(4) The RTC convicted the accused appellant of the crime of robbery
with rape. This was upheld by the CA.

a. a male informant came to the office NARCOM and relayed
Hence, the present action by the appellant, contending among others that, to Lt. Reuben Sindac the information that NENE (Irene
he was misidentified as barangay tanod David testified that the culprit was Simbulan) and ELVIE (Elvira Sugui), herein accused, were
described by private complainant as tall, slim, and a Llarves. Allegedly, this engaged in the selling of shabu at Masangkay St., Makati,
description was given in the presence of barangay officials who were not Metro Manila.
called as witnesses by the prosecution. He charges the prosecution with b. Finding this information to be viable (to use his own word),
suppression of evidence. Lt. Sindac submitted to Lt. Col. Raval of the NARCOM a pre-
operation report. Lt. Col. Raval approved the said pre-
Issue: May the presumption on suppression of evidence apply in the operation report and directed Lt. Sindac to constitute a
present case? team and conduct a buybust operation.
c. Upon reaching the house of NENE the informant knocked
Ruling: No. on the door and when NENE opened the door and came
out, he introduced Sgt. Directo as a person wanting to buy
The contention cannot succeed. The rule on suppression of evidence shabu.
d. Almost simultaneously @ NENE handed to Sgt. Directo a
cannot be invoked by accusedappellant where the same evidence is
transparent plastic bag containing what appeared to be
available to him. In the case at bar, accusedappellant could have
shabu. Upon her receipt thereof, Sgt. Directo raised her
subpoenaed the barangay officials who allegedly heard the description of
right hand which was the prearranged signal to her coteam
the culprit given by the private complainant. These barangay officials were
members that she had already concluded the purchase of
not under the control of private complainant, a lowly housewife in
shabu.
barangay Sta. Maria, Concepcion, Tarlac. It is far fetched to accuse her and
2. By reason of this operation, the appellant- accused were arrested
the prosecution of suppressing their testimonies.
and eventully charged with the conspiracy in the sale and delivery
of .17 gram of shabu in violation of Section 21(b), Article IV, in
Moreover, their testimonies could only be corroborative. In People v.
relation to Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425.
Lorenzo,22 we held that the presumption laid down in Section 5(e), Rule 3. During the trial of the case: the following were presented:
131 of the Rules of Court that evidence willfully suppressed would be a. For the prosecution: officers who conducted the buy-
adverse if produced does not apply when the testimony of the witness not bust operation were presented and established the
produced would only be corroborative. abovementioned narration of facts;
b. For the defense: the accused appellants gave completely
different versions of the operations as expected. They
made it appear that the a certain Angel which they have
known for a long time was the person who was buying and
9. People vs. Simbulan 214 S 537 ARANETA that NENE merely gave the shabu she did not own. The
money she had given to Elvie was actually payment for the
Abstract: a buy bust operation was done and the accused Simbulan and wristwatch she bought.
Suguui were eventually convicted by the courts for violation of the 4. After evaluating the conflicting testimonies of the parties, the RTC
Dangerous Drugs Act. They were found guilty heavily based on the gave more weight to the testimonies of the officers than that of the
testimonies of the officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. The accused appellants and stated that:
accused questioned the credibility of the said officers, but the SC held the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties because of the x x x, in the course of their testimonies, the Court was intently
absence of proof of evidence to the contrary or having done so by observing the prosecution witnesses, particularly Sgt. Directo and
improper motives. Lt. Sindac, and the Court was impressed by their candidness and
straightforward manner of testifying, which in the mind of the
1. The Buy- Bust Operation: Court indicated that they had testified truthfully. As a matter of
fact, Lt. Sindac, who is only 27 years (old) had impressed the Court
that he is a professional whose only concern is to do his job and to
do it well. x x x.11
hence, the present action of accused appellants, questioning mainly the

credibility of the said officers in giving their testimonies.
(di na na-specify sa case kung ano yung mga questions talag sabi lang,
credibility of the witnesses, which is exactly why, natalo ang mga accused)
Issue: Was the lower court correct in giving more credence and weight to
the testimony of the officers?
Ruling: Yes.
The narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses are

worthy of credit. They are police officers who are presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner, there being no
evidence to the contrary,and more so since there is nothing in the
record which would indicate that they were actuated by improper
motives.
Furthermore, we have perforce to once again reiterate the entrenched rule

that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is
best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who, unlike
appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of the
declarants demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby
placed in a more competent position to discriminate between the true and
the false.7 Appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it,
accorded by the trial court to the testimony of witnesses unless it be
clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily
the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.8
In the case at bar, we find nothing which would warrant deviation

from the general rule.

They are also trying to establish that they had no knowledge that the sacks
10. People vs. Baludda 318 S 503- they are carrying contains marijuana.
FACTS:
On January 13, 1994, after trial, the lower court upheld the
The version of the prosecution as summarized by the Solicitor General, Peoples version, on the basis of which it handed down the
runs thus: judgment of conviction appealed from.
(1) In the morning of September 24, 1990, C1C Mauro Camat was at Sitio
Dangdangla, Barangay Cardis, Bagulin, La Union together with other
ISSUE/S: WON accused-appellant, Mateo Baludda took part in the alleged
members of the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), a
sale or transport of the subject marijuana.
regular unit of the Philippine National Police composed of civilian
volunteers, when they received information about people passing by HELD: Yes.
the area carrying huge quantities of marijuana. The CAFGU units
RATIO: Under the Rules of Evidence, it is disputably presumed that
Commanding Officer, First Lieutenant Manuel de Vera, immediately
things which a person possesses or over which he exercises acts
ordered Camat and his companions to patrol the area.
of ownership, are owned by him.
(2) The following day, the police officers encountered appellant Baludda
together with Maximo Baludda, Domingo Atebew and Ben Baristo
carrying sacks on their backs. The encounter with appellant and his
In U.S. vs. Bandoc, the Court ruled that the finding of a dangerous drug in
companions took place in a forested area on the mountain of Sitio
the house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie
Dangdangla and it was noticed that the sacks they were carrying were
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in
bulging.
(3) About five (5) meters away from appellant and his companions, Camat the absence of a satisfactory explanation.
halted them and introduced themselves as CAFGUs. However, upon In cases of possession, the burden of proving the knowledge or
being told that the CAFGU unit merely wanted to see what was in the animus possidendi is shifted to the defense, as an exception to the
sacks they were carrying, appellant and his companions ran away presumption of innocence rule.
except for Maximo Baludda who stayed behind.
(4) Although Ben Baristo and Domingo Atebew were able to elude arrest, The constitutional presumption of innocence will not apply
appellant and Maximo Baludda were apprehended. The sacks carried as long as there is some logical connection between the
by appellant and his companions were opened and found to contain fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the
marijuana leaves. inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so
(5) The accused appellants were then apprehended by the CAFGU and unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. The
charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Marijuana. burden of evidence is thus shifted on the possessor of the
dangerous drug to explain absence of animus possidendi.
The defense theorized as follows:
In the case under consideration, it is not disputed that appellant was
2. That on January 7, 1991, the four accused were charged under SECTION
apprehended while carrying a sack containing marijuana. Consequently, to
4 of R.A. 6425 as amended on the strength of the complaint of the PC
warrant his acquittal, he must show that his act was innocent and done
arresting team.
without intent to possess, i.e. without knowledge that what he possessed
3. Meanwhile, also, Mateo Baludda filed a complaint of frustrated murder was a prohibited drug.
and robbery against Alberto Bacasen and Camilo Bacasen who shot him on
(1) Appellant theorized that he merely acceded to the request of Maximo
that same incidence before the Provincial Fiscal of La Union.
Baludda, his uncle, to carry the sack without knowing that it contained
On the other hand, the defense was trying to establish that the sacks marijuana. As ratiocinated below, it is contrary to human
containing the confiscated marijuana were not theirs and they were experience that a man, 32 years of age, would readily agree to
brought by the police agents themselves and had no knowledge of such. carry the load of his uncle, without even knowing the place where
to deliver such load, and without asking, while negotiating a
forested area, how far is their destination and how long it would
take them to reach the place, especially so because when they were
apprehended at around 5:00 in the afternoon, they had already been
walking for around three (3) hours.
(2) Worse still for appellant is the undeniable fact that he and his
companions, except Maximo Baludda, fled towards different directions after
the police authorities announced their presence. If appellant had nothing to
do with the transporting of subject prohibited drugs, or if he really had no
knowledge that the sack he carried contained marijuana, there would have
been no cause for him to flee. If he had to run at all, it would have been
more consistent with his protestation of innocence if he ran towards, and
not away from, the police officers. Obviously, what appellant did
removed any shred of doubt over his guilt; exemplifying the
biblical adage: The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the
righteous are as bold as a lion.

How does a witness appear in court
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (1) voluntarily or
(2) as required by the court through a subpoena
A. EXAMINITION OF WITNESSES
I. Examination to be done in open court RULE 132 SECTION 2: PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORED

Section 2: The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the
SECTION 1. The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto, the
shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses
witness is incapacitated to speak, or question calls for a different mode of with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
GR: examination of witness should be done in open court A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official
Excpt: testimonies, which need not be made in open court stenographer, stenotypist, or recorder and certified as correct by him shall
a) Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the affidavits of be deemed prima facie correct statement of such proceedings.
the parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the
witnesses
b) Depositions need not be taken in open court and may be RULE 132 SECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
taken before a notary public or before any person (IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
authorized to administer oaths INCRIMINATION)
When is it in open court? Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. A witness must
The act done publicly in the presence of the judge and the answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim
against him. However, it is the right of a witness:
other officers of the court, as opposed to in chambers
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and
Reason for the rule:
from harsh or insulting demeanor;
To enable to the court to judge the credibility of the witness
by the witness manner of testifying, their intelligence, and (2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
their appearance
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
Must be made under oath or affirmation
Oath Affirmation (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
Any form o attestation by which a Solemn and formal declaration or offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
person signifies that he is bound assertion that the witness will tell
in conscience to perform an act the truth substituting oath (6) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless
faithfully and truthfully; outward it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
pledge made in would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense.
Why?
To affect the conscience and if he willfully falsifies the truth, he other rights:
may be punished for perjury
He will be barred if he refuses to take oath or affirmation a) any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
General Rule: must be made orally to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
EXCPT: choice. If the person cannot afford the services of a counsel, he
witness in incapacitated to speak must be provided with one. There rights cannot be waived except
question calls for a different mode of answer in writing and in the presence of a counsel.
b) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him
c) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. too was attacked with apparent intent to kill but survived to accuse
d) in all criminal proceedings, the defendant is entitled to be his attackers.
exempt from being a witness against himself 2. The killing was imputed to the herein appellant, Henry Salveron,
the son of the late Raul Salveron, in an information for murder filed
against him and Federico Sadava.1 This is the case now before the
general rule: the witness has the obligation to answer even if such Court.
answer may be a claim against himself. EXCEPT in the following 3. During the trial, the prosecution presented as a witness:
cases: a. Captain Nicanorito Gomez, station commander of the
Integrated National Police branch at Balasan, testified that
after conducting an investigation of the killing, he and his
men went out to look for Salveron and Sadava and were
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to
informed that they had gone to Camansi, Anilao, Iloilo,
a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law;
about 100 kilometers away. The team proceeded to this
or
place and there found the two, who willingly went with
them to the PC headquarters at Camp Delgado, Iloilo city.4
Right against Self- incrimination There, the suspects were subjected to a paraffin test
the right of the accused to be exempt from being a witness against by Zenaida Sinfuego, a forensic chemist, who said
himself is due to the abhorrence with which confession coerced by she found them both positive for gunpowder
inquisitorial torture were regarded in all civilizes countries residue.
public policy and humanity 4. The defense pleaded alibi. According to Salveron his uncle Romeo
it would place the witness under the strongest temptation to Salveron fetched him on March 21, 1986, so he could work at his
commit perjury, and to prevent the extortion of confessions by farm in the town of Anilao as the latter was no longer able to do so
duress because he was sick of tuberculosis. He started plowing the
following morning at 6:00 oclock and ended at 9:00, after which he
an accused may totally refuse to take the witness stand; but a
and his uncle went hunting with a licensed .22 caliber rifle.
mere witness may not do so completely. Before he refuses to
5. Judge Ricardo P. Galvez of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City
answer, h must wait for the incriminating question
acquitted Federico Sadava for lack of evidence of conspiracy but
found Henry Salveron guilty as charged.
No self-incrimination in the following:
Hence, the present action by the appellant Henry Salveron: arguing among
a) a witness admitted into the witness protection program cannot
all others that the paraffin test violated his right against self-incrimination.
refuse to testify or gve evidence or produce books, documents, or
records or writing necessary for the prosecution of the offense or
Ruling: did the police officers violate the right of the accused against self
offenses for which he has been admitted on the ground of the right
incrimination when he was subjected to a paraffin test?
against self incrimination
b) the court may compel the accused to submit himself to a blood
Ruling: No. such rule only applies in testimonial evidence.
test/ DNA test
right against self-incrimination is not violated because The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a
there is no testimonial compulsion involving such tests witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or
moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an
exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material.
1. People vs. Salveron 228 S 92 Furthermore, even if the paraffin tests were not admitted, the assumptions
he protests are merely corroborative of the principal evidence of the
Facts: prosecution, which is the testimony of Gregorio, that is the positive
1. Raul Salveron was shot to death inside a bus by a passenger who identification and actual seeing of the commission of the crime.
escaped and has not been arrested to date. A few weeks later,
Jesus Dalida waskilled in his house under mysterious circumstances
that have yet to be unraveled. Mauricio Dumangas was luckier: he 2. People vs. Malimit 264 S 167 (supra)

compelling the surrender of the evidential articles a clear
Facts: reduction ad absurdum. In other words, it is not merely
5. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime of compulsion that is the kernel of the privilege, . . . but
robbery with homicide of the victim Malaki. testimonial compulsion
6. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two
witnesses Batin the home cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a Furthermore, the Miranda Rights will also not apply as to the admissibility
neighbor that: of evidence as violations of Miranda rights will only have the effect of
a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to his making the extrajudicial confession or admissions during custodial
store, Batid proceeded to the said store to ask if he was to investigation inadmissible.
prepare supper. Much to his surprise, he saw the appellant
Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo, while his boss Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his
was bathing in his own blood on the floor. rights, these constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of
b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away
Malaki's wallet, identification card, residence certificate and keys for the
from the store, also saw appellant Jose Malimit rushing out
purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime. Thus, the wallet is
through the front door of Malaki's store with a bloodstained
admissible to establish the fact that it was the very wallet taken from
bolo. Rondon clearly recognized Malimit
Malaki on the night of the robbery. The identification card, residence
7. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit with
certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on the other hand, are
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and was
admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki.
sentenced with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
8. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all
others to support his prayer for acquittal, he argues that the Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are
admission as evidence of the victims wallet with its contents, and inadmissible, the same will not detract from appellant's culpability
a bunch of keys violates his right against self- incrimination. considering the existence of other evidence and circumstances
establishing appellant's identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime
Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to the charged.
admission of object evidence?
Ruling: No.
The right against selfincrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law

finds no application in this case. It is simply a prohibition against legal
process to extract from the [accused]'s own lips, against his will, admission
of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought
to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence.
Wigmore, discussing the question now before us in his treatise on
evidence, thus, said:
If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his
[physical control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his
physical control in whatever form exercise, then, it would be
possible for a guilty person to shut himself up in his house,
with all the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy the
authority of the law to employ in evidence anything that
might be obtained by forcibly overthrowing his possession and

RULE 132 SECTION 4 ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN Firs interrogation or examination of a witness, on the merits, b
INDIVIDUAL WITNESS the party on whose behalf he is called
Second. Cross Examination

Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness.
The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows; Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. Upon the
termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined
(a) Direct examination by the proponent; by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent; connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent; accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. reverse, and to elicit all-important facts bearing upon the issue.
Definition

expects to elicit from the witness
latter's tand; it should cover all the facts which the party Examination by witness by the adverse party after said witness has
on
on (by the proponent) on behalf of the opponent to support the given his testimony on direct examination
Scope
examinati
examinati
direct
direct
Not confined with matters stated in the direct examination and is
truth of the facts testified in the first stage
given on the direct examination; purpose is to bring the granted a wide latitude and leeway for cross examination of a
on
on (by the opponent) to weaken or discredit the testimony witness
Adverse party may elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue,
examinati
examinati
cross
cross
even if not embraced in the direct examination, without making
(by the proponent) to rebut the cross examination him a witness of the party on whose behalf the cross examination
on
on is being done
o Thus, if a part of conversation or transaction ahs ben
examinati
examinati
re-direct
re-direct
disclosed in direct testimony, the remainder, so far as it is
direct examination relevant, may be called out during the cross examination
on
on (by the opponent) to refute the matters disclosed in the o As the inquiry in the answer may tend to impeach, rebut,
examinati
examinati
re-cross explain, or qualify the testimony which has already been
given
re-cross
Exception:
An accused who testifies on his own behalf may be cross-examined
Kinds of Examinations of Witnesses: only on matters covered by his direct examination
a. Direct Examination
b. Cross Examination RULE 115, Section 1. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf
c. Re-direct examination but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct
d. Re-cross examination examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
Section 5. Direct examination. Direct examination is the

examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts Purpose and Value
relevant to the issue. (1) CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS: By means of this, the
situation of the witness, with respect to the parties and to the
First. Direct Examination subject of litigation, his interest, his motive, his inclination and
prejudices, his means of obtaining a correct and certain knowledge
Definition of the fact to which he bears testimony, the manner in which he
This is the examination-in-chief of a witness by a party has used those means, his powers of discernment, and submitted
presenting hiom on the facts relevant to the issue to the consideration of the court before whom he has testified, and
Procedure for obtaining information from ones own witness in who has this had an opportunity of observing his demeanor, and of
determining the just weight and value of his testimony
an orderly fashion
It is the information that the counsel wants the court to hear
(2) to bring out facts favourable to counsels client not Ordinarily confined to the matters as to which the witness
established during the direct testimony was cross examined
It should not extend to collateral matters which have not been
This is also in accordance with Section 14 (2) of Art. III of touched upon in the cross- examination unless, allowed by the
the Constitution which provides that the accused shall enjoy the court in its discretion
right to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of the witness and the production Example, when the witness was asked about a certain conversation during
of evidence ion his behalf the cross examination, on re-direct, the witness may be examined as to the
details of such conversation
What is the effect if there is no cross examination without the
fault of the opposing party?
It is considered as incomplete and hence, not admissible
in evidence. It may stricken off the record. Fourth: Re-Cross Examination
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. Upon the conclusion of the re-
Effect of Death or absence: direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on
(1) if the witness dies before his cross examination is over, his testimony matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters
on the direct may be stricken out only with respect to the testimony as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
which was not covered by the cross examination
(2) if the witness was not cross-examined because of causes attributable Definition:
to the cross examining party and the witness had always made himself This is the examination conducted upon the conclusion of the re-
available for cross examination, the direct testimony of the witness direct examination
shall be in the record and cannot be stricken off record because the The adverse party may question the witness on matters stated in
cross examiner is deemed to have waived his right to cross examine his re-direct examination and also on such matters as may be
such. allowed by the court in its discretion
Third: Re-direct Examination Scope:
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. After Proper exclude
the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be re- (1) matter which was opened upo (1) matters which were not
examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answers on direct examination aopend up or brought out, on
given during the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination, questions on (2) or as to a new mater which redirect examination
matters not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be allowed by was brought out on re-direct (2) matters already fully covered,
the court in its discretion. examination or discussed at length on
(3) or which is designed to test the cross examination
Purpose credibility of the witness or (3) matters with respect to which
Examination by the party who called the witness for direct testimony elicited on re-direct the wintess was examined on
examination conducted after the cross examination of the witness examination direct examination
Affords the witness to explain or amplify the testimony which he (4) or as to which there was an
has given on cross examination and to explain any apparent opportunity to cross examine
contradiction or inconsistency in his statement, an opportunity him, where there is no claim
which is not ordinarily accorded to him during his cross of oversight, and there is no
examination reason stated why the matter
To correct or repel any wrong impression or inferences that may was not inquired into during
have been created in the cross examination the cross examination proper
Also be the opportunity to rehabilitate the credibility of the witness B.
challenged by the cross examination
Scope
1. Bachrach Motors Co. Inc. vs. CIR 86 S 27

(3) Why this rule? Oral testimony may be taken into account only when
Facts: it is complete, that is, if the witness has been wholly crossexamined by
1. In 1958, Bachrach Motor operated under the name Rural Motors. the adverse party or the right to crossexamine is lost wholly or in part
In that year the Rural Transit Employees Association went on strike thru the fault of such adverse party. But when cross examination is not
and the dispute between the management and the union reached and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the
the Court of Industrial Relations for compulsory arbitration. party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby
2. While this labor dispute was pending with the Court of Industrial rendered incompetent.
Relations (CIR) Bachrach filed a Petition for Authority to discharge
driver Maximo Jacob from the service, dated July 24, 1961. The Would not the documents presented which were admitted be enough?
reasons given for the petition were alleged violations of the Motor
Vehicle Law by Maximo Jacob resulting in damage to property and Ruling: no.
injuries to third parties.
3. The petition of Bachrach was heard on January 23, 1963, during which The opposing party was still entitled to crossexamine the witness on the
petitioner presented its one and only witness, Mr. Joseph Kaplin, matters written on Exhibits 1 to 8F especially if they adversely affected
general manager of Rural Transit, and various documents marked as the substantial rights of the party against whom they were being
Exhibits l to 8F inclusive. Mr. Kaplin testified on the contents of the presented, namely, driver Maximo Jacob. When Atty. Santiago admitted
said exhibits. that the signature appearing in Exhibits 1 to 8 F was that of witness
4. After Mr. Kaplin concluded his direct testimony, with agreement of the Kaplin, the counsel of petitioner then, Atty. Joven Erurile, should have
parties, the hearing was scheduled for another date for purposes of inquired if the party was admitting likewise the veracity of the contents of
crossexamination of the witness. The case was reset on various dates the documents; not having done so, petitioner must now suffer the
but Mr. Kaplin failed to appear because he had left for abroad. consequences.
5. the employees association filed a motion praying among all other
that the testimony of Mr. Joseph Kaplin be stricken from the records Inasmuch as the testimony of Joseph Kaplin is stricken off the record and
6. the CIR judge then dismissed the petition of the bus company and the contents of Exhibits 1 to 8F are hearsay, and there is no other
ordered the reinstatement of the driver Jacob to service. evidence which substantiates the charges against Maximo Jacob, the
dismissal of the companys petition to discharge Jacob from its service is in
Hence, the present action by the herein petitioner arguing that The order.
respondent court erred in dismissing the petition of the herein petitioner,
after ordering the testimony of Joseph Kaplin to be stricken off the record,
notwithstanding the fact that the service records of Maximo Jacob, upon
the basis of which his dismissal could be justified were admitted by it. 2. People vs. Padero 226 S 810
Topic: Significance of cross-examination

Issue: Was the CIR correct in ordering that the testimony of Mr. Kaplin be
stricken off record because he was not cross examined?
Facts:
Ruling: Yes. (1) Jocelyn Cadelia, a sixteenyearold lass and a resident of sitio Amalao,
barangay Tagpo of Bais City, charged Henry Padero, her uncleinlaw,
(1) The right of a party to confront and crossexamine opposing witnesses with the crime of rape armed buy a knife by means of force and
in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings intimidation
before administrative tribunals with quasi judicial powers, is (2) The prosecution presented as its witnesses complainant Jocelyn
fundamental right which is part of due process. Cadelia and Cherryl Palacios for its evidence in chief, and Clara
(2) In the present case, Petitioner presented only one witness, Joseph Cadelia, Rev. Lemuel Felecio, and Damiana Cadelia on rebuttal.
Kaplin, to prove its case against driver Jacob. The witness failed (3) The accused took the witness stand in his defense and presented
however to appear at the scheduled hearings for his cross examination Loreta Samane, Elsa Garcia, Macrina Padero, and Marietta Padero as
for the simple reason that he left for abroad. Having been deprived, his witnesses.
without fault on its part, of its right to crossexamine Kaplin, respondent The accused was trying to establish that in act, he and his niece,
association was entitled to have the direct testimony of the witness the complainant were in an illicit love affair and the date alleged to
stricken off the record. be the date when the rape happened was just one of the few times

they have had sexual intercourse as lovers. Hence, there was no him wielding a knife and holding her arm, [h]e was lying down,
rape because Jocelyn consented to all of them. faced [sic] up
(4) The decision of the RTC: found the accused guilty beyond (3) From then on she was silent about the knife. Although she
reasonable doubt. Giving full faith and credit to the version of the distinctly remembered that the accused did not stand up
complainant who it said testified with sincerity, honesty and immediately after the sexual act, that thereafter both of them sat
candidness, and with answers direct to the point, in a logical and down for a while, and that later the accused went down to the
straightforward manner, and free from inconsistencies. ground floor to sleep, she did not mention anything more about the
knife.
Hence, the present action arguing that the lower court erred in giving
credence to the testimony of complainant jocelyn joy cadelia considering Conclusion: We therefore have serious doubts on the guilt of the
that it is contrary to common human knowledge and experience and this is accused for the crime charged.
highly improbable.
The issue of whether or not there was rape in this case was
resolved through the SCs method of revisiting the direct and the
cross examination of the complainant when she was put into the
witness stand. The SC deemed such as necessary because the credibility
of the complainant was being questioned.
Ruling: there was no rape. The accused not only was able to show
their relationship and consent to the sexual intercourse, but that
the complainant witness herself, by her testimonies during the
cross examination, established such.
(1) we find enough evidence of the intimate relationship between the

complainant and the accused. On crossexamination, she admitted that
the accused used to sleep in the unit of the house which she rented
from his mother.
(2) And, as further testified to by her on crossexamination, she declared
that the accused usually came to her rented unit every weekend since
June 1991 and slept there despite the fact that the house of his
mother is only nearby.
(3) Also, her conduct during and after coitus unmistakably discloses
absence of even token resistance and betrays her consent to the
sexual congress.
(4) In one salient portion of the crossexamination, we find her totally
submissive in the face of the assault against her most prized
possession and unusually observant of the preparatory acts of the
accused and his eventual physiological and emotional transformation
in fulfilled libido.
In relation to the knife: The claim of threat or intimidation through the use
of a knife merits scant consideration
(1) As admitted by the complainant during the crossexamination, she
allegedly saw it for the first time when she was roused from her
sleep and she noticed the accused on top of her, holding the knife
in his right hand.
(2) In this position, the accused could only be facing down at her.
However, on direct examination, she declared that when she saw
RULE 132. SECTION 9. RECALLING WITNESS suggestion plays an important part and may affect heavily the
testimony of a witness such that:
Section 9. Recalling witness. After the examination of a witness by a. it may increase the errors of his evidence
both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without b. influences the value of the reply to the question
leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as it creates an inference in his mind, causing him to testify in
the interests of justice may require. accordance with the suggestion conveyed in the question
Example:
Recalling Witness Leading question: was the dog white or brown?
recalling witness is a matter of judicial discretion Appropriate question: what is the color of the dog
in its exercise of discretion, the judge shall be guided by the
interests of justice and may be limited by, aside from rules of Example #2: the issue was whether the victim was killed in 1989 as
admissibility and competence, the rule that the witnesses must not contended by the prosecution. There was no positive proof that the killing
be subject to any unnecessary delay, inconvenience, or expense of the victim was done in 1989. All of the questions of the prosecution were
if the court is not satisfied by the evidence adduced in criminal made in the following form:
cases, he may, on his own motion, call additional witnesses or
recall some of the same witnesses, for the purpose of questioning 1. do you remember in one of the months of 1898 to have seen a
them himself and satisfying his mind with reference to particular certain Vicente?
facts 2. At that time, that is in 1989, do you know in what barrio Vicente
lived in?
3. In what way were you acquainted with Vicente in 1989 when that
RULE 132 SECTION 10 LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS affair happened?
The prosecuting attorney was trying to lead the witness with reference to
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. A question which the time when the crime was committed.
suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. It is not allowed, except: Example #3: what were the names of those two persons who went into
your house at the time when mr. Mariano Vicente was there?
(a) On cross examination;
Situation: prior to this question, there had been no intimation by
(b) On preliminary matters; question or answer that two persons or any other number of persons
had entered the house on the occasion when Vicente was taken.
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible
answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, When should it be raised?
or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; The question must be raised during the trial and the objection must
be made immediately after each suggestive question; failure to do
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or such prevents the court from taking note the said issue
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or How is it determined?

managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a The law prohibits all suggestive questions, but not those the
partnership or association which is an adverse party. purpose of which is to discover the truth of the facts that occurred
an dit authorizes the judge to rely upon is discretion and good
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified judgment in deciding on the relevance and propriety of the
to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is questions which may have been put to the witness, to the end that,
not allowed. in passing judgment, he may be enabled to administer strict justice
with rectitude and impartiality.
Definition
a leading question is one that is framed in such a way that the
question indicated to the witness the answer desired by the party Definition of Misleading Question: It is not allowed. Absolutely.
asking the question A misleading question is one which:
(1) Assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or Q Who were the persons, if any, that you have seen at the house
(2) Contrary to that which he has previously stated. of Carlos Gregorio?
A Eufemio Caparaz and Diamsay, sir. Xxx
1. People vs. Caparas 111 S 68 Q Now, when you arrived in that house, what happened?
A We talked regarding the landholding, sir.
Facts:
Q You said, we, to whom are you referring?
The present case involves to motions for reconsideration, but in relation to A Eufemio Caparaz, sir.
our topic, the motion for reconsideration filed by accused appellant
Caparas is what is relevant. The accused appellants were charged with the Q What did you talk about that landholding?
crime of the murder of Simeon Paez and the prosecution was trying to A Regarding the landholding which he said would be given to me. He said
show the conspiracy exisiting between the accused appellants. there is already one.
1. As regards appellant Caparas, the motions for reconsideration seek Q And what did you answer when this was said to you by Eufemio
the review of the testimonies of the two principal witnesses, Caparaz?
Laureano Salvador and Lydia Posadas, upon which said appellant A I said, if there is, I give thanks, but he said that the land he was giving
was convicted, on ground of conspiracy between him and Diamsay. me had some trouble.
2. Caparas points out some facts and circumstances which are alleged
to impair the credibility of the aforesaid witnesses and thereby Q And what did you say?
leaves the fact of conspiracy unproven beyond reasonable doubt as A I said that seems hard, but he said, that is easy.
it should be.
3. Thus, Caparas points out that Laureanos testimony was extracted Q What else transpired?
through leading questions. A I asked him what he meant by easy and he said it is easy under this
condition, and I asked him what condition, and he said you kill him.
Here is the transcript: (feel ko papaidentify ni sir saan yung
leading questions and will be asked to reformulate the Q During all that time, who were present inside that house?
questions) A Tisio Diamsay.
Q Do you know the purpose of Carlos Gregorio in coming to your Q Who else?
house? A Eufemio Caparaz, sir.
A Yes, sir. Q Anybody else?
A Carling Gregorio, sir.
Q What was his purpose?
A Regarding the landholding I was farming and his help I requested. Q And you?
A I was present.
Q Did you go to any place with Carlos Gregorio after that?
A Yes, sir. xxx
Q Where? Q Now, in the vernacular, in Tagalog Language that you have

A To his house. been testifying, you said, Patayin nyo, means plural, do you know
to whom this word nyo referred to?
Q: You are referring to the house of Carlos Gregorio? Q A He was ordering me, Carling, and Tisio Diamsay, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Xxx Q Ordering to what?
A To kill.
Q When you arrived at the house of Carlos Gregorio, who were
with you? Q To kill Simeon Paez?
A Carlos Gregorio, sir. A Yes, sir.

RULE 132 SECTION 11IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTYS
Issue: were the question of the prosecutor leading to the effect that the WITNESS
credibility of the testimony of the principal witness be questioned?
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. A witness
Ruling: Yes. may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by
contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth,
Ratio: We are constrained to agree that the testimony of Laureano on the honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other
supposed conspiracy was elicited by means of leading questions, the times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by
probative value of which, according to accepted legal authorities, is thus evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the
diminished or lessened. examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense.
The probative value of a witness testimony is very much lessened where
it is obtained by leading questions which are so put that the witness merely
assents to or dissents from a statement or assertion of an examining
consul put with such vocal inflection as to be a question. What is impeachment?
Contradiction of a witness in two possible significations:

1. charge or accusation of want of veracity
2. establishment of the said chard
it is an attack against the credibility of the witness and constitutes
as a challenge to a witness veracity
imports the destruction of a witness involving not only the attack
on the testimony but also the credibility of the witness
Modes of Impeaching a Witness:
(1) by contradictory evidence
(2) by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or

integrity is bad, or
(3) by evidence that he has made at other times statements

inconsistent with his present, testimony,
but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts,

(4) 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.
Contradictory Evidence (see laying the predicate)
How is this done?

Usually, fairness demands that the matter subject of the
impeachment be brought during the cross examination of the
witness by allowing the witness to admit or deny a matter sued as Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. Except with
the basis of impeachment respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the
And this declaration made by the witness is the basis of the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
introduction of the contradictory evidence
May also be used to contradict the conclusions of the expert A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by
witness by calling another witness the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified
For the testimony of a witness to merit credit, it is indispensible reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to the
that it be not incompatible with his other statements as well as the witness stand.
o
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an
Examples of credibility of the witness being impeached: adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all
(1) in a case for murder, a witness testifies on direct examination that he respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence
was barely 5 meters away from the accused when the victim was shot. of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by
the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject
Impeaching the witness: The prosecution may show that
matter of his examination-in-chief.
indeed, the witness was several miles away, by raising during the
cross examination whether he was in a wedding miles away on
that date. If the witness denies the fact that he was in the wedding,
Who may impeach a witness?
the opponent may show contrary evidence of the witness
whereabouts (e.g., pictures, other testimonies).
General Rule:
(2) A complainant who declared that she lost consciousness but was able
to narrate the detail surrounding the rape is not credible. Impeachment of a witness is to be done by the party against
whom the witness is called
Examples of situations when the credibility of the witness was not o As a general rule, the party producing the witness is
affected: barred from impeaching his own witness
(1) discrepancies between the actual and recorded serial numbers o Hence, even if the would appear that the testimony of
of the marked moneys during the buy-bust operation are the partys witness is adverse to the proponent, the
plainly nothing but clerical errors and do not warrant that the proponent is bound
recording of numbers was not made prior to the buy-bust Exceptions:
operation (1) Section 10 (d): Unwilling or hostile witness as determined by the
(2) discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony in court court
in relation to minor details does not constitute sufficient ground (2) Section 11 (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
to impeach the credibility of said witness director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of
a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
When should issues impeaching the credibility of the witness must

be raised? Example of the general rule:
The imputation challenging or charging the testimony of the Plaintiff, as assignee of the insolvent corporation, brought an action
witness (e.g., receiving reward from the party on whose behalf he for collection of a sum of money against the defendant
is testifying) should be raised during the cross examination to representing his unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock of the
impeach his credibility. In the absence of such, his testimony must corporation. Defendant was produced as witness by the plaintiff.
be taken as any other testimony with the presumption of Applying the general rule, the plaintiff was bound by the
trustfulness as it was govern under oath. assertions of the defendant that he signed the instrument
of subscription with the understating that he would not be
considered to have joined the corporation until he is able to
RULE 132 SECTION 12PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN send the money. Hence, the plaintiff could not contend that the
WITNESS defendant was unworthy of credit, especially where the testimony
is uncontradicted. It must be made clear that the witness was
among the exceptions and the court must make a finding as to
such.

Exception to the rule; when the Prohibition Against Impeaching his Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent
own Witness; When party not bound by adverse testimony of statements. Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he
witness: has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances
(1) the witness is hostile who: of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked
a. declared by the court as whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If
b. showing his adverse interest or the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any
c. unjustified reluctance to testify or question is put to him concerning them.
d. have misled the party into calling him in the witness stand
(2) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or Requisites of Laying the predicate
managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or The mere presentation of the prior declaration of the
association which is an adverse party. witness without the same having been read to him while
testifying in court, will be insufficient for the desired
How is ones own witness impeached if under the exceptions? impeachment of his testimony.
(1) Allowed to impeach the party presenting him in all respects as if he Hence laying the predicate is necessary: it is the process of
had been called by the adverse party, using all the modes provided in cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory
Section 11. statement, for the introduction of contradictory statements.
The adverse party may subject the witness to cross examination o it is the general rule that unless a ground is thus laid upon
also (paano yun, babaligtarin mo purpose ng cross examination?) cross examination, evidence of contradictory statements
are not admissible to impeach a witness
(2) EXCEPT: EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER.
How does one lay the predicate?
Example: (1) the alleged statements must be related to the witness
Plaintiff sought to recover a parcel of land alleging that she acquired by including the circumstances of the times and places and the
purchase the said land from the defendant as seen by in Exhibit A the person present. if the statements are in writing, it must be
deed of sale signed by the defendants. shown to him; and
(2) he must be asked whether he made such statements and also
She brought as one witness on the to establish that the said document was to explain them if he admits making those statements
signed by the defendants. How?
First, ask the witness to repeat or reaffirm his most recent statement
On the other hand, one of the defendants denied having signed the said Second, relate to the witness his prior inconsistent statement
document. Third, build up or highlight such inconsistency relating to the
circumstances, persons, and places
Hence, constrained to prove the plaintiffs assertion that they indeed Fourth, ask whether he made such statement (or ask if he executed the
signed the document themselves and to contradict the statements made document)
by one of the defendants, the plaintiff called to the witness stand one of
the other defendants as rebuttal evidence. Why?
to allow the witness to admit or deny and also to afford
When the said defendant was called to testify, he was asked to sign 3 opportunity to explain the same
times. The opponent objected arguing that such constitutes a cross otherwise, it may be objected to on the ground of improper
examination on his own witness. impeachment and would generally be inadmissible
The objection was overruled considering that the trial court found that the
witness is hostile and is an adverse party.
RULE 132 SECTION 13 HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE

OF
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS

Cases:
1. US vs. Baluyot 40 P 385

2. People vs. Relucio 86 S 227

3. People vs. Winston De Guzman 288 S 346

Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. On any trial or
RULE 132 SECTION 14-- EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF hearing, the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time
WITNESS 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
Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. Evidence of be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been
the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has examined.
been impeached.
NOTE THAT THIS RIGHT IS DISCRETIONARY
Impeachment by Showing Bad Reputation
One of the ways to impair the credibility of the witness is to show GENERALLY:
his not so pleasing reputation. The prevailing rule allows his (1) the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time
impeachment by evidence that he has a bad general reputation. under examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other
However, evidence of such bad reputation must relate only to the witnesses
following: (2) The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be
(1) For truth prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have
(2) For honesty been examined.
(3) For integrity
Hence, a witness may not be impeached by reason of his WHEN NOT APPLICABLE:
reputation being troublesome and abrasive (1) Parties in a civil case who are entitle to be present during the trial
(2) An accused who has the right to confront the witnesses or the
Evidence of good character of witness complainant
General Rule: evidence of good character of witness is not Effect as to the admissibility of the testimony of the witness who
admissible stayed in court despite order to exclude all witness from the court
Rejection or admission of testimony of Party remaining after order
Unless the character of the witness has been impeached of exclusion is discretionary with the Court
Note that this must be differentiated with the rule related to the
accused introducing evidence of his good character and the
prohibition on the part of the accused to give evidence of bad
character unless as rebuttal by the prosecution
Impeachment of witness by evidence of wrongful acts
General Rule: impeachment of a witness by evidence of his

particular wrongful acts is disallowed
Except: in relation to his prior conviction of an offense through

cross examination and or by presenting the record of his prior
conviction
RULE 132 SEC. 16WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO 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
RULE 132 SECTION 15. EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESS 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 RULE 132. SEC. 17WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING OR
examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE, THE REMAINDER ADMISSIBLE
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 Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in
record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence evidence, the remainder, the remainder admissible. When part of
must be received with caution. 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.

RULE 132 SECTION 18RIGHT TO RESPECT WRITING SHOWN TO
WITNESS (b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last
wills and testaments; and
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. (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
required by law to the entered therein.
RULE 132 SECTION 19 CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS All other writings are private.
Documentary Evidence in General (Review)

Why is it Necessary to differentiate the classes of documents?
Section 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of
writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, First, for purposes of Admissibility: For the reason that there are
symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their various differences in the manner of proving the authenticity and the
due execution of either class of document
contents. (n)
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
public document making that document admissible in
What is a documentary evidence? evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof.
Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other What is notarization: To certify or attest to (the validity of a
material like objects as long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, signature on a document, for example) as a notary public.
symbols or other modes of written expression and offered as proof of their Requirement of proving authenticity does not apply to a
contents. public document.
RA 8792 gave recognition of the admissibility of electronic Public documents enjoy a prima facie presumption of authenticity
documents and electronic data messages as evidence. It shall and regular execution.
function equivalent to a written paper-based document under
Second, it may affect probative value: Probative value of the
existing laws.
documents may also be affected: for example, generally, a TCT will prevail
Offered as proof of their contents over a Deed of Sale, assuming that the TCT was valid and regularly issued
Requisites of admissibility of document as documentary evidence:

6. the document must be relevant What is Authentication
7. the evidence must be authenticated Preliminary step in showing the admissibility of evidence
8. it must be authenticated by a competent witness Unless a document is authenticated, it will not be admitted without
9. the document must be formally offered in evidence a prior authentication
10. it is competent as such document is not excluded by the rules of
court or by law (e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay, and parol General Rule: Presumption is that objects and documents presented
evidence rule) in evidence are as a rule, counterfeit and it is incumbent upon the
proponent of the document to show and prove its authenticity
Unless: the document is self-authenticating
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Public document Private document
Section 19.Classes of Documents. For the purpose of their Any instrument authorized by a Deed or instrument executed by
presentation evidence, documents are either public or private. competent official with the a private person, without
solemnities required by law intervention of a public notary a
Public documents are: or other person legally authorized,
by which document some
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the disposition or agreement is
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public proved, evidenced, or set forth
officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; (b) Documents acknowledged All other writings (aside from
1 Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
st
113
before a notary public except (b) and (c) are private.
last wills and testaments; Why?
The Rules specifically Section 1 Rule 75, states that:
(c) Public records, kept in the
Philippines, of private NO WILL SHALL PASS EITHER REAL OR PERSONAL ESTATE INLESS IT
documents required by law to IS PROVED AND ALLOWED IN THE PROPER COURT. SUBJECT TO THE
the entered therein. RIGHT OF APPEAL, SUCH ALLOWANCE OF THE WILL SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE
1. Official receipts issued by 1. theater ticket AS TO ITS DUE EXECUTION.
the Board of public health 2. deed acknowledged
2. Burial permits issued by before a justice of the
the Government to be peace who was not
issued upon receipt of authorized to take 1. Joson vs. Baltazar 194 S 114
money for public purposes acknowledgment of the
3. Official cashbook kept by documents Summary: lawyer who notarized a deed of sale although her notarial
the disbursing officer of 3. official printed blank form commission has already expired. She is guilty of malpractice and
the Coastguard and if not signed, authorized, falsification of public documents
Transportation or approved by the proper
Department official FACTS:
4. An official receipt printed 1. This is a disbarment case instituted by Marciano Joson against Atty.
in accordancw tiht eh Gloria M. Baltazar-Aguirre. The charge is for the violation of the
standard forms required Revised Penal Code and grave malpractice as a lawyer.
by the Government 2. In his complaint, Marciano Joson alleged that on 10 July 1957,
5. Legislative acts respondent Atty. Gloria Baltazar-Aguirre notarized a deed of sale
6. Parish records of birth executed by complainant in favor of one Herminia Feliciano, but:
proor to the promulgation at the time respondent Baltazar notarized the deed
Act. No 190 of sale, she was no longer authorized to do so since
7. Certified copies of birth, her notarial commission had expired on 31
marriages, and deaths, December 1956 and was renewed by her only on
including those made by 17 September 1957.
the parish priests who 3. respondent Baltazar did not deny that her commission as notary public
continue to be official had expired by the time she notarized the deed of sale but relaying as an
custodian of the said excuse good faith as she had already applied for the renewal of her notary
records commission, but it is just that the government employee in charge of such
8. The record of private was not able to do so.
document kept by the
justice of the peace courts ISSUE/S: WON the herein respondent is guilty of malpractice.
during the Spanish regime
9. Residence certificates HELD: YES. The herein respondent is guilty of malpractice.
Why the difference? RATIO:

The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes
that they will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity, and Under the foregoing case, respondent Baltazar's conduct must be similarly
therefore, whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty, may be characterized as malpractice and falsification of a public document.
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 In a previous case, the Supreme Court has rendered a decision finding a
require. lawyer whose notarial commission has expired to be guilty of malpractice
and
Note: But not last will and testaments although notarized WHY?
6. Sales then filed a complaint to nullify the deed of sale.
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a 7. The CFI rendered a decision in favour of Gonzales ruling that the
public one, and renders it admissible in court without further deed of sale was valid. The CA upheld this decision.
proof of its authenticity. 8. Hence, the present action by the petition.
Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must
be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a
notary public and appended to a private instrument. Main thrust of the issue: We take note of the fact that while the Deed of
Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it Donation was not registered, the Deed of Sale was registered as evidenced
engages public interest in a substantial degree and the by the notation made by Cipriano Abenojar, Register of Deeds of Lingayen,
protection of that interest requires preventing those who are Pangasinan and the official receipt issued by the Registry of Deeds.
not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from
imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative Issue: could the deed of donation that is unregistered be considered as
offices generally. binding against Gonzales and over the registered deed of sale?
At the time that she notarized the subject deed of sale, she has knowledge Ruling: The Deed of Donation could not bind Gonzales considering that the
that her notarial commission had already expired. registered Deed of Sale shows his title. (unregistered deed of donation
cannot prevail over the registered deed of sale)
2. Sales vs. CA 211 S 858 1. While the deed of donation is valid between the donor and the
donee thereby effectively transmitting the rights to said property
Summary: Severo Sales donated a parcel of land to his daughter, from Sales to his daughter, such deed, however, did not bind
Esperanza evidenced by an unregistered deed of donation. Gonzales, on Leonilo Gonzales, a third party to the donation. This is because
the other hand, was claiming that he same parcel of land was sold to him nonregistration of a deed of donation under Sec. 1 of Act No. 3344
by Severo subsequently evidenced by a registered deed of sale. The does not bind other parties ignorant of a previous transaction,
registered deed of sale won over the deed of donation although the latter notwithstanding the provision therein which petitioners invoke that
happened first. any registration made under this section shall be understood to be
without prejudice to a third party with a better right.
2. Bermudez may not be a considered a third party being the
Facts: daughter of the vendor himself and the better right possessed by
1. Severo Sales owned an unregistered parcel of land in Bugallon, a third party refers to other titles which a party might have
Pangasinan. acquired independently of the unregistered deed such as title by
a. He then mortgaged the said property to a certain Agpoon prescription.
to secure a loan.
b. The loan was not paid by Sales hence, Agpoon tried to
enforce the mortgage. Issue no 2: is the deed of sale valid considering that the property
2. Sales, with the consent of his wife, Margarita Ferrer, donated nine is located in Pangasinan and the document was executed in
hundred (900) square meters of the same property in favor of their Tarlac?
daughter, petitioner Esperanza Sales Bermudez. The duly notarized
deed of donation was presented to the Assessors Office on the day Ruling: Yes.
of its execution. But this was not registered with the Registry of
Deeds. 1. The extrinsic validity of the deed of sale is not affected by the fact
3. Agpoon tried to enforce on the mortgage because the loan was that while the property subject thereof is located in Bugallon,
unpaid. To prevent this, Gonzales and Sales entered into an Pangasinan where the vendors also resided, the document was
agreement whereby Gonzales will be paying the loan and in turn, executed in San Miguel, Tarlac. What is important under the
they will execute a deed of sale over the said piece of land. Notarial Law is that the notary public concerned has authority to
4. A document entitled Deed of Sale between Severo Sales and acknowledge the document executed within his territorial
Leonilo Gonzales was registered with the Register of Deeds of jurisdiction.
Pangasinan. 2. A notarial acknowledgment attaches full faith and credit to the
5. During the Proceedings for the intestate estate Leonilo Gonzales, document concerned.
the land was excluded from the estate.
3. It also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity RATIO: Records disclose that Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. admitted having
unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof. certified true copies of the Deed of Quitclaim executed on May 7, 1977 and
Such kind of proof has not been presented by the petitioners. the Deed of Absolute Sale executed on January 7, 1972. His late father,
Atty. Cleto P. Evangelista, notarized the subject deeds.
3. Lucente vs. Evangelista, Jr. 396 S 627 Section 245 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads:
Summary: Certified true copies must be issued by the lawyer who
acknowledged and who has official custody of the same. Hence, Notarial Register. Every notary public shall keep a register to be
atty. Cleto Jr. cannot do such for the documents notarized by his known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all
father, although he is a partner of the same. his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of
such record, or any parts thereof, to any person applying for it and
paying the legal fees therefor. x x x.
FACTS:
Sections 246 and 247 of the same Code also require the notary public to
1. Winnie C. Lucente and Alicia G. Domingo charged Atty. Cleto L. forward his notarial register to the Clerk of Court of the Court of First
Evangelista, Jr. with gross misconduct, deceit, malpractice and crimes Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province or city wherein he
involving moral turpitude for falsification of public documents. exercises his office for safekeeping.
2. Complainants alleged that respondent is the son of the late Atty. Cleto By certifying true copies of the subject deeds, Atty. Cleto L.
Evangelista, who during his lifetime notarized the ff: Evangelista, Jr. engaged in an unlawful and deceitful conduct. He
was not the notary public before whom said documents were
a) a Deed of Quitclaim executed by some people surnamed Tan in acknowledged and he was neither the custodian of the original
favour of two Yareds, involving a Lot in Salvacion, Ormoc City; and copies thereof. The Records Management and Archives Office, Manila,
certified that there was no copy on file of the Deed of Quitclaim notarized
by respondents father. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
b) a Deed of Absolute Sale involving the same parties Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is broad
enough to cover any form of misconduct of a lawyer in his professional and
3. On January 30, 1990, respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. issued personal capacity.
certified true copies of the said instruments.
- On the basis of the certified true copies of the subject

deeds, the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City issued on February 2, In this connection, we have consistently held that notarization is not an
1990 TCT No. 23889 in favor of Asuncion T. Yared. empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
4. it appears that the respondent of the administrative case Atty. Cleto notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that
Evangelista, Jr. issued the certified certified true copes of the subject deeds those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing
which became the basus of the Registration. However, he was not the upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.
lawyer ho notarized the said deeds, and it was rather, the father who did
the same.
It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public

converts a private document into a public document making that
ISSUE/S: WON respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. is guilty of gross document admissible in evidence without further proof of the
misconduct, deceit, malpractice and crimes involving moral turpitude for authenticity thereof. For this reason, notaries public must observe
falsification of public documents. with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties.
HELD: Yes.
the success of their alleged nefarious scheme in the presence of
those who, by the nature of things, are bound to protect the
4. Yturralde vs. Azurin 28 S 407 interests of a close relation.
Defendants evidence is that said document was handed over to
FACTS: plaintiff. Even if the Court conceded that he knows no
1. This involves a suit to annul a deed of donation inter vivos, covering 10 English, the very title of the document must have arrested
parcels of land in Antique, executed by Carmen Yturralde (plaintiff his attention. The English word "DONATION" was there. That is
Cipriano Yturraldes sister), in favor of defendant Consuelo Azurin, the equivalent of the Spanish word "DONACIN", which, of course,
which deed plaintiff himself (a minister of Phil. Independent Church), he understands.
signed as a witness and which his nephew Apolonio also signed as
witness at plaintiffs instance. Since the donation was made in a public document specifying the
2. Plaintiffs claim is that the execution thereof is tainted with immovables donated, and the conditions for the donation, and
fraudulent misrepresentation that the document is merely one for that acceptance thereof was made in the same deed of donation,
the administration of properties, not a donation. that donation should be given effect.
3. Lower Court: dismissed the complaint; declared that the deed of
donation is legal and valid; declared Consuelo Azurin as the owner of
the donated 10 parcels of land. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (as functional equivalent of documentary
evidence)
ISSUE: WON the LC is correct in declaring that the deed of donation is
legal and valid
Read: MC Industrial Corp v Ssangyong GR 170633, October 17,
RULING: YES! 2007
A notarial document (a public document, therefore) is evidence of
the facts in clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in Facsimile are not considered as part of the Electronic Evidence as
its favor the presumption of regularity. they are paper- based.
Courts task now is to weigh the evidence with a view of ascertaining FACTS:
whether plaintiff has made out a case conformably to the foregoing 1. Petitioner MCC is engaged in the business of importing and
standard. wholesaling stainless steel products. One of its suppliers is the
Ssangyong Corporation (Ssangyong), an international trading
Plaintiff has not discharged his heavy burden of showing company with head office in Seoul, South Korea and regional
irregularity or defect in the said document to overcome the headquarters in Makati City.
presumption of regularity. 2. The two corporations conducted business through telephone calls
and facsimile or telecopy transmissions. Ssangyong would send
Therefore, the lower court correctly declared that the deed of donation was the pro forma invoices containing the details of the steel product
properly executed. order to MCC; if the latter conforms thereto, its representative
It is undisputed that plaintiff has been a priest of the Philippine affixes his signature on the faxed copy and sends it back to
Independent Church for a long time. He talks and writes Spanish Ssangyong, again by fax.
very well. He knows how to read English. The judge below, who 3. Ssangyong sent by fax a letter addressed to Chan (MCC Manager)
signed the decision and who had the opportunity to observe to confirm MCCs order of 220metric tons of hot rolled stainless
plaintiff on the witness chair, gave the opinion that although steel (rate of $1860 per MT). Chan affixed his signature on the
plaintiff was already old and a little bit deaf, he was "fairly conforme portion.
intelligent to say the least, and definitely x x x not feeble- 4. Ssangyong forwarded to MCC a pro forma invoice containing the
minded." This is the man who claims to have been misled by terms and conditions of the transaction, MCC sent back by fax the
defendant Azurin. invoice bearing Chans conformity signature. The invoice states
Moreover, if the intention of the Azurins were to palm off that payment would be made through an irrevocable letter of credit
donation for mere administration, they would not have (L/C) at sight in favor of Ssangyang.
chosen such a time when not only plaintiff but the latters 5. Ssangyong placed an order with its supplier to accommodate
nephew, a person also of mature age, were present. The MCCs order.
ways of fraud are such that it is unlikely that the Azurins would risk
6. MCC only managed to open a partial letter of credit, hence the
order was split into two (110MT each). After a series of However, since these documents are mere photocopies, they are simply
communications, and for difficulty of MCC to open an L/C, the rate secondary evidence, admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130,
was decreased to $1700 per MT and the order to only 100MT per Section 5. Given these norms, we find that respondent failed to prove the
order. existence of the original fax transmissions, and likewise did not sufficiently
7. MCC managed to open a L/C for 100MT and Ssangyong delivered. prove the loss or destruction of the originals. Thus, cannot be admitted in
However, due to the prevailing price of the said steel at the evidence and accorded probative weight.
decreased to $1500, MCC asked for a reduction for the remaining
order. Ssangyong refused thru another letter. MCC no longer The Court faulted the administrative body that created the IRR for the
replied. Electronic Commerce Act for including therein electronic data interchange
8. Ssangyong filed a civil action for damages due to breach of (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy," although the same was
contract against petitioner. In its complaint, respondent alleged intentionally omitted during the drafting of the Electronic Commerce Act.
that defendants breached their contract when they refused to open
the letter of credit in the amount of US$170,000.00 for the
remaining 100MT of steel under their Pro Forma Invoices.
9. After Ssangyong rested its case, MCC filed a Demurrer to Evidence.
MCC: Ssangyong failed to present the original copies of the pro forma
invoices on which the civil action was based. Photocopies of the pro forma
invoices presented to prove the perfection of their supposed contract of
sale are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit of R.A.
No. 8792, because the law merely admits as the best evidence the
original fax transmittal.
Ssangyong: Relies on the Rules on Electronic Evidence. That the original

facsimile transmittal of the pro forma invoice is admissible in evidence
since it is an electronic document and, therefore, the best evidence
under the law and the Rules; that the photocopies of these
fax transmittals admissible under the Rules on Evidence because the
respondent sufficiently explained the non-production of the original
fax transmittals.
ISSUE: WON the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions

are electronic evidence and admissible as such.
RULING: NO. The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic

document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do
not include a facsimile transmission. Facsimile transmissions are not
"paperless," but verily are paper-based.
Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic

evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.
Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an

"electronic document," and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by
the Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission
not electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore, Pro Forma Invoices,
which are mere photocopies of the original fax transmittals, are not
electronic evidence.
RULE 132 SECTION 20 PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Section 20. Proof of private document. Before any private MUST BE PROVEN TO BE AUTHENTIC:
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either: 1. When the document is an ancient one within Rule 132 Section 21
2. When the genuineness and the authenticity of an actionable
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; document have not been specifically denied under oath by the
or adverse party (admitted or not denied)
3. When the genuineness and the authenticity had been admitted
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or 4. Document is not offered as authentic
handwriting of the maker. 5. Private document notarized (already public, except wills)
Any other private document need only be identified as that which

it is claimed to be. 1. Raz vs. IAC 184 S 720
A. if private document is offered as authentic 1. On August 7, 1972, Reva Raz and the original private respondent
herein, Encarnacion Villanueva entered into a Conditional
there is a need to prove its execution and authenticity Assignment of Rights and Interests over a Foreclosure Judgment.
when is it claimed as such? When the document is offered to 2. By virtue of the Conditional Assignment, Villanueva transferred all
prove that the document was truly executed by the person her rights and interests in the said judgment to Raz in
purported to have made the same consideration of the sum of P75,000.00 to be paid by the petitioner
o example, that the deed was actually executed by him 3. The petitioner paid the first two installments, but refused to pay
or by his brother, or whoever the third which wassupposed to be due on August 7, 1974, on the
ground that Villanueva had not complied with her obligation under
their agreement.
B. if private document is not offered as authentic 3. Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages
against the private respondent.
needs only to be identified in court 4. In her answer, Villanueva alleged that it was the petitioner who had
defaulted in her payments to which she gave her a letter of
when is it claimed as such? When the purpose is for the offeror
demand to remind her of the obligation, as well as another letter
to show that a certain document exists (e.g., I found this
informing her of the rescission of the contract for she has thus
document at the table)
given her just cause for the rescission of the agreement.
To support her claim, Villanueva presented two letters she said
General Rule: Private documents must be authenticated through probing she had sent Raz, the first to remind her of the third
its due execution and genuineness through any of the following means: installment that had not yet been paid and the second to
tender her the refund of her earlier payments in view of the
1. by anyone who sat the writing executed; rescission of their contract.
2. by a subscribing witness; or During the trial of the case the authenticity of the Deed of
Conditional Sale/ Assignment was admitted. The Deed bore the
in these two modes, the witness relies on her personal signatures of the parties in this case.
knowledge and attests to the genuineness of the document
because it was executed or signed in his presence 5. According to the petitioner, the two letters allegedly sent to her by
the private respondents should not have been admitted in
3. by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the evidence not only because there was no proof that she had
maker received them. No less importantly, their genuineness had not
been established by the private respondent invoking Rule 132
here, the witness testifies or shows evidence that the signature
Section 19 (failing to prove the genuiness of the handwriting of the
of handwriting of the maker is genuine
maker or by a witness)

ISSUE/S: WON the two (2) letters are admissible as evidence.
(photocopies of the approved sale, receipt and invoices-- the
HELD: YES. The two (2) letters are admissible as evidence considering that prosecution made no effort to prove authenticity)
the genuineness of the handwriting of the private respondent was done
through the other mode of authentication--- comparing the handwriting of 1. Zeny Alfonso purchased a paper bagmaking machine for
the maker to other writing already admitted as evidence, and in this case, P362,000.00 from the Solid Cement Corporation. When she went to
the Conditiona Deed of Assignment. the corporations Antipolo plant, however, no machine could be
given to her, it appearing that the machine sold had been earlier
RATIO: Sec. 21. Private writing, its execution and authenticity, how mortgaged to a creditor, who, unfortunately, refused to release the
proved. Before any private writing may be received in evidence, its due mortgage. Hence, Alofonso filed a criminal complaint for estafa
execution and authenticity must be proved either: against herein petitioner.
2. After pretrial, the prosecution presented as its sole witness
a) By anyone who saw the writing executed; complainant Zeny Alfonso. The prosecution then formally offered
its documentary evidence and rested its case.
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; a. the documentary evidence presented were mere
or photocopies of the approval of the sale, of the
receipt, and other documents.
c) By a subscribing witness. 3. The petitioners filed a motion of demurrer to evidence
stressing that all the documents were uncertified photocopies
The petitioner was actually arguing against herself in invoking Rule 132, bearing unidentified or unauthenticated signatures are
Section 21, for one of the modes prescribed therein for proving the inadmissible in evidence.
execution and authenticity of any private writing is "by evidence of the 4. The MeTC then denied the demurrer to evidence and ruled that
genuineness of the handwriting of the maker." This mode must be there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.
read with Section 23 of the same Rule, which says that
Issue: Should the demurrer to evidence be granted? Yes.
. . . Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given Controlling issue: was there competent evidence to support a verdict of
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with guilt against the petitioner? No.
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be Ruling: there is no competent evidence to support the verdict of guilt of
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. the petitioner because the due execution and the authenticity of the
documents were not proven.
We have made such comparison and find that the signature of Encarnacion
G. Villanueva on the Conditional Assignment (which is not disputed) is
similar to the signatures affixed to the two letters sent to the petitioner. In the instant case, there is no competent and sufficient evidence to
sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt against petitioners.
There is no doubt that the agreement and the two letters were As pointed out by petitioners, all documentary evidence submitted by the
signed by private respondent Encarnacion G. Villanueva. private complainant were uncertified photocopies of certain documents,
Consequently, their authenticity and execution having been the signatures on which were either unidentified or
established, we hold that the letters were admissible as evidence unauthenticated.
of the private respondent.
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that before
any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either:
Question: Was the Court the one who proved the authenticity of
the documents by comparing it on its own? Yes. it seems so. Is (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
that allowed? Yes. (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker.
Being private instruments, their due and valid execution and their
2. Ong vs. People 342 S 372 genuineness and authenticity must first be established, either by the
testimony of any one who saw the writing executed or by evidence of the RULE 132 SECTION 21 ANCIENT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
genuineness of the handwriting of the maker hereof.
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not
In the present case, A painstaking perusal of the testimony of the necessary. Where a private document is more than thirty years
prosecutions sole witness reveals, however, that the due execution old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be
and authenticity of these documents were never proved. In fact, the found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or
prosecution took no effort to prove the due execution and authenticity of circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity
these documents during the presentation of their sole witness. Absent such need be given.
proof, these documents are incompetent as evidence. It is elementary that
this Court cannot rightly appreciate firsthand the genuineness of an REQUISITES:
unverified and unidentified document; much less, accord it evidentiary 1. it is more than 30 years old;
value. 2. it is found and produced in the proper custody as its nature
requires (e.g., deed of sale with the vendee);
3. it is unblemished by any alterations or by any circumstance of
suspicion (What is considered as a blemish? Hahaha idk)
Effect:
Genuineness and due execution need not be proven as required in
Section 20.
Although authentication is not necessary, identification through a
witness is still necessary
Reason for the Rule:

After such a long lapse of time, ordinary testimonial evidence from
those who saw the document, or knows of the handwriting, or hear
the party admit its due execution, is practically unavailing
The circumstances of age, or long existence of the document,
together with its proper custody, its unsuspicious appearance,
suffice as evidence.

RULE 132 SECTION 22 HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING "1. He is not related to me to (sic) any person
PROVED exercising immediate supervision over him within the third
degree of either consanguinity or affinity.
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The
4. On 28 September 1988, petitioner was charged before the
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
Sandiganbayan with the crime of falsification of public document
believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has
defined in Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his
5. He was then found guilty o fthe crime of falsification of public
upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
document.
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 PETITIONERS CLAIM: the prosecution was not able to prove the
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. genuineness of his signature in the certification.
He claims that the lone witness for the prosecution, Amando R.
Pandi, Jr., who identified his signature on the said certification is
How to prove genuineness of the handwriting of a person? incompetent to testify on the matter because Pandi, as admitted,
(1) Any one who has seen it being made; never saw the petitioner actually signing (affixing) his signature on
(2) Any one who is familiar with the handwriting of said person either the questioned certification.
because he has seen his writings purporting to be his and
recognized and admitted to be his own;
(3) By comparison, or collation to be made by the court, with writings
Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove the genuineness of the
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the
handwriting/ signature of the herein accused?
evidence was offered or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of
the court
Ruling: Yes. According to the rules, aside from the method of proving the
genuineness of the handwriting through the testimony of a witness who
1. Layno vs. People 213 S 686 personally saw the person write/execute the document, there are still other
2 modes which were utilized by the Sandiganbayan:
FACTS:
1. The petitioner was the incumbent municipal mayor of Lianga,
Surigao del Sur. 1. testimony of Pandi who has gained familiarity with the handwriting
2. On 16 March 1980, the petitioner appointed Fernando Y. Layno, his of the mayor; and
legitimate son, meat inspector in the office of the municipal 2. by comparison with another document which was proven to be
treasurer of Lianga. He signed the appointment document Civil genuine or admitted during the trial
Service Form No. 35 twice, first as the appointing authority and
second, as the personnel officer, certifying" (t)hat all the required
supporting papers pursuant to MC 5, s. 1974, as amended. have RATIO: Under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, the
been complied with, reviewed and found to be in order." handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who "has seen
3. Among the supporting papers required for the appointment is the writing purporting to be his upon which the witness acted or been charged,
Certification signed by the petitioner, reading as follows: and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person."
Otherwise stated, any witness any be called who has, by sufficient means,
"In connection with the appointment of MR. FERNANDO Y. acquired knowledge of the general character of the handwriting of the
LAYNO, Lianga, Surigao del Sur, in the Office of Municipal party whose signature is in question.
Treasurer, Lianga, Surigao del Sur at the rate of FOUR
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY TWO PESOS ONLY per Prosecution witness Amando R. Pandi, Jr. was competent to testify
annum (P4,632.00), effective March 16, 1980. I HEREBY on the signature of Petitioner on the Certification, because in the
CERTIFY THAT: course of his employment as municipal secretary and designated
personnel officer in the municipal government of Lianga. Surigao
del Sur, he had seen records under his charge bearing the long
and short signatures of the petitioner, and, as such, he had a. Same year, the OCT was cancelled and TCT in the name of
acquired knowledge of the general character of the handwriting of private respondents was issued. (Private respondents are the
the petitioner. grandchildren of sps Boragay and Bobiles)
6. 1981 2 more houses were erected on the land by Buenaventura
Moreover, the Sandiganbayans conclusion that the signature on the Jacob, Ledita Burce, Edilberto Bonto and Elena Borebor (petitioners in
certification in question is the signature of the petitioner was not only this case)
based on the testimony of Amando R. Pandi, Jr. Section 22, Rule 132 of the 7. 1984 Trinidad Alcera Cruz demanded verbally that the petitioners
Revised Rules on Evidence further provides that" (e)vidence respecting the vacate the premises but the latter refused.
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or 8. Hence, the filing of the complaint.
the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party 9. Petitioners claimed that in 1933, the spouses Boragay and Bobiles sold
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the the subject lot to Leon Cabida in an Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de
satisfaction of the judge." Pursuant thereto, the Sandiganbayan Retro (Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase). In 1948 Cabida sold
compared the signature on the certification with the signatures of the land to Emilio Bonto, husband of Rosario Burce. In 1956, Emilio
the petitioner on documents filed with the court, and which were Bonto executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ricardo Burce and
proved to be genuine. Thus, the Sandiganbayan held: Consolacion Burce Elaco covering 595 sqm of the said lot. Emilio Bonto
"The record of this case contains documents bearing signatures of the retained the 199 sqm. In1980, Consolacion Burce Elaco, with the
accused which have been proved to be genuine or treated by him to be so. conformity of the heirs of her brother Ricardo, verbally ceded to her
We refer, among many others, to two full signatures undisputably affixed niece Ledita Burce Jacob the 595 sqm portion of the subject property
by the accused on the appointment paper, Exhibit A, on March 16, 1980, (confirmed and ratified by Consolacion in a document executed in
the day when the questioned signature was made. There is no doubt that 1985)
these two signatures strikingly resemble that on Exhibit B not only in a. They also averred that they had been in actual and physical
general appearance but also in the manner the illegible letters were possession of the property under claim of ownership for more
formed. Even the accused himself reluctantly admitted that the challenged than 51 years. Taxes on the property had been paid since 1948
signature really looks like my signature and is almost the same." by their predecessors-in-interest. It was only in 1976 that the
private respondents came to know the subject lot.
After making the comparison, the Sandiganbayan was satisfied and 10. Trial Court: dismissed the complaint. Ownership of the land -
convinced that the signature on the certification Exhibit B is truly the petitioners
signature of the petitioner. The Court finds no ground or reason for 11. Court of Appeals: reversed. Ownership of the land private
disturbing such finding or conclusion. respondents as they were the registered owners of the land/ this is
binding to the wholw world.
a. THE CA further held that the Escritura de Venta, which was the
basis of the petitioners claim cannot be given any weight
2. Jacob vs. CA 224 S 189 because the same was not authenticated during the trial.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in disregarding the Escritura de Venta Con Pacto
FACTS: de Retro (Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase)
1. Private respondents sued petitioners for recovery of possession and
ownership of a parcel of land located in Albay. RULING: YES. The Court of Appeals erred when it disregarded the
2. Spouses Agaton Boragay and Manuela Bobiles originally owned the Escritura de Venta con Pacto de Retro as a mere scrap of paper. In
subject land. They had only one child named Gregoria Boragay. fact, it was an important piece of evidence that it should not have
3. When the spouses died, the property passed on to Gregoria who stayed dismissed out of hand.
on the land together with her husband Alejandro Alcera and their 3
children. When their children got married, they left the property and Rule 132, Section 22, of the Rules of Court provides:
lived with their respective husbands. Sec. 22. Evidence of execution not necessary.Where a private
4. 1974 Venancio Bonto and Felicidad Boragay constructed a shanty on writing is more than thirty years old, is produced from a custody in
the subject land which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by
5. 1977 Bonifacio Bobiles and Rosalina Base also built their house on any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of
the said lot its execution and authenticity need be given.

The Escritura complied with all the requisites laid down in the above 8. Hence the present action by the petitioner Bank arguing
provision. that:
It was more than 51 years old when it was presented in court; that the best evidence of the forgery were the original checks
it was produced by the proper custodians thereof who were the bearing the alleged forged signatures of private respondents
heirs of the person who would validly keep it; officers. In spite of the timely objection made by the petitioner,
and there is no question it was unblemished by any suspicious the private respondent introduced in evidence mere
alteration or erasure.
photocopies of the questioned checks. The failure to produce
It was therefore unnecessary to prove its execution and authenticity as
evidence of the transfer of the disputed property to Leon Cabida, the the originals of the checks was a fatal omission inasmuch as
petitioners predecessor-ininterest. there would be no evidentiary basis for the court to declare
that the instruments were forgeries.
Nevertheless, the said document, although authentic, may not be the expert witness, contrary to the trial courts finding, was
held to defeat the rights of the private respondent whose title had able to examine the signatures on the original checks and
been registered and is binding to the whole world. compared them with the standard signatures of the
BUT, even so, that document cannot prevail against the transfer certificate
signatories. The photographic enlargements of the questioned
of title in the name of the private respondents, who remain and are
recognized as the registered owners of the disputed land. That title is good checks, which she identified in court, were in fact taken from
as against the whole world. the original checks. With the banks admission in its answer, as
well as the unrebutted testimony of the expert witness and of
Chun Yun Kit, there could be no doubt that the signatures on
3. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and the questioned checks were forged.
Construction Corp. 301 S 537 (supra)
Issue: was the complainant able to sufficiently prove the forgery
5. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the of the signatures in the subject checks in order for there to be a
petitioner Bank so reimburse it the value of the alleged forged valid ruling that the subject checks should be reimbursed?
checks drawn against Triumphs account in the petitioner Bank.
a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks which Ruling: No. the specimen signatures analyzed by the expert must also be
were drawn against the account of the accused were all authenticated. This the plaintiff, failed to do.
forged per findings of the PC Crime Laboratories. That the
signatures of its authorized signatories were all forged. The initial step in such investigation is the introduction of the genuine
b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged were handwriting of the party sought to be charged with the disputed writing,
which is to serve as a standard of comparison.
not submitted in court. instead, mere photocopies of the
checks were presented as evidence. The standard or the exemplar must therefore be proved to be genuine. For
6. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no the purpose of proving the genuineness of a handwriting Section 22, Rule
preponderance of evidence to support the complaint of the 132 of the Rules of Court provides:
petitioner. It ruled that the private respondent failed to show that
the signatures on the subject checks were forged. It did not even SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting
present in court the originals of the checks. Neither did it bother to of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the
explain its failure to do so. Thus, it could be presumed that 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
original checks were wilfully suppressed and would be adverse to
acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
private respondents case if produced. handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting
7. on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the
and ordered the petitioner to reimburse the private court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party.
respondent. It held that it was not necessary for the respondent
to prove that the checks were forged because of the admissions The genuineness of a standard writing may be established by any
made by the petitioner Bank and the unrebutted testimony of the of the following:
expert witness.
(1) by the admission of the person sought to be charged with the ISSUE/S:
disputed writing made at or for the purposes of the trial, or by his 1. WON the marriage is valid.
testimony; (2) by witnesses who saw the standards written or to 2. WON the mere photocopies of the marriage certificate and license
whom or in whose hearing the person sought to be charged are properly admitted as evidence.
acknowledged the writing thereof; (3) by evidence showing that HELD:
the reputed writer of the standard has acquiesced in or recognized 1. NO. the marriage is NOT valid.
the same, or that it has been adopted and acted upon by him in his 2. YES. They were properly admitted.
business transactions or other concerns.
RATIO:
We find in the records only photocopies, not the originals, of the long bond 1. Evidence shows that there was no marriage license. A marriage
papers containing the alleged specimen signatures. Nobody was presented license is a formal requirement; its absence renders the marriage
to prove that the specimen signatures were in fact signatures affixed by Yu void ab initio. In addition, the marriage contract shows that the
Chun Kit and Co Yok Teng. marriage license, was issued in Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither
Moreover, the socalled specimen signatures on the bond paper were not petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in Carmona.
directly turned over to Tabo by those who purportedly wrote them. They, Marriage is void ab initio for lack of marriage license. Issue on
together with the questioned checks, were first submitted to the psychological incapacity is hereby mooted.
Administration Branch of the PC Crime Laboratory, then endorsed to the
Questioned Document Branch. 2. We note that their marriage certificate and marriage license are
only photocopies. So are the birth certificates of their son Frederick
and daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were
marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which
4. Sy vs. CA 330 S 550 shows that these have been examined and admitted by the trial
court, with no objections having been made as to their authenticity
FACTS: and due execution. Likewise, no objection was interposed to
1. Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy petitioner's testimony in open court when she affirmed that the
contracted marriage on November 15, 1973 at the Church of Our date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on November
Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City. Both were then 22 years old. Their 15, 1973. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted
union was blessed with two children in evidence, with the adverse party failing to timely object thereto,
2. The spouses first established their residence in Singalong, Manila, these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts
then in Apalit, Pampanga, and later at San Matias, Sto. Tomas, contained therein.
Pampanga. They operated a lumber and hardware business in Sto. RULE 132 SECTION 23 PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE
Tomas, Pampanga.
3. On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling. Section 23. Public documents as evidence. Documents
Since then, the spouses lived separately, and their two children consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of
were in the custody of their mother. However, their son Frederick a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts
transferred to his father's residence at Masangkay, Tondo, Manila therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even
on May 15, 1988, and from then on, lived with his father. against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their
4. On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for legal separation execution and of the date of the latter.
before the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga which was later
amended to a petition for separation of property.
5. In 1988, she filed a case of attempted parricide against Fernando. Coverage of the Presumption
However, the case was lowered to slight physical injuries.
6. Petitioner filed for a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on A. Notary/ Acknowledged
the ground of psychological incapacity. It was denied. Public documents are perfect evidence of the fact which gave rise
7. On appeal, she raised the issue of their marriage being void ab to their execution and of the date of the same; if the act which the
initio for the lack of marriage license. officer witnessed is not shown to be false
8. Their marriage license was obtained on September 17, 1972 while However, it is not conclusive evidence with respect to the
their marriage was celebrated on November 15, 1973. Hence, the truthfulness of the statements made therein by the
marriage license was expired already. interested parties

Example: Baptismal certificate is proof of the administration of the Ruling: Yes. There being a presumption of regularity and
sacrament and the date; but not the details or statement as to the kinsfolk authenticity accorded to public documents, the Deed of
of the person baptized Assignment is admissible without further or preliminary proof of
authenticity and due execution. Further, it was incumbent upon
B. Documents consisting of entries in public records the plaintiff to rebut such, and this the plaintiff failed to do.
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated
C. All other public documents Ratio:

of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the
latter 1. It is a settled rule that documents acknowledged before notaries
public are public documents which are admissible in evidence
without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and
1. Realubit v Jaso 658 S 146 due execution.
2. As a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in
favor of Eden not only enjoys a presumption of regularity but is
Facts: also considered prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
1. Petitioner Realubit entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with a 3. A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized
French national named Biondo for the operation of an ice document is, consequently, required to present evidence that is
manufacturing business with Realubit as industrial partner and clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.
Biondo as capitalist partner
2. However, in consideration for a certain amount, Biondo then Hence, in view of the Spouses Realubits failure to discharge this onus,
executed a Deed of Assignment transferring all his rights to we find that both the RTC and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity
herein respondents Jaso. This Deed of Assignment was notarized and validity of said Deed of Assignment upon the combined strength of
and acknoweledged before the notary public Rolando Diaz. the abovediscussed disputable presumptions and the testimonies of
3. The respondent tried demanding from the petitioners accounting Jaso and of the Notary Public.
and remittance of the income of the JVA as assignee of Biondo.
4. However, the petitioners refused to do the same. Furthermore, the forgery assertion is not supported. Forgery is never
5. Hence, the respondent then filed a complaint for specific presumed and must likewise be proved by clear and convincing
performance against the petitioners and submitting as evidence evidence by the party alleging the same.23 Aside from not being borne
the notarized Deed of Assignment executed by Biondo, as well as out by a comparison of Biondos signatures on the Joint Venture
the notary public Rolando Diaz. Agreement24 and the Deed of Assignment,25 said forgery is, moreover
a. the petitioner was arguing that the Deed of Assignment debunked by Biondos duly authenticated certification dated 17
was a forgery. November 1998, confirming the transfer of his interest in the business
6. Both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeals, although in favor of Eden.
resolving several issues differently, held that the Deed of
Assignment, which was notarized, upheld the documents validity.
7. Hence, the present action by the petitioners Realubit calling
attention to the failure of the respondents to present the assignor,
or at the least, the witnesses during the execution of the contract. 2. Manzano Jr v Garcia 661 S 186
a. that the testimony of Rolando Diaz, the Notary Public
before whom the same was acknowledged, did not suffice FACTS:
to establish its authenticity and/or validity. They insist that 1. A property was the subject of a deed of pacto de retro sale dated
notarization did not automatically and conclusively confer May 26, 1992 allegedly executed by Garcia in favor of Constancio
validity on said deed, since it is still entirely possible that Manzano, the predecessor-in-interest and brother of petitioner
Biondo did not execute said deed or, for that matter, Vicente Manzano, Jr. (Vicente) for the amount of P80,500.00. Under
appear before said notary public. said contract, Garcia purportedly reserved the right to repurchase
the subject property for the same price within three months from
Issue: Were the lower courts correct in ruling that the said the date of the instrument.
Notarized Deed of Assignment as valid and authentic?

2. Garcia did not redeem the subject property within the three-month Perla Babano, one of the witnesses to the execution of the
period. pacto de retro sale, likewise testified that the person who
3. Consequently, Vicente instituted a petition for consolidation of introduced himself as Marcelino G. Garcia and signed the
ownership over the property as an heir of the vendee. document on May 26, 1992 is not the same Marcelino
Garcias Defense: Garcia alleged that the document Garcia who was in court during the trial of the case.
evidencing the pacto de retro sale was a forgery. He 7. RTC Ruling: held that Garcia failed to prove that his signature in
claimed that he and his wife were in the USA from June 1, the pacto de retro sale was forged.
1988 to November 14, 1992, and therefore could not have 8. CAs Ruling set aside the decision of the RTC:
possibly executed the said pacto de retro sale on May 26, there is no rule requiring expert testimony to determine
1992. the genuineness of a signature appearing on a document.
4. On February 15, 1994, Garcia filed a complaint for annulment Since it was plainly obvious from the evidence on record
of pacto de retro sale and recovery of the owners title with that the signature appearing on the pacto de retro sale is
preliminary injunction against Vicente. far different from the customary signature of Garcia that
In his complaint, Garcia reiterated that he and his wife never appeared in his passport and drivers license, the testimony
participated in the execution of the alleged deed of pacto de of Garcia that the signature was not his is sufficient
retro sale dated May 26, 1992 and that in fact, they were still in evidence of the forgery pursuant to Section 50, Rule 130 of
possession of the said property. the Rules of Court.
He further alleged that he came to know the existence of said The Court of Appeals added that on the basis of Atty.
document only when the counsel of Vicente sent him a letter Mediantes testimony, the presumption of regularity in the
on January 18, 1993 demanding that he should repurchase the execution of the public document has been sufficiently
property pursuant to the purported terms of the pacto de retro destroyed and overcome.
sale within 15 days from receipt of said letter.
Upon further inquiry, he discovered that a certain Mr. P. Pacot
had executed the questioned document by misrepresenting ISSUE/S: WON the notarized deed of pacto de retro sale was entitled to
himself as Marcelino G. Garcia (bearing the wrong middle the presumption of regularity and should be given great weight.
initial) who resided in Casinglot, Misamis Oriental, as evidenced
by the Residence Certificate used in the acknowledgement
page of the pacto de retro sale. HELD: No.
5. During the trial, Vicente presented TCT No. T-25464 and Tax
Declaration No. 41672 to prove the due execution of the pacto de RATIO: It is settled that while a notarized document enjoys this
retro sale, which was recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds presumption, the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the
of CDO. validity of its contents. The presumption of regularity of notarized
6. On the other hand, Garcia testified that he went to the USA on documents is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing
November 7, 1987. A few months later, he returned to the evidence to the contrary.
Philippines. He went back to the USA on June 1, 1988. His three (1) Irregularities in the notarization of the document may be
children were left in the Philippines, while the titles to his established by oral evidence of persons present in said proceeding.
properties were left in the office of his business establishment in (2) In the case at bar, even more convincing evidence of the
Tablon, Cagayan de Oro City with two of their children. irregularity was presented as it was the notary public himself who
Garcia testified that the signatures appearing in the pacto testified that the person who appeared before him was not
de retro sale were not his and his wifes. He presented his respondent Garcia. Since the very official who attested to the
passport and drivers license, both of which bear an crucial facts in the notarization i.e., that the persons who
entirely different signature than what appeared in the personally appeared before him are the same persons who
pacto de retro sale document. executed the deed of conveyance admitted in open court the
Atty. Mediante, the person who notarized the deed falsity of said manifestation, the reliability of the Acknowledgment
of conveyance in question, testified that the that clothes the document with a presumption of regularity is
Marcelino Garcia who appeared in his office and who completely shattered. We, therefore, agree with the Court of
executed the pacto de retro sale is not the same Appeals that the presumption of regularity of the notarized deed of
Marcelino Garcia who was in court during the trial of pacto de retro sale was sufficiently overcome by the testimony of
the case. Atty. Mediante.
SECTION 25 RULE 132WHAT THE ATTESTATION MUST STATE
OTHER REQUISITES NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 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
SECTION 24 RULE 132PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD 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
Section 24. Proof of official record. The record of public having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official 1. that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the thereof, as the case may be.
legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if 2. That the original is with the custody of the public official;
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that 3. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is officer, if there be any, or
kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a a. if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice such court.
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.
Although there is no need to authenticate public documents, there

is still a necessity, under this Section to show that indeed, a record
of the official acts of official bodies, tribunals, or public officers
exists. And this is done through:
a. An official publication thereof
b. By a copy of the document attested by the officer having
legal custody of the record or by the attestation of his
deputy; or if the record is not in the Philippines, the
attestation may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office
What should the attestation state? See Section 25.

SECTION 26. RULE 132IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD SECTION 27. RULE 132. PUBLIC RECORD OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. Any public record, an Section 27. Public record of a private document. An authorized
official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be public record of a private document may be proved by the original record,
removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
determination of a pending case. (27a)
A public record of a private document may be proved by any of the
following, as attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
This is the reason why an attestation is always necessary because appropriate certificate that such officer has custody:
of the general rule that the original copy may not be removed from
the office in which it is kept, except upon the order of a court (1) by the original record; or
where the inspection is necessary to the just determination of a (2) by a copy thereof,
pending case
Reason for the Rule

Example: a justice of the peace cannot certify a copy of a deed of
public is generally entitled to have it at the place for inspection at
conveyance of a land because the law made no authorization for such
any time except upon order of a court where the inspection of the
record by said court it essential to the just determination of a case
Effect:
pending therein, or the court is sitting in the same building with
public record of a private writing is evidence only of the fact that
such office
such public writing is of record but not as to its contents, due
original is in great danger to be lost
execution, and genuineness (Government of the Philippine Islands
vs Martinez)

SECTION 28. RULE 132PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD SECTION 29. RULE 132HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. A written statement signed Section 29. How judicial record impeached. Any judicial record
by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the
deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c)
tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the proceedings.
records of his office contain no such record or entry.
Impeaching Judicial Records through Proof of Extrinsic Matters
there can be no question as to the right of any person adversely
When the issue involved is on the absence of an official record, the affected by a judgment, to maintain an action to enjoin its
proving lack of such record may be done through: enforcement, and to have it declared a nullity, on the ground of
fraud and collusion practiced in the very matter of obtaining the
A written statement signed by the officer having custody of judgment, when such fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matters
an official record or by his deputy. It must contain the involved in the issues raised at the trial which resulted to the
following: judgment
(1) that there has been a diligent search of the record;

(2) that despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a specified
tenor is found to exist in the records of his office
(3) that such officer had custody of the official records

SECTION 30. RULE 132PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS SECTION 31. RULE 132HOW TO EXPLAIN ALTERATION IN
DOCUMENT
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. Every instrument duly
acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. The party
presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of producing a document as genuine which has been altered and
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material
the instrument or document involved. to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may
show that the alteration was made by another, without his
It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected
and a conclusive presumption of its existence and execution 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.
REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT ALTERED DOCUMENTS BE ADMISSIBLE

AS EVIDENCE: the alteration found in the document which appears to
have been done after the execution must be accounted for by the
proponent by showing that:
1. Alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or

2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
3. Was otherwise properly or innocent made, or
4. That the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument
Otherwise, such is not admissible in evidence.

SECTION 32. RULE 132SEAL SECTION 33. RULE 132DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN
UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE
Section 32. Seal. There shall be no difference between sealed
and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language.
evidence is concerned. 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.

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION The purpose for which the offer is made must be specific
It is the duty of the party offering the evidence to select evidence
RULE 132 SECTION 34 OFFER OF EVIDENCE that is admissible and competent
Where the evidence is inadmissible for the purposes stated in the
offer, it must be rejected, though the same may be admissible for
Section 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no other purposes
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)
How is it done?
General Rule: Evidence must be offered and the court shall On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required
consider no evidence, which has not been formally offered. to make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of
Effect: that evidence may not be ascribed any evidentiary his last witness and the opposing party is required to
value because such may only be done after ruling the immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter the
admissibility judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open
court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer
Reason for the Rule: of evidence in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.
It is the duty of the court to base its findings of fact and judgment
strictly upon evidence offered by the parties Note that the party may opt not to offer the evidence
Otherwise, this may draw unwarranted consequences: the parties presented in court formally if he considers the same to not
will be deprived of the opportunity to examine and object to its advance the cause of the party.
admissibility; and the appellate court will have difficulty in
reviewing documents not previously scrutinized Question: may the other party then use the said evidence as
his own although said party was not the proponent?
What is formally offering it as evidence?

Not simply marked for identification Cases:
It is done only when the party rests its case 1. Heirs of Carmen Cruz-Zamora v Multiwood International Inc
GR 146428, January 19, 2009- SALTERAS
When is formal offer of evidence not necessary? Exhibits K- K7 cannot be interpreted to be given evidentiary
1. during summary proceedings; value as contemporaneous acts because such were not
2. documents taken judicial notice of or judicially admitted; formally offered as evidence. They were just marked and
3. documents, affidavits, and depositions used in summary judgment identified and cannot be considered.
4. documents used in deciding quasi-judicial or administrative cases;
5. lost objects previously marked, identified and described in the
record 2. Heirs of Pasag v Spouses Parocha et al GR 155483 April 27,
6. where repeated references to certain exhibits were made during 2007- ARANETA
the trial both by the parties and of the court (admission)
7. If the other party has failed to object to failure to formally offer
evidence Facts:
In the case of vda de Oate: provided that the following is complied with: 1. Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Titles,
Recovery of Possession and Ownership, Reconveyance, Partition
first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly and Damages filed by petitioners at the Urdaneta City RTC of
recorded and, Pangasinan against respondents alleging that the respondent has
second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of fraudulently adjudicated upon himself the parcels of land covered
the case. in the said Titles.
a. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the said
Offer must be specific property was transferred to them by a deed of Quitclaim

executed by the predecessor-in-interest (the grandparents review as the appellate court will not be required to review
of the parties) documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.
2. During the trial, when the petitioners rested their case, The pretrial guidelines and Sec. 35 of Rule 132 jointly considered,
they were granted 10 days to submit their formal offer of it is made clear that the party who terminated the presentation of
documentary exhibits. evidence must make an oral offer of evidence on the very day the
a. The petitioners asked for 2 extensions but the party presented the last witness. Otherwise, the court may
petitioners still failed to submit their formal offer of consider the partys documentary or object evidence waived. While
evidence after the required extended periods. Sec. 35 of Rule 132 says that the trial court may allow the offer to
3. Hence, the trial court judge issued an Order declaring the be done in writing, this can only be tolerated in extreme cases
right of the petitioners to submit and make their formal where the object evidence or documents are large in numbersay
offer of evidence as deemed waived by their failure to from 100 and above, and only where there is unusual difficulty in
submit on time. preparing the offer.
4. The respondents then filed a Demurrer to evidence.
5. Through a resolution, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing
the complaint of the petitioners ruling that the petitioners failed to 3. Catuira vs. CA 236 S 398- BALDEO
prove their claim through preponderance of evidence. This was
upheld by the Court of Appeals. The formal offer of evidence of testimony of witness must be done before
the witness testifies. However, failure to object by the opponent is
Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that the order of the deemed as waiver. Hence, despite such belated formal offer of
trial court saying that they have waived their right to formally offer evidence of testimony of witness, the same is admissible for
evidence deprived them of due process. consideration.
Issue: Was there a waiver of the right to formally offer evidence?

4. Vda. de Onate vs. CA 250 S 283- SALTERAS
Ruling: Yes, and by reason of such, the petitioner has failed to submit
evidence for consideration of the court in proving their claim.
Facts:
How is the formal offer of evidence done? 1. the respondent administratix Taguba in this case filed an action for
specific performance on against the petitioner, Elvira Vda de
On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required Oate, to compel the latter to execute a Deed of Sale covering 2
to make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of parcels of land on behalf of the deceased Taguba.
his last witness and the opposing party is required to 2. The trial court rendered a decision in favour of the respondent
immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter the rejecting the defense of the petitioner Oate that what they
judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open executed was a verbal contract of loan and that the parcels of land
court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer were merely mortgaged to the plaintiff- respondent.
of evidence in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132. 3. The petitioners then went to the CA and contended that the trial
court erred when it took cognizance of the plaintiffs evidence,
And this, the petitioner failed to do. particularly Exhibits F, F1, F2 and F3, which had been
marked but never formally submitted in evidence as required by
What is the effect if the party failed to formally offer his evidence? the Rules of Court. Consequently, it was claimed that the trial court
The Rules of Court provides that the court shall consider no erred in relying on the said evidence in deciding for private
evidence which has not been formally offered. A formal offer is respondents.
necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of 4. Decision of the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence In sustaining the lower court, the respondent court held
offered by the parties at the trial. that Exhibits F, F1, F2 and F3 though not formally
Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or offered, may still be admitted in evidence for having
purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On complied with the two (2) requisites for admission
the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the enunciated in our jurisprudence, that is,
evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates (1) evidence must be duly identified by testimony duly
recorded; and
(2) it must be incorporated in the records of the case.
5. Sy vs. CA 330 S 550 (supra)- ARANETA
Issue: Was the trial court correct in considering the said documents which Facts: (Same facts as before, pinili ko na lang yun directly related
were merely marked during the trial in making its decision? sa present topic)
Ruling: Yes. the Formal offer of evidence rule may be relaxed under certain 1. Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy
conditions, as in the present case. contracted marriage on November 15, 1973 at the Church of Our
Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City. Both were then 22 years old. Their
General Rule: marking for identification is not sufficient to be union was blessed with two children.
considered as formal offer of evidence. If the party does not offer 2. The petitioner Filipina then filed a petition for nullity of marriage on
the evidence formally, then the court may not consider such. the ground of psychological incapacity.
Marking for identification is done first is done in the course 3. During their trial before the RTC, the parties submitted as evidence
of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the their marriage contract, and the birth certificates of their children,
evidence as an exhibit while the second is done only when which indicated their date of marriage. It appears on their
the party rests its case and not before. A party, therefore, documents, and as admitted by both parties, their marriage
may opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it ceremony was celebrated after the expiration of the marriage
will advance his cause or not to do so at all. In the event he license.
chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authorized by 4. Nevertheless, both the RTC and CA denied the petition for nullity
the Rules to consider the same. for the failure of Filipina to prove psychological incapacity.
5. Hence, the present action by the petitioner. However, the
Relaxation of the rule: petitioner raises for the first time, the issue of the validity of their
In a previous case, relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed marriage on the ground of lack of valid marriage license. It appears
evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by that, according to her, the date of the actual celebration of their
the trial court provided the following requirements are present, marriage and the date of issuance of their marriage certificate and
viz: first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony marriage license are different and incongruous.
duly recorded and, second, the same must have been incorporated 6. It is also to be noted that their marriage certificate and
in the records of the case. marriage license are only photocopies. So are the birth
certificates of their son Frederick and daughter Farrah
Sheryll.
In the present case:
Issue: in view of the glaring issue of validity of marriage by reason
The evidence in question refers to Exhibits F, receipt for P2,250.00 dated of lack of a valid marriage license, Should the SC take such issue
January 20, 1976; F1, receipt for P750.00 dated February 23, 1976; F2, despite the fact that the documentary evidence on such were
receipt for P1,000 dated March 20, 1976; and F3, receipt for another mere photocopies and the same issue being raised only for the
P1,000.00 dated July 29, 1976, all showing the varying amounts paid by first time?
Leonor Taguba to Elvira Mato Vda. de Oate. These exhibits were
marked at the pretrial for the purpose of identifying them. In fact, Ruling: Yes. there is no reason to prevent the SC from appreciating
the payment of P5,000.00 was admitted by herein petitioners in the same and taking into consideration the documentary evidence
pretrial. On March 5, 1984, Eulalia Marcita Taguba identified the presented by the parties as they were admitted in evidence during
said exhibits in her testimony which was duly recorded. the trial.
Likewise, extant from the records is the witness explanation of the

contents of each of the said exhibits. Also telling is petitioners counsel 1. these documents were marked as Exhibits during the course of the
vigorous crossexamination of the said witness who testified on the exhibits trial below, which shows that these have been examined and
in question. admitted by the trial court, with no objections having been made
as to their authenticity and due execution.
Herein subject exhibits were also incorporated and made part of the
records of this case.
2. Likewise, no objection was interposed to petitioners testimony in c. To prevent the introduction of such kind of evidence, the
open court when she affirmed that the date of the actual practice is for the defense to move for its exclusion at any
celebration of their marriage was on November 15, 1973. time before commencement of trial. Such failure of the
3. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in defense may therefore be taken as a waiver of their
evidence, with the adverse party failing to timely object thereto, objectionand the waiver was made at the trial by said
these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts accused who was in fact assisted by counsel.
contained therein. d. Thus, because of such failure to object, the prosecution
succeeded to introduce the subject documents and cause
Question: So nothing will stop the court from using or appreciating the them to be marked for identification as Exhibits B and D.
evidence different with the purpose stated during the formal offer of
evidence? Kasi dito, during the time they were offered in evidence, the Hence, the present action by the petitioners arguing that they interposed
purpose was to prove only the existence of the marriage kasi yung issue their objection on the proper timeduring the formal offer of evidence, and
nila before is psychological incapacity. Then naiba yung theory/ cause of not during the identification and marking of the exhibits.
action altogether. So pwede?
Issue: Should the petitioners be considered as having waived their
6. Macasiray vs. People 291 S 154- BALDEO objections?
Facts: Ruling: No. the petitioners were able to make their proper objections at the
1. the petitioners in this case are the accused in a criminal proper timeduring the formal offer of evidence. The fact that the exhibits
proceeding for the murder of Johnny Villanueva. were marked as such does not signify that they had been admitted by the
2. During the trial of the case, the prosecution introduced in evidence court. such merely means that they were presented in court during the
the Extrajudicial Confession of one of the accused, Benedicto trial.
Gonzales confessing to his participation as well as implicating the
other petitioners. It was labeled as Exhibit B. the transcript also of
the preliminary investigation was also presented as Exhibit D When should the objection to evidence be done?
containing also the extrajudicial confession and implication of
other accused. 1. Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally
3. The extrajudicial confession (Exhibits B and D) was offered offered.4 In the case of documentary evidence, offer is made after
at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence for the all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified,
prosecution. The defense then interposed their objection specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is
on the admissibility of the said confession as such were only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the
executed without the assistance of a counsel. documentary evidence may be made.
4. The trial court issued an order ruling that the extrajudicial 2. In this case, petitioners objected to the admissibility of the
confession was inadmissible after finding that indeed, Benedicto documents when they were formally offered.
Gonzales had no counsel at such time. 3. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, petitioners did not
5. then, the respondent sought the nullification of the said waive objection to admissibility of the said documents by their
order of the trial court before the CA. the CA rendered a failure to object when these were marked, identified, and then
decision nullifying said order and held that the extrajudicial introduced during the trial. That was not the proper time to make
confession of Benedicto as admissible in evidence for the the objection. Objection to the documentary evidence must be
belated objection of the defense to the said admissibility of made at the time it is formally offered, not earlier.
the evidence. It ratiocinated that: 4. Objection to the identification and marking of the document is not
a. Those markings (as Exhibit B and as Exhibit D) show that equivalent to objection to the document when it is formally offered
the documents were introduced during the prosecutions in evidence. What really matters is the objection to the document
evidenceinchief; and, necessarily, they were testified on by at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit.
a prosecution witness. 5. Objections to the admissibility of documents may be raised during
b. The fact that the prosecution proposed to formally offer trial and the court may rule on them then, but, if this is not done,
them in evidence at the close of trial implies that when the the party should make the objections when the documentary
documents were first introduced through the prosecution evidence is formally offered at the conclusion of the presentation of
witness at the trial, the defense did not object to their evidence for the other party.
introduction.
Issue: were the lower courts correct in not considering the verified
complaint and the affidavit presented by the petitioners to the DAR as
proofs of the provisional rentals?
7. Tuason vs. CA 241 S 695- SALTERAS
Ruing: yes. They were correct as such documentary evidence were not
formally offered in evidence during the trial. It is settled that courts will
only consider as evidence that which has been formally offered.
8. Candido and Rumbaua vs. CA and Dabu 253 S 78- ARANETA
1. The affidavit of petitioner Natividad Candido mentioning the
Facts: provisional rate of rentals was never formally offered; neither the
1. The petitioners Candido and Rumbaua owned a riceland located in alleged certification by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. Not having
Orion, Bataan. On the other hand, the respondent Dabu was their been formally offered, the affidavit and certification cannot be
agricultural tenant. considered as evidence. Thus the trial court as well as the
2. The RTC Complaint: the petitioners then filed a complaint against appellate court correctly disregarded them.
Respondent for termination of tenancy relationship and recovery of 2. If they neglected to offer those documents in evidence, however
unpaid rentals for certain crop years. vital they may be, petitioners only have themselves to blame, not
a. The petitioners alleged that respondent failed to pay in respondent who was not even given a chance to object as the
accordance with the provisional rates (26- 29 sacks of documents were never offered in evidence.
palay), allegedly set by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
b. On the other hand, the respondent argued that
there was no such provisional rates that they have Note that formal offer of evidence is not mere marking for
agreed upon and that he has no unpaid rentals. identification.
3. By motion of the respondent, the case was suspended so that the A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it
parties be able to obtain a preliminary determination and is simply marked for identification; it must be formally offered, and
certification from the Department of Agrarian reform that the issue the opposing counsel given an opportunity to object to it or cross-
of unpaid rentals as well as the termination of the tenancy examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it.
relationship was right for the trial court to resolve. A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their
a. During the administrative proceedings with the DAR, findings of fact and judgment onlyand strictlyupon the
it would appear that the petitioners submitted a evidence offered by the parties at the trial.
verified complaint and affidavit with a statement of To allow a party to attach any document to his pleading and then
the provisional rates they were trying to impose. expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted
4. The DAR then issued a certificate ruling that the issue of non- consequences.
payment of rentals was proper for the determination of the court, The opposing party will be deprived of his chance to examine the
but not the issue of termination of tenancy.
document and object to its admissibility.
5. Then, the trial proceeded and the RTC rendered a decision
The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the
dismissing the complaint of the petitioners finding that no evidence
was adduced by the petitioners to prove the provisional rental inclusion on appeal of documentary evidence or exhibits in the
alleged to have been fixed by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. records cannot be stretched as to include such pleadings or
6. The CA likewise, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, upholding documents not offered at the hearing of the case.
the ruling of the RTC finding that no evidence was introduced to
prove the provisional rates of allegedly imposed by DAR.
7. Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that the Further, the petitioner cannot argue or even compel the judge to
verified complaint and the affidavit presented by petitioners to the take judicial notice of the same, since the said documents are not
DAR are proofs of the provisional rentals fixed by it and that it was among the matters which the law mandatorily requires to be taken judicial
error for the trial court not to have taken cognizance of these notice of; neither can we consider it of public knowledge, or capable of
documents. unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.
9. People vs. Barellano 319 S 567- BALDEO

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.
10. People vs. Sanchez 308 S 264- SALTERAS 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.

Section 36. Objection. Objection to evidence offered orally Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. When it
must be made immediately after the offer is made. becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of
a witness that the question being propounded are of the same
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral class as those to which objection has been made, whether such
examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to
therefor shall become reasonably apparent. repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to
record his continuing objection to such class of questions. (37a)
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 38. Ruling. The ruling of the court must be given Section 39. Striking out answer. Should a witness answer the
immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice
to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be
presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an answer given to be stricken off the record.
opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, (n)
a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must
specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)

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 133 SECTION 2 PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is
SECTION 1 PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required,
civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the unprejudiced mind.
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 Cases:
facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which
they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, 1. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies vs Radio Mindanao
their interest or want of interest, and also their personal Network GR 147039, Jan 27, 2006
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the 2. Encinas v National Book Store GR 162704, November 19, 2004
trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though 3. People vs Villarico GR 158362, April 4, 2011
the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. 4. People vs. Mejia 55 S 453
(1a) 5. People vs. Matrimonio 215 S 613
6. People vs. Gondora 265 S 408
7. People vs. Cabiles 248 S 207
8. People vs. Lorenzo 240 S 624
9. People vs. Rigodon 238 S 27
10. Tin vs. People 362 S 594

SECTION 3: EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND RULE 133 SECTION 4 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN
FOR CONVICTION SUFFICIENT
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for

conviction. An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
(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)
Cases:
1. People v Anticamara GR 178771, June 8, 2011

2. People vs. Salvame 270 S 766
3. People vs. Malimit 264 S 167 (supra)
4. People vs. Ramos 240 S 191
5. People vs. Adofina 239 S 67

RULE 133 SECTION 5 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. The
court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any
Section 5. Substantial evidence. In cases filed before particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might with caution. (6)
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
1. Ang Tibay vs. CIR 69 P 635

2. Bascos v Taganahan GR 180666, February 18, 2009
3. Fabella vs. CA 282 S 256
4. PAL vs. NLRC 263 S 638
5. Villaflor vs. CA 280 S 297

Section 7. Evidence on motion. When a motion is based on Section 36. Objection. Objection to evidence offered orally
facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on must be made immediately after the offer is made.
affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but
the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
oral testimony or depositions. (7) examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
Section 35. When to make offer. As regards the testimony of a An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3)
witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called days after notice of unless a different period is allowed by the
to testify. court.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.
presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be
done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.
How are Objections Done
When is evidence to be offered? A. While specifying the grounds for the objections, the
objection must be made
It depends on the type of document to be offered. B. (temporal element)
A. If testimonial evidence A. if Offer of evidence is made orally objection must be

Must be made at the time the witness is called to testify made immediately right after the offer is made
B. for a question propounded during the examination of a
Why? To allow and enable to court or know whether or not
witnessmust be made as soon as the grounds therefore
the same is indispensable or relevant to the case
shall become reasonable apparent
B. If documentary or object evidence
C. if offer of evidence is made in writingwithin three days
They are to be offered after the presentation of a parts from notice unless a different period is allowed by the court
testimonial evidence. The offer is made orally unless
allowed by the court to be in writing. What does it mean that the grounds to the objection be specific?
Objector cannot just simply manifest that he is interposing an
By reason of this clarification as to when evidence is formally offered
objection, he has to precisely state the exclusionary rule that would
in evidence, the presentation of evidence for marking and identification
justify his opposition to the proffered evidence.
during the course of the trial is not the offer contemplated in the Rules.
Hence, failure to object to evidence during the time of marking and When should the objection be done?
identification does not constitute a waiver of the right to object. Objection to evidence before it is presented or before the purpose
Such is not the proper time.
is given is premature
Objections must be made after they had been offered and the offer
Premature if made during the preparatory stages of identification
of such evidence shall be made after the presentation of a partys
and marking
testimonial evidence.
It must be made at the proper time as specified by the rule,
Mere fact that the evidence has already been marked as an exhibit
otherwise, there is deemed a waiver of the objection and
does not mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of
could no longer raise such issue later on.
the evidence of the party
Why? It enables the adverse party to meet the objection to his
evidence, as well as grants the trial court the opportunity to pass
upon the and rule on the objection.
o To raise it only for the first time during the appeal
without allowing the lower court to rule on the
matter is contrary to basic fairness and procedural
orderliness.

If the counsel was not afforded the time to express his 5. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors, and
objections to a question propounded to a witness, the at the same time, warn the court of the ruling adverse to the
counsel may move to strike out the answer (see Section 39) objector may supply a reason to invoke a higher courts appellate
jurisdiction; and
What is the effect of belated objections? 6. To avoid a waiver of admissibility of an otherwise inadmissible
Such constitutes waiver because there is failure to point out some evidence.
defect, irregularity or wrong in the admission of exclusion of
evidence What are the types of objections?
failure to assert an objection promptly and specifically is a waiver.
Unless a timely and sufficient objection is made to an evidence Objections may be formal or substantive
introduced, the reviewing court will not ordinarily consider the (1) Formal objection is one directed against the alleged defect in the
question of propriety of the admission of the evidence. It will not formulation of the question
considered on appeal because there is deemed to be a waiver. (2) Substantive objection is one made and directed against the very
nature of the evidence i.e., it is inadmissible either because it is
It would also be as if the party who failed to object consented to
irrelevant or incompetent or both (e.g., parol evidence rule; best
the introduction of inadmissible evidence.
evidence; opinion, res inter alios acta)
Extent of the waiver: admissibility only and does not extend to the
judges discretion on giving it the weight
Nevertheless, the fact that it was admitted and may be considered
validly by the court would mean that it would be given weight by
the court in arriving at its judgment.
The evidence becomes admissible but the waiver involves no
admission that the evidence possesses the weight attributed to it
by the offering party
Waiver should not be construed as an admission that the evidence
is credible. It also does not mean that the party waives his right to
present controverting evidence.
It only refers to admissibility: competence and relevance
Hence, for example, hearsay evidence was admitted as such was
not objected to during the trial. However, the judge will still give
value to what its worthhearsay. No means of assuring credibility
Why are Objections necessary?

1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm to a
clients cause.
Since the (exclusionary) rules of evidence are not self-
operating, they would have to be invoked by way of
objection
2. To protect the recordthat isto present the issue of
inadmissibility of the offer evidence in a way that if the trial court
truly erroneously, the error can be relied upon as a ground for
future appeal
3. To protect the witness from being embarrassed on a stand or from
being harassed by the adverse counsel
4. To expose the adversarys unfair tactics (misleading and leading
questions)
Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. When Section 38. Ruling. The ruling of the court must be given
it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires
examination of a witness that the question being propounded to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question
are of the same class as those to which objection has been presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial
made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an
shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions. The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be
stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds,
Hence, instead of repeating the objections to such class of objectionable a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must
questions, it is sufficient for the objection to be recorded as a continuing specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)
objection.
Ruling on Objections
For example
(1) when questions calling for hearsay answers are repetitiously asked GR: parties who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are
by the adverse counsel, the recording of a continuing objection to entitled to a ruling at the time the Objection is made
such questions would be in order after an initial objection had unless they present a question with regard to which the court desires
already been made to inform itself before making its ruling
(2) the court may treat an objection a continuing one and it it would be in that event, it is perfectly proper for the occur tto tak e a
unnecessary when the objection has once been distinctly made reasonable time to study the question presented by the
further to vez the court with useless objections and exceptions. ibjection
But a ruling must always be made and that the same be made
during the trial.
Why? So that the party against whom it is made be given the
opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling
it shall be an error for the court to reserve (the objection will
be taken into consideration, without ruling as to whether or
not it is sustained or not) its decision upon an objection to
evidence until after the trial is closed.
Rejected evidence not to be considered by the trial court

it is error for the court to take into consideration in making its
decision the evidence which it had ruled out as inadmissible
What could then be the remedy of the party?

new trial
the fact shall be brought to the attention of the trial court
through an appropriate motion and will ordinarily, not be
considered if urged for the first time on appeal.
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 Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things
answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may
(n) 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
A motion to strike answer substance of the proposed testimony.
A motion to strike may be availed of on the following isntances:
1. when the answer was premature;
2. when the answer of the witness is irrelevant, incompetent or Why make a tender of excluded evidence?
otherwise improper;
3. when the answer is unresponsive; First, to allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the
4. when the witness becomes unavailable for cross-examination documentary evidence and convince the trial court judge to permit the
through no fault of the cross-examining party; or evidence or testimony
5. when the testimony was allowed conditional and the condition of Second, even if he is not convinced to reverse his earlier ruling, the
its admissibility was not fulfilled. tender is made to create and preserve the record for appeal.
Remedy for: How?

1. objectionable questions but the adverse party was not given the A. attach it and make it part of the record; identify, read, state the
opportunity to voice out its answers, by reason, for example, of the contents of the documents; and
answering right away; B. state the purpose for which the object or document sought to
2. or when an apparently unobjectionable question brings out an be attached is offered and to as that it be marked for
objectionable and inadmissible response but the infirmity of the identification and have it attached on the record
response only becomes apparent after the answer has been
completed

the evidence of the successful party suffice to sustain the
RULE 133 judgment appealed from
Findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses will not
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence be disturbed unless such findings overlooked certain facts of
probability of truth substance and value which, of considered, might affect the results
of the case
SECTION 1 PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED Discrepancies relating to merely insubstantial matters lend weight
rather than detract from the credibility of the witness
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil Writing made contemporaneously with a transaction is ordinarily
cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by regarded as a more reliable proof than the recollection of witnesses
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.
What is preponderance of Evidence?

Refers to the weight, credit, value, of the aggregate on either side,
and not the mere numerical army of witnesses.
Means that the testimony [evidence] adduced by one side is more
credible and conclusive than that of the other.
Usually referred to as one with greater weight of credible evidence
Evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief
that that which is offered in opposition thereto
What should be considered in determining the preponderance of

evidence?
1. All the facts and circumstances of the ace
2. Witness manner of testifying , their intelligence either means and
opportunity in knowing the facts which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability of
improbability of their testimony;
3. The witness interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial
4. Number of witnesses, although it does mean that the
preponderance is necessarily with the greater number
Example of factors affecting the weight and value of certain

evidence
Findings of fact of the trial court judge are given great weight
Where irreconcilable conflict the testimony of witnesses exists, the
appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court when

SECTION 2 PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Some guides in the appreciation of evidence
(1) Falsus In Uno Falsus in Omnibus
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal Requisites:
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is That the witness deliberately or intentionally falsified the
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt truth
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of That the other portions of the testimony which are to be
error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, discredited, are not corroborated by circumstances or other
or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unimpeached evidence
unprejudiced mind. Note however, that this is not a mandatory rule in the Philippines
and not a positive rule of law in the Philippines. hence, if a part of a
Quantum of evidence in Criminal cases
testimony of the said witness is found true, it cannot be
absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a disregarded completely
defendant of a criminal charge, but moral certainty is required to
every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. (2) Contradiction between witnesses
o Hence, a testimony of single witness if positive and If the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses are
credible is sufficient to support a conviction even in the not of serious nature, the witnesses may still be
charge of murder considered as credible
(3) Testimony inherently improbable
What is Reasonable Doubt?
When the testimony of the witness is inherently
Reasonable doubt does not refer to any doubt or a mere possible
improbable, inconsistent with human experience, or
doubt. Reasonable doubt is that state of the case which, after a against the natural course of things, it will not be credited.
comparison of all evidence, does not lead the judge to have in his
Example: lapse of 4 years before the filing of the rape case
mind, a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.
impairs the credibility of the complainant
by reasonable doubt is not meant that doubt engendered by an
(4) Demeanor of the Witness
investigation of the whole proof and inability, after such
The demeanor of the witness on the stand is one of the
investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt
elements to be conserved in determining the weight of his
the doubt to the benefit of which accused persons are entitled in a
testimony
criminal trial is a reasonable doubt, and not a mere whimsical or
The emphasis, gesture, and inflection of his voice are
fanciful doubt, based on imagined but wholly improbable
potent aids in ascertaining his credibility
possibilities and unsupported by evidence
Cases:
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases
Case 1. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies vs
in every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond
Radio Mindanao Network GR 147039, Jan 27, 2006
reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime charged and the
complicity or participation of the accused. Facts:
Lies with the prosecution because of the presumption that the 11. Respondent Radio Mindanao filed a complaint for recovery of
accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven insuarance proceeds against the petitioner DBP Pool and Provident
The conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecutors insurance pursuant to the Fire Insurance policy issued by the latter
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense to the former.
o Hence, the accused need not even offer evidence on his a. The claims were made due to the fire that ravaged the
behalf, and he would be entitled to acquittal if the respondents radio station in Bacolod City.
prosecution fails to discharge such burden of proof 12. Duringt the trial, the insurance companies argued that the
insurance claims should be denied because it was caused by one of
Quantum of Evidence, if met, is determined by the Courts the excepted risks as provided for the by insurance policy: due to
The issue of whether the degree of proof has been met is left mutiny, riot, popular rising, insurrection, rebellion,
largely to the trial courts to determine revolution, military or usurped power.

a.The insurance company was trying to establish the to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and
fact tha the said 20 men who caused the fire were persuade.
members of the CPP/NPA. Hence, it submitted the
following evidence for the consideration of the Even assuming that the declaration of the alleged 20 armed men as heard
court: by the bystanders may be admitted as evidence, it does not follow that
i. Testimonies of Lt. Torres and SPO3 Rochar such declarations are sufficient proof. These declarations should be
who did the investigation. they have stated in calibrated visavis the other evidence on record. And the trial court aptly
their testimonies that that they were informed by noted that there is a need for additional convincing proof to establish that
the bystanders who saw the 20 heavily armed the cause of the fire was the intentional burning of the radio facilities by
men who caused the fire were members of the NPA the rebels or an act of insurrection, rebellion or usurped power. Evidence
because the said perpetrators shouted Mabuhay that persons who burned the radio facilities shouted Mabuhay ang NPA
ang NPA! but the persons who actually saw the does not furnish logical conclusion that they are member of the NPA or that
burning were not called to the stand their act was an act of rebellion or insurrection. Additional convincing proof
ii. a letter released by the members of the NPA need be submitted.
which states that they were dissatisfied with the
actions of the media in Bacolod, to show that the
NPA takes credit over the burning of the station Defendants failed to discharge their responsibility to present
iii. the police blotter adequate proof that the loss was due to a risk excluded.
13. the RTC rendered a decision in favour of the respondent
ruling that the claims should be granted. Further, when supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the
14. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC trial court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties,
ratiocinating that: which this Court will not review unless there are exceptional
a. The insurance company failed to support its allegations circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case that
that the loss was caused by an excepted riskthat isthe would have impelled the Court to depart from the factual findings of both
members of the CPP-NPA caused the fire. the trial court and the CA.
b. That none of the evidence presented by the insurance
company categorically stated that indeed, the 20 men
were members. They were just suspected or believed Case 2. Encinas v National Book Store GR 162704, November
c. The letter admitting the participation of the CPP-NPA to the 19, 2004
burning is inadmissible in evidence as such is made by a
third person
d. That the utterances of the bystanders, as heard by The issue before this Court is whether petitioners were able to discharge
the investigation team could not be verified as res their burden of proving the superiority of their title over the title of
gestae respondent. The Court of Appeals upheld the initial Decision of the RTC and
found the quantum of evidence presented by petitioners insufficient. A
Issue: Was the petitioner able to sufficiently prove that the burning was review of the evidence reveals no compelling reason to reverse the
caused by one of the excepted risks, specifically, the burning was caused appellate courts ruling.
by the CPP-NPA?
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case
Ruling: No. by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the
weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
Not only are the evidence submitted by the petitioner inadmissible as usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the
evidence, assuming arguendo that they are indeed admissible, they were evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence. Preponderance of
insufficient to prove the fact that the 20 armed men who burned the evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the
station were indeed members of the CPP-NPA. truth.
The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with its It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than
weight and sufficiency. Admissibility of evidence depends on its that which is offered in opposition thereto.
relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains

Respondent as plaintiff was able to overcome the burden of proof and
prove by preponderant evidence that it has a superior right and title to the The intervention of any mistake or the appearance of any
subject property. In contrast, petitioners as defendants seem to rely only weakness in the identification simply means that the accuseds
on the alleged weakness of respondents evidence, without asserting any constitutional right of presumption of innocence until the contrary
proof other than her reconstituted title to the subject property. is proved is not overcome, thereby warranting an acquittal, even if
doubt may cloud his innocence.
From the evidence, respondent derived its title from the title of its vendor,
the Heirs of Simeon Evangelista, via a deed of sale. The Heirs obtained How is positive identity proved (done? Haha)?
their title from their predecessorininterest Simeon Evangelista. Prior to the The Court has distinguished two types of positive identification, namely:
transfer of the title to respondent, the Heirs had sold the subject property (a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to the very
to the Paculdo spouses in whose names another title was issued. All these commission of the act; and
transactions involving the property are welldocumented.30 From the time
respondent obtained the property, it protected its interest therein by (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is
fencing off the property and designating security guards around its last seen with the victim immediately before or after the crime.
perimeter.31 Respondent also exercised its obligation as owner by paying
real property taxes on the property it had acquired, evidenced by tax In the second instance, although a witness may not have actually seen the
declarations issued in its name by the Quezon City Assessors Office.32 very act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify
a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance when
In contrast, petitioner Encinas asserts her right to the subject property via the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim
a reconstituted title, also presented in evidence. However, other than the immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is the
allegation in her Answer to respondents Complaint (for quieting of title) second type of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial
that she is the owner in fee simple of the subject property, petitioner evidence, which, when taken together with other pieces of evidence
Encinas failed to disclose before any of the judicial levels how she was able constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable
to acquire title to the property. conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the
exclusion of all others.
Case 3. People vs Villarico GR 158362, April 4, 2011 ISSUE: In view of this, were the witnesses able to positively identify the
accused so as to support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling: Yes.
(1) the Several accused were charged with the crime of murder of
Haide through shooting him treacherously. The RTC convicted them The established circumstances unerringly show that the four accused were
of homicide and the CA convicted them of murder. Both courts the perpetrators of the fatal shooting of Haide. Their identification as his
gave full credence to the positive identification of the several assailants by Remedios and Francisco was definitely positive and beyond
accused as perpetrators of the crime. reasonable doubt. Specifically, Remedios saw all the four accused near the
(2) Among the contentions of the accused in the present cases door to the kitchen immediately before the shots were fired and recognized
is that the Prosecution witnesses did not actually see who who they were. She even supplied the detail that Gilberto, Jr. had trained
had shot Haide; hence, their identification as the his firearm towards her once he had noticed her presence at the crime
malefactors was not positively and credibly made. scene. On his part, Francisco attested to seeing the accused near the door
to the kitchen holding their firearms right after he heard the gunshots, and
also recognized them.
What is positive identity and how is it important in proving guilt
beyond reasonable doubt? The collective recollections of both Remedios and Francisco about seeing
the four accused standing near the door to the kitchen immediately before
The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to and after the shooting of Haide inside the kitchen were categorical enough,
prove the identity of the criminal, for, even if the commission of the and warranted no other logical inference than that the four accused were
crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof the persons who had just shot Haide.
of the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.22 In that
regard, an identification that does not preclude a reasonable Indeed, neither Remedios nor Francisco needed to have actually seen who
possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force. of the accused had fired at Haide, for it was enough that they testified that
the four armed accused: (a) had strategically positioned themselves by the
kitchen door prior to the shooting of Haide; (b) had still been in the same That the appellant Mejia did not participate in the shooting of the victim de
positions after the gunshots were fired; and (c) had continuously aimed la Cruz does not make him any less a conspirator, because it has been
their firearms at the kitchen door even as they were leaving the crime proved that he acted in concert with his coaccused. He posted himself at a
scene. vantage point, as did his coaccused, as they prepared and waited for the
moment to strike; he fired at Pito just before Capili shot de la Cruz; and he
The close relationship of Remedios and Francisco with the victim as well as fled tog ether with his coaccused from the scene of the crime immediately
their familiarity with the accused who were their neighbors assured the upon its commission.
certainty of their identification as Haides assailants.
Conspiracy can seldom be proved except by circumstantial evidence. The
conduct of the appellant before, during and after the commission of the
crime demonstrates that he was part of the conspiracy,3 the degree of his
Case 4. People vs. Mejia 55 S 453 participation being of no consequence.
Facts: We hold that the crime was committed in pursuance of a proven

conspiracy, and that the appellants direct involvement in the said
(1) Dominador Mejia, Rolando Echalar, Ricardo Garcia and Fidel Capili conspiracy was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
guilty of the crime of murder and found them all guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. The trial court found them all guilty of conspiring
with each other to kill Victoriano Dela Cruz. Case 5. People vs. Matrimonio 215 S 613
(2) The appellant Mejia, thru counsel de oficio, seeks a reversal of the
judgment and a consequent declaration of his innocence on the Facts:
ground of reasonable doubt, stressing his alleged nonparticipation (1) Rowena Matrimonio is a 14 year old girl alleged to have been raped
in the conspiracy that resulted in the killing of Victoriano de la by his natural father, herein accused Manuel Matrimonio.
Cruz, the victim named in the indictment upon which the appellant (2) The first incident of rape led to Rowenas pregnancy. It was only
and his coaccused were convicted. after the second incident of rape that Rowena finally decided to
report what his father was doing to her.
How did the prosecution establish the presence of conspiracy (3) During the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses Rowena,
during the trial? the policeman Martin, and the Medico Legal Officer.
The factual details inculpating the appellant Mejia were On the other hand, the defense presented the accused and
established mainly by the testimony of eyewitnesses: was trying to establish that Rowena consented to the
o Prosecution witness Aurelia de la Cruz who stated that she sexual intercourse saying that they were lovers.
heard one of the accused Echelar Pasok, mga ulol, which On rebuttal, Rowena vehemently denied the allegations of
was a command to his companions to hide; the remark was the accused and that she had never lived together with
intended not for Capili alone, as shown by the use of the him as lovers as the accused is his father; and that the only
plural word mga, nor was the command intended to reason why he yielded to his carnal desires was the
exclude the appellant Mejia because he and Garcia were because of the threats he made.
together near the talipapa. (4) The RTC rendered a decision finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
o The second remark of Rolando, Iyan ang isa, tirahin mo Confronted with the foregoing diametrically opposed versions, the
na, demonstrates the unity of purpose of the four trial court found no difficulty in giving full faith and credit to the
accused, as the remark indicated that they finally had an story of Rowena and in discrediting that of the appellant. The RTC
intended quarry one whom they believed belonged to stated in its decision in the evaluation of the contending evidence
the enemy camp. presented by both parties: (I think important to kaya copy past ko
hehe)
Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, the participation of the Mejia in the crime considering that The evidence of the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable
no one has seen him shoot the victim? doubt that the accused raped his own daughter, Rowena, on
December 27, 1985 and April 5, 1986, intimidating her in both
Ruling: Yes. By circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the Mejia was proven instances to submit to his evil desirethe circumstances of the
beyond reasonable doubt. second rape, being almost identical to those of the first rape.
normally committed in the presence of witnesses. This Court is therefore
The court, in giving credence to Rowenas testimony, it duty bound to carefully scrutinize and closely examine the complainants
stated that: Rowena appeared to the Court as one who has not testimony that the accused indeed committed the crime. Corollarily,
overcome the trauma of her misfortuneand would rather keep to conviction of the accused should not be made to rest on the
herself the ignominy of her sad experience. In fact, the records will uncorroborated testimony of the complainant unless the latters story is
show that she first took the witness stand, the Court had to reset impeccable and rings true throughout, or bears the stamp of absolute truth
the reception of her testimony as she was too reluctant to talk and and candor.
that, when she decided to testify, she cried in open Court
obviously still possessed of the traditional and proverbial modesty
of the Filipina who would not have filed this complaint against her
own father and suffered the torment, if not ignominy, of having to In view of the said principles, considering that the present case
testify in a court of justice about the wrong done to her by her own hinges only on the credibility and believability of the private
father, if in truth she was not really raped. Complainant Rowena, should Rowenas testimony be given full
credence and great weight to support conviction of the appellant?
Hence the present action of the appellant insisting that there was
no rape considering that Rowena consented to the intercourse and Ruling: Yes.
such is implied by the fact that:
(1) Rowena was rather passive, if not submissive to his sexual First Reason: the findings of the lower court as to the credibility of
advances; the witness in rape should be given great deference.
(2) it was highly improbable that her brother and sister, who were
lying beside her, were not awakened by her supposed struggle in the appreciation of the evidence, the appellate court
when the accused stayed on top of her for thirty (30) minutes accords due deference to the trial courts views on who
(3) there was any threat employed by him, the same was not should be given credence4 since the latter is in a better
sufficient to prevent the complainant from resisting since he was position to decide the question of the credibility of witnesses,
unarmed having seen and heard these witnesses and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during trial.
Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt Second Reason: Rowena is credible in view of the following
the guilt of the appellant? considerations:
In the instant case, We could hardly believe that Rowena
Ruling: Yes. would fabricate a story of defloration and charge her father
with two (2) counts of rape unless these were true. At her
A finding of guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree tender age, she needed the company, care and support of a
of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it should not father and mother. She certainly realized that by her
be based on a mere accusation for an accusation is not, according to the accusations, her father would be deprived of his liberty and
fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. thrown into prison to serve a long sentence. She was also
aware that by testifying, she made public a painful and
In evaluating the evidence in cases of rape, this Court has consistently humiliating secret which others would have simply kept to
adhered to the following principles: a) an accusation of rape can be made themselves forever, jeopardized her chances of marriage or
with facility; it is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the person foreclosed the possibility of a blissful married life56 as her
accused, though innocent, to disprove; b) in view of the intrinsic nature of husband may not fully understand the excruciatingly painful
the crime of rape where only two (2) persons are usually involved, the experience which would haunt her.
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
and c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own Conclusion: this being so, the prosecution, through the testimony
merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the of private complainant, was able to prove the elements of rape
evidence for the defense. with intimidation.
In most rape cases, however, the culpability of the offender invariably We sustain the trial court for the prosecutions evidence
hinges on the story of the complainant37 since the crime of rape is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant
intimidated Rowena into consummating the sexual acts with conscience to avenge the death of a dear one by blaming it on persons
him on 27 December 1985 and 5 April 1986. He conveniently whom they believe to be innocent thereof. Relationship per se does not
availed of two (2) forms of intimidation: threats and his give rise to a presumption of ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto impair
overpowering moral influence. With respect to the first the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. It has been correctly
incident, he craftily threatened her during the initial stage by observed that the natural interest of witnesses who are relatives of the
telling her not to shout or else she would be killed; he also victims in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from
threatened the lives of her mother, sister and brothers to implicating persons other than the culprits, for, otherwise, the latter would
force her to yield her honor and privacy when he was already gain immunity. In the absence of illmotive on the part of the witness, and
on top of her. To an innocent girl who was then barely none was shown, relationship between her and the victim does not
fourteen (14) years old, the threat engendered in her a well- undermine her credibility and so [her] testimony is entitled to full faith and
grounded fear that if she dared resist or frustrate the bestial credence.
desires of the appellant, she, her siblings and her mother
would be killed. Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the
victim and is, therefore, subjective. It must be viewed in the Case 7. People vs. Cabiles 248 S 207
light of the victims perception and judgment at the time of
the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast FACTS:
rule. (1) The several accused (Cabiles, Rudy and Rogelio Esparraguerra), were
charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The victim is Violeta
Case 6. People vs. Gondora 265 S 408 Angustia, a fish vendor.
(2) During the trial, the prosecution presented the witness Salvacion,
daughter of the victim who was with her during the incident of the
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in rendering a judgment of crime. She stated during her testimony that:
conviction based on the biased and uncorroborated testimony of witness On that very night, she decided to accompany her mother on
Edma Malinao. We find the contention bereft of merit. The rule is to accord her way home as she was tipsy that night.
much weight to the impressions of the trial judge, who had the opportunity Suddenly, the three accused appeared from nowhere and
to observe the witnesses directly and to test their credibility by their demanded money from Violeta. Rogelio forcibly took the
demeanor on the stand. Although the judgment of conviction was primarily money from her then Cabiles took her mothers arms. Rudy
based on the testimony of Edma Malinao, we do not find any reversible then drew a bolo and hacked Violeta through her neck.
error committed by the lower court in arriving at its findings. The rule is She however, fearing for her life, ran to their home and locked
that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. It has never been herself.
uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a (3) On the other hand, the defense presented the three accused
single witness. trying to establish alibi.
(4) After trial, accusedappellants were found guilty as charged by the court
The inconsistency refers to minor details and has no bearing on the a quo . They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay
credibility of the witness. It is rather immaterial to dwell exhaustively on the heirs of the victim, Violeta Angustia, civil indemnity in the amount
whether the victim was boxed first when the cause of the death of the of P50,000.00.13
victim is the multiple stab wounds inflicted on his person. On this point,
Edma Malinao consistently testified and remained unwavering in her stand Hence, the present action by appellant. They argue that the
that appellant and Totoy Killer, repeatedly stabbed the victim to death. A prosecutions version of the crime at bar incredible. They aver that
certain latitude must be given to whatever minor mistake the witness Salvacions allegationthat she was with her mother during the hacking
might have said about the actual confrontation. For apart from the shock incidentdoes not inspire belief because it would be unwise for them, as
and the numbing effect of the whole incident, the rapidity with which the the alleged assailants, to leave her unharmed if, indeed, she had witnessed
sequence of events took place must have taken its toll on the accuracy of the incident. Further, accusedappellants fault Salvacion for her failure to
the witness' account report the crime to the authorities or seek help from her neighbors that
same evening. Accusedappellants, therefore, insist that Salvacion was not
Malinao is the commonlaw wife of the deceased and her relationship, as around at the time of the incident.
such, adds to the weight of her testimony since she would then be
interested in seeing the real killers brought to justice rather than falsely Issue: Was the trial court correct in giving credence to the testimony of
implicating innocent persons. This Court has held that it is not to be lightly witness Salvacion to support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
supposed that relatives of the deceased would callously violate their
Ruling: Yes. petitioner. This list was signed by petitioner as evidence of her
receipt of the said jewelries. Dr. Santiago also averred that from
Finding of credibility of trial Court is given weight. It is settled that 1980 to 1982, she made payments of various amounts totaling
the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses should not be P95,600.00. She said that the loan was under a white paper
disturbed because the latter is in a better position to decide the question, system where there is no maturity/expiration date and where the
having observed the deportment of the witnesses and their manner of jewelry can be redeemed anytime provided the interests were paid.
testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of value have been plainly that when she returned to the pawnshop to redeem the
overlooked which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case. jewelries, Dra. Francisco was informed by the petitioner
the trial courts assessment on whose story should be believed that they were already sold.
goes beyond what the witnesses declare at the triala privilege (3) On the other hand, the petitioner testified and maintained that
which the appellate court does not usually enjoy. Absent any the real parties to the loan were Dr. Santiago and her daughterin-
compelling reason to overturn the trial courts findings, the same law, Mia Chan. She merely introduced them to one another and it
must be respected. was Mia Chan who signed the acknowledgment receipt and who
actually received the pieces of jewelry. Mia Chan, for her part,
corroborated the testimony of petitioner, her motherinlaw
Salvacion is credible. The probative value of Salvacions testimony is not (4) The RTC rendered a decision in convicting the herein petitioner. The
diminished by her failure to report the incident to the authorities that tragic same was upheld by the CA. both courts ruled that:
evening. What she did after the killing of her mother was an act of self- it was petitioner who extended the loan and who actually
preservation. received the jewelries from Dr. Santiago. Their conclusion
stemmed from the following circumstances:
Considering her relationship with the victim she would be more
interested in securing the conviction of the guilty, and that would a. In a letter she wrote to Fiscal Jumino, one Aurora Jose who
deter her from implicating persons other than the culprits, had allegedly introduced Dr. Santiago to Maria Tin and who
otherwise, the latter would go free. was present when the transaction took place, corroborated
Dr. Santiagos testimony;
Accusedappellants defense of alibi is not worthy of belief. We have b. The signature of appellant [petitioner] appears on the
repeatedly ruled that alibi is a weak defense as it is easy to concoct and document16 acknowledging receipt of the pieces of
fabricate. It becomes weaker in the face of the positive identification of an jewelry;
accused by an eyewitness with no improper motive to falsely testify. c. Receipts evidencing payments made by Dr. Santiago and
which appeared to be signed by the petitioner were not
denied by the latter;
Case 8. People vs. Lorenzo 240 S 624 d. Petitioner did not deny that she sent a note (Exh. M2) to
Dr. Santiago reminding her to update her payments, or else
she would auction the pieces of jewelry.
Case 9. People vs. Rigodon 238 S 27 Issue: was the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt?
Case 10. Tin vs. People 362 S 594 Ruling: No.
Facts:
(1) the petitioner Tin was charged with the crime of Estafa for (1) A careful review of the records, however, reveals that, first, it was
allegedly defrauding Dr. Santiago who entrusted the several pieces erroneous for the Court of Appeals to consider in evidence the
of jewelry as collateral for the loan, under the express obligation of letter which a certain Aurora Jose sent to Fiscal Jumino. Aurora Jose
returning the said pieces of jewelry upon demand for redemption. was never presented to testify on the veracity of said letter, much
(2) During the trial, private complainant Dr. Francisca Santiago less its contents. A private certification is hearsay where the
testified that on February 8, 1980, she and Aurora Jose went to person who issued the same was never presented as a witness.
Madys Pawnshop owned by petitioner to pawn some pieces of (2) Second, the signature appearing in the receipt, Exhibit A,
jewelry. A list of the jewelries was typewritten by a helper of the apparently differs from the specimen signatures provided by
petitioner Maria Tin in open court. But it has striking and obvious
similarities to Mia Chans specimen signatures. The differences and
similarities are so obvious to the eye. They could not be casually
disregarded. Expert handwriting analysis is probably useful here,
but it is not indispensable.
(3) Third, petitioner did not deny that she received payments and
made demands for payment from private complainant. They do not
show, however, that she was the one who extended the loan and
accepted the jewelries. Note that even Mia Chan received certain
payments from Dr. Santiago, as shown by Exhibits 8, 8A, 10
and 10A. A certain Viring also received payment from Dr.
Santiago.24 These instances only prove that a person who received
payments from another is not necessarily the person who extended
the loan.
(4) Fourth, Exhibit M225 which the Court of Appeals considered
proof that petitioner was in possession of the jewelry, deserves
serious scrutiny. Said exhibit was not properly identified or
introduced as evidence at the trial. It was marked as an exhibit
upon mere manifestation of counsel.26 It was not touched upon
during the testimony of the private complainant nor listed in the
list of exhibits for the prosecution,27 hence deemed inadmissible in
evidence.
(5) Fifth, Mia Chans admission, that she was the one who extended
the loan and received the jewelries, deserves weighty
consideration and could not be ignored. That admission is one
against selfinterest, amounting to an incriminatory statement,
which the witness could not have volunteered if not the truth.
(6) Private complainant did not present evidence to substantiate her
claim, other than her self serving testimony. Private complainant
relied on the acknowledgment receipt allegedly signed by
petitioner in the presence of two witnesses. However, the
prosecution did not present Aurora Jose, who allegedly witnessed
the transaction. Nor did it present Mrs. Dava and Mrs. Zuiga who
allegedly accompanied Dr. Santiago when the latter tried to
redeem her jewelries. While nonpresentation of certain witnesses is
not a valid defense nor does it work against the prosecutions
cause, this holds true only if the evidence of the prosecution is
sufficiently strong to overcome the presumption of innocence of
the accused. If the prosecution evidence is not strong, then it
becomes mandatory for the prosecution to present evidence which
can help further its case, or explain why such evidence is not
presented. When the sole testimony of the complainant is met by
an equally credible evidence of the defense, then the prosecution
must present credible corroborative witnesses to buttress its case.
Its failure to present corroborative witnesses, without any
explanation why they were not produced, weakens the testimony
of the witness who named those corroborating witnesses in her
testimony.30 In this case, the prosecutions failure to present the
corroborative witnesses, without any explanation for their non-
appearance, makes private complainants testimony weak.
SECTION 3: EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND RULE 133 SECTION 4 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN
FOR CONVICTION SUFFICIENT
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for

conviction. An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
corpus delicti.
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
Corpus Delicti
means the actual commission of the crime charged must also be (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proved, by evidence independent of the defendants confession proven; and
this does not mean however that every element of the crime must
be clearly established by independent evidence, apart from the (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
confession. It only means that there should be some evidence produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
tending to show the commission of a crime apart from the
confession
o Example: in homicide, aside from the confession of the What is Direct Evidence?
defendant, there should be some independent proof of the Evidence that proves a fact without a need to make an inference
(1) death of the deceased which might have (2) form another fact
resulted from some form of violence Examples:
It must be proven that indeed, a crime has been committed a. Testimony of the witness claiming that he personally saw
the accused when the latter drew his pistol and fired his
pistol on the victim
b. The witness testifying that he saw the accused set the nipa
hut on fire in a case for arson
c. Deed of sale as evidence of the sale
What is Circumstantial Evidence

Which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which
the fact finder draws form the evidence established
Fact is established by making an inference from a previously
established fact
Uses fact from which an assumption is drawn
That which relates to a series of facts other that the fact in use,
which has been found by reason of common experience, to be so
associated with the facts in issue that, relative to the cause and
effect, leads to a satisfactory conclusion
Is that indicia that are separately of little importance may, by their
concordant combination and cumulative effect, satisfy the legal
requirements on the guilt of an accused
When no witnesses can testify directly to the fact to be proved, it is
arrived
Examples:
a. Fingerprints of the accused in the scene of the crime
b. Possession of the stolen property or weapon used
c. Opportunity
d. Motive
Conviction through circumstantial Evidence

Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the
established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent
with each other and the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to
the exclusion of all other hypothesis that he is not. Guidelines:
o It is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in (1) it should be acted upon with caution
many cases, result in setting felons free and denying (2) all the essential fact must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt
proper protection to the community (3) the facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt
(4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
Requisites to convict through circumstantial evidence
(a) There is more than one circumstances; Cases:
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are 6. People v Anticamara GR 178771, June 8, 2011
proven; and 7. People vs. Salvame 270 S 766
8. People vs. Malimit 264 S 167 (supra)
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Facts:
the above circumstance shall constitute an unbroken chain which (1) Malimit was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide of
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused Malaki, a store owner.
and to the exclusion of all other, as the author of the crime. (2) During the trial of the case, the prosecution presented as evidence
the following:
The totality of the circumstances must exclude each and every Rondon, a farmer who arrived at the store of Malaki to buy
hypothesis consistent with innocence. Hence if the totality of the some chemical for his farm. In his testimony, he stated that
circumstances eliminates beyond reasonable doubt the possibility he saw the accused appellant rushing out of the door of the
of innocence, the conviction is proper. store of the victim while holding a bolo with blood.
Batin, the houseboy of Malaki, who testified that when he
It is not a weaker defense, vis-a-vis direct evidence. As to probative went to ask Malaki to the store to ask him what he wanted
value, the Court considered circumstantial evidence of a nature for dinner, he saw Malaki on the floor drenched in his own
identical to direct evidence because no greater degree of certainty blood, and saw the accused appellant also coming out of
is required when evidence is circumstantial as it is direct. In both the store with a bolo
types of evidence, what is required is proof beyond reasonable Both witnesses positively identified the accused appellant.
doubt. The wallet, keys and IDs of the victim Malaki retrieved from
the accused appellant which were allegedly taken by him
It ought to be noted that our rules make no distinction between (3) The accused appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery with
direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which homicide based on the abovementioned evidence submitted.
the existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of Note that the conviction was based on the several
certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution
when it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. hence, the present action by the accused appellant, among all
others, that the evidence presented by the prosecution were
When the circumstances obtaining in a case are capable of two insufficient.
inference, one of which is consistent with the presumption of
innocence whole the other may be compatible with the finding of Issue: Was the trial court correct in convicting the appellant despite the
guilt, the court must acquit the accused because the evidence is absence of direct evidence, and sustaining such decision based on
not sufficient to fulfill the test of moral certainty and, therefore, is circumstantial evidence?
insufficient to support a judgment of conviction

Ruling: Yes. there can be a verdict if conviction based on circumstantial their home. However, they were also able to apprehend the
evidence when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which suspects as they were still in the premises of the residence of Aida.
leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the accused, to the Crawling and/or hiding, trying to flee. The said officers also was
exclusion of all the others, as perpetrator of the crime. able to confiscate knives and blades from the herein accused all
covered in blood. The jewelries and money were also retrieved
from them.
Essential requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to (4) The RTC rendered a decision convicting all the herein accused.
convict: (5) The CA upheld such decision.
(a) there is more than one circumstance; Hence, the present action by the appellants arguing that the prosecution
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt their guilt there being no
are proven; and direct evidence.
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
using all of the circumstantial evidence they have presented?
in the present case, there were at least five (5) circumstances
constituting an unbroken chain of events which by their Ruling: Yes.
concordant combination and cumulative effect, satisfy the
requirements for the conviction of the appellant. These are: Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is that
evidence which proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or
(1) appellant was seen by Rondon and Batin, whose credibilities were inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder. Circumstantial
untarnished, holding a bolo in his right hand and rushing out of evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue. The
Malakis store seconds prior to their discovery of the crime; factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.
(2) Malaki sustained multiple stab wounds and he died of cardiac
arrest, secondary to severe external hemorrhage due to multiple Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial evidence is
stab wounds; sufficient if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
(3) witness Elmer Ladica saw the appellant on August 6, 1991, which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all the
accompanied by some policemen, retrieve Malakis wallet circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
underneath a stone at the seashore in Barangay Hingatungan;
(4) appellant himself admitted in his testimony that on August 6, 1991, It ought to be noted that our rules make no distinction between direct
he accompanied several policemen to the seashore where he hid evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence
Malakis wallet; and of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when
(5) appellants flight and his subsequent disappearance from the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case, the
Hingatungan immediately after the incident. trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the accused.
In the case at bench, we are convinced that the totality of the

9. People vs. Ramos 240 S 191 circumstantial evidence adduced by the People excludes any reasonable
doubt that appellants are innocent. The records indubitably show that
appellants had the opportunity to commit the crime at bench, They arrived
Facts: together and immediately proceeded to the store of victim Aida Sison in
(1) appellants ANGEL FERNANDEZ, MARCO FERNANDEZ, RODOLFO the afternoon of October 26, 1987. By their own admission, they were at
TULAGAN, together with one ALEX RAMOS were charged with the the locus criminis shortly before the tragic incident. They also had the
crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. means to commit the crime. Soon after the killing, appellants Marco and
(2) There was no eyewitness to the crime. Angel were nabbed by the authorities within the compound of the Sison
(3) The evidence for the prosecution was given by Patrolmen DANTE residence. Pat. Crispin Reyes arrested Marco, while Geminiano Bagsik
ASEGURADO and GEMINIANO BAGSIK, DR. LEON RONDILLA, JR., and collared Angel who was still holding the bladed weapon (Exhibit H)
PEDRO who responded to the call and report of a robbery-slaying stained with blood. Rodolfo Tulagan was arrested in the morning, the
incidence in the residence of Aida Sison and her housemaid, following day, near the crime scene, also in possession of a knife.
Avelina Hernandez. They were already lifeless when they arrived at
Significantly, appellants were fleeing when the authorities apprehended RULE 133 SECTION 5 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
them.
Section 5. Substantial evidence. In cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
The timely apprehension of appellants Marco and Angel inside the established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
compound, Angels possession of the dagger stained with blood at the time amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
of his arrest, Rodolfos act of concealing himself from the arresting officers accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
and his foiled attempt to leave the locality the following day, are clear
indicia of said appellants guilt.
When applicable?
Degree of evidence applies to administrative cases, or those cases
filed before administrative and quasi- judicial bodies
10. People vs. Adofina 239 S 67 What Constitutes Substantial Evidence?

Is more than mere scintilla
Relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable,
may conceivable opine otherwise
Why the relaxation in administrative proceedings (not bound by

the strict rules of evidence and procedure)?
To free the administrative boards from the compulsion of technical

rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed
incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the
administrative order
But this assurance of desirable flexibility in administrative
procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a
basis in evidence have rational probative force. Mere
uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute
substantial evidence
6. Ang Tibay vs. CIR 69 P 635
Facts:
(1) The present action is a petition for certiorari by the National Labor
Union for an action before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR)
which denied its motion for new trial. The CIR previously rendered
a decision ruling that Ang Tibay is not guilty of ULP on the ground
of discriminately dismissing the union members. The Union avers
that:
That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair
labor practice for discriminating against the National Labor
Union, Inc., and unjustly favoring the National Workers'
Brotherhood.

That it wishes to introduce newly discovered evidence scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
regarding the falsity of the defense of Ang Tibay that there accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
was indeed lack of supply of leather to justify the discharge
of the 89 union member employees And in the present case: In the light of the foregoing fundamental
principles, it is sufficient to observe here that, except as to the alleged
(the case focused on the issue of the motion of new trial. But for purposes agreement between the Ang Tibay and the National Workers' Brotherhood
of our discussion, here is the issue, regarding the ruling of the CIR in (appendix A), the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a
finding that Ang Tibay is not guilty of ULP) factual ,basis upon which to predicate, in a rational way, a conclusion of
law.
Issue: Was the trial court correct in holding that Ang Tibay is not
guilty of ULP of discriminating against union members? 7. Bascos v Taganahan GR 180666, February 18, 2009
Ruling: Yes. The Union was not able to adduce substantial

evidence to prove the guilt of Ang Tibay for ULP.
8. Fabella vs. CA 282 S 256

We have found no substantial evidence to indicate that the exclusion of the
89 laborers here was due to their union affiliation or activity. The whole
transcript taken contains what transpired during the hearing and is more of
a record of contradictory and conflicting statements of opposing counsel, 9. PAL vs. NLRC 263 S 638
with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views. It is evident that
these statements and expressions of views of counsel have no evidentiary
value.
The CIR is a quasi-judicial body and what the quantum of evidence 10. Villaflor vs. CA 280 S 297
required as basis for its decision is substantial evidence only.
Nature of the Office of the CIR
The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are

specifically stated in the law of its creation. It is more an administrative
board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not
intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike a court of
justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is
invoked and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties
litigant, the function of the Court of Industrial Relations, as will appear from
perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not
only exercises judicial or quasijudicial functions in the determination of
disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more
comprehensive and extensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines,
to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter
controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting, employers and
employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or f armlaborers, and
regulate the relations between them.
WHAT IS THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR DECISIONS

OF THE ADMINSITRATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES?
There must be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the

evidence must be "substantial." "Substantial evidence is more than a mere
Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. The it should be applied whenever the evidence is already full that
court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any more witnesses to the same point could not be reasonable
particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that expected to be more and additionally persuasive.Section 7.
more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected Evidence on motion. When a motion is based on facts not
to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised appearing of record the court may hear the matter on
with caution. affidavits or depositions presented by the respective
parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard
Power of the Court to Stop Further Evidence wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.
since, as a general rule, there is no logical requirements as to the
number and kind of witnesses to prove a material fact, the parties this provision has reference to facts put in issue in a motion, but
are free to call as many witnesses as they may deem convenient to not to facts alleged in the pleadings.
their own interests
it is however, well settled that the court may limit the
number of witnesses upon the main or collateral issue, but Facts alleged in a motion may be proved by affidavits or
its discretion must be exercised with caution considering the depositions, but the court in its discretion, may order that oral
nature of the case, the character of the witnesses, and the state of testimony be presented before itself or before a Commissioner
the proof appointed in accordance with the ROC.

Session 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

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

Session 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Evidence

What is the difference between proof and evidence?

Not all facts connected with the truth or falsity of a

Competent Evidence RULE 129 SECTIONS 1 & 2 JUDICIAL NOTICE

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 3

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 6

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 8

Considering the statutory requirement in Section 335 of the

made in the same case in which it is offered

Is admission same with confessions? (c) other stages of the trial

NO. admissions as applied in criminal cases are avowals of facts

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 13

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 14

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 15

Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused appellant

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 16

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 17

Essential links in the chain of custody of seized illegal drugs

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 20

(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about

JUSTICE ESCAREAL: Ruling: No.

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 26

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 27

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 28

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 29

2. and in perceiving, can make known his perception to

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 30

Insanity Imbecility Deaf mute Under the

2. Disqualification by reason of immaturity

AM NO. 004-07 (Rule on Examination of Child Witness:

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 32

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 33

1. Appellant Dioneda was charged with the crime of rape of a minor, 6

Take note of this difference, because this is the

During the direct examination, AAA stated that when

However, during the cross examination, AAA stated

d. nonetheless, AAA was brought by Dioneda to the 2nd floor

Issue: Should the testimony of AAA still be considered in view of

Ratio: the inconsistencies were immaterial and inconsequential

They could, in fact, be badges of truth for they manifest

As long as the inconsistencies are immaterial or irrelevant to the elements

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 35

Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. During their

Issue: whether the rape committed by the husband against his

Issue: was the trial court correct in disqualifying Victoria, wife of

Ratio and explanation as to what may fall under the exceptions of

In the present case, The act complained of as constituting the crime of

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 38

1. Razon vs. IAC 207 S 234

(1) husband and wife Effect of third persons:

with the view of professional employment

(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 42

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 44

ISSUES: WON Gallerons second memo is libelous. WON Gallerons

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 47

4. Cepeda led the complainant to his bedroom. At the door, Conchita

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 51

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 52

Reason for the rule in civil cases:

2. Trans Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. vs. CA and the