OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

Evidence that is addressed to the senses of the court. (Rule 130, Sec.1)

Real or Autoptic proference, in legal parlance, simply means a tribunal's self-perception, or autopsy, of
the thing itself. (Balingit vs COMELEC G.R. No. 170300, February 9, 2007)

Physical evidence is evidence of highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred of witnesses.
(People vs Gapasan, 243 SCRA 53)

1. Direct evidence that can prove directly the fact for which it is offered.
2. Circumstantial
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence "which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an
inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established."
Requisites: (a) there is more than one circumstance;
(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. (People v. Modesto, 134 Phil. 38, 43 (1968))

Requisites for admissibility

1. The object must be relevant.
2. The evidence must be authenticated.
3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence. (Sec. 34, Rule 132)

Categories of object evidence

1. Objects that have readily identifiable marks (unique objects)
e.g., a caliber 45 pistol by virtue of its serial number
2. Objects that are made readily identifiable (objects made unique)
e.g., a typical kitchen knife with identifying marks placed on it by the witness
3. Objects with no identifying martks and cannot be marked (non-unique objects)
e.g., drops of blood (Riano, Evidence at 194-195)

DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but it is referred to as demonstrative because it
represents or demonstrates the real thing (e.i., map, diagram and photograph).

Under the Electronic Rules of Evidence, photographic evidence of events, acts or transactions
shall be admissible in evidence provided that:
(a) It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the court; and
(b) it shall be identified, explained or authenticated by either:
(i) The person who made the revording; or
(ii) Some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof (Sec. 1 Rule 11, Electronic
Rules of Evidence).

The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the
photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were
produced.
 The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of
the original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the
crime.
Photographs can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who
can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
The use of the photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime
is an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. (Sison vs People G.R. Nos. 108280-83 November
16, 1995).

VIEW OF AN OBJECT OR SCENE

When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be viewed by the court. (Sec. 1, Rule 130)

A view disrupts the usual trial process and is time consuming. Hence, in almost all jurisdictions, the trial
judge is granted the discretion to grant or refuse a request for a view. (Hodge vs United Sates, 75 U.S.
App. D.C. 332, 126 F 2d 849,1942)

Inspection may be made inside or outside the courtroom. An inspection outside should be made in the
presence of the parties or at least with the previous notice to them. (Riano, citing Moran)

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes
of written expressions offered as proof of their contents (Rule 130, Sec. 2)

REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

1. The document must be relevant;
2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The document must be authenticated by a competent witness; and
4. The document must be formally offered in evidence.

The rule on evidence provides the procedure on how to present documentary evidence before the
court, as follows:
1. the documents should be authenticated and proved in the manner provided in the rules of court;
2. the documents should be identified and marked; and
3. they should be formally offered to the court and shown to the opposing party so that the latter may
have the opportunity to object thereto. (Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88383, 19 February 1992,
206 SCRA 339, 345).

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Meaning of the Rule
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself. (Rule 130, Sec. 3)

Applicability
Only when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document (Rule 130, Sec. 3)

The best evidence rule cannot be invoked unless the content of the writing is the subject of judcial
inquiry, in which case, the best evidence is the original writing itself. (People vs Bago, 330 SCRA 115)
Meaning of Original Document
1. One the contents of which are the subject of inquiry
2. All such copies executed at or about the same time, and with identical contents.
3. All such entries made and repeated in the regular course of business, at/near the time of the
transaction (Rule 130, Sec. 4)

Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. (Heirs of Severa P.
Gregorio vs CA, 300 SCRA 565)

If the documents or papers to be introduced in evidence were PRODUCED by the use of CARBON
SHEETS, and thereby produced a facsimile of the originals, THEY ARE REGARDED AS DUPLICATE
ORIGINALS, and may be introduced as such, even without accounting for the non-production of the
other originals. (People vs Tan, 105 SCRA 1242)

Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on
the offerors part.
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom it 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.
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
5. When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, secondary evidence is admissible (PNB v.
Olila, 98 Phil 1002)

Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales
invoices, the offeror must prove the following:
1. the existence or due execution of the original;
2. the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and
3. on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be
attributed.
The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. At the sound discretion
of the court, this order may be changed if necessary. (Citibank, N.A. Mastercard vs. Teodoro G.R. No.
150905, September 23, 2003)

Loss/destruction may be proven through the testimony of:

(a) The person or persons who executed it;
(b) The person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or
(c) Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered, or who, after its execution and
delivery, saw it and recognized the signatures, or by a person to whom the parties to the instruments
had previously confessed the execution thereof. (Director of Lands v. CA, G.R. No. L-29575 April 30,
1971)

Requisites for admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody of the adverse
party:
1. Opponents possession of the original
 It is enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or under
his control
2. Reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original
Its not required that the party entitled to custody of the instrument should, on being notified to
produce it, admit having it in his possession.
Secondary evidence is admissible where he denies having it in his possession. The party calling for such
evidence may introduce a copy thereof as in the case of loss.
3. Satisfactory proof of its existence
4. Failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court. (Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs Ferrer, G.R.
No. L-23893, October 29, 1968)

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written agreement by
testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed upon by the parties,
varying the purport of the written contract. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have
been waived and abandoned. (Edrada vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 154413, August 31, 2005)

It seeks to preserve what the parties have reduced in writing and prohibits evidence alliunde or oral
testimonial evidence from being presented to vary the terms of, or add stipulations to, the written
agreement. (Gaw vs. IAC, 220 SCRA 405)
In other words, any oral evidence of an agreement should be excluded when the existing agreement
isalready in writing (Congregations of the Religious of the Virgin Mary vs. CA, 291 SCRA 385)

While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written contracts, it
cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions
which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake. (Dela Rama vs.
Ledesma)

Application of the Parol Evidence Rule

General Rule
When the terms of an agreement (including wills) have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. (Rule 130, Sec. 9)

Parol Evidence Rule DOES NOT APPLY and may not be properly invoked by either party to the litigation
against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the
written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating
in the instrument or the relation established thereby. (Lechugas vs CA, 143 SCRA 335).

When parol evidence may be introduced

1. When a party presents parol evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of a written agreement.
2. Ground/s for presenting parol evidence is put in issue in the pleading.

Grounds for presenting parol evidence

1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement
2. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto
3. Validity of the written agreement
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of
the written agreement.

NOTE: There is an intrinsic ambiguity when writing admits of two constructions both of which are in
harmony with the language used.
Mistake refers to mistake of fact which is mutual to the parties. (BPI v. Fidelity and Surety, Co, G.R. No. L-
26743, October 19, 1927)

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN BEST EVIDENCE RULE & PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Best Evidence rule Parol Evidence rule

The issue is contents of a writing.
Contemplates situation wherein original writing is
not available and/or there is a dispute as to
whether said writing is the original
Prohibits introduction of substitutionary evidence
in lieu of original document regardless of whether
it varies the contents of the original
Applies to all kinds of documents
Can be invoked by any party to an action
regardless of whether or not such party
participated in the writing involved
Best evidence rule seeks to regard the original
document as the best evidence of its contents to
prevent fraud.
There is no issue as to contents of a writing.
Presupposes that the original document is
available in court.
Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written
agreement
With the exception of wills, applies only to written
documents
Can be invoked only when the controversy is
between the parties to the written agreement,
their privies or any party directly affected thereby
(e.g. cestui que trust)
Parol Evidence Rule seeks to preserve the stability
of the terms of written agreement and to remove
the tempatation or possibility of perjury.

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF EVIDENCE

Meaning of authentication
To authenticate a private document means to prove its genuinesness and due execution. (People vs.
Guanson, 372 SCRA 222)

Public and private documents

For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public
documents are:
a. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
b. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private. (Sec. 19, Rule 132)

Public documents are of two classes:

(a) Those issued by competent public officials by reason of their office, and
(b) Those executed by private individuals which are authenticated by notaries public. (Intestate Estate
of Pareja vs. Pareja, 95 Phil. 167).

When public writing requires authentication; proof of private writing

Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
a. by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
b. by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. (Ramos vs CA, 302 SCRA
589)
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (Sec. 20).

A private certification is mere hearsay where the person who issued the same was never presented as a
witness. (People vs Narciso, 262 SCRA 1)

When evidence of authenticity of a private writing is not required (ancient documents)

Under the ancient document rule, for a private ancient document to be exempt from proof of due
execution and authenticity, it is not enough that it be more than thirty (30) years old; it is also necessary
that the following requirements are fulfilled:
1. that it is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and
2. that it is unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion. (Heirs of Demetria Lacsa v. CA,
197 SCRA 234).

How to prove genuineness of a hand writing

May be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of a person because:
(a) He has seen the person write; or
(b) He has seen the writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and
has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person;
(c) By a comparison made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by
the party against whom the document is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
judge. (Heirs of Amado Celestial vs. Heirs of Editha Celestial, 408 SCRA 291)

Public documents as evidence, proof of official records

Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even
against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (Sec.
23, Rule 132)

Public documents are written official acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country.
(Heirs of Ignacio Conti vs CA, 300 SCRA 345)

A private document acquires the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official
record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law. (Monteverde vs People, 387 SCRA 196)

Requisites for a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible in evidence:

1. it must be attesteed by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and
2. it must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice-consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.
(Winvalley Shipping Co. Ltd. vs CA, 342 SCRA 213)

Attestation of a copy
1. Must be made by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy
2. Must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof, as the case may be
3. Must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court
having a seal, under the seal of such court. (Sec. 25, Rule 132)

A certified copy of a public document to be admissible as evidence of the contents of the original must
be a certified literal copy thereof. (Government of the PI vs Martinez, 44 Phil. 817)

Public record of a public document

An authorized public record of a private document may be proved:
1. by the original record, or
2. by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that
such officer has the custody. (Sec. 27, Rule 132)

Proof of lack of record

Proof of lack of record of a document consists of a written statement signed by the officer having
custody of an official record or by his deputy. The written statement must contain the following matters:
1. 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. The written statement must be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody of
official records. (Sec. 28, Rule 132)

How judicial record is impeached

Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
(b) collusion between the parties; or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (Sec. 29, Rule 132)

Proof of notarial documents

Notarial Documents (except last wills and testaments):
(1) May be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima
facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (Rule 132, Sec. 30)
(2) Such notarized documents are evidence, even against 3rd persons, of the facts which gave rise to
their execution and of the date of execution. (Rule 132, Sec. 23)

The certificate of acknowledgement in the notarized document constitutes prima facie evidence of the
execution thereof. (Citibank, N.A vs. Sabeniano, 504 SCRA 378)

Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible
in court without further proof of its authenticity. (Joson vs Baltazar, 194 SCRA 114)
While a public document is vested with the presumption of regularity, this is not a guarantee of the
validity of its contents. (Soriano vs Galit, 411 SCRA 631)

How to explain alterations in a document

To be admissible in evidence, the alteration in the document must be shown:
1. that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence;
2. that the alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;
3. that the alteration was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
4. that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. (Sec. 31, Rule 132)

Documentary evidence in an unofficial language

Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied
with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys
are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (Sec. 33, Rule 132)