EVIDENCE

RULE 128:GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 1. Definition (memorize)

1.a) Factual vs. Legal issues
1.b) Judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative proceedings
 Ong Chia vs. Republic
 Sasan, Sr. vs. NLRC, GR No. 176240, Oct. 17, 2008

Ong Chia vs. Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 127240. March, 27, 2000

FACTS: The trial court granted the petition and admitted petitioner to Philippine
citizenship. The State, however, through the Office of the Solicitor General, among
others for having failed to state all his former placer of residence in violation of C.A. No.
473, §7 and to support his petition with the appropriate documentary
evidence. Petitioner admits that he failed to mention said address in his petition, but
argues that since the Immigrant Certificate of Residence containing it had been fully
published, with the petition and the other annexes, such publication constitutes
substantial compliance with §7.

ISSUE: Whether or not the documents annexed by the State to its appelant’s brief
without having been presented and formally offered as evidence under Rule 132,
Section 34 of the Revised Rules on Evidence justified the reversal of of the Trial Court’s
decision.

HELD: YES. Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. Petition was denied.

RATIO: It is settled that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly
construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. [T]he rule of strict
application of the law in naturalization cases defeat petitioner’s argument of
“substantial compliance” with the requirement under the Revised Naturalization Law.

The reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence which has not been
formally offered is to afford the opposite party the chance to object to their
admissibility. Petitioner cannot claim that he was deprived of the right to object to the
authenticity of the documents submitted to the appellate court by the State.

1.c) Classification of Evidence

material evidence vs. relevant evidence
direct evidence vs. circumstantial evidence
competent evidence vs. incompetent evidence
primary/best evidence vs. secondary evidence
positive vs. negative evidence
expert evidence vs. ordinary evidence
cumulative vs. corroborative evidence
prima facie evidence vs. rebutting evidence
conclusive evidence
 object evidence
documentary evidence
testimonial evidence
1.d) “Factum probandum” vs. “factum probans”
1.e) Construction of the Rules of Evidence
Quiambao vs. C.A., 454 SCRA 17
Barcenas vs. Tomas, 454 SCRA 593
SSS Chemicals Corp. vs. C.A., Feb. 28, 2001

Sec. 2. Scope
2.a) Evidence in Civil cases vs. evidence in criminal cases

Sec. 3. Admissibility of Evidence (memorize)

 PP vs. Valdez, 342 SCRA 25, Sept. 25, 2000
 Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA 699
 Pp vs. Ador 432 SCRA 1, June 14, 2004
 SalcedoOrtanez vs. CA, 235 SCRA III, Aug. 4, 1994
R.A. No. 9372 (Exemption to the anti-wire tapping act, its
requisites)
Bank Secrecy Law vs. Anti-Money Laundering Act
 Pentagon vs. CA, 591 SCRA 160 (2009)
Types of Admissibility
1) Multiple Admissibility of Evidence
 Uniwide Sales vs. Titan Ikeda, G.R. No. 126619. Dec. 20, 2006
2) Conditional Admissibility of Evidence
3) Curative Admissibility of Evidence

Sec. 4. Relevancy of Collateral Matters

Classification of Collateral Evidence
1) Prospectant or antecedent collateral matter
2) Concomitant collateral matter
3) Retrospectant collateral matter
 PP vs. Yatar, May 19, 2004
Admissibility vs. Credibility

RULE 129:WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Sec. 1. Mandatory Judicial Notice (memorize)
 Sienna Realty Corporation vs. Gal-lang (Whether the courts shall
take judicial notice of amendments of the Rules of Court)
 DENR vs. DENR Region 12 Court Employees, 409 SCRA 359
 Mactan-Cebu International Airport vs. Heirs of MarcelinaSero, GR
No. 174762, April 16, 2008
 Suplico vs. NEDA, GR No. 178830, July 14, 2008
 Candido vs. CA, 253 SCRA 78
Sec. 2. Discretionary Judicial Notice (memorize)
 Expertravel and Tours, Inc vs. CA, 459 SCRA 147
 People vs. Tundag, 342 SCRA 704
 State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 236 SCRA 505
 Landbank vs. Wycoco, 419 SCRA 67 (Judicial Notice vs. judicial
knowledge)
  Garcia vs. Garcia-Recio, 366 SCRA 437 (Doctrine of Processual
Presumption)
 Northwest Orient Airlines vs. CA, 241 SCRA 192 (do)
 Laureano vs. CA, 324 SCRA 266 (do)
 PCIB vs. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266 (do)
 City of Manila vs. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413 (Municipal Ordinances)
 Republic vs. Court of Appeals 277 SCRA 633 (Court Records)
 Tabuena vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650
 Jumamil vs. Café, GR No. 144570
 Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 107 SCRA 504 (Post Office Practices)
 Solidbank Corporation vs. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation, 464
SCRA 409 (Banking Practices)
 La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assoc. vs. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1 (Financial
Condition of the Government)
Sec. 3. Judicial Notice, when hearing necessary:
 Landbank of the Philippines vs. Banal, GR No. 143276, July 20,
2004

Sec. 4. Judicial Admission:

Effects and consequences:
 Alfelor vs. Halasan, GR No. 165987, March 31, 2006
 Arroyo Jr. vs. Taduran, 421 SCRA 423
Requisites
 Camitan vs. Fidelity Insurance Corporation, GR No. 1636
 SpsBinarao Vs. Plus Builders, Inc. GR No. 154430, June 16, 2006
 Cuenco vs. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, G.R. No. 174154, Oct.
17, 2008
 Spouses Santos vs. Spouses Lumbao, GR No. 169129, March 28,
2007
 Republic vs. Sarabia, 460 SCRA 142 (2005)
 St. Mary’s Farm vs. Prima Real Property, 560 SCRA 704 (2008)
 People vs. Abello, 582 SCRA 378, (2009)
 Vidar vs. People, 611 SCRA 216 (2010)
 People vs. Villanueva, 629 SCRA 720 (2010)
Averments in the pleadings which are not deemed admissions:
Read Sections 1, 8, 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
 PNB vs. Refrigeration Industries, Inc. G.R. No. 156178, Jan. 20,
2006
 Ramos vs. Spouses Dizon, GR No. 137247, Aug. 7, 2006
 PP vs. Hernandez, GR No. 108028, July 30, 1998
 People vs. Hernandez, GR No. 108028, July 30, 1996
 Silot vs. Dela Rosa , GR No. 159240, Feb. 4, 2008
Sec. 2, Rule 118 of the Rule on Criminal Procedure
Judicial admission vs. extrajudicial admission (Sec. 26, Rule 132)
RULE 130: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

A- OBJECT EVIDENCE
Section 1. Definition of Object Evidence (memorize)
Tests for admissibility:
a) Relevancy
  Tijing vs. CA, March 8, 2001 (facial similarity to prove kinship)
 People vs. Rulepa, March 5, 2003 (appearance to establish age)
 People vs. Ulzoron, March 2, 1998 (absence of marks of physical
violence)
 Abalos vs. CA, Dec. 22, 1999 (absence of gun powder)
Read: Rule of DNA Evidence
b) Competency
Read: Art. III, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“fruit of a poisonous tree doctrine”
Exceptions:
1) customs searches;
2) search of moving vehicles (Caballes vs. CA, 2002; Mustang
Lumber vs. CA, 257 SCRA 430);
3) checkpoints (PP vs. Balingan, GR No. 105834, Feb. 13,
1995)
4) routine airport procedures (PP vs. Johnson, 348 SCRA 526
(2000)
5) seizure of evidence in “plain view” (PP vs. Rolando Aspiras,
Feb. 12, 20012; PP vs. Que Ming Kha et. al, May 29, 2002,
PP vs. Valdez, Ibid; PP vs. Estella, Jan. 21, 2003
6) consented searches (PP vs. Compacion, 2002);
7) Search incidental to a lawful arrest; PP vs. Jerry Ting Uy,
April 11, 2002; PP vs. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621; PP vs. Catan,
Jan. 1992
8) "stop and frisk” situations (PP vs. Salayao, 262 SCRA 255
(1996); PP vs. Malmstedt, 1991); Manalili vs. CA, 1997);
9) Under Exigent and emergency circumstances (PP vs. De
Gracia, 233 SCRA 716)
10) Inspection of buildings and other premises to enforce safety,
sanitary and other building regulations;
11) Searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration,
customs and drug laws (Hizon vs. CA, 1996)
8. Inspection of Buildings
About the plain view doctrine:(PP vs. Valdez, Sept. 25, 2005)

c) Authenticity:
1. Unique objects
2. Made unique
3. Non-unique objects
The Chain of Custody Rule: (Sec. 81(b), R.A. 9165, Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No.1, Series of 2002)
 PP vs. Rivera, GR No. 182347, Oct. 2008
 PP vs. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 2008
 PP vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, Oct. 29, 2008
 Sison vs. People, 250 SCRA 58 (who should identify photograph?)
 Torralba vs. People, 467 SCRA 552 (2005): Proper authentication of
tape recording as an evidence
 Veleroso vs. People, 546 SCRA 450 (2008): Is the presentation of
the firearm in illegal possession thereof indispensable?
  Cacao vs. People, 610 SCRA 636 (2010); the corpus delicti in illegal
possession of firearm

B- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sec. 2. Definition of documentary evidence
Requisites for Admissibility
Definition of documentary evidence under Electronic Evidence Rule
Requisites for admissibility of documentary evidence
 PLDT vs. Tiamson, 474 SCRA 761 (2005); authentication of
computer printout
 Erasusta vs. CA, 495 SCRA 319 (2006); CTC, is it conclusive
evidence of ownership over a parcel of land?
Sec. 3. The Best Evidence Rule (Memorize)
 Arceo vs. People, GR No. 142641, July 17, (2006)
 Magdayao vs. People, 436 SCRA 677
 Consolidated vs. Del Monte Motor, 465 SCRA 117 (2005)
 Gaw vs. Chua, GR No. 160855, April 16, 2008
 Manila Mining vs. Tan, 578 SCRA 577 (2009)
 Nissan vs. United Phil Scout, 618 SCRA 584 (2010)
 Sy vs. CA, 330 SCRA 550
 Marquez vs. Espejo, 629 SCRA 117 (2010)
 People vs. Cayabyab, 465 SCRA 681 (2005)
 People vs. Padilla, 601 SCRA 385 (2009)
 Remierdo vs. People, 603 SCRA 274 (2009)
 Abadiano vs. Martin, 560 SCRA 676 (2008)
 People vs. Dimaano, 469 SCRA 647 (2005)
 Lee vs. People, 440 SCRA662 (2004)
 Llemos vs. Llemos, 513 SCRA 128 (2007)
Sec. 4. What is considered as the original
 BPI vs. SMP, Inc., 609 SCRA 129 (2009)
Sec. 5. When the document is lost, destroyed or unavailable:
Requisites
 Republic vs. Masongsong, 470 SCRA 574 (2005)
 Pacasum vs. People, 585 SCRA 616 (2009)
 Ramos vs. CA, 302 SCRA 589
 Heirs of TeodoroDela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 172
Sec. 6. When the original is in adverse party’s custody or control
Requisites
 Magdayao vs. People (supra)
Sec. 7. When the document consist numerous accounts
Requisites:
 CompaniaMaritima vs. Allied Free Workers Union, 77 SCRA 24
Sec. 8. When Original is a public record
 Republic vs. El Gobierno, 459 SCRA 533 (2005)
Original of document under the Electronic Evidence Rule (Sec. 2,
Rule 4)
* MCC Industrial vs. Ssangyong GR No. 170633, Oct. 17, 2007

Sec. 9.Parol Evidence Rule (Memorize)

  Ortanez vs. CA, 266 SCRA 561
 Allied Banking vs. Cheng Yong, 472 SCRA 101 (2005)
 Leighton Contractors vs. CNP Inductries, 614 SCRA 645 (2010)
 SPS Amoncio vs. Benedicto, 560 SCRA 219 (2008)
 Lechugas vs. CA, Aug. 6, 1986
 ACI Phils. Vs. Coquia, GR No. 174466, Jul. 14, 2008
 Saberola vs. Suarez, GR No. 151227, Jul. 14, 2008
 SeaOil Petroleum Corporation vs. Autocorp Group, G.R. No.
164326, Oct. 17, 2008
 Pilipinas Bank vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 141060, Sept. 29, 2000
 Madrigal vs. CA, 456 SCRA 247
 Ayson, Jr. vs. Paragas, GR No. 146730, July 4, 2008
 Santiago vs. CA, 278 SCRA 98
 Policarpio vs. CA, 194 SCRA 729
 Raymundo vs. Lunaria GR No. 171036, Oct. 17, 2008; about
subsequent agreements
 Estate of Llenado vs. Llenado, 580 SCRA 546 (2009)
Distinctions between BER and PER (Memorize)
Sec. 10-19. Interpretation of Documents:
 Marquez vs. Espejo, 629 SCRA 117 (2010); Interpretation
according to circumstances
C- TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Sec. 20. Qualifications of a witness
 Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Chiong, GR No. 155550, Jan. 31, 2008
Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity
The Rule on the examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-
SC)
Sec. 22. Marital disqualification
 Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72
 People vs. Quidato, Jr 297 SCRA 1
Sec. 23. Dead Man’s Statute Rule
 Tan vs. CA, 295 SCRA 755
 Bordalba vs. CA, 374 SCRA 555
 Santos vs. Santos, 366 SCRA 395
Sec. 24. Privileged communication
 Mercado vs. Vitriolo, 459 SCRA 1
TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege
 In re: Petition for Cancellation, 625 SCRA 66 (2010)
Executive Privilege
 Senate of the Phils. Vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1
 Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286
 Chavez vs. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744 vs. Public Estates, 384 SCRA 152
Other Privileged communications under different laws: (Bank Secrecy
Law, etc)
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Sec. 26. Admission of a party
Judicial vs. Extrajudicial admission
 Lazaro vs. Agustin, 618 SCRA 298 (2010)
 Republic vs. Bautista, GR No. 169801, Sept. 11, 2007
 Sec. 27. Offer of Compromise
 People vs. Dela Cruz 546 SCRA 703 (2008)
 People vs. Galvez, 519 SCRA 521 (2007)
 Tan vs. Rodil Enterprises, 511 SCRA 162 (2006)
Sec. 28. Admission by third party (Res Inter AliosActa Rule)
 Republic vs. Kenrick Development, 498 SCRA 220 (2006): Adoptive
Admission
Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent
Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator
 Tamargo vs. Awingan, 610 SCRA 316 (2010)
 Preagido vs. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 143 (2005)
Sec. 31. Admission by privies
Sec. 32. Admission by silence
 Bughaw vs. Treasure Island, 550 SCRA 307 (2008)
 Office vs. Cunting, 539 SCRA 494 (2007)
 Philippines First vs. Wallen, Phils, 582 SCRA 457 (2009)
 Villanueva vs. Balaguer, 590 SCRA 661 (2009)
Sec. 33. Confession
 PP vs. Tobias, GR No. 114185, Jan. 30, 1997
PREVIOUS CONDUCT
Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence
 Bernales vs. Northwest Airlines, G.R. No. 182395, October 05,
2015
Sec. 35. Unaccepted Offer
TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
excluded
Independent relevant statement
 People vs. Gumimba, 517 SCRA 25 (2007)
 People vs. Malibiran, 586 SCRA 688 (2009)
 Bedol vs. Comelec, 606 SCRA 554, (2009)
 Lea Mer vs. Malayan Insurance, 471 SCRA 698 (2005)
 People vs. Pruna, Oct. 10, 2002
 People vs. Cabintoy, Aug. 21, 1995
 People vs. Roxas, Sept, 10, 2003
 Feria vs. CA, Feb. 15, 2000
Exceptions to the hearsay rule:
Sec. 37. Dying Declaration (Memorize definition and requisites)
 Marturillas vs. People, 487 SCRA 273 (2006)
 Geraldo vs. People, 571 SCRA 420 (2008)
 People vs. Cerilla, 539 SCRA 494 (2007)
 People vs. Tabarnero, 613 SCRA 492 (2010)
Sec. 38. Declaration against interest
 Parel vs. Prudencio, 487 SCRA 405 (2006)
 Cavile vs. Litania-Hong, 581 SCRA 408 (2009)
 Heirs of Ulep vs. Ducat, 577 SCRA 6 (2009)
Sec. 39. Act of Declaration about pedigree
 Nepomuceno vs. Lopez, 616 SCRA 146 (2010)
Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
 People vs. Gallano, GR No. 184762, Feb, 25, 2015
Sec. 41. Common reputation
 Trinidad vs. CA, GR No. 118904, April 20, 1998
Sec. 42. Part of res gestae
 Capilla vs. People, 484 SCRA 276 (2006)
 People vs. Cudal, 506 SCRA 466 (2006)
 People vs. Flores, 602 SCRA 611 (2009)
Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business
 Security Bank vs. Gan, 493 SCRA 239 (2006)
 Aznar vs. Citybank, N.A., 519 SCRA 287 (2007)
 Jose, Jr. vs. Michaelmar, 606 SCRA 116 (2009)
Sec. 44. Entries in official records
 Barcelon vs. CIR, 498 SCRA 126 (2006)
 Fullero vs. People, 533 SCRA 97 (2007)
 Veleroso vs. People, 546 SCRA 450 (2008)
 Alvarez vs. PICOP, 606 SCRA 444 (2009)
 People vs. Quebral, 606 SCRA 247 (2009)
Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the like
Sec. 46. Learned treaties
Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
 Samalio vs. CA, 454 SCRA 653 (2005)
OPINION
Sec. 48. General rule
Sec. 49. Opinion of an expert witness
 China Bankingvs. CA, 528 SCRA 103 (2007)
 Padilla-Rumbaoa vs. Rumbaoa, 596 SCRA 157 (2009)
Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witness
 People vs. Castillo, GR No. 186533, GR No. 186533, Aug. 09, 2010

CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Sec. 51. Character Evidence
 CSC vs. Belagan, 440 SCRA 578 (2004)
 People vs. Lee, GR No. 139070, May 29, 2002

RULE 131- BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

Sec. 1. Definition
Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence
Sec. 2. Conclusive Presumptions (Doctrine of Estoppel)
 Alvarez vs. Tangga-an, GR No. 128568, April 9, 2003
 Eusebio vs. Tan, GR No. 125861, Sept. 09, 1998
Sec. 3. Disputable Presumptions
 Pilipinas Bank vs. Glee Chemical, GR No. 148320

RULE 132 – PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Sec. 1. Examination done in open court

The Judicial Affidavit Rule
The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
Sec. 2. Proceedings to be recorded
Sec. 3. Rights and Obligations of a Witness
Sec. 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness
Sec. 5. Direct Examination
Sec. 6. Cross-examination
Sec. 7. Re-direct examination
Sec. 8. Re-cross examination
Sec. 9. Recalling a witness
Sec. 10. Leading and misleading questions
 PP vs. Cana, GR No. 139229, April 22, 2002
Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness
 Chua Gaw vs. Chua, GR No. 160855, April 16, 2008
Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness
 Gomez vs. Gomez-Samson, GR No. 156284, Feb. 06, 2007
Sec. 13. How witness is impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements
 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Morante, A.M. No. No. P-02-
1555, April 16, 2004
Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of witness
Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence
 Eagleridge Development Corp. vs. Cameron, GR No. 204700, Nov.
24, 2014
Sec. 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

Sec. 19. Classes of documents
 Rosario vs. Limcaoco, GR No. 177392, Nov. 26, 2012
Sec. 20. Proof of private document
 Cercado-Siga vs. Cercado, GR No. 185374, March 11, 2015
Authentication of Electronic document (Rule 5, Electronic Evidence
Rule)
Sec. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document is necessary
 Quintos vs. DBP, GR No. 168258, Aug. 17, 2015 (Exceptions *78)
Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved
 Krystle Realty vs. Alibin, GR No. 196117, August 13, 2014
Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence
 Kummer vs. People, GR No. 174461, Sept. 11, 2013
Sec. 24. Proof of official record
 Del Rosario vs. Limcaoco, Nov. 26, 2012
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state
 Heirs of Gabatan vs. CA, GR No. 150206, March 13, 2009
Sec. 26.Irremovability of public record
Sec. 27. Public record of private document
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record
People vs. Lazaro, GR No. 112090, Oct. 26, 1999
Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached
Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents
Sec. 31. Alteration in document, how to explain
Sec. 32. Seal
Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language
 People vs. Tomaquin, GR No. 133188, July 23, 2004
OFFER AND OBJECTION
Sec. 34.Offer of evidence
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. United Salvage, GR No.
197515, July 2, 2014
 Heirs of Sabanpan vs. Comorposa, G.R. No. 152807, Aug. 12, 2003
Sec. 35. When to make offer
 Heirs of Pedro Pasa vs. Parocha, GR No. 155483, April 27, 2007
Sec. 36. Objection
 Chan vs. Chan, GR No. 179786, July 24, 2013
 PP vs. Siccuan, GR No. 113790, April 11, 1997
Sec. 37. When repetition of objection necessary
Sec. 38. Ruling
 Deutsche Bank Vs. Chua Yok See, GR No. 165606, Feb. 06, 2006
Sec. 39. Striking out an answer
Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence
 Fortune Tobacco vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No.
192024, July 1, 2015

RULE 133- WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Sec. 1. Preponderance of Evidence

 BJDC Construction vs. Lanuzo, GR No. 161151, March 24, 2014
Factors to be considered or weighed by the judge
Equiponderance of evidence (Equipose Doctrine)
 People vs. Benemerito, GR No. 120389, Nov. 21, 1996
Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
 Macayan vs. People, GR No. 175842, March 18, 2015
Leading principles in the determination of the weight of evidence
Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction
 People vs. Dela Cruz, GR No. 174658, Feb. 24, 2009
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient
 People vs. Adrian Guting, GR No. 205412, Sept. 09, 2015
Sec. 5. Substantial evidence
Sec. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence
Sec. 7. Evidence on motion