EVIDENCE PRIMER manifested, that other facts will be duly presented at a suitable opportunity before the

case is closed.
BASIC CONCEPTS
Evidence - It is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
2 Kinds of Facts:
1. Ultimate fact (factum probandum)- principal, determinate and constitutive facts
upon the existence of which the plaintiff’s cause of action rests.
 does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which
these material elements are to be established
 proposition to be established, necessarily hypothetical
Multiple Admissibility - When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so
far as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to
satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it offered for another purpose
does not exclude it.
Curative Admissibility - A party has the right to introduce incompetent evidence in his
behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the
adverse party. This is to prevent manifest injustice.
Collateral Matters – matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a
basis merely for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.

2. Evidentiary facts (factum probans) – facts which are necessary for the
determination of the ultimate facts
 Premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
 Brought forward as a reality to convince the tribunal that the factum probandum is
also real
2 axioms of admissibility
1. Only those facts which have rational probative value are admissibile
2. All facts having rational probative value are admissibile unless prohibited by some
specific rule.

Factum probandum Factum probans INSTANCES WHEN PROOF CAN BE DISPENSED WITH
"ultimate facts" "intermediate facts"
Proposition to be established Material evidencing the proposition Instances when proofs can be dispensed with:
Hypothetical Existent 1. Res ipsa loquitur
2. Presumptions
Corroborative evidence - It is additional evidence of a different kind and character 3. Judicial notice
tending to prove the same point. 4. Judicial admissions

Cumulative evidence - It is additional evidence of the same kind and character tending Kinds of presumptions:
to prove the same proposition. 1. Conclusive - which the law does not allow to be controverted
2. Disputable - which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but which may be contradicted
Irrelevant evidence - offered piece of evidence has no probative value and overcome by other evidence

Inadmissible evidence - offered evidence is excluded by some rule of evidence
Incompetent evidence - offered evidence is not qualified under the rules of testimonial
evidence
Immaterial evidence – the offered evidential fact is directed to prove some probandum
which is not proper in issue. The rule of substantive law and of pleading are what
determines immateriality
Judicial Notice – cognizance of certain facts by the court w/o proof because they are
facts, which, by common experience, are of universal knowledge among intelligent
persons w/in a country or community
Requisites of Judicial notice
1. matter of common knowledge
2. well & authoritatively settled and not doubted or uncertain
3. known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the court

Conditional Admissibility – evidence is admissible only in dependence upon other Matters that are judicially noticed (mandatory)
facts. It is received on the express assurance of counsel, when objection is 1. existence & territorial extent of states
2. forms of gov’t and symbols of nationality
3. law of nations
4. admiralty & maritime courts of the world & their seals
5. political constitution & history of the Philippines
6. laws of nature
7. measure of time
8. geographical divisions and political history of the world
9. facts which are of public knowledge
10. facts which are capable of unquestionable demonstration
11. facts which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
Discretionary Judicial Notice
1. matters of pubic knowledge
2. capable of unquestionable demonstration
3. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
Occidental Land Transportation v CA
FACTS : A Ford Fiera and a Carina passenger bus collided. The driver of the Ford
died and 2 passengers were injured. The owner of the bus sued the owner of the
Ford. CFI found the driver of the bus negligent. Nine years later, in a separate civil
case, the CFI ordered the bus owner to pay damages based on facts of the earlier
case “as adopted by reference.”
HELD : As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in
adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of the records of other
cases.
Exception > in the absence of objection, with the knowledge of the opposing party, or
at the request or with the consent of the parties, records of previous case may be
admitted as part of the present case.
State Prosecutors v Muro
Facts: Judge dismissed 11 cases against Mrs. Marcos for violation of CB Circular 960
or the CB Foreign Exchange Restrictions. The dismissal was based solely on
newspaper reports concerning the announcement of the president of the Philippines of
the lifting of all foreign exchange restrictions as embodied in the circular. Judge said
that the announcement had the effect of repealing CB 960.
HELD: Matters of judicial notice have 3 requisites: matter of common knowledge; it
must be authoritatively settled; and known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the
court. Judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial knowledge. The mere personal
knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not
authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally
known, the basis of his action. Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it
becomes effective. A law not yet in force and hence still inexistent, cannot be of
common knowledge capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Judicial Admission – admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case; does not require proof.
Atillo v CA
FACTS : Petitioner filed a collection case against L Petitioner claims that L made a
judicial admission of his personal liability in the answer.
HELD : Petitioner took the admissions out of context. The general rule is that judicial
admissions are conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof.
Exception to the rule is when there is palpable mistake or when no such admission
was in fact made. “Such” means that the statement is not in the sense in which the
admission is made to appear.
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
Object Evidence
Object (Real) Evidence – that which is addressed directly to the sense of the court
without the intervention of a witness, as by actual sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch.
A.K.A autoptic proference.
Documentary Evidence
Documentary Evidence – documents as 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
Original of a document
1. the contents of which are the subject of the inquiry
2. when a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with
identical contents
3. when an entry is repeated in the regular course of the business
Exceptions to the rule that only original documents may be admissible:
1. when the original has been lost or destroyed
2. when the original is in the custody or control of the party against whom it is offered,
and the latter fails to produce it
3. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office
4. when the original consists of numerous accounts or cannot be examined by the
court without great loss of time
Best Evidence Rule
 only original of the document is admissible.
 Merely assures presentation of the original document and bars non-original
documents, etc.. BUT not evidence aliunde or parol evidence
 Refers only to the factum probandum but not to the interpretation of the document.
 Original must be presented first before evidence aliunde may be presented  the rule permits parol evidence to explain an intrinsic ambiguity

 Secondary Evidence- that which shows that better or primary evidence exists as
to the proof of the fact in question.
 It is that class of evidence which is relevant to the fact in issue, it being first
shown that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable
When Secondary Evidence is Admissible
1. original has been lost or destroyed
2. prove the existence or execution of the original
3. prove the cause of the unavailability of the original, is not due to the bad faith of
the offeror.
3 Kinds of Secondary Evidence that may be presented:
1. copy of the writing
2. recital of its contents in some authentic document
3. recollection of witnesses in the order stated
Rules governing admissibility of parol evidence to explain ambiguity
1. where the instrument itself seems clear and certain on its face, and the ambiguity
arises from some extrinsic or collateral matter, the ambiguity may be helped by
parol evidence (latent ambiguity)
2. where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designing the person
or subject-matter, parol evidence of collateral or extrinsic matter may be introduced
for the purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the language used
(intermediate ambiguity)
3. where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of the instrument shows plainly that
something more must be added before the reader can determine what of several
things is meant, the rule is inflexible that parol evidence cannot be admitted to
supply the deficiency (patent ambiguity)
Difference between best evidence rule and parol evidence rule

 Authentic document – merely means that the document should be genuine. It need Best Evidence Parol Evidence
not be a public document Documents All kinds Agreements, contracts,
wills
Parol Evidence Rule
 Forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by What is excluded Secondary evidence; copies Any oral, written evidence
testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing, of the document, other to prove contents; prior/
or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties contempora-neous with
the contract
Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule What is included Only originals
(must be alleged in the pleadings) [F-I-V-E] Exceptions Lost or destroyed; Ambiguity;
1. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent & agreement of the in the possession of the adverse Does not express the true
parties party; or intent of the parties;
2. Intrinsic ambiguity in the possession of a public officer Validity is in question;
3. Validity of the written agreement Subsequent changes
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties Procedure Existence Exception must be put in
Execution issue in the complaint or
To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon the ground of mistake, the Loss answer ( as an affirmative
concurrence of three things is necessary: Contents defense)
1. mistake should be one of fact *objection should be made ASAP
2. mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument Purpose To compel litigants to present only To preserve agreements
3. mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence the originals.
Draft the contract
2 kinds of ambiguities For the parties to always keep the carefully
1. patent (extrinsic) where the instrument on its face is unintelligible originals
2. latent (intrinsic) where the words of the instrument are clear but their application to Go into the interpretation
the circumstances is doubtful of the contents of the
 contract Note: These documents are evidenced by either:
Issue Contents of the writing No issue as to the
contents of the writing (1) official publication thereof; or
Secondary evidence is offered to The purpose of the offer
prove the contents of a writing of parol evidence is to (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by
which is not allowed unless the change, vary, modify, his deputy. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a
case falls under any of the qualify or contradict the correct copy of the original copy, or a specific part thereof, and must be
exceptions terms of a complete under the official seal of the attesting officer or his court.
written agreement which
is not allowed unless the If the record is not kept in the Philippines, in addition to the foregoing
case falls under any of requirements, there must be a certificate that such officer has the custody.
the exceptions
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and
testaments; and
Mactan Cebu Int’l Airport Authority v CA (263 SCRA 736)
Facts : In 1949, the officers of the National Airport Corporation informed the owners of Note: Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof.
various lots surrounding Lahug Airport that the government will purchase their lands or The certificate of acknowledgement is prima facie evidence of the execution
expropriate it. They assured the owners that the properties will be returned when it is of the instrument or document involved.
no longer being used by the airport. O hesitantly sold her lot and she was reassured
that it will be returned. V, before signing the deed of sale, asked for a rider or (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law
certification that the land will be returned to him. The rider was issued. Later, O’s to be entered therein.
grandchildren wanted to repurchase their grandmother’s property. Their request on the
ground that the deed of sale to O did not contain any condition relating to the right to Note: These documents may be proved by:
repurchase (no rider like that of V.)
Held : The Os can repurchase. The right to repurchase can be sufficiently established (a) the original record, or
by parol evidence. Where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the moving cause
of the written contract, and it appears that the written contract was executed on the (b) a copy thereof attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
faith of the parol contract or representation, such evidence is admissible. Proof is appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
admissible if any collateral parol agreement that is not consistent with the terms of the
written contract although it may relate to the same subject matter. The rule excluding (2) Private, consisting of all other writings.
parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far as to preclude the
admission of existing evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol Note: Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence,
agreements between the parties, but such evidence may be received regardless of its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by:
WON the written agreement contains any reference to such collateral agreement and
WON the action is at law or equity. Besides the petitioner made no objection when the (1) Anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
respondent introduced evidence to show the right to repurchase.
(2) Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Classes of Documents
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to
(1) Public, consisting of: be.

(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 A judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
Philippines, or of a foreign country; (1) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
(2) Collusion between the parties; or
(3) Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings
Documents that do not need to be authenticated:
(1) Public documents;
(2) Notarial documents;
(3) Ancient documents
Ancient Document Rule - Where a private document is:
(1) more than 30 years old,
(2) is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and
(3) is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. (Rule 132, Sec. 21)
In what Instances must alterations in documents be accounted for by the producing
party?
(6) terms are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation;
but evidence is admissible to show an otherwise peculiar signification;
(7) written words control printed;
(8) experts & interpreters can be used to explain characters difficult to be deciphered
or language not understood by the court;
(9) when terms were intended in different senses, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he supposed the other understood it;
(10) when different constructions are otherwise equally proper, the one most favorable
to the party in whose favor the provision was made will be taken;
(11) construction in favor of natural right;
(12) instrument may be construed according to usage
Testimonial Evidence
GENERAL RULE: The following are not grounds for disqualification:

(1) The document being produced as genuine has been altered; (1) Religious belief;
(2) The alteration appears to have been done after the execution of the document; (2) Political belief;
(3) The alteration appears to have been in a part material to the question in dispute. (3) Interest in the outcome of the case; and
(4) Conviction of a crime
What explanations are satisfactory so as to make the altered document admissible in
evidence? Exception: When provided for by law.

The producing party must show that the alteration was: Grounds for disqualification enumerated in the Rules on Evidence:
Disqualification by reason of:
(1) made by another; (1) Mental incapacity
(2) made without his (the producing party’s) concurrence; (2) Immaturity
(3) made with the consent of the parties affected by it; (3) Marriage
(4) otherwise properly or innocently made; or (4) Death or insanity of adverse party
(5) such that it did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. (5) Privileged communication

Interpretation of Documents Distinguish between the marital disqualification rule and the privileged marital
 Construction is the process or the art of determining the sense, real meaning, or communication rule.
proper explanation of obscure or ambiguous terms or provisions in a statute,
written instrument or oral agreement, or the application of such subject to the case Marital Disqualification Privileged Marital
in question Disqualification
 Interpretation is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning of
a statute, will, contract or other written document Extent of prohibition Total. All testimony, whether adverse Only confidential
or not, regardless of source. communication.
Rules in the interpretation of documents
(1) legal meaning the writing bears in the place of its execution; Should either spouse YES. Not necessarily.
(2) all provisions must be given effect; be a party?
(3) intention of the parties must be pursued;
(4) a particular intent will control a general intent inconsistent with it; Marriage subsisting at YES. Not necessarily.
(5) circumstances of execution may be shown; time of testimony?
 d. confession is sanctioned by the church to which the priest or religious officer
Who can invoke The affected spouse The other spouse belongs

Operability of the rule Ceases upon death of either spouse, Continues even 6. Public officers
or termination of the marriage. after the Requisites:
termination of the a. confidential communication
marriage. b. made to or obtained by a public officer
c. obtained in the exercise of his public function
d. disclosure of the communication would be detrimental to the public interest
Privileged Communications
Parental and Filial privilege - No person may be compelled to testify against his
1. Marital Confidential communication parents, other direct ascendants, children, or other direct descendants.
Requisites: Notes:
a. spouses are legally married  This provision does not apply to spouses.
b. privilege is claims with regard to a communication, oral or written, made during the  This provision means that you may testify if you want, but you may not be
marriage compelled to testify.
c. said communication was made confidentially  This provision is subject to the qualification in Sec. 215 of the Family Code, i.e. a
d. action or proceeding where the privilege is claimed is not by one against the other descendant may be compelled to testify against parents and grandparents IF the
testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent
3. Attorney-Client Privileged Communication against the other.
Requisites:
a. legal advice of any kind is sought Admissions and Confessions
b. from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such
c. the communications relating to that purpose Admission - It is an act, declaration or omission as to a relevant fact. It may be given
d. made in confidence by a party (in which case Rule 130, Sec. 26 will be applicable) or by a third-party.
e. by the client
f. are at his instance permanently protected Gen. Rule: Confessions of a defendant made to witnesses are admissible against him,
g. from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser but are inadmissible against his co-defendant
h. except that the protection may be waived Exception:
a. confessions on the stand
4. Physicians and clients b. confessions not objected to
Requisites: c. adopted confession
a. civil case d. identical confession
b. person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice e. corroborated confession
medicine, surgery or obstetrics f. confession by conspirator (after conspiracy has been shown & proven)
c. such information was acquired while he was attending to the patient in his
professional capacity Self-serving declaration - a declaration wherein:
d. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and if (1) the testimony is favorable to the declarant;
disclosed, shall blacken the reputation of the patient (2) it is made extrajudicially; and
(3) it is made in anticipation of litigation.
5. Priest and penitent
Requisites: Self-serving declarations are not admissible.
a. clergyman or priest and a penitent
b. confession of a penitential character Requisites for the admissibility of an admission:
c. made to the priest in his professional character (1) must involve matters of fact and not of
 law;
(2) must be categorical and definite; Differentiate the effects of judicial and extrajudicial confessions.
(3) must be knowingly and voluntarily
made; A judicial confession is sufficient in itself to sustain a conviction, even in capital
(4) must be adverse to the admitter’s offenses. On the other hand, an extrajudicial confession is insufficient in itself to
interest sustain a conviction. It must be corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti

Confession - It is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense Requisites for the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions?
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein.
(1) Must involve an express and categorical acknowledgment of guilt (US v. Corales);
Differentiate an admission from a confession. (2) The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense (US v. Flores);
(3) Must have been given voluntarily (People v. Nishishima);
Admission Confession (4) Must have been made intelligently (Bilaan v. Cusi)
(5) Must have been made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel
Definition Statement of fact which does not Declaration (Art III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution)
involve an acknowledge-ment of guilt acknowledging
or liability one’s guilt of the Rules governing extrajudicial confessions:
offense charged
General Rule: :The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon himself
Form May be express or tacit Must be express and is not admissible against his co-accused.

Made by Party or 3rd person Party himself Exceptions:

(1) Interlocking confessions, i.e. extrajudicial confessions independently made without

Cases in which Both criminal and civil cases Usually criminal collusion which are identical with each other in their material respects and
applicable cases confirmatory of the other (People v. Encipido);

(2) If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession by not

questioning its truthfulness (People v. Orenciada);
Differentiate an admission and confession in criminal cases.
(3) Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being
Admission Confession apprised of such confession (People v. Narciso);

Definition Statement by the accused, direct or Acknowledgment (4) If the accused are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed
implied, of facts pertinent to the issue in express terms by one of the accused and said confession is used only as corroborative evidence
and tending, in connection with proof by a party in a (People v. Linde);
of other facts, to prove his guilt criminal case of
his guilt of the (5) Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
crime charged participation by the co-conspirator (People v. Condemena);

(6) Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant (People v. Villanueva);

(7) Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other

Sufficiency to authorize Insufficient. Tends only to establish Sufficient evidence of record (People v. Paz)
a conviction the ultimate fact of guilt.
 Requisites for admission by silence:
Rules on offer of compromise (1) Hearing and understanding of the statement by the party;
(2) Opportunity and necessity of denying the statements;
Civil cases: Not admission of liability; not (3) Statement must refer to a matter affecting his right;
admissible in evidence against offeror (4) Facts were within the knowledge of the party;
Criminal cases: Admissible against (5) Facts admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to
accused as implied admission of guilt the issue (Regalado)
Exceptions:
(1) Quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) Distinguish :
(2) Those offenses allowed by law to be compromised (e.g., Sec. 204, NIRC Self-serving declaration Declaration against interest
of 1977) Not admissible since introduction would open Admissible notwithstanding its
door to frauds and perjuries hearsay character
The following are not admissions of liability or guilt and are therefore not admissible in
evidence: Admission Declaration against interest
Not necessarily against the interest of person Always a declaration against self-
(1) Plea of guilty later withdrawn; who made the admission interest
(2) Unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser offense; May be used although person making the Refers to declaration made by a
(3) Offer to pay or payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned admission is still alive deceased person
by an injury May be used only against the admitter & those Admissible against 3rd persons
identified with him in legal interest
res inter alios acta rule - the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, Hearsay Evidence rule - A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
declaration or omission of another (i.e. a non-party), except in the following instances: personal knowledge.
1. by partner, agent or other person jointly interested with the party Independently relevant statement - It is a statement whose probative value is
Requisites: independent of its truth or falsity. The mere fact of its utterance is relevant,
a. the partnership, agency or joint interest is proven by evidence other than the act or
declaration sought to be admitted 2 kinds of independently relevant statements:
b. the admission is within the scope of the partnership, agency or joint interest (1) Statements which are the very facts in issue;
c. admission was made while the agency, p’ship or joint interest was in existence (2) Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue (Francisco)
2. by conspirator Reasons for Excluding Hearsay
Requisites: 1. irresponsibility of the original declarant
a. conspiracy is first proved by evidence other than the admission itself 2. depreciation of truth in the process of repetition
b. admission relates to the common object 3. opportunities for fraud would open
c. that it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the 4. tendency of such evidence to protect legal inquiries, and encourage the
conspiracy substitution of weaker for stronger proofs.
3. by privies Exceptions to Hearsay Rule
Requisites: 1. Dying declaration
1. Relation of privity between party and declarant; Requisites:
2. Admission was made by the declarant as predecessor-in-interest, while holding title a. death is imminent
to the property; b. declarant is conscious of his impending death
3. The admission was in relation to said property. c. declaration refers to material facts which concern the identity of the deceased or
the accused, the cause & circumstances of the killing
d. declarant would be competent to testify had he survived Spontaneous exclamations Contemporaneous or verbal act
e. any case wherein the subject is his death Res gestae is the startling occurrence Res gestae is the equivocal act
Exclamation may be prior to, simultaneous with Verbal act must be
2. Declaration against interest or subsequent to the startling occurrence contemporaneous with or must
Requisites: accompany the equivocal act
a. declarant would not be available to testify (dead, mentally incapacitated
incompetent etc..) 7. entries in the course of business
b. declaration must concern a fact cognizable by declarant Requisites:
c. circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed a. entrant made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of a
duty
3. Act or declaration against pedigree b. entrant is dead, outside of the Phils. or unable to testify
Requisites: c. entries were made in the ordinary course of business or duty
a. declarant is dead or unable to testify d. entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which it relates
b. pedigree must be in issue e. entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entry
c. declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question f. there must be more than one entry
d. declaration must be made before the controversy occurred – ante-litem motam
4. family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree 8. Entries in official records
Requisites: Requisites:
a. tradition or reputation is one existing in the family a. entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law
b. reputation or tradition was formed ante-litem motam to do so
c. witness testifying to the reputation or tradition is a member of the family b. made in the performance of his duties or by another person in the performance of
a duty specially enjoined by law
5. Common reputation c. the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
Requisites: stated, acquired by him either personally or thru official channels connected with
a. that the matter to which the reputation refers to is of public or general interest and the exercise of his public functions
more than 30 years old
b. that the reputation is one formed in the community interested 9. Commercial lists and the like
c. it existed ante litem motam
10. Learned treatises
6. Part of the res gestae
a. spontaneous exclamations 11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
Requisites: Requisites:
1) the principal fact, the res gestae, must be a startling occurrence a. testimony was rendered in a former case
2) statements must have been made before the declarant had time to contrive or b. identity of parties
devise c. identity of subject matter
3) statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending d. adverse party had opportunity to cross-examine the witness
circumstances e. witness is dead, outside of the Phils., pr unable to testify in the subsequent trial

b. Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts The Opinion Rule

Requisites:
1) conduct characterized by the words must be independently material to the issue The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except in the following cases:
2) conduct must be equivocal
3) words must aid in giving legal significance to the conduct (1) On a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he
4) words must accompany the conduct possesses, that is, when he is an expert thereon;
 (2) Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person, when he has knowledge of
the person or handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or expert witness;
(3) On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently acquainted with the
former or if the latter is an expert witness;
(4) On the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person which he has
observed; and
(5) On ordinary matters known to all men of common perception, such as the value
of ordinary household articles (Galian v. State Assurance Co., Ltd.)
Rules on Character Evidence
GENERAL RULE: Not admissible.
Exceptions:
(a) In criminal cases:
(1) Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2) Prosecution may only prove accused’s bad moral character pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged during rebuttal.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability
of the offense charged.
(b) In civil cases
Evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) Evidence of a witness’ good moral
character is admissible only once such character has been impeached.
Burden of Proof and Presumptions
 matters which need not be proved by a party to an action are:
1. allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues
2. facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they
have been sufficiently alleged
3. those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between parties, as
well as those admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case
4. those subject to judicial notice
5. facts which are legally presumed
6. facts peculiarly w/in the knowledge of the opposite party
What are the rules on impeachment of witnesses?
GENERAL RULE: The party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.
Exceptions:
(1) Unwilling or hostile witness;
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by
the court upon adequate showing of:
(a) his adverse interest,
(b) unjustified reluctance to testify; or
(c) his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.
(Rule 132, Sec. 12)
(2) Witness who is an adverse party;
(3) Officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of
a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
In these instances, such witnesses may be impeached by the party presenting him
in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of
his bad character.
How may an adverse party’s witness be impeached?
(1) By contradictory evidence;
(2) By evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad;
(3) By evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony (a.k.a. “prior inconsistent statements”)

Laying the predicate -
(a) Confronting the witness with the prior inconsistent statements with the
circumstances under which they were made;
(b) Asking him whether he made such statements; and
(c) Giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency. (Rule 132, Sec. 13)
A witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts.
Except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been
convicted of an offense.
Leading question - It is a question which suggests to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires. It is not allowed, except:
1. On cross-examination;
2. On preliminary matters;
3. When there is difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who
is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble-mind, or a deaf-mute
4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
5. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse
party
Misleading question - A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not
yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is
not allowed.
What are the rights of a witness?
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it be to the
very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But
a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense.
Exceptions to the rule against repetition of objections
1. where the question has not been answered, it is necessary to repeat the objection
when the evidence is again offered or the question again asked
2. evidence of the same kind as that previously admitted over objection
3. incompetency is shown later
4. objection refers to preliminary question it must be repeated when the same
question is again asked during the introduction of actual evidence
5. objection to evidence was sustained but reoffered at a later stage of the trial
6. evidence is admitted on condition that its competency or relevance be shown by
further evidence and the condition is not fulfilled, the objection formerly interposed
must be repeated or a motion to strike out the evidence must be made
7. where the court reserves the ruling on objection, the objecting party must request a
ruling or repeat the objection
Distinction between presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt
Presumption of Innocence Reasonable Doubt
Conclusion drawn by law in favor of citizens Condition of mind produced by
proof resulting from evidence in
the case
Evidence introduced by law to be considered by Result of insufficient proof
the court
OFFER AND OBJECTION
Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
When to make offer:
Testimony of a witness - at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence - 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.
Objections:
- Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
made.
- Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
- An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.
- The grounds for the objections must be specified.
When repetition of objection unnecessary. - When it becomes reasonably apparent in
the course of the examination that the questions asked are of the same class as those
to which objection has been made (whether sustained or overruled), it shall not be
necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his Proof beyond reasonable doubt - does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
continuing objection to such class of questions. possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Ruling:

The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless
the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented;
but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the
ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. If the objection
is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of
them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.
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 motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
Tender of excluded evidence:
- If documents or things offered 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.
An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction - unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(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.
Substantial evidence - that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Power of the court to stop further evidence. - The court may stop the introduction of
further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full
that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be
additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution.
Evidence on motion. - When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the
court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective
parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
testimony or depositions.

Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

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 they 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.