EVIDENCE * Direct: which proves the facts in dispute without
the any aid of any inference or presumption.
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
- Sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact.
- It must be adduced of all facts on which a party
relies, whether in issue or relevant in issue.
PROOF VS EVIDENCE
- proof is the result or perfection of evidence
- evidence is the means by which proof is
established
- the former is the end result, the latter means to
the end
WHAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE DETERMINES
- relevancy of facts, or what sorts of facts may be
proven in order to established the existence of right,
duty, or liability defined by substantive law.
- proof of facts, that is what sort of proof is to be
given of those facts.
- the production of proof of relevant facts, that is,
who is to give and how it is given.
FACTUM PROBANDUM AND FACTUM PROBANS
- the former = proposition to established: while the
latter = material evidencing the proposition
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
* Relevant: when it has a tendency in reason to
establish the probability or improbability of a fact in
issue; that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
* Competent: when it is not excluded by law in a
particular case.
* Testimonial: testimony of witness, usually on oath
or affirmation, given by his word of mouth in the
witness stand.
* Documentary: consist of writings or any material
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols
or other modes of written expression offered as
proof of their contents.
* Object: which proves the facts in dispute without
the aid of any inference or presumption.
* Circumstantial: proof of facts which, taken
collectively, the existence of the particular fact in
dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable
consequence.
Requisite of Circumstantial Evidence:
1. there is more than one circumstance
2. facts which the inferences are derive have been
established
3. combination of all circumstances is such as to
warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Primary: affords the greatest certainty of the fact
in question.
* Secondary: which is inferior to primary evidence
and shows in its face that better evidence exists.
* Positive: when a witness affirms that a fact did or
did not occur
* Negative: when a witness states that he did not
see or know the occurrence of facts.
* Corroborative: additional evidence of a different
kind and character, tending to prove the same point.
* Cumulative: evidence of the same kind and
character as that already given tending to prove the
same proposition.
* Prima Facie: that which suffices for the proof of a
particular fact, until contradicted and overcome by
other evidence.
* Conclusive: which is incontrovertible.
* Rebuttal: which is given to explain, repel,
counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by
adverse party.
* Sur-rebuttal: when plaintiff in rebuttal is
permitted to introduce new matter, defendant
should be permitted to introduce evidence sur-
rebuttal, and to decline to permit him to do so is
error
* Expert: the testimony if one possessing in regard
to a particular subject or department of human
activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other
persons.
* Substantial: that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion.

SCOPE
- rules shall be same in all courts and in all trial and
hearings EXCEPT as otherwise provided by law or
these rules.
- in civil there is no presumption while in criminal
presumption of innocence attends to the accused
until proven guilty.
- offer of compromise in civil does not amount to
admission of liability, whereas in criminal is an
implied admission.
RULES MAY BE WAIVED
- during trial of the case, if such waiver constitute
public policy then the waiver is void.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
2 REQUISITE:
- RELEVANCY: relevant to the issue
- COMPETENCY: not excluded by the rules
- the admissibility must tend to convince and
persuade and depends upon its practical effect
of inducing belief on the part of the judge trying
the case. Involves credibility of the witnesses
RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE
- when it has such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief as to its existence or non-
existence.
- depend upon its tendency to establish a
controverted facts.
MATERIALITY OF EVIDENCE
- when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as
determined by the rules of substantive law and
pleadings.
- its quality if substantial importance to the
particular issue, apart from its relevancy.
*Arevalo vs Layosa: evidence formally offered
by a party maybe admitted or excluded by the
court. If a party offered documentary or
objective evidence and excluded by court, he
may move or request that it be attached to
form part of the record of the case. IF the
excluded evidence is oral, he may state for the
record the name or personal circumstances of
the witnesses and substance of the testimony.”
COMPETENCY OF EVIDENCE
- when it is not excluded by the law or by the
rules.
- which the very nature of the thing to be prove
requires as the appropriate proof in the
particular case.
* Best Evidence Rule: when the subject inquire
is the contents of the documents, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original
document itself.
* Parole Evidence Rule: when the terms of
agreements are reduce in writing, no evidence
of such term other than the contents of written
agreement; forbids any addition to or
contradiction of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony.
* Hearsay Evidence Rule: witness can only
testify to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge that is derived from its own
perception. It bars testimonies dictated to him
whether oral or in writing.
* Offer of Compromise: in civil case it does not
amount to admission of liability, hence, in
criminal case it is an implied admission.
* Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity
or immaturity:
- those whose mental condition at the time of
their production of examination, is such they are
incapable of intelligently making known their
perception.
- children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of
relating them truthfully.
* Disqualification by reason of marriage:
- during their marriage, neither husband or wife
may testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse.
- EXC: in civil case by one against the other or
criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter descendant or
ascendants. (+)
* Disqualification by death or insanity of adverse
party:
- parties or assignors of parties to a case, or
person whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
against an executor or administrator or other
representative of the deceased, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon claim or demand
against the estate of such deceased or unsound
of mind cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death or became insane.
* Disqualification by reason of privilege
communication:
- the husband or wife during or after marriage
cannot be examined without the consent of the
other as to communications receive in
confidence by one from the other during the
marriage: EXC; stated above (+)
- an attorney, without the consent of its client
be examined as to communications made by
client to him or his advice given thereon in the
course of professional employment.
- a person authorized to practice medicine
cannot in civil case without the consent of the
patient, be examined as to any advice or
treatment given by him
- a minister or priest, without the consent of the
person making confession, cannot be examined
as to any confession made or advice liven by him
- a public officer cannot be examined during his
term of office or afterward, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence.
* Exclusionary provisions in the Constitution:
- obtained in violation against unreasonable
searches and seizures
- privacy of communication and correspondence
- obtained in violation of a person under
investigation
- obtained against right against self-
incrimination.
COLLATERAL MATTERS
- those that are outside the controversy or not
directly connected with the principal matter or
issue in dispute.
- not allowed, however admissible when they
tend in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
- certain circumstances which tend in a natural
or logical manner to fasten guilt upon a person
is considered relevant.
- all doubt should be resolved in favor of
admissibility
FACTS IN ISSUE and FACTS RELEVANT IN ISSUE
Fact in issue are those which h a plaintiff must
prove in order to establish his claim and those
facts which the defendant must prove in order
to establish defense set up by him but only as to
fact allege that are not admitted by the
defendant.
- to determine relevancy: pleadings must be first
looked for ascertaining the issue
Facts relevant to issue are those facts which
render probable existence or non-existence of a
fact in issue, or some other relevant fact.
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
- for one of these purposes it may be
competent, but for another is incompetent, the
normal practice is to admit the evidence only for
the allowable purpose.
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
- evidence of a particular fact hinges upon the
proof of other facts not yet evidenced, and the
party is unable to introduce them both at the
same moment.
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
- if the opponent made a timely objection at the
time the admissible evidence was offered and
his objection was erroneously overrule, the
claim to present similar inadmissible facts would
be untenable since his objection would save
him, on appeal, from any harm which may
accrue. Hence, if hi did not object, this
protection is not extended to him
DIFFERENT WAYS COURT TREAT QUESTION
- admission of inadmissible fact, without
objection, does not justify the opponent in
rebutting by other admissible facts
- the opposite rule, the opponent may resort to
the same inadmissible fact
- intermediate rule, the opponent may reply
with similar evidence whenever it is needed for
removing an unfair prejudice.
CHAPTER II: JUDICIAL NOTICE,
PRESUMPTION AND JUDICIAL
ADMISSION
JUDICIAL NOTICE
- is cognizance of certain facts which judges may
properly take and act without proof because
they already know them. “What is known, need
not to be proved.”
Object:
- to save time, labor and expenses in securing
and introducing evidence and tenor which can
safely be assumed by the tribunal’s general
knowledge.
- judicial notice is limited to the facts evidenced
by public records and facts of general notoriety.
REQUISITE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE:
- matter must be one of common and general
knowledge
- it must be well and authoritatively settled and
not doubtful or uncertain
- must be known to be within the limits of
jurisdiction of the court.
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
* Territorial Extent: all courts of justice are
bound to take judicial cognizance of the
territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by
the government, the laws it administered and
boundaries of the territory
* General History: courts have always and
without exception take judicial cognizance
without proof of those great historical events
which have affected the destiny of our nation or
other nation.
* Forms of Government of States: it relates only
to such governments as have been recognized
by the home government.
* Symbols of Nationality: where the
government has recognized the existence of a
foreign nation, cognizance on the flag and seal
of the nation.
- foreign laws do not prove themselves in out
jurisdiction and courts are not authorized to
take judicial notice to them. Must be alleged
and proved.
* Admiralty courts and their seals: no proof
need be given of the seal of foreign maritime
and admiralty courts.
* Political Constitution and History of the PH:
* Matters relating to legislative department:
when Congress begins and closes its session,
numbers and function. To its legislative
committees and its creation.
* Matters relating to executive department: its
principal officers or appointees; the president
and cabinet members, and all other executive
head.
* Matters relating to judiciary: SC has judicial
notice of its records in a previous case in
connection with the conduct of a litigant or
witness on a similar matter but not to
proceedings in the various courts of justice in
PH. (*******)
* Laws of Nature: familiar and unquestioned
laws of nature and of the existence of facts
which must have happened according to the
constant course of nature.
* Measure of Time: things properly belonging to
Almanac, calendars and its period
* Geographical facts of PH: division of province,
municipalities, barangay, barrios, etc.
DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE
- which are of public knowledge or are capable
of unquestioned demonstration or ought to be
known to judges because of their judicial
function.
* Matters of Public knowledge: the court will
take judicial notice must be a subject of
common and general knowledge, when its
existence or operation is accepted by the public
without qualification or contention.
* Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration: no party would think of
imposing a falsity on tribunal in the face of an
intelligent adversary.
* Matters ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial function:
WHEN HEARING NECESSARY
- during the trial, the court, on its own initiative
or on request of the party
- after the trial and before judgment or on
appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or
on request of the party.
DISTINCTION: during the trial the court may, in
of any matter and hear the parties thereon
while after the trial but before judgment or on
appeal the court may in of any matter and hear
the parties if such matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case.
PRESUMPTION
- they serve to relieve the parties from the
burden of presenting evidence to prove certain
facts
- rule of law that attaches probative value to
specific facts, or directs that an inference be
drawn as to the existence of a fact, not actually
known, arising from its usual connection with
other particular facts
PRESUMPTION v INFERENCE: presumption is a
deduction which the law requires while
inference is one which the fact finder may or
may not draw according to his own conclusion,
the former is mandatory while the latter is
permissible.
Presumption Hominis (of fact)
- those which the experience of mankind has
shown to be valid, founded on general
knowledge and information. Ordinarily classed
with inferences
Presumption Juris (of law)
- whose which the law requires to be drawn
from the existence of established facts in the
absence of contrary evidence on the subject
deductions which the law expressly directs to be
made from particular facts. The only true
presumption.
Conclusive Presumption (juris et de jure)
- a rule of substantive law rather than rule of
evidence.
* Estoppel in pais: arises from the
misrepresentation or concealment of material
facts on the part of the person to be estopped.
A party intentionally or deliberately led another
to believe in a particular thing true, he therefor
cannot claim falsity upon it. Cannot be founded
upon illegal acts, hence, party cannot be
estopped by an act which is illegal and void.
Elements to the party estopped:
- conduct which amount to false representation
or concealment of material facts.
- intention or at least expectation that such
conduct shall be acted upon by the other.
- knowledge, actual or constructive of the real
facts.
Elements to the party claiming estoppel:
- lack of knowledge of the truth and facts in
question
- reliance upon the conduct
- actions is prejudicial to change position
* Estoppel against tenant: tenant is not
permitted to deny title of the landlord at the
time of the commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them. Tenant is
estopped to assert landlords title between them
during relation.
Disputable Presumptions:
- sobrang dami alalahanin ko na lng. Boset.
NO PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OR
ILLEGITIMACY
- of a child born after 300 days following
dissolution of the marriage or separation of the
spouses.
Reason: if the ordinary average duration of
pregnancy is 9months and some days a tardy
birth is not an impossibility or an unusual event,
and neither is it impossible or unusual to have
delayed or retarded conception
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
- is one so made in pleading filed or in the
progress of trial as to dispense with the
introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to
dispense some rules of practice necessary to
observed and complied with. It is conclusive
upon the party making them while other
admission is disputable.
Formal: usually made in writing, such as in
pleadings, stipulation of facts
Informal: made orally in the course of the trial
or proceeding, in affidavit, deposition, pleading
or while on witness stand.
CHAPTER XIII: WITNESSES AND THEIR
QUALIFICATION
TESTIMONIAL DUTY OF CITIZENS
- is to support the administration of justice by
attending its courts in giving his testimony
whenever he is properly summoned. It requires
the attendance of witness cognizant of
materials facts and no unreasonable obstacle
ought to be thrown.
Witness: a person who testifies in a cause or
gives evidence before a judicial tribunal.
Competency: legally fit or ability to be heard on
the trial of a cause.
Persons Qualified to be witnesses: all person
who can perceive and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others may be
witness EXCEPT those disqualified by reason of
mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec 21 Rule
130), by reason of marriage (Sec 22 Rule 130),
by reason of death and insanity of adverse party
(Sec 23 Rule 130), by reason of privilege
communication (Sec 24 Rule 130), and those
excluded by the Constitution.
- loss of perceptive sense after the occurrence
of the fact does not affect admissibility of the
testimony
- a person incapable of perception and
incapable of narration is pro tanto incapable of
testifying.
Person not disqualified to testify: accused,
co0defendant in criminal case, accomplice,
detectives, policemen and other officers,
persons convicted of crime and attorney.
A witness who takes the witness stand is
presumed by grounds of public policy is
competent.
The adverse party has the right and privilege to
object to the examination on the ground of
incompetency to testify. Objection must be
made before he has given any testimony, if it
appears on the trial, it must be interposed as
soon it becomes apparent.
Waiver of Objection: acceptance of
incompetent witness is a matter resting in the
discretion of the litigant, he may assert this right
by timely objection or he may waive it orally or
by silence.
Waiver:
- without objection at the time party knows his
incompetency
- who made the objection owns the witness in
support of his own case
Disinterested Witnesses: a person who has lack
of interest in the case but actively take part in
litigation as a party or witness entails willingness
to commit to the proceeding.
GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION:
MENTAL INCAPACITY: (Sec 21 Rule 130)
- test of competency: if he has the ability to
observe, recollect and communicate the
essentials about which he is called to testify with
accuracy sufficient to make the narration
correspond to the knowledge and the
recollection.
MENTAL IMMATURITY: (Sec 21 Rule 130)
- below 18. In child abuse case a child include
above 18 if found by court unable to fully take
care of himself.
- test of competency: presumed competent
unless court conduct competency test motu
propio or on motion of party when it finds
substantial doubt exist regarding the child
ability.
MARITAL PRIVELEGE: (Sec 22 Rule 130)
- deemed important to preserve the marriage
relation as one of full confidence and affection.
Where consent of other spouse not needed:
- they are against each other in civil case
- that it is not a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other.
Reason: the identity of interest disappears
DEATH OR INSANITY: (Sec 23 Rule 130)
Requisites to be disqualified:
- witness is a party or assignor of a party to a
case
- action against executor or administrator or
other representative of the deceased or
unsound mind
- subject matter is claim or demand against the
estate of the deceased
- his testimony refers to any matter of fact which
occurred before the death or unsoundness of
mind.
PRIVELEGE COMMUNICATION: (Sec 24 Rule
130)
- used to designate any information which one
person derives from another by reason of
confidential relationship existing between
parties.
- husband and wife
- attorney and client
- physician and patient
- clergyman and penitent
- public officer and public interest
HUSBAND AND WIFE
- cannot testify as to communication receive in
confidence without consent of the other except
civil case among the two and in criminal case for
a crime committed by one against the other or
latter’s direct descendant or ascendant.
REQUISITE:
- spouses must be legally married
- said communication was made confidentially
- privilege is claimed with regard to the
communication, oral or written
- if made in the presence of third party = not a
privilege one, but when it is overheard it shall
not cease to be confidential. The third party who
overheard it may testify, but comes into
disclosure on the part of either spouse, he will
become agent of such spouse who cannot
testify without the consent of the other. If
intended for transmission to third person then
not a privilege one.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
- an attorney cannot testify without the consent
of its client as to communication made by client
to him, or his advice given thereon in the course
of view of his professional employment nor his
legal staff’s which they acquire in such capacity.
- necessary to make full disclosure of all facts
and circumstances that go to substantiate his
claim or defense and the law
Requisite:
- there must be attorney-client relationship
- there must be communication of client
- such communication was made the course or
view of professional employment.
- if for unlawful purpose not privilege and then
they partake of the nature of conspiracy, or
attempted conspiracy.
- if communicated in the presence of third
person then not privilege, but if such person is a
n agent of the attorney then it is privilege.
- if overheard, privilege exist if the client did not
notice the presence of the third person.
- only attorney and his agents are covered. Third
person foreign to the relation can testify
- an attorney cannot transfer documents to its
possession to embrace nature of a privilege one.
He may be compelled to testify as whether he
has possession of the documents pertinent to
the case and be compelled to produce in
evidence said documents belonging to his client.
Implied Waiver:
- client’s failure to object attorney’s testimony
- giving evidence to the privilege
communication
- privilege party falls in the hands of adverse
party
- in calling or cross examining his attorney
regarding privilege communication.
PHYSICIAN ANG PATIENT
- cannot testify without consent of the patient as to
any advice or treatment given by him in his
professional capacity
Requisites:
- action in which communication is to be used in civil
case
- there is physician-patient relationship
- information acquired by physician in professional
capacity
- information was necessary for the performance of
his professional duty
- disclosure would tend to blacken patients
character
Privilege can be claimed in civil cases only, while in
criminal case it does not apply for the maintenance
of public order and the life and liberty of the citizens
are deemed important that the purpose for which
the privilege was created.
- the patient may waive this right, his representative
in case of death and the beneficiary of his insurance
policy.
CLERGYMAN AND PENITENT
- cannot testify without the consent in the course of
discipline enjoined by the church to which
clergyman belongs.
- to compel him to testify is equivalent to annulment
of confessional institution, that no one will no
longer make confessions.
- made not in the course of religious discipline but in
contemplation of a crime is not privilege.
PUBLIC OFFICER AND PUBLIC INTEREST
- cannot testify during his term or afterwards as to
communications made to him in official confidence.
Public interest means in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
- those officers only as have responsibility or duty to
investigate or to prevent public wrongs and not
officials in general.
- if it endangers safety of the State then it is
privileged.
- the privilege as to state secrets or information
acquired by public official is subject to this exception
which court may compel disclosure, if such useful
evidence is to vindicate the innocence of an
accused, or lessen the risk of false testimony, or
essential to the proper disposition of the litigation
was greater than injury which could be inure.
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVELEGE
- no person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants/descendants and
children.
- may now be invoked in both civil and criminal cases
when the action is against each other.
OTHER PRIVELEGE MATTERS
Source of News Report: the publisher, editor, or duly
accredited reported of any newspaper, magazine or
periodical of general circulation cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of any news report
or information appearing in said publication which
was related in confidence to them. Unless the court
of House committee of Congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of state.
Trade Secrets: covers formulas of manufacture,
price list and customer’s list. But privilege not
absolute if trial court compel disclosure where it is
indispensable for doing justice.
Bank Deposits: all deposits of whatever nature with
the banks or banking institution in the PH including
investment bonds issued by the Government, its
political subdivision and instrumentalities are
hereby considered absolutely confidential and may
not be examined, inquired or looked into by any
person, government official, bureau and office
except upon written permission of the depositor or
in cases of impeachment or upon order of a
competent court In cases of bribery or dereliction of
duty of public official or in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of
litigation:
- cases of unexplained wealth (Anti-Graft) are similar
to cases of bribery and falls under exception.
CHAPTER XVII: EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
RULE:
- shall be given orally in open court and under oath
or affirmation. To enable toe court to judge the
credibility of the witness by his manner of testifying,
their intelligence and appearance.
Only questions directed to the eliciting of testimony
is relevant and competent to prove, the issue of the
case may be propounded to the witness
He may testify only to those facts he knows of his
own knowledge. Leading questions not allowed
except on preliminary matters or when there is
difficulty in getting direct and intangible answers
from the witness who is ignorant, a child or feeble
minded or a deaf-mute.
If witness incapacitated to speak or question calls
for different mode of answers cannot be given
orally. And still accorded full constitutional rights of
due process.

Deaf-mute must be provided interpreter to inform
him his rights. Absence of this is a denial of due
process.
EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS:
-presumed to be qualified.
Mode: The court shall exercise control over
questioning of children.
- to facilitate in ascertainment of truth
- to ensure question stated are understood by the
child
- protect children from harassment or undue
embarrassment
- avoid waste of time
LIVELINK TELEVISION IN CRIMINAL CASE WHERE
CHILD IS VICTIM OR WITNESS:
- the prosecutor, counsel or guardian ad litem
(guardian for purposes of proceeding) may apply an
ordered that testimony of child be taken in a room
outside courtroom and be televised.
And before guardian shall apply, he must consult the
prosecutor or counsel and shall defer from their
judgment. If guardian is convinced then he may
apply said order and must be filed 5 days before trial
date unless courts finds the need of such an order
was not reasonably foreseeable.
- the judge may motu propio hear and determine
with notice to the parties the need for televised
taking of testimony of the child.
- the judge may question the child in chamber with
the presence of its guardian, prosecutor and
counsel. Issue not related to the trial but the feeling
of the child about testifying.
- the judge may excludes persons even accused
whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child
- the court shall issue an order granting or denying
the live link television stating reasons.
(*******page 485)
OATH
- an appeal by a person of God to witness the truth
of what he declares and an imprecation of Divine
punishment or vengeance upon him if what he says
is false. Conscience and willfully falsifies the truth
AFFIRMATION
- solemn and formal declaration or assertion what
the witness will tell the truth.
Oath and Affirmation should be administered
before the examination in all cases.
Where a witness testifies without having been
sworn, the judgment will be set aside if the error is
not discovered until after the judgment. If party fails
to object to the taking of the testimony without
administration of an oath is he will be deemed have
waived such objection
A witness who is recalled need not to be sworn
again, having been previously sworn in the case.
The taking of testimony is vested in the trial court.
The counsel are allowed to manage, but the court
may propound questions to a witness.
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE:
Sec 2. Parties shall file to the court and serve other
party, personally or by licensed service, not later
than 5 days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference or scheduled hearing.
- JA of the direct testimonies of the witnesses
- documentary or object evidence shall be attached
in their JA’s and marked as Exhibits A.B… and
Exhibits 1.2… in the case of respondents.
- if original documents is desired to keep in his
possession , he may after the same identified,
marked exhibits and authenticated, warrant his JA
that a copy or reproduction attached to such
affidavits.
The constitutional provision against compulsory
self-incrimination or that no person shall furnish
evidence against him relates to criminal proceedings
only and not to civil action.
A witness may not be compelled to answer any
questions which incriminates him or to reply to
which supply evidence by which he will could be
convicted.
Privilege against self-incrimination extends to
inculpatory documents, therefore accused cannot
be required to produce a document in his
possession for use against him.
An accused or a witness may be required to do many
things without having his constitutional rights
against self-incrimination invaded for the purpose
of identification and comparison.
When forfeiture or loss of right is inflicted by
statute of penalty = witness may refuse to give
testimony which may lead him thereto but when
such is privilege is not imposed by penalty he can
invoke this constitutional right.

When be invoked: not to answer which has

tendency to subject him to a penalty for an offense
Where be invoked: at proper time when a question
calling for criminating answer is propounded.

Privilege is personal and must be determined by the

judge. Accused has the right to remain silent and
does not reverse the rule that no inference is to be
drawn against him from such an omission.

Statute granting Immunity: to provide substitute for

the privilege against self-incrimination.
- it gives rise to non-prosecution of criminal action
- the one testifying is not charged criminally
- can still be prosecuted but his testimony cannot be
used against him.

Witness cannot answer question which degrade his

reputation unless it to be the very fact at issue or to
a fact from which the fact at issue would be
presumed. He cannot avoid answering question
material to the issue.

Burden must be shown affirmatively by party

seeking to coerce answer tending to degrade
witness.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Order of Trial in Civil Cases
- plaintiff must produce evidence
- defendant shall offer evidence in support of
his defense, counterclaim, crossclaim and
third party claim
- third party defendant, if any, shall introduce
evidence of his defense, counterclaim,
crossclaim, third part claim
- fourth party ….
- the parties against whom the counterclaim
or crossclaim has been impleaded, shall
introduce their evidence in support of their
defense in order prescribed by the court
- the parties may offer rebutting evidence
only unless the court permits them
- when evidence is concluded unless the
parties agree to submit case without
argument , the plaintiff or his counsel may
make the opening argument, the followed
successively by other parties
- if defendant or third party have separate
defenses, appear by different counsel, the
court must determine their relative ordered
in presenting evidence or argument
- Question which merely suggests to the witness a
Order of Trial in Criminal Cases
- The prosecution shall present evidence to
prove the charge, in proper case, the civil
liability
- The accused may present evidence to prove
his defense and damages if any arising from
the issuance of the remedy in the case
- Parties may then present rebutting evidence
only, unless court permits them to present
additional evidence
- Upon admission of evidence ,the case shall
be deemed submitted for decision, unless
the court directs the parties to argue orally
or submit memoranda
- When accused admits the act or omission
but interposes lawful defense, the order of
trial may be modified.
Order in which witness should be examined
- Direct examination by the proponent
- Cross-examination by the opponent
- Re-direct by the proponent
- Re-cross by the opponent
Direct Examination: is the examination in chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue.
Repetitious Question: question already asked is not
permissible if it is the matter which has been gone
over, but if repetition is necessary for a clear
understanding of essential facts or answer to first
question is not completed, then it may be allowed
in the discretion of court.
Leading Questions: a question which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examining party
desires.
Test: suggestiveness of its substance. IF the
question suggests the answer desired by putting
the words into the mouth of the witness then it is
leading.
Question in alternative form is objectionable,
hence if it is so framed as to suggest the answer, it
is improper as leading. If it directs the attention of
the witness to a desired object of testimony, it is
objectionable but if the effect is to indicate the
witness words which he is desired to employ or to
permit him to adopt the examiner’s word and
version, is leading and objectionable.
Questions that assume unproved facts are leading
and such question not testified to so that the answer
may affirm such facts is leading too.
subject without suggesting an answer or a specific
thing is not leading.
Questions assuming the truth of statements
previously made by the particular witness is
objectionable as leading.
Leading questions not generally allowed on direct
examination. It is supposed that the witness has a
bias or prejudice in favor of the party by and whom
he is called and hostile to his opponent and party
calling the witness may well know beforehand what
his witness can prove or at least what he is expected
to prove.
When leading question are allowed. On direct
examination of a witness on preliminary matters or
when there is difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answer from the witness who is ignorant,
or a child of tender years or is feeble-minded or a
deaf-mute and for the purpose of identifying
particular person or thing or when the witness is the
adverse party for such he is supposed to be a hostile,
biased or unwilling witness.
Preliminary questions: question asked of a witness
at the outset of his direct examination, what is
her/his name, age, civil status, residence and
occupation. No danger because there is no motive.
Discretion of the Court: in reference to the
character of the investigation, the condition and
disposition of the witness.
Party in Civil Action as Witness: a party who
testifies in his own behalf stands upon the same
footing as other witness
Defendant in Criminal Prosecution as Witness:
where defendant takes the witness stand to testify
in his own behalf, he assumes the character of a
witness and entitled to the same privilege and
subject to same treatment.
When Witness may refer to Memorandum: a
witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact provided: 1) that the
memorandum has been written by him or under his
direction; 2) that it was written (a) when the fact
occurred or immediately after (b) at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew the
same was correctly stated. A witness may testify
from such memorandum though he retains no
recollection of the particular facts or the past
recollection recorded.
When Permissible: 1) where the writing is used only
for the purpose of assisting the memory of the
witness, 2) where the witness recollects having seen
the writing before, 3) where the writing in question
is not recognize by the witness as one which he
remembers to have seen before.
Necessity: A witness should not be allowed to see,
consult or refer to a memorandum or writing until
(a) it appears the aid of such memorandum or
writing is necessary on account of his being unable
to testify from memory without it (b) it has been
shown that it was written by himself or under his
direction at the time when the fact occurred or
immediately after.
Memorandum need not be an original writing: if
destroyed or lost it can be notes which has been
copied, made, drawn or extracted from the original
book.
Right to Inspect and cross-examine upon
memorandum: witness not be permitted to refresh
his memory wile on the stand unless the opposing
counsel has the opportunity to cross examine him as
to the method by which he does it. Only by
inspection of the paper that it can be ascertained
whether the memo does assist the memory or not.
Misleading questions: questions which assume as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness or
contrary to that which he has previously stated or
certain answers to have been given to prior
questions, when such answers have not been
misleading. They are not allowed.
CROSS EXAMINATION: is the examination of a
witness by the opposed to the party who called such
witness, the latter having been examine or entitled
to examine the witness in chief.
To elicit something in favor of the cross examining
party, to weaken the force of what the witness has
said in direct testimony and to shat what from his
present demeanor or past life he is unworthy of
belief.
Right to Cross Examine: absolute right; right
granted by the Constitution; that the accused shall
enjoy the right to meet face to face the witness;
right of accused to confront at trial and cross
examine the witness.
If prevented, the direct examination made is
incompetent, but has not been availed, direct
examination will be received.
Gannapo vs CSC: the right does not necessarily
required but merely an opportunity to exercise this
right if desired by the party entitled to it.
When it is privilege: the right ceases where the
cross examinations in chief is apparently concluded
and the attendance of the witness is either
dispensed with from the stand or the re-
examination if any has begun.
Leading question not allowed in direcet
examination, hence can be ask in cross examination
Matters on which witness may be cross examined:
English Rule: a witness once called becomes a
witness for all purposes and may be fully cross
examined upon all matters material to the issue.
Cross examination is not confined to matters
inquired about direct examination.
American Rule: restricts cross examination to facts
and circumstances stated in the direct examination
of the witness or to matters connected therewith
tending to contradict or discredit the witness.
The jurisdiction adopts the American rule where
upon termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross examined by the adverse party
as to any matters stated in the direct examination or
connected therewith.
Matters on which witness may not be cross
examined: generally on facts and circumstances not
brought out in direct examination or in any way
connected therewith, if he wishes to do so then he
shall call the witness in his own behalf.
Witness may be asked to physically demonstrate
matters testified to in chief: when it is proper to
illustrate matters
Witness may be asked to repeat what he testified
in the direct examination: for the purpose not only
of testing the recollection of the witness but for
ascertaining whether he makes a statement at
variance with that he testified to in chief.
Cross Examination of the Accused: a defendant in
criminal action who takes the stand may be cross
examined at least as to any matters testified to upon
his evidence in chief just like any other witness may
be cross examined.
Cross Examination of a party as witness: he may be
compelled to answer all questions which bear
directly or indirectly upon the testimony which he
has given in chief or which test the credibility,
knowledge or recollection of the witness
Cross Examination of own witness: a party cannot
cross examine his own witness but a witness first
called by the stat and later by the defendant may be
cross examined by the state. A party may if such
witness has proved recalcitrant, unwilling, reluctant,
evasive, uncandid, adverse or hostile but cannot ask
question which will discredit the witness.
Cross Examination of an Accomplice: allowed;
examiner should be permitted to test his credibility
of subjecting him to a most searching inquiry as to
any promise of immunity made to him.
Evidence brought out on cross examination is
evidence of the party who called the witness: thus
if cross examinations develops facts that an
agreement testified to on direct was in writing, this
permits the cross examiner to invoke the best
evidence or the parole evidence and move to strike
out all the evidence relating to the subject.
When a witness has right to rest: when a judge sees
that a witness is confused, by a long or irrelevant
cross examination, that his memory seems to have
left him, it is proper exercise of discretion to let the
witness rest for a short time or to send him from the
stand so that he may collect his thoughts and
become composed in the resumption of
examination.
RE-DIRECT, RE-CROSS AND RECALL WITNESS
Re-Direct: limited to matter during direct; further
examination by a party of his own witness after
cross examination to explain or supplement his
answers given during cross examination; to prevent
injustice to the witness and the party who has called
him by affording the opportunity to explain or
amplify the testimony given in cross.
Re-Cross: upon conclusion of re-direct, the adverse
party may re-cross the witness on matters stated in
re-direct and also such matter as may be allowed by
the court in its discretion.
It is excluded when no new matter has been brought
out on redirect especially the matter inquired about
was not disputed or had been testified to on cross.
Recall: after examination of witness of both side has
been concluded, witness cannot be recalled without
the leave of court; refusing or allowing recall not
reviewable in appellate court for there has been no
abuse of discretion unless error goes to the merits
of the case.
IMPEACHMENT:
Judicial Record: records, official entry, or files of the
proceedings in a court of justice or of the official act
of a judicial officer in an action, suit or proceeding.
Purposes for which judgment may be given in EVID:
- Judgment may be offered to prove a fact collateral
to the issue involved in principal case
- Judgment may be offered to show a course of
conduct previously taken by a party to a principal
case.
- Judgment may be offered to show the divesture or
acquisition of certain legal rights through rendition
of the judgment.
- Judgment may be offered in evidence for the
purpose of showing that an issue involved in
principal case was previously adjudicated.
Proof of JR: by the record itself or by a copy thereof.
Impeachment of JR: by evidence of want of
jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer or by
collusion between parties or by fraud in the party
offering the record in respect to the proceeding.
Jurisdiction: of plaintiff or person in whose favor it
was rendered and also defendant or person against
whom it was rendered, hence, void for lack of
jurisdiction.
Collusion: agreement between two persons that
one should institute a suit against the other, in order
to obtain the decision of a judicial tribunal for some
sinister purpose.
Kinds of Collusion: when the facts put forward as the
foundation of the sentence of the court do not exist;
when they exist, but have been corruptly preconcert
for the express purpose of obtaining the evidence.
Fraud: an action to annul based on fraud cannot
prosper unless the fraud be extrinsic or collateral or
unless the fraud refers directly to the jurisdiction of
the court and the facts have not been in controversy
nor resolve in the case.
Extrinsic: the judgment was procured, and not fraud
in the cause of action or matter put in issue and
presented for adjudication.
IMPEACHMENT OF OWN WITNESS:
GR: a party who produces and call witness to
support or prove his case cannot impeach or
discredit witness by evidence of general bad
character.
Impeach: applied to testimony to indicate that it is
erroneous.
Impeach a witness: to all into question the veracity
of the witness by means of evidence offered for that
purpose or the witness is unworthy of belief.
Exception: an unwilling or hostile witness or calls the
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.
= free to contradict witness as if he had been called
by the adverse party.
Requirements for Impeachment under Exception:
- The party must be surprised at the testimony of the
witness sought to be impeached and must exist as a
matter of fact
- Witness failed to testify favorably to the party
calling him.
- When such contradictory statements are admitted
in evidence under proper condition and can only be
considered for the purpose of affecting the
credibility of the witness.
IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY AS A WITNESS:
- The rule that one cannot show prior inconsistent
statements of his own witness does not apply where
a party calls the adverse party to the action as
witness. In order that a party may be deemed an
adverse party under this proposition, he must be
actively seeking a recovery against or opposing a
recovery by, such party or a person for whose
immediate benefit the action was brought or
defended.
Reason: to permit an adverse party to be called as a
witness to prove or to be interrogated concerning
facts materials to the case of the party calling him.
IMPEACHMENT OF INDISPENSABLE WITNESS:
- if either party by law is compelled to call a
particular person to prove any fact, the party calling
him cannot be said to vouch for this witness that law
enforces upon him, and such party is not concluded
by the answers of such witness. He may impeach
him. Where the reason ceases the rule is
inapplicable.
Cross Examination by Adverse party: the fact the a
party called an witness on par (e)(f) of sec 10 rule
132, it does not preclude the adverse party from
cross examining him on the subject matter of his
examination in chief.
IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE WITNESS:
- may be impeach by: contradictory evidence, by
evidence that his general reputation or truth,
honesty and integrity is bad, by evidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent
with his present testimony, by conviction of an
offense, by involving him during cross in
contradictions, by showing impossibility or
improbability of his testimony, by showing bias,
interest or hostile feeling against the adverse
party, and by proving acts or conduct of the
witness inconsistent with his testimony.
Impeachment by Contradictory Evidence: the right
of contradiction exist when the contradictory
evidence tends to disgrace the witness or shows
that he has been guilty of particular wrongful acts.
A witness cannot be impeached by contradicting
him upon collateral matter unless said matters are
relevant to the issue or tend in one way to prove any
issue of fact under inquiry.
Impeachment showing inherent improbability of
testimony: made by him in the direct examination
and showing that it is opposed to physical and
natural facts and laws.
Impeachment by prior inconsistent or contradictory
statements: witness made in prior occasion
statement inconsistent with his statement made on
trial provided such statement is material to the
issue.
A witness cannot be impeached by contradictory
statement unless a proper foundation or predicate
has been laid down by asking him whether he made
such contradictory statement in order to give him
chance to admit, explain or deny it which he has a
right to do so.
Exception to the rule of inconsistent statements: in
the case of dying declarations. Proof of
contradictory or inconsistent statements of the
deceased may be admitted on the same ground
without laying any foundation thereof. Signature of
the deceased subscribing witness is presumptive
evidence of the truth of everything appearing upon
the face of the instrument.
How foundation should be laid if made verbally: if
there is reasonable certainty or if it is clear that the
attention of the witness is called to the conversation
in such manner that it is identified by him.
How foundation should be laid if made in writing:
must be made by showing to the witness the writing
and permit him to inspect it without the necessity of
questioning him in the manner necessary in case of
oral statement.
If counsel has neglected to lay the foundation in the
cross, the court in its discretion, may allow the
witness to be recalled for the purpose.
When impeaching testimony may be offered: when
the witness denies, directly or qualifiedly, that he
made statement or when he neither directly admits
nor denies the making of such statement but states
that he does not remember whether or not he made
it.
Proof of inconsistency: if witness fails to admit the
alleged statement, they may be proved by any
person to whom or in who’s hearing the statement
are made, in writing, the written statement should
be presented as evidence after they were properly
identified if they do not constitute public
documents.
Waiver or Want of Foundation: failure to lay the
usual foundation as preliminary to the proof of
witness variant statements is waived by a failure to
made sufficient objection to the impeaching proof
when offered in evidence.
Effect of impeaching testimony: cannot be
considered as substantive evidence of the truth of
the facts stated;
Impeachment by prior inconsistent conduct: a
witness may be contradicted by his inconsistent
conduct or acts as well as his statements.
Foundation of proof for inconsistent conduct:
variant acts
Impeachment by showing motive: motive means
inducement, cause or reason why a thing is done. It
may be proved that there is an existing motive on
the part of a witness to give testimony against a
party regardless of its truth.
Impeachment by showing bias, prejudice and
hostility:
Hostility may be shown by any competent evidence
obtained through examination of the witness
himself or through testimony of other witnesses.
Prejudice may be shown through specific wrongful
acts.
Impeachment by evidence of particular wrongful
acts: a witness may not be impeached by the party
against whom he called by evidence of particular
wrongful acts for reason that any person can be
supposed ready to defend their general reputation
for veracity, if attacked, but are not prepared at all
times to defend specific act.
Impeachment by showing interest: interest signifies
the specific inclination which is opt to be produced
by the relation between the witness and the cause
at issue in litigation. The payment for testifying is
admissible to impeach his credibility and by showing
his relationship to, or relation with the party calling
him.
Necessity of foundation for proof of bias, interest,
etc.: by calling the attention of the witness to the
particular acts or declarations proposed to prove as
to afford him an opportunity to explain.
Impeachment by showing bad general reputation: a
witness may be credited by evidence attacking his
general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity.
The impeaching testimony must be confined to the
general reputation of the witness as to truth,
honesty and integrity and cannot be impeached by
the direct testimony of the witness as to particular
instances of immoral acts, conducts.
Truth means conformity to fact or reality, honesty
signifies the quality or state of being straight
forwardness of conduct and integrity has been
defined as moral soundness
Place of Reputation: knowledge of his character in
the community or neighborhood in which he resides
or in place where the person is well known and has
established a reputation.

Time of Reputation: time when he testifies

Form of Examination: is a query to whether in the

opinion of the impeaching witness, the witness
under attack is entitled to full credit under oath.

Number of impeaching witness: the court may limit

the number of impeaching witness.

Impeachment of impeaching witness: is by requiring

him to specify the particular rumors or statements
of individuals that have led him to swear to the bad
reputation of the witness and to discredit him by
showing that his knowledge is inadequate.

Evidence of good character: not admissible unless

such character has been impeached.

Distinguished evidence as to character of party and

witness: in the former case character is a fact in
issue or an evidentiary fact affecting a fact in issue
while in the later case character is collateral matter
which does not pertain to the fact in issue but
merely to the weight of the evidence of such
witness.

Impeachment by showing conviction of an offense:

it may be shown to impeach his credibility by an
examination of said witness or by the record of the
judgment itself (there must be a final judgment) .
The conviction must be under the general law.

Commutation of sentence: it does not do away with

the conviction so as to prevent the introduction of
the conviction to test the credibility of the person as
a witness.

Pardon: does not preclude his conviction from being

shown to affect his credibility.

Delay: does not negate the credibility of witness,

especially when delay is satisfactorily explained. It
does not diminish the value of testimony.