EVIDENCE

Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

REMEDIAL LAW – BAR TRENDING

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

17 General Principles
General Principles
6 Environmental Cases Environmental Cases

17 Katarungang Pambarangay Law Katarungang Pambarangay Law

Evidence
207 Evidence
Summary Procedure
1987- 18 Summary Procedure
Rule for Small Claims Cases
2017 6 Small Claims
Special Proceedings
96 Special Proceedings
Jurisdiction
73 Jurisdiction Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure 208 Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure 545

0 200 400 600

EVIDENCE
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

6 Judicial Notice and admissions

7 Object evidence

21 Offer and objection

1987-2017 30 Documentary Evidence

31 General Principles

Testimonial Evidence 112

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
judicial notice and admissions Object (real) evidence
Offer and objection Documentary Evidence
General Principles Testimonial Evidence

Read:

(1) Rule on Examination of Child Witness (A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC)

 Applicability: Unless otherwise provided, the Rule shall govern the examination of
child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime.
It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving
child witnesses (Sec. 1).
 2

 Meaning of “child witness” -- A child witness is any person who at the time of giving
testimony is below the age of 18 years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over
18 years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect
himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition (Sec. 4[a]).

 Competency of a child witness -- Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.

However, the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu propio
or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the
stability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court (Sec. 6).

 Every child of sound mind with the capacity to perceive and make known his
perception can be believed in the absence of any showing of an improper
motive to testify. Once it is established that the child fully understands the
character and nature of an oath, the testimony is given full credence (People of
the Philippines v. Edison Magbitang, G.R. No. 175592, 14 June 2016).

 Proof of necessity -- A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of

necessity of competency examination. The age of the child by itself is not a sufficient
basis for a competency examination (Sec. 6[a]).

 Burden of proof -- To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the

burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence (Sec. 6[b]).

 Persons allowed at competency examination – Only the following are allowed to attend a
competency examination:
(a) The judge and necessary court personnel;
(b) The counsel for the parties;
(c) The guardian ad litem;
(d) One or more support persons for the child; and
(e) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully
evaluated in his absence (Sec. 6[c]).

 Conduct of examination -- Examination of a child as to his competence shall be

conducted only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions
to the judge that he may, in his discretion, ask the child (Sec. 6[d]).

 Developmentally appropriate questions -- The questions asked at the competency

examination shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child;
shall not be related to the issues at trial; and shall focus on the ability of the child to
remember, communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood, and appreciate
the duty to testify truthfully (Sec. 6[e]).

 Continuing duty to assess competence -- The court has the duty of continuously
assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony (Sec. 6[f]).

 Examination of a child witness -- The examination of a child witness presented in a

hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open court. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the
answers of the witness shall be given orally. The party who presents a child witness
 3

or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may, however, move the court to
allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule (Sec. 8).

 The trend in procedural law is to give a wide latitude to the courts in

exercising control over the questioning of a child witness. Under Sections 19
to 21 of the Rules on Examination of a Child Witness, child witnesses may
testify in a narrative form and leading questions may be allowed by the trial
court in all stages of the examination if the same will further the interest of
justice (People of the Philippines v. Rene Santos, G.R. No. 172322, 8 September
2006).

 A child of tender years may be asked leading questions under Section 10 (c),
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Section 20 of the 2000 Rule on Examination of
a Child Witness also provides that the court may allow leading questions in
all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of
justice. This rule was formulated to allow children to give reliable and
complete evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage them to testify in
legal proceedings and facilitate the ascertainment of truth (People of the
Philippines v. Cerilo Ilogon, G.R. No. 206294, 29 June 2014).

 Live-link TV testimony of a child witness

(a) The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the
testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised
to the courtroom by live-link television. Before the guardian ad litem applies for
an order under this section, he shall consult the prosecutor or counsel and shall
defer to the judgment of the prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of
applying for an order. In case the guardian ad litem is convinced that the
decision of the prosecutor or counsel not to apply will cause the child serious
emotional trauma, he himself may apply for the order. The person seeking such
an order shall apply at least five (5) days before the trial date, unless the court
finds on the record that the need for such an order was not reasonably
foreseeable.

(b) The court may motu propio hear and determine, with notice to the parties, the
need for taking the testimony of the child through live-link television.

(c) The judge may question the child in chambers or in some comfortable place other
than the courtroom, in the presence of the support person, guardian ad litem,
prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The questions of the judge shall not be
related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about testifying in the
courtroom.

(d) The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, whose presence or
conduct causes fear to the child.

(e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-link television
and stating the reasons therefor. It shall consider the following factors:
 the age and level of development of the child;
 his physical and mental health, including any mental or physical disability;
 any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced by him;
 4

 the nature of the alleged abuse;

 any threats against the child;
 his relationship with the accused or adverse party;
 his reaction to any prior prior encounters with the accused in court or
elsewhere;
 his reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed with him
by parents or professionals;
 specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to
testifying;
 testimony of expert or lay witnesses;
 the custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of his
family regarding the events about which he will testify; and
 other relevant factors, such as court atmosphere and formalities of court
procedure.

(f) The may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if
there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from
testifying in the presence of the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case
may be. The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the completeness or
truthfulness of the testimony of the child.

(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link television:

(i) The child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in the presence
of the guardian ad litem; one or both of his support persons, the facilitator
and interpreter, if any; a court officer appointed by the court; persons
necessary to operate the closed-circuit television equipment; and other
persons whose presence are determined by the court to be necessary to the
welfare and well-being of the child;
(ii) The judge, prosecutor, accused, and counsel for the parties shall be in the
courtroom. The testimony of the child shall be transmitted by live-link
television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the judge,
prosecutor, counsel for the parties, accused, victim, and the public unless
excluded.
(iii) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial, the court may
allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying
the accused, or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by
observing the image of the latter on a television monitor.
(iv) The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the
testimony that it finds just and appropriate, taking into consideration the best
interests of the child.
(v) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape, digital disc, or
other similar devices which shall be made part of the court record and shall
be subject to a protective order as provided in Section 31(b).

 Videotaped deposition of a child witness

(a) The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may apply for an order that a
deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and
preserved on videotape. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under
this section, he shall consult with the prosecutor or counsel subject to the second
and third paragraphs of section 25(a).
 5

(b) If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial, it
shall issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by
videotape.

(c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. Objections to
deposition testimony or evidence, or parts thereof, and the grounds for the
objection shall be stated and shall ruled upon at the time of the taking of the
deposition. The other persons who may be permitted to be present at the
proceeding are:
 The prosecutor;
 The defense counsel;
 The guardian ad litem;
 The accused, subject to subsection (e);
 Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to
the welfare and well-being of the child;
 One or both of his support persons, the facilitator and interpreter, if any;
 The court stenographer; and
 Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment.

(d) The rights of the accused during trial, especially the right to counsel and to
confront and cross-examine the child, shall not be violated during the deposition.

(e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to testify in
the physical presence of the accused, the court may direct the latter to be
excluded from the room in which the deposition is conducted. In case of
exclusion of the accused, the court shall order that the testimony of the child be
taken by live-link television in accordance with section 25 of this Rule. If the
accused is excluded from the deposition, it is not necessary that the child be able
to view an image of the accused.

(f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and stenographically recorded.

The videotape and the stenographic notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of the
court where the case is pending for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the
record.

(g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that it finds
just and appropriate, taking into consideration the best interests of the child, the
constitutional rights of the accused, and other relevant factors.

(h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be subject to a protective
order as provided in section 31(b).

(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a reason
stated in section 25(f) of this Rule, or is unavailable for any reason described in
section 4(c), Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may admit
into evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his testimony at
the trial. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons therefor.

(j) After the original videotaping but before or during trial, any party may file any
motion for additional videotaping on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The court may order an additional videotaped deposition to receive the newly
discovered evidence (Sec. 27).
 6

 Hearsay exception in child abuse cases

A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, not
otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any
criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
(a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent shall make known
to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to
provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is available, the court shall,
upon motion of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the
presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party.
When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by
the proponent.

(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider
the time, content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of
reliability. It shall consider the following factors:
 Whether there is a motive to lie;
 The general character of the declarant child;
 Whether more than one person heard the statement;
 Whether the statement was spontaneous;
 The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant
child and witness;
 Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant
child;
 The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
 The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason
to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the
accused.

(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
 Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness,
or will be exposed to sever psychological injury; or
 Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.

(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted
only if corroborated by other admissible evidence (Sec. 28).

 Sexual abuse shield rule

 Inadmissible evidence: The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal
proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
(a) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; and
(b) Evidence offered to prove the sexual pre-disposition of the alleged victim.

 Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim

to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or
other physical evidence shall be admissible. A party intending to offer such
evidence must:
(a) File a written motion at least fifteen (5) days before trial, specifically
describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered, unless
the court, for good cause, requires a different time for filing or permits filing
during trial; and
 7

(b) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least three (3)
days before the hearing of the motion.

 Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing in chambers
and afford the child, his guardian ad litem, the parties, and their counsel a right
to attend and be heard. The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed
and remain under seal and protected by a protected order set forth in section
31(b). The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except
with his consent (Sec. 30).

 Protective Orders
(a) Protective order -- Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part of the court
record shall be under a protective order that provides as follows:
 Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their their counsel, their expert
witness, and the guardian ad litem.
 No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any person mentioned
in subsection (a) to any other person, except as necessary for the trial.
 No person shall be granted access to the tape, its transcription or any part
thereof unless he signs a written affirmation that he has received and read a
copy of the protective order; that he submits to the jurisdiction of the court
with respect to the protective order; and that in case of violation thereof, he
will be subject to the contempt power of the court.
 Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made available to the
parties, their counsel, and respective agents shall bear a cautionary notice
that the object or document and the contents thereof are subject to a
protective order issued by the court.
 No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person except as
ordered by the court.
 Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all copies of the tape and any transcripts
thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping unless the
period is extended by the court on motion of a party.
 This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further order
of the court (Sec. 31 [b]).

(a) Additional protective orders

The court may, motu propio or on motion of any party, the child, his parents,
legal guardian, or the guardian ad litem, issue additional orders to protect the
privacy of the child (Sec. 31(c).

(2) Rule in DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)

 Meaning of DNA
 “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in
every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique
for the individual, except identical twin. (Sec. 3 [b], A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC).

 Who may issue a DNA testing order

 The appropriate court, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any
person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. (Sec. 4)
 8

 The Rule on DNA Evidence does not preclude the conduct of DNA testing,
without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law
enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.

 Conditions of issuance
(1) Due notice and hearing; and (2) a showing that:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA
testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but
the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that
is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.

 Contents of DNA testing order

If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 have been complied with, the
court shall –
(a) Order that biological samples be taken from any person or crime scene
evidence;
(b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the
integrity of the biological sample, the testing process and the reliability of the
test results, and
(c) Issue an order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to witness the
DNA testing to be conducted if there not enough samples for confirmatory
testing of the other party (Section 5).

 The court my order that the result of the DNA testing be simultaneously released to
the parties. (Section 5).
 N.B.: An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not
be appealable.
 Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the
implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an injunctive order (Section 5).
 The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be
obtained as a result thereof.

 Post-conviction DNA testing; remedy

 Court order is not required.
 This remedy is available to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and
executory judgment provided that:
(a) a biological sample exists;
(b) such sample is relevant to the case; and
(c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the
judgment of conviction (Section 6)

 Remedy if the results are favorable to the convict

 File a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin. A similar
petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or
with any member of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or
remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.
 9

 In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to be meritorious, it shall
reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the
convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause. (Section 10).

 Factors considered in the assessment of probative value of DNA evidence:

(a) The chain of custody (i.e., handling and collection biological samples; possibility of
contamination of the samples)
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance
with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-
setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
(d) The reliability of the testing results

 N.B.: If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory
in forensic casework and credibility must be properly established (Section 7[b])
 The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence
shall apply suppletorily in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence
(Section 7, par. 2).

 In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should

consider, among others things, the following data: how the samples were
collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests (People of the Philippines v.
Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, 9 May 2002).

 In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter
alia, the following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were
handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed
in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were
followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests (People of the Philippines v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, 19 May
2004).

 Evaluation of DNA Testing Results; Factors

(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of
mismatching DNA evidence;
(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence
presented in the case; and
(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive
proof of non-paternity (Section 9).

 If the value of the Probability of Paternity < 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing =
corroborative evidence.
 If the value of the Probability of Paternity > 99.9% or higher = there shall be a
disputable presumption of paternity (Section 9[c]).

 DNA Testing Orders in paternity and filiation suits

 In Lucas v. Lucas (G.R. No. 190710, 6 June 2011), the Supreme Court felt the need
to supplement Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence and ruled that since a
 10

DNA Testing Order could indeed be likened to a “search,” it is proper that

during hearings on motions for DNA testing, the movant must present prima facie
evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.

 Evaluation of the Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology; Factors

(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or
technique can be and has been tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific
community;
(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the
correctness of data generated;
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in
comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical
calculations used in comparing DNA profiles (Section 8)

(3) Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)

 Scope -- The Rules on Electronic Evidence (“REE”) apply whenever an electronic

document or electronic data message is offered or used in evidence (REE, Sec. 1).

 Meaning of electronic document

 “Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information,
data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or
however represented:
(e) by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or
(f) by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.

 It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by

sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document. Under the REE, the term “electronic document” is
interchangeably with “electronic data message.” (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[h]).

 An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original

document under the Best Evidence Rule, as long as it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, showing to reflect the data accurately. (Rule 4,
Section 1, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)

 Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be

considered as the functional equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost be an "electronic data message" or an
"electronic document” (MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation,
G.R. No. 170633, 17 October 2007).

 “Electronic data message” refers to information generated, sent, received or

stored by electronic, optical or similar means. (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[g]).

 Meaning of “electronic signature”

 11

 “Electronic signature” refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound

in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or
logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or
any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed
or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or
approving an electronic data message or electronic document. An electronic
signature includes digital signatures.. (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[j]).

 Evidentiary weight of electronic documents

 Electronic evidence is considered as the functional equivalent of paper-based
documents. Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document,
record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall
include an electronic document (REE, Rule 3, Sec. 1)
 The electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately (REE, Rule 4, Sec. 1).
 Factors for assessing evidentiary weight:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or
communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures,
controls, tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data
message or document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any
relevant agreement;
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is
recorded or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer
programs or software used as well as programming errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
(e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the
communication and information system upon which the electronic data
message or electronic document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or
integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message. (REE, Rule 7,
Sec. 1).

 Integrity of an information and communication system

In any dispute involving the integrity of the information and communication system
in which an electronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored, the
court may consider, among others, the following factors:
(a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was
operated in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document,
and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the
information and communication system;
(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the
proceedings with interest adverse to that of the party using it; or
(c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and
ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings
and who did not act under the control of the party using it. (REE, Rule 7, Sec. 2).

 Method of Proof
All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic
document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records (REE, Rule 9).
 12

 The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on
the matters contained therein (REE, Rule 9, Sec. 1).
 The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court and
may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the adverse party (REE, Rule 9,
Sec. 2).

 Authentication of Electronic Documents

 Manner of authentication: Before any private electronic document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the
following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have
signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be
authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic
documents were applied to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the
judge. (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 2).

 Proof of electronically notarized document: a document electronically notarized in

accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be
considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the
Rules of Court. (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 2).

 Authentication of Electronic Signatures

 An authenticated electronic signature under the REE is admissible in evidence as
the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document. (REE, Rule
6, Sec. 1).
 An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital
signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness
of the electronic signature. (REE, Rule 6, Sec. 2).

 Business records as exception to the hearsay rule

 “Business records” include records of any business, institution, association,
profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for
profit, or for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[b]).

 Inapplicability of the hearsay rule --- A memorandum, report, record or data

compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses made by
electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and
kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the
regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation
by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony
of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on
hearsay evidence. (REE, Rule 8, Sec. 1).

 However, the hearsay rule may be applied to business records as defined under
the REE by presenting evidence of the untrustworthiness of:
 the source of information;
 13

 the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage

thereof. (REE, Rule 8, Sec. 2).

 Audio, photographic, video and ephemeral evidence

 Audio, video and similar evidence shall be proven:
(a) by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal
knowledge thereof.
(b) In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence
may be admitted.
(c) If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic
document, then the provisions of Rule 5 on authentication of electronic
documents shall apply.

 “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text

messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.(REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[k]).
 Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to
the same or has personal knowledge of them. x x x As the recipient of those
messages sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession, [PO3 Cambi] had
personal knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify on them
(People v. Noel Enojas, et al., G.R. No. 204894, 10 March 2014).
 The transcript of text messages is considered ephemeral electronic
communications. Ephemeral electronic communications are now admissible
evidence, subject to certain conditions. “Ephemeral electronic communication”
refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the
evidence of which is not recorded or retained. It may be proven by the testimony
of a person who was a party to the communications or has personal knowledge
thereof.

Under Section 1, Rule 11 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, audio, photographic and video
evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be
shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person
competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. (Ella Bartolome v. Rosalie Maranan,
A.M. No. P-11-2979, 18 November 2014).

 Text messages have been classified as ephemeral electronic communication

under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and shall be
proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal
knowledge thereof (Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P, 9 September
2005).

(4) Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

 Scope- The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings and
incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
(a) The Metropolitan Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal
Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari’a Circuit
Courts;
 14

(b) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari’a District Courts;
(c) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the
Shari’a Appellate Courts;
(d) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to
receive evidence, including the IntegratedBar of the Philippines (IBP); and
(e) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are
subject to the disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing
rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule

Note: The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall not apply to small claims cases under
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC.

 Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits- The parties shall file with the
court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service,
not later than five (5) days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:
(a) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such
witnesses' direct testimonies; and
(b) The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached
to the judicial affidavits (Sec. 2, Judicial Affidavit Rule).

 Contents of Judicial Affidavits (Sec 4, Judicial Affidavit Rule)

(a) Prepared in the language known to the witness (The Judicial Affidavit shall
be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino if not prepared in a
language other than English or Filipino);
(b) Name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(c) Name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination
of the witness and the place where the examination is being held;
(d) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully
conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability
for false testimony or perjury;
(e) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively
numbered that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts
upon which he testifies;
(2) Facts relevant to the issues;
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence
(4) Establish the authenticity of the documentary and object evidence in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
(f) Signature of the witness over his printed name;
(g) Jurat with signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an
officer who is authorized by law to administer the same.
(h) Sworn Attestation of the lawyer who conducted or supervised the
examination of the witness, to the effect that:
a. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he
asked and the corresponding answers of the witness(es); and
b. Neither the lawyer nor other person then present or assisting him
coached the witness regarding the latter’s answer.

 Effect of False Attestation- a false attestation shall subject the erring lawyer to
disciplinary action, including disbarment.
 15

 Examination of the witness on his Judicial Affidavit- The adverse party shall
have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the
exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents the witness may also
examine him as on re-direct.

 Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule expressly excludes from its application
adverse parties and hostile witnesses. For the presentation of these types of
witnesses, the provisions on the Rules of Court under the Revised Rules of
Evidence and all correlative rules including the modes of disposition and
discovery rules shall apply (Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No.
214054, 5 August 2015).

 Application of Judicial Affidavit Rule to Criminal Actions (Sec. 9, Judicial

Affidavit Rule): The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
(a) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(b) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the
penalty involved; or
(c) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved
are (Sec. 9).

 The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not
later than five days (5) before the pre-trial, serving copies if the same
upon the accused (Sec. 9).
 If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the
judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit
his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses within ten (10) days
from receipt of such affidavits. These affidavits shall serve as direct
testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear before the
court to testify (Sec. 9).

 Effect of non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule (Sec 8, Judicial

Affidavit Rule):
o Failure to submit the required Judicial Affidavits:
 Deemed to have waived their submission
 The Court, may, however, allow only once the late submission of
the same provided: (a) the delay is for a valid reason, (b) the delay
would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and (c) the
defaulting party pays a fine of not less than Php1,000 but not more
than P5,000, at the discretion of the Court.

o Failure of the witness to appear at the Scheduled Hearing:

 The witness’ judicial affidavit shall not be considered.
o Failure of the counsel to appear without valid cause despite notice:
 The counsel is deemed to have waived his client’s right to
confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.
o Failure of the Judicial Affidavits to conform to the content and
attestation requirements:
 The Judicial Affidavit shall not be admitted as evidence.
 The Court, may, however, allow only once the subsequent
submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the
hearing or trial provided: (a) the delay is for a valid reason, (b) the
delay would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and (c) the
 16

defaulting party pays a fine of not less than Php1,000 but not more
than P5,000, at the discretion of the Court.

(5)Guidelines to be observed by the Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the conduct of
Pre-Trial and use of Deposition-Discovery Measures (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC)

 Purposes:
o To abbreviate court proceedings;
o To ensure prompt disposition of cases and decongest court dockets; and
o To further implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated 15 January 1999.

 One-Day Examination of Witness Rule- A witness has to be fully examined in

one (1) day only. This rule shall be strictly adhered to, subject to the courts’
discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-
examination for justifiable reasons.
o On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is require to make his
formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his las witness and the
opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto.

 Most Important Witness Rule- Determine the most important witnesses to be

heard and limit the number of witnesses. The facts to be proven by each witness
and the approximate number of hours per witness shall be fixed.

(6) Pilot Rules for Preliminary Conference and Trial on the Issues (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

 Scope- These Pilot Rules for Preliminary Conference and Trial on the Issues shall
apply to all civil actions in certain first and second level courts that have not yet
undergone pre-trial.

 Rule 22. Preliminary Conference

o Appearance of parties- It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsels
to appear at the preliminary conference (Section 22.6).
o When non-appearance may be excused – (1) for a valid cause shown or (2) if
the party is represented by another person fully authorized to act on his
behalf respecting all the matters subject of the conference (Section 22.6).
o Failure of parties or counsels to appear- The court shall, within thirty (30)
days from the date of the scheduled preliminary conference, render a
decision adjudicating the other party’s claim after the court’s ex parte
examination of such party’s witness or witnesses based on their judicial
affidavits (Decision as in default) (Section 22.7).
o Remedy against Decision as in Default- Motion with the Court, with prior
notice to the adverse party that his or her failure to comply with what
was required of him or her has been due to: (1) extrinsic fraud or (2)
unavoidable accident.
 If the ground is not meritorious, the court may still grant the
motion, set aside the decision of default, and reschedule the
preliminary conference, upon admission of error or neglect by the
party or his counsel and after payment of fine.
 17

 Rule 24. Trial of Issues

o Alternate Trial (Section 24.1)- One where the parties take turns in
presenting their witnesses respecting the first factual issues or related
issues stated in the order of trial.
 Note: The party who bears the burden of proving the affirmative
of the issue under consideration shall be the first to present a
witness.
o Face-to-face Trial (Section 24.2)- One wherein witnesses from the
contending sides appear together before the court, sit face-to-face around
a table in a non-adversarial environment, and answer questions from the
court as well as the parties’ counsel respecting the factual issue under
consideration.
o Options for trying the issues- The Court shall have the option to try the
issues embodied in the Terms of Reference, either by alternate or face-to-
face trial. In case the Court opts to try the issues by face-to-face trial, the
court may conduct either simple or regular face-to-face trial.
o Common Rules governing both alternate and face-to-face trials :
 Each factual issue shall be tried strictly in the sequence provided
in the Order of Trial although two or more closely related issues
may be simultaneously tried;
 A party may move on proper ground to disqualify a witness
before he or she is examined and strike out his or her judicial
affidavit or exclude any of the answers found in it on the ground
of inadmissibility.
 A party may likewise move to exclude any of the exhibits attached
to the judicial affidavit on the ground of inadmissibility.
 The court and counsels shall examine the witnesses and determine
the truthfulness of the judicial affidavits that constitute their direct
testimonies in the case.
 A witness may testify on one or more issues.
o When face-to-face examination of witness shall not apply (Section 24.10):
The face-to-face examination of witnesses shall not apply when one of the
witnesses to the factual issue under consideration is either (a) a child
covered by the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, or (b) a person
who is mentally, psychologically, or physically challenged or has a
similar condition that puts such witness at a disadvantage in a face-to-
face confrontation.
o Trials shall be intransferable (Section 24.14). As a general rule, because of
the numerous persons involved in, and the complex preparations
required for the conduct of trial, the dates set for trials shall be
intransferable, except on the ground of a fortuitous event or serious
illness of a counsel or witness.
 No motion for postponement or resetting shall be granted on the
ground of serious illness of a counsel or witness unless the party
concerned presents a medical certificate issued by a physician
stating that the illness is of such gravity as to prevent the counsel
or witness from attending the scheduled court hearing.
 The court may order the physician to appear before the
court or order another physician to verify the truth
 If the certification turns out to be false, the certifying
physician shall be held in contempt of court and punished
accordingly.
 18

RULES 128-132, RULES OF COURT

A. Preliminary Considerations

Rule 128. General Provisions

Sec. 1. Evidence defined

 Evidence is the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth

respecting a matter of fact.
 Proof is the effect of evidence. It is the probative effect of evidence and is the
conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the
latter; while evidence is the cause necessary to establish proof. It is also the
mode and manner of proving competent facts.
 Questions of fact exist when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of alleged facts.
 Questions of law exist when the doubt or difference arises as to what
the law is on a certain set of facts.

Sec. 2. Scope
 Rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court.
 Evidentiary rules under the Rules of Court are specifically applicable only in
judicial proceedings.
 In quasi-judicial proceedings, the same apply by analogy, or in a suppletory
character, and whenever practicable and convenient (Rule 1, Sec. 4).

Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence

 Requisites for admissibility of evidence:
(a) Relevance
 Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue.
 Relevance is determined by rules of logic and human experience.
 Relevance depends on the factum probandum, or the ultimate fact
sought to be proved.
 Factum probans is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum
probandum is to be established.
 Factum probandum is the ultimate fact sought to be established.

(b) Competence
 The evidence must not be excluded by law or by the Rules of Court.
 All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some
specific rule forbids their admission.
 Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it
tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
 Competent evidence refers to evidence which is not excluded by law
in a particular case.
 Credibility – refers to worthiness of belief, that quality which renders
a witness worthy of belief (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 330). Whether
or not a witness or evidence is credible is an issue addressed to the
 19

judgment of the trial court (People v. Castro, G.R. No. 172874, 17

December 2008).

Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters

 Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or non-existence.
 Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in
any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact
in issue.

B. Admissibility

Rule 130. Rules of Admissibility

 Multiple admissibility - when evidence is relevant and competent for two or more
purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any and all the purposes for which
it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility.
(Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium [Vol. II], pp. 694-695).

 Conditional admissibility - where the evidence at the time it is offered appears to be

immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently
proved, such evidence may be received on the condition that the other facts will be
proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence will be stricken out.

 Curative admissibility - when a party offers an inadmissible fact which is received

because there is no objection by the other party. The other party does not acquire the
right to introduce in reply to the same kind of evidence, except whenever it is
needed for removing an unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from
the original evidence.

 Direct evidence - refers to evidence that directly proves a fact without need to make
inference from another fact.

 Circumstantial evidence - refers to proof of the fact or facts from which, taken either
singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
necessary or probable consequence.

 Positive evidence - when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. This is
entitled to greater weight since witness relates matters within his personal
knowledge.

 Negative evidence - a witness states that an event did not occur or that the facts
alleged to exist did not actually exist.

A. Object (Real) Evidence

Sec. 1. Object as evidence

 Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.

 Object evidence includes any article or object which may be known or perceived by
the use of any of the senses – sight (visual), hearing (auditory), touch (tactile), taste
(gustatory), or smell (olfactory).
 20

 Documents may be considered object evidence if the same are presented for the
following purposes: (a) to prove their existence or condition or the nature of the
handwritings thereon; and (b) to determine the age of the paper used or the
blemishes or alterations thereon.

 Requisites for admissibility:

 When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or
viewed by the court.
 Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial
evidence alone if:
(a) Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy, morals or decency;
 But if viewing is necessary in the interest of justice, the evidence may still
be exhibited but the court may exclude the public from such view.
 Viewing may not be refused if the indecent or immoral object constitutes
the very basis for the criminal or civil action.

(b) To require that it be viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would result

in delays, inconvenience and expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary
value of such object;
(c) Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading; and
(d) Testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the
object in question as to render viewing unnecessary.

 Demonstrative evidence - is evidence in the form of a representation of an object.

This is, as opposed to, real evidence, testimony, or other forms of evidence used at
trial. Demonstrative evidence is useful in assisting a finder of fact (fact-finder) in
establishing context among the facts presented in a case.

 Autoptic preference - in legal parlance, simply means a tribunal's self-perception, or

autopsy, of the thing itself. (Balingit v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 170300, 9 February 2007).
It is referred to as the evidential datum which decision-makers will perceive using
their five senses (Anderson, Schum, and Twining, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd Ed.).

 Chain of Custody Rule – a method of authenticating evidence which requires that

the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same (People of the Philippines v. Dalawis, G.R. No.
179128, 9 November 2015; People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, 11 November 2015).

 The rule on chain of custody under the Section 21, R.A. No. 9165 and its
implementing rules expressly demands the identification of the persons who
handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized
movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are
seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Moreover, as
a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding
 21

that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked
up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or
other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. In this
case, however, the records are bereft of any evidence, which would clearly
show that the said plastic sachets were indeed marked in the presence of the
accused. Nor was there any evidence as to the identity of the individual who
brought the seized plastic sachets from the police station to the PNP (Carlito
Valencia v. People, G.R. No. 198804, 22 January 2014).

 It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnesses'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain.

 In warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation the physical inventory and

photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, consistent with the "chain
of custody" rule (People v. Joselito Beran, G.R. No. 203028, 15 January 2014).

 Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the
handling of evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the
handling of the seized item" is sufficient. This Court has consistently ruled that
even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not
render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance
is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be
able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous
drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers;
turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for
determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in
evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case,
even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No.
9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected
(People v. Ortega, G.R. No. 207392, 2 July 2014).

 Although the Court has recognized that minor deviations from the procedures
under R.A. No. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused, we have also
declared that when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards
prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. No. 9165), serious uncertainty is
generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in
 22

evidence. This doubt cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of

regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or
deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an
irregularity in the performance of official duties (People v. Edaño, G.R. No. 188133,
7 July 2014).

 The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the
required physical inventory in the place where the subject shabu was seized does
not automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible. A proviso was added in the implementing rules that "non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items." Pertinently, it is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which must be proven to
establish the corpus delicti.

The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
said illegal drugs. The concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabu was
proven by the prosecution. The chain of custody does not appear to have been
broken. The recovery and handling of the seized drugs were satisfactorily
established. As correctly found by the appellate court, "no ‘break’ whatsoever in
the chain of custody of the prohibited drugs occurred. The testimonial,
documentary, and object evidence presented by the prosecution established
every link in the custody of the prohibited drugs. This leads to no other
conclusion than that the specimen examined by the forensic chemist, which
tested positive for shabu, and which were presented as evidence during the trial,
were the ones taken from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation."
(People v. Fang, G.R. No. 199874, 23 July 2014).

 A buy bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the

PDEA (People v. Lafaran, G.R. No. 208015, 14 October 2015).

 To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drug are
preserved, the chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to be able to
account for each link in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug, from the
moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in
court. Testimony must be presented on every link in the chain of custody, from
the moment the dangerous drug was seized up to the time it is offered in
evidence (People of the Philippines v. Quim, G.R. No. 213919, 15 June 2016).

 R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations both state that non-
compliance with the procedures thereby delineated and set would not
necessarily invalidate the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs provided
there were justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, and provided that the
integrity of the evidence of thecorpus delicti was preserved (People of the
Philippines v. Enrique Miranda, G.R. No. 206880, 29 June 2016).

 Essential links in the chain of custody of seized illegal drugs:

(a) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
(b) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
 23

(c) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
(d) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court. (People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr., G.R. No.
179344, 3 August 2011).

 As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict compliance of

the requisites under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded as
long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly
preserved; and its preservation can be well established if the chain of custody of
illegal drug was unbroken. (People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr., G.R. No. 179344, 3
August 2011).

 Testimony on perfect chain not required -- The Supreme Court held that,
“undeniably, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is
almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain...what is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items.” An astute perusal of Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 readily
reveals that the custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously applied, provided
"the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team." Thus, the supposed procedural infirmities
alleged by Quiamanlon with regard to the custody, photographing, inventory,
and marking of the seized items do not, in any manner, affect the prosecution of
the instant case and do not render her arrest illegal or the items seized from her
inadmissible (People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011).

 Presentation of confidential informant not indispensable -- The non-

presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug
cases. The failure to present the informant does not vitiate the prosecution’s
cause as his testimony is not indispensable to a successful prosecution for drug-
pushing since it would be merely corroborative of, and cumulative with, that of
the poseur-buyer who was presented in court and testified on the facts and
circumstances of the sale and delivery of the prohibited drug. (People v. Andres,
G.R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011).

 Failure to immediately mark seized drugs -- The failure to immediately mark

seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been
preserved, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. What is essential is that the police officers account for
the crucial links in the chain of custody of seized illegal drugs. (People v. Morales,
G.R. No. 188608, 9 February 2011).

 Failure to take photographs and inventory the same is not fatal as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of seized illegal drugs were preserved. In People
v. Presas (G.R. No. 182525, 2 March 2011), the Supreme Court noted that the
failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required
physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said
guidelines, does not automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized
from him inadmissible. Notably, the implementing rules of the IRR provide that
"non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
 24

by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items." The same provision also states that it
must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.

 Failure to sign the receipt- The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized
was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and evidentiary
value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellants. The failure to strictly
comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not
render an arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused (People v. Punzalan,
G.R. No. 199087, 11 November 2015).

 Presumption of regularity, standing alone, cannot defeat the presumption of

innocence -- The presumption that the police officers regularly performed their
duty cannot, standing alone, defeat the presumption of innocence of the accused.
Generally, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their
duty, but this is a mere procedural presumption which cannot overturn the
constitutionally recognized presumption of innocence of the accused where
lapses in the buy bust operation are shown. An effect of this lapse, as held in
Lopez v. People, is to negate the presumption that official duties have been
regularly performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the
whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable (People v.
Martin, G.R. No. 193234, 19 October 2011).

 Burden of proof and burden of evidence

 Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law. (Rule 131, Sec. 1).
 Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party, by means of evidence, to
create or meet a prima facie case.
 Burden of proof never shifts, while burden of evidence is transferred from one
litigant to another depending on the progress of trial.

Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

Civil cases – The burden is on the
party who would be defeated if no
evidence were given on either side.
Criminal cases – The burden is
always on the prosecution.
Both civil and criminal cases – The
burden lies with the party who
asserts an affirmative allegation.

The burden of proof does not shift The burden of evidence shifts
as it remains throughout the trial from party to party depending on
with the party upon whom it is the exigencies of the case in the
imposed. course of the trial.

The burden of proof is generally The burden of evidence is

determined by the pleading filed generally determined by the
by the party. developments of the trial or by
provisions of law.
 25

 Negative allegations
 a negative allegation does not have to be proven unless the same is an essential
part of the cause of action or defense.
 However, in civil cases, even if a negative allegation is an essential part of the
defense, such does not have to be proven if it is only for the purpose of denying
the existence of a document which would properly be in the custody of the
adverse party.
 If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a negative
averment is an essential element of the crime - the prosecution has the burden of
proving the charge.
 Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts
are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi
rests on him.

 Equipoise or equiponderance doctrine

 Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which
side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof fails upon
that issue. (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115625, January 23, 1998).
 Therefore, as neither party was able to make out a case, neither side could
establish its cause of action and prevail with the evidence it had. They are thus
no better off than before they proceeded to litigate, and, as a consequence
thereof, the courts can only leave them as they are (Rivera, supra citing
Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530).
 The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances
are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the
evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to
produce a conviction. (Bernardino v. People, G.R. Nos. 170453 and 170518, 30
October 2006, 506 SCRA 237, 25).

B. Documentary Evidence

 Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words,

numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of
their contents (Rule 130, Sec.2).
 A document is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which
something is proved, evidenced or set forth. (U.S. v. Orera, 11 Phil 596)
 Documentary evidence is that which is furnished by written instruments, inscriptions
and documents of all kinds. (32 CJS 475)

 Requisites for admissibility:

(a) the document must be relevant;
(b) the evidence must be authenticated;
(c) the document must be authenticated by a competent witness; and
(d) the document must be formally offered in evidence.

Sec. 2. Documentary Evidence

1. Best Evidence Rule

 Best evidence rule, defined

 26

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be

admissible other than the original document itself (Rule 130, Sec. 3).

 When applicable
 The rule is applicable when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document
(Rule 130, Sec. 3).
 The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue.
When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the
existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the
Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez and
Clave, G.R. No. 170604, 2 September 2013).

 does NOT apply when:

(a) to prove facts collateral to the issues, such as the nature, appearance or
condition of physical objects or to evidence relating to a matter which does
not come from the foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
(b) when a party uses a document to prove the existence of an independent fact,
as to which the writing is merely collateral or incidental (Lee v. People G.R. No.
159288, 19 October 1 2004).

Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions

 Meaning of original
The following are considered originals of a document:
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of
inquiry (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time,
with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals (Rule
130, Sec. 4);
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied
from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(d) An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately. (Rules on Electronic
Evidence, Sec. 1);
(e) Copies as equivalent of the originals – When a document is in two or more
copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a
counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces
the original. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 2)

 Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible
to the same extent as the original if:
 a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
 in the circumstance it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of
the original. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 2)

Sec. 4. Original of document

 27

2. Secondary Evidence

Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable

Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control

Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.

 Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence

Secondary evidence is allowed in the following instances:
(1) When original is unavailable (Rule 130, Sec. 5) – there must be proof by
satisfactory evidence of:
a. due execution of the original;
 how to prove due execution:
i. testimony of person/s who executed document;
ii. testimony of the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged; or
iii. any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or
who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures, or one to
whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the execution
thereof
b. loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals; and
c. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce
the original.

 Secondary evidence which could be introduced after proving unavailability of the

original (in the order stated):
i. Copy of said document;
ii. Recital of its contents in an authentic document; or
iii. Recollection of witnesses.

 Nevertheless, where the law specifically provides for the class and quantum
of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a document, or bars
secondary evidence of a lost document, such requirement is controlling.

(2) When original is in adverse party’s custody or control – requisites:

a. Document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party;
b. He must have reasonable notice to produce it;
c. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to
produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case
of its loss.

 Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as where it is for the
recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the
other party, no notice to produce said documents is required. (Warner, Barnes
& Co., Ltd. v. Buenaflor, 36 OG 3290)
 A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is
not obliged to offer it as evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 8).

(3) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to
 28

be established from them is only the general result of the whole. (Rule 130, Sec.
3[c]). – requisites:
a. the voluminous character of the records must be established; and
b. such records must be made accessible to the adverse party so that their
correctness may be tested on cross-examination

(4) When the original is a public record

 When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

3. Parol Evidence Rule

Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record

Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements

 The written agreement is already considered to contain all the things agreed upon.
Being a final agreement any extraneous evidence or parol evidence is inadmissible
for any of the following purposes: (a) to modify, (b) to explain; or (c) to add to the
terms of the written agreement.

 Parol Evidence refers to any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is
intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement
embodied in a document.

 Requisites for the application of Parol Evidence Rule

a. There is a valid contract;
b. The terms of agreement reduced to writing;
c. There is an issue as to the terms of agreement;
d. The dispute is between parties and their successors in interest (Rule 130, Sec. 9).

 When parol evidence can be introduced:

A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
 An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
 The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties thereto;
 The validity of the written agreement; or
 The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest
after the execution of the written agreement. (Rule 130, Sec. 9)

 In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted: first,
that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party’s
pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and second, that the parol
evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed
by the presenting party (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction and Development, G.R.
No. 171601, 8 April 2015).

 The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either
party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a
 29

party or privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a
claim or assert a right originating in the instrument of the relation established
thereby. Thus, if one of the parties is a complete stranger to the contract, he is not
bound by the rule. (See Rule 130, Sec. 9, par. 1)

 Parol evidence cannot be introduced to alter or modify the express terms of the
“Kasunduan.” It is settled that the agreement or contract between the parties is the
formal expression of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations and is the best
evidence of the parties’ intention. Thus, when the terms of an agreement have been
reduced into writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement (Carganillo v. People, G.R. No.
182424, 22 September 2014).

 Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced
their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all their previous and
contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein. (De Guzman v.
Calma, 100 Phil 1008).

 Parol Evidence Rule v. Best Evidence Rule

Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule

Original document is available in court.
The rule prohibits the varying of the
terms of a written agreement.
With the exception of wills, this rule
applies only to documents which are
contractual in nature (“written
agreements”).
This rule can be invoked only when the
controversy is between the parties to the
written agreement, their privies, or any
party directly affected thereby, e.g. cestui
que trust.
Original writing is not available and/or
there is a dispute as to whether said
writing is the original.
The rule prohibits the introduction of
substitutionary evidence in lieu of the
original document.
The rule applies to all kinds of writings.
This rule can be invoked by any party to
an action regardless of whether or not such
party has participated in the writing
involved.

4. Interpretation of documents
Sec. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning
Sec. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions
Sec. 12. Interpretations according to intention; general and particular provisions
Sec. 13. Interpretation according to circumstances
Sec. 14. Peculiar signification of terms
Sec. 15. Written words control printed
Sec. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings
Sec. 17. Of two constructions, which preferred
Sec. 18. Construction in favor of natural right
Sec. 19. Interpretation according to usage

C. Testimonial Evidence
 30

1. Qualification of witnesses

Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications

 All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to
others, may be witnesses (Rule 130, Sec. 20).
 Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a
crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification
(Rule 130, Sec. 20).

 Competency vs. credibility of a witness

 A competent witness is one who is not excluded by law or the Rules of Court
from being a witness. Competency is determined by the prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence.
 A credible witness is one who being competent to give evidence, is worthy of
belief (Black’s Law Dictionary).
 It is well-settled that the determination of the credibility of the witnesses is
correctly assigned to the trial court, which is in the best position to observe the
demeanor and bodily movements of all the witnesses (People v. Banzuela, G.R.
No. 202060, 11 December 2013).

Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity

 The following persons cannot be witnesses:

(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is
such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to
others;
(b) 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 21)

 Minority, alone, is not a sufficient ground for disqualification. Leeway should be

given to witnesses who are minors, especially when they are relating past incidents
of abuse (People v. Dominguez, G.R. No. 191065, 13 June 2011). Thus, a child may still
be a witness as long as the following are shown:
(a) capacity of observation;
(b) capacity of recollection; and
(c) capacity of communication (People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, 22 February 1996,
254 SCRA 18).

 Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility (People v. Rosales, G.R. No.
197537, 24 July 2013).

 Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the event testified to affects only
his or her credibility. As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and
gives sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded, she is a
competent witness even if she is a mental retardate (People v. Maceda, G.R. No.
138805, 28 February 2001, 353 SCRA 228).

Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage

 General Rule: During their marriage, spouses may not testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).
 31

 Exceptions:
 In a civil case by one against the other; or
 In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).

 Requisites for spousal immunity

(a) Valid marriage; and
(b) Other spouse is a party to the action.

 Waiver of spousal immunity

The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first
offered as a witness. Failure to make a timely objection is tantamount to waiver of
spousal immunity (People v. Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634. 12 September 2002).

 Spousal immunity in cases where a spouse is jointly charged with other accused:
The testimony of a wife of an accused, when timely objected to, is inadmissible
against the latter. However, the same may be admitted as against other persons
jointly charged in said case. (People v. Quidato, Jr. G.R. No. 140634, 12 September 2002).

 Estranged spouses
The disqualification does not apply in case of estranged spouses. Where the marital and
domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor
peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony
and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests disappears and the
consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent. Likewise, in
such a situation, the security and confidences of private life, which the law aims at
protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a
void in the unhappy home (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, 14 October 2005).

Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party

 Dead man’s statute or survivor’s disqualification rule, where applicable
 cases against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased
person upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person; or
 against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of
such person of unsound mind (Rule 130, Sec. 23).

 When not applicable

 Ordinary witnesses, who are not the plaintiff, assignor of plaintiff, or person in
whose behalf the case is prosecuted. (Bajenting v. Bañez, G.R. No. 166190, 20
September 2006).
 Officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not disqualified from
testifying, for or against a corporation which is a party to an action upon a claim
or demand against the estate of a deceased person, as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person. (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf,
G.R. No. L-2016, 23 August 1949).
 When there is an imputation of fraud against the deceased which had been
established beyond all doubt, the plaintiff is not barred from testifying to
such fraud. The Dead Man’s Statute is not designed to shield wrongdoers
and to render a plaintiff incompetent to testify to fraudulent transactions
of the deceased (Ong Chua v. Carr, 53 Phil. 975; Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, 96 Phil.
622).
 32

 When the plaintiff is the executor, administrator or legal representative of the

deceased, or the person of unsound mind, the defendant or defendants are free
to testify against the plaintiff (Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698).
 When the survivor's testimony refers to a negative fact. (Mendezona v. Vda. de
Goitia, 54 Phil. 557).
 When the survivor's testimony is favorable to the deceased (Icard v. Marasigan,
71 Phil. 419).
 Testimony on transactions with agent of deceased or incompetent party (Goni, et
al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231).

 How waived
 By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on prohibited matters (Marella v. Reyes,
12 Phil. 1).
 By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters. (Tongco v. Vianzon, 50
Phil. 698).
 By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters. (Arroyo v. Azur, 76 Phil.
493).
 When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the representative of the estate or
when counsel for the representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to matters
occurring during the deceased's lifetime (Goni, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al.,
144 SCRA 231).

 Dead man’s statute vs. marital disqualification rule

Dead Man’s Statute Marital Disqualification Rule

Not completely disqualified but is Complete and absolute

only prohibited from testifying on disqualification.
the matters therein specified.

Applies only to a civil case or Applies to a civil or criminal case,

special proceeding over the estate of subject to the two exceptions
the deceased or insane person. provided.

Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication

(a) Husband and wife (Marital Privilege Rule)

 The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence
by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

 Applicability:
 Scope of protection extends during or after the marriage. (Rule 130, Sec. 24
[a]).
 Since the confidential nature of the communication is the basis of the
privilege, the same cannot be invoked where it was not intended to be kept in
confidence by the spouse who received the same, as in the case of a dying
declaration of the husband to his wife as to who was his assailant.

 Waiver of protection:
(a) Failure to object to presentation; or
 33

(b) Through any conduct that may be construed as implied consent (Lacurom v.
Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, 10 March 2006).

 Spousal immunity rule vs. marital privilege rule

Spousal Immunity Rule Marital Privilege Rule
Can be invoked only if one of the Can be claimed whether or not the
spouses is a party to the action. spouse is a party to the action.

Applies only if marriage is existing Can be claimed even after the marriage
at the time the testimony is offered. had been dissolved.

Constitutes a total prohibition Applies only to confidential

against any testimony for or against communications between the spouses.
the spouse of the witness.

(b) Attorney-client privilege rule

 An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any

communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the
course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client
and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity.

 Requisites:
(i) Relationship of lawyer and client;
(ii) Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between
them in the course of, or with the view of professional employment;
(iii) Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of the communication.
(Rule 130, Sec. 24[b]; Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, 22 June 2010).

 Persons covered:
(i) The attorney;
(ii) The attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
which has been acquired in such capacity (Rule 130, Sec. 24[b]).

 Waiver of protection
 The client may waive the protection of the Attorney-Client Privilege Rule. If
the client waives the privilege, even his attorney cannot invoke it.

 The Regala Doctrine

 General Rule: A lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge
the name or identity of his client.
 Exceptions: (1) When a strong probability exists that revealing the name
would implicate that person in the very same activity for which he sought the
lawyer’s advice; (2) When disclosure would open the client to liability; (3)
When the name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict (Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, 20
September 1996).
 34

(c) Physician-Patient Privilege

 A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil

case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or
treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was
necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient.

 Requisites:
(i) The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
(ii) The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in
his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and curing the patient
(iii) The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the
reputation of the patient;
(iv) The privilege is invoked in a civil case whether the patient is a party thereto
or not (Rule 130, Sec. 24 [c]).

 Meaning of “professional capacity”

 The physician may be considered to be acting in his professional capacity
when he attends to the patient for curative, preventive, or palliative
treatment. Thus, only disclosures which would have been made to the
physician to enable him to "safely and efficaciously to treat his patient" are
covered by the privilege. (Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, 25
September 1992).

 Waiver of protection
 This privilege belongs to the patient, so that it is only he that can claim or
waive it. It is waivable expressly or impliedly (See Penn. Mutual Life Ins. Co.
v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92).
 Example: Under Rule 28, the court may order a party to submit to a physical
or mental examination, so long as the mental or physical condition is in
dispute. The party examined may request a report of the examination. By
doing so, he waives any privilege he may have in that action regarding the
testimony of every other person who has examined him in respect of the
same examination (Rule 28, Sec. 4).
 Information elicited during consultation with a physician in the presence of
third parties removes such information from the mantle of the privilege (Lim
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, 25 September 1992).
 What is protected is the tenor of the consultation. The number of times a
patient consulted with his doctor is not privileged. (Lim v. Court of Appeals,
supra).

(d) Minister/Priest – Penitent Privilege

 A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the
confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by
him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the
church to which the minister or priest belongs.

(e) State Secrets Rule

 35

 A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to

communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
 Public interest is paramount. The rule that a public officer cannot be examined as
to communications made to him in official confidence does not apply when there
is nothing to show that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure in
question (Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, 142 SCRA 523).

(f) Parental and Filial Privilege Rule

 No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct descendants (Rule 130, Sec. 25).
 No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his
parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a
crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other (Family Code,
Article 215).

(g) Newsman’s Privilege

 The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter 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 him, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds
that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State (See R.A. No. 53, as
amended by R.A. No. 1477, the “Shield Law”).

(h) Privilege under the Labor Code

 All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated
as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC,
and conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body
regarding any matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by
them (Labor Code, Art. 233).

(i) Privileged Information under the RA 10361 of the Kasambahay Law

 Prohibition Against Privileged Information. – All communication and
information pertaining to the employer or members of the household shall be
treated as privileged and confidential, and shall not be publicly disclosed by
the domestic worker during and after employment. Such privileged
information shall be inadmissible in evidence except when the suit involves
the employer or any member of the household in a crime against persons,
property, personal liberty and security, and chastity. (Kasambahay Law, Sec.
10)

(j) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) laws

 Mediation
 Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential
(R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[a]).
 A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose and
may prevent any other person from disclosing a mediation communication
(R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[b]).
 Confidential information obtained during mediation shall not be subject to
discovery and shall be inadmissible in any adversarial proceeding, whether
judicial or quasi-judicial. However, evidence or information that is
otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or
 36

protected from discovery solely by reason of its use in a mediation (R.A. No.
9285, Sec. 9[b]).
 In such an adversarial proceeding, the following persons involved or
previously involved in a mediation may not be compelled to disclose
confidential information obtained during mediation: (1) the parties to the
dispute; (2) the mediator; (3) the counsel for the parties; (4) the nonparty
participants; (5) any persons hired or engaged in connection with the
mediation as secretary, stenographer, clerk or assistant; and (6) any other
person who obtains or possesses confidential information by reason of
his/her profession (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[c]).

 Arbitration
 The arbitration proceedings, including the records, evidence and the arbitral
award, shall be considered confidential and shall not be published except (1)
with the consent of the parties, or (2) for the limited purpose of disclosing to
the court of relevant documents in cases where resort to the court is allowed
herein.
 Provided, however, that the court in which the action or the appeal is
pending may issue a protective order to prevent or prohibit disclosure of
documents or information containing secret processes, developments,
research and other information where it is shown that the applicant shall be
materially prejudiced by an authorized disclosure thereof (R.A. No. 9285, Sec.
23).

2. Testimonial privilege

Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege

3. Admissions and confessions

(a) Res inter alios acta rule
 The maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet literally means “things
done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to
them” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1178).

 Though some claim that partnerships and joint ventures are totally different
animals, there are very few rules that differentiate one from the other; thus,
joint ventures are deemed "akin" or similar to a partnership. In fact, in joint
venture agreements, rules and legal incidents governing partnerships are
applied.

Obviously, as the intricate web of "ventures" entered into by and among

petitioners and MBMI was executed to circumvent the legal prohibition
against corporations entering into partnerships, then the relationship created
should be deemed as "partnerships," and the laws on partnership should be
applied. Thus, a joint venture agreement between and among corporations
may be seen as similar to partnerships since the elements of partnership are
present.

Considering that the relationships found between petitioners and MBMI are
considered to be partnerships, then the CA is justified in applying Sec. 29,
Rule 130 of the Rules by stating that "by entering into a joint venture, MBMI
have a joint interest" with Narra, Tesoro and McArthur (Narra Nickel Mining
 37

and Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp., G.R. No. 195580, 21
April 2014).

 The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, to wit:
i. The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided
(Rule 130, Sec. 128); and
ii. The rule that the evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same
or similar thing at another time (Rule 132, Sec. 34).

(b) Admission by a party

 Admission and confession, distinguished

Admission Confession
It is a statement of fact which
does not involve an It involves an acknowledgement of
acknowledgement of guilt or guilt or liability.
liability.

It may be express or tacit. It must be express.

It may be made by third It can be made only by the party

persons and, in certain cases, himself and, in certain cases, are
are admissible against a party. admissible against his co-accused.

Sec. 26. Admissions of a party

 An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact which

may be given in evidence against him (Rule 130, Sec. 2).

 The res inter alios acta rule under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, which
states that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, unless the admission is by a conspirator under the parameters
of Section 30 of the same Rule. The foregoing rule constitutes a technical rule on
evidence which should not be rigidly applied in the course of preliminary
investigation proceedings (Reyes v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212593-94, 15 March 2016).

Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible

Sec. 28. Admission by third party

 38

 General rule: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or

omission of another (Rule 130, Sec. 28). *This is also known as the first branch of the
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule (from “res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet”).

 Exceptions: (a.k.a. “vicarious admissions”)

(a) Admissions by partner (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
(b) Admissions by agent or one who has a joint-interest with the party (Rule 130,
Sec. 29);
(c) Admission of co-conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
(d) Admission of privy of the party (Rule 130, Sec. 30).

Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent

 The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party may be given in evidence
against such party under the following requirements:
(e) That the partnership, agency or joint interest is established by evidence other
than the act or declaration;
(f) That the act/declaration must have been within the scope of the partnership, etc;
(g) Such act/declaration must have been made during the existence of the
partnership, etc (Rule 130, Sec. 29).

Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator

 The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator:
(h) The conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde;
(i) The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy; and
(j) The admission relates to the conspiracy itself. (Rule 130, Sec. 30; Tamargo v.
Antiporda, G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010).

 This rule applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration of a co-conspirator, but

NOT to testimony given on the stand at the trial, where the defendant has the
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. And while the testimony of accomplices
or confederates in crime is always subject to grave suspicion, "coming as it does from
a polluted source," and should be received with great caution and doubtingly
examined, it is nevertheless admissible and competent (People v. Serrano, G.R. No. L-
7973, 27 April 1959).

Sec. 31. Admission by privies

 Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of
the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the
former.
 Requisites:
(a) There must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant;
(b) The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor in interest, while
holding title to the property; and
(c) The admission is in relation to said property (Rule 130, Sec. 31).

 Privity in estate may have arisen by: (1) succession; (2) by acts mortis causa; or (3) by
acts inter vivos.
 39

Sec. 32. Admission by silence

 Requisites -- Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the observation
of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally
to call for action or comment if not true, may be given in evidence against him,
under the following requisites:
(a) He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person;
(b) He must have had the opportunity to deny it;
(c) He must have understood the statement.
(d) He must have an interest to object as he would naturally have done if the
statement was not true;
(e) The facts are within his knowledge; and
(f) he fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the
issue. (Rule 130, Sec. 32; People v. Ciobal, G.R. No. 86220, 20 April 1990; People v.
Ranario, 49 Phil. 220)

 When not applicable

 Accused’s refusal to be a witness during trial (Art. III, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution).
 Silence during official investigation (Art. III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution; U. S. v.
De la Cruz, 12 Phil., 87).
 Where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent [e.g. acting on advice of
counsel]. (People v. Fong, G.R. No. L-7615, 14 March 1956).

 When applicable to statements made in writing

The rule on admission by silence applies to adverse statements in writing if the party
was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant. However, if there was no
such mutual correspondence, the rule is relaxed on the theory that while the party
would have immediately reacted by a denial if the statements were orally made in
his presence, such prompt response can generally not be expected if the party still
has to resort to a written reply (Villanueva v. Balaguer, G.R. No. 180197, 23 June 2009).

 Voluntary re-enactment
Voluntary participation in the re-enactment of the crime conducted by police is
considered tacit admission of complicity. In such cases, the accused actually
committed positive acts without protest or denial when he was free to refuse. Had he
not actually participated in the commission of the offense for which he is charged, he
would have protested being made to take part in the reenactment thereof (People v.
Fong, G.R. No. L-7615, 14 March 1956).

Sec. 33. Confession

 The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him (Rule 130,
Sec. 33).

 Judicial confession - one made before a court in which the case is pending and in the
course of legal proceedings therein; can sustain conviction by itself.
 requisites:
(a) It must be a categorical acknowledgement of guilt;
(b) It must be made by an accused in a criminal case; and
(c) It is without any exculpatory statement or explanation.
 40

 Extrajudicial confession -- one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain
a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. (Rule 133, Sec. 3).
 Requisites:
(a) It must be voluntary;
(b) It must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel;
(c) It must be express; and
(d) It must be in writing (People v. Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, 11 May 1999).

 Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime; it is the fact that a crime has
actually been committed (People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 180762, 4 March 2009).
 In arson, the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of
the fire, e.g., the charred remains of a house burned down and of its having been
intentionally caused.
 In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the fact of death (People v. Garcia, 99
Phil. 381), which may be proved even circumstantially (People v. Sasota, 91 Phil. 111;
People v. Moro Ansang, 93 Phil. 44).
 In robbery or theft, the fact of loss (People v. Niem, 75 Phil. 668).
 In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were heard and a bystander was killed by one
of the shots constitute evidence of corpus delicti, which is the violent death of a
person, whether feloniously caused or not (People v. Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018)

 Extrajudicial confession is not binding upon third parties

 An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible
against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against them.
 The reason for this rule is that on a principle of good faith and mutual
convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against
him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly
inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of
mere unauthorized stranger (Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, 19 January
2010).

 Extrajudicial confessions, when admissible against co-accused

While the general rule is that an extra-judicial confession of an accused is binding only
upon himself and is not admissible against his co-accused, it has been held that such a
confession is admissible against a co-accused where the confession is used as
circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-
conspirator (People v. Condemna, L-22426, 29 May 1968), and where the co-conspirator's
confession is corroborated by other evidence (People v. Victor, G.R. No. 75154-55, 6
February 1990).

 Extrajudicial confession not admissible when confessant was not assisted by counsel
An extrajudicial confession executed without the assistance of independent and
competent counsel is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Velarde, G.R. No. 139333, 18
July 2002). A municipal mayor cannot be considered as a competent
and independent counsel qualified to assist a person under custodial investigation
(People v. Velarde, supra).

 Extrajudicial confession vs. res gestae

Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without counsel, but it was
spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault, the same is
admissible, not under the confession rule, but as part of the res gestae (People v.
Tampus, G.R. No. L-44690, 28 March 1980).
 41

 Statements during press-conference

The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given
in an ordinary manner whereby accused orally admitted having committed a crime.
The rights under Sec. 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the
State as would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from
freely and voluntarily telling the truth. (People v. Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, 20 July
1999).

4. Previous conduct as evidence

Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence

 Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time(Rule 130, Sec.
34).
 However, such evidence may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge;
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like (Rule 130, Sec. 34).

Sec. 35. Unaccepted offer

5. Testimonial knowledge

Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded

 Hearsay evidence - any evidence, whether oral or documentary, whose probative

value is based not on personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of
some other person not on the witness stand.
 If a party does not object, the hearsay evidence is admissible. Illustration: The
repeated failure of the party to cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver of
such right and the testimony of the said witness who died thereafter should not be
excluded from the record (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino,
G.R. No. L-38964, 31 January 31).
 But hearsay evidence not objected to is admissible, it has no probative
value. Hearsay evidence whether objected to even if or not has no probative value
(People v. Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, 28 November 1996).
 The real basis for the exclusion of hearsay evidence lies in the fact that hearsay
testimony is not subject to the tests which can ordinarily be applied for the
ascertainment of the truth of testimony, since the declarant is not present and
available for cross-examination (Mollaneda v. Umacob, G.R. No. 140128, 6 June 2001).
 The reason for the exclusion of hearsay evidence is that the party against whom the
hearsay testimony is presented is deprived of the right or opportunity to cross-
examine the person to whom the statements are attributed. Moreover, the court is
without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the
demeanor of the person who made them. In the instant case, the declarant, AAA
herself, was sworn as a witness to the fact testified to by her mother. Accused-
appellant's counsel even cross-examined AAA. Moreover, the trial court had the
opportunity to observe AAA's manner of testifying. Hence, the testimony of AAA's
mother on the incident related to her by her daughter cannot be disregarded as
hearsay evidence. (People v. Padit, G.R. No. 202978, 1 February 2016)

 Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is

substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in
 42

determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such

investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and
obligations of parties. However, in administrative cases, where rights and
obligations are finally adjudicated, what is required is "substantial evidence" which
cannot rest entirely or even partially on hearsay evidence. Substantial basis is not the
same as substantial evidence because substantial evidence excludes hearsay
evidence while substantial basis can include hearsay evidence. (Estrada v.
Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, 21 January 2015).

 Two concepts of hearsay evidence:

(a) Second hand information (not derived from personal knowledge of witness);
and
(b) Testimony by a witness derived from his personal knowledge but the adverse
party is not given opportunity to cross-examine.

 Principle of independently relevant statements

 The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations
communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that,
regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to the
making of such statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a)
constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of
such fact (Republic v. Heirs of Alejega, G.R. No. 146030, 3 December 2002).

6. Exceptions to the hearsay rule

Sec. 37. Dying Declaration

 Dying declaration is an ante mortem statement or statement in articulo mortis.

 Requisites:
(a) That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact;
(b) That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of
such death;
(c) That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to;
(d) That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is the
subject of the inquiry (People v. Serenas, G.R. No. 188124, 29 June 2010).

 It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid succession of death that renders
the dying declaration admissible (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 111149, 5 September
1997).

 From the records, no questions relative to the second requisite was propounded to
Januario. It does not appear that the declarant was under the consciousness of his
impending death when he made the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a
dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must
be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid
succession of death in point of fact that renders a dying declaration admissible. The
test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on
death as certainly impending. Thus, the utterances made by Januario could not be
considered as a dying declaration (People of the Philippines v. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022,
7 April 2014).

 Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of recovery -- It is sufficient that
circumstances are such as to inevitably lead to the conclusion that at the time the
 43

declaration was made, the declarant would not expect to survive the injury from
which he actually died. The degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that
death supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the victim's
consciousness of his impending death (People v. Tanaman, et al., G.R. No. 71768, 28
July 1987).

 Mere gesture of a dying woman inconclusive -- The gesture of a dying woman in

pointing to a direction, when asked for the identity of her assailant, is too vague to
be given such probative value in determining the culpability of the accused (People v.
Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, 3 July 1987).

Sec. 38. Declaration against interest

 Requisites:
(a) The declaration is made by:
(i) A person deceased; or
(ii) A person who is unable to testify (i.e. in foreign country or with
physical/mental impairments)
(b) The declaration is against the interest of the declarant:
(c) The fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to
declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have
made the declaration, unless he believed it to be true. ((Rule 130, Sec. 38; Fuentes
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111692, 9 February 1996).

 The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence
notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of the occasion renders the
reception of such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral interest
(Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 146556, 19 April 2006).

 Admissions v. declaration against interest

Admissions Declaration Against Interest
It is made by a party to a litigation or It is made by a person who is
by one in privity with or identified in neither a party nor in privity with a
legal interest with such party party to the suit (Lazaro v. Agustin,
(Unchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No. 172671, G.R. No. 152364, 15 April 2010).
16 April 2009, 585 SCRA 421, 435).

It is admissible whether or not the It is admissible only when the

declarant is available as a witness. declarant is unavailable as a
(Unchuan v. Lozada, supra) witness. (Lazaro v. Agustin, supra).
It is not necessarily against the The declaration must necessarily be
interest of the admitter. against declarant’s interest.

Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree

 Requisites:
(a) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject;
(b) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family ante litem motam.
(Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December 2002).
 44

Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

 Requisites:
(a) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject;
(b) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family ante litem motam.
(Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December 2002).

Sec. 41. Common reputation

 Common reputation refers to general reputation; definite opinion of the community
in which the fact to be proved is known or exists.
 Requisites:
(a) The subject of subject of inquiry must be facts of public or general interest more
than 30 years old, respecting marriage or moral character;
(b) The evidence must refer to facts ante litem motam;
(c) The facts may be established by:
 Testimonial evidence of competent witness;
 Monuments and inscription in public places; or
 Documents containing statements of reputation.

Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae

 Res gestae is a Latin phrase which literally means "things done.“ (Capila v. People,
G.R. No. 146161, 17 July 2006).

 Two types:
(a) Spontaneous statements; and
 The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify and
the testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies with the
following requisites:
(i) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(ii) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise; and
(iii) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances (prior or subsequent) (Rule 130, Sec. 42;
Maturillas v. People, G.R. No. 163217, 18 April 2006).

 A sudden attack on a group peacefully eating lunch on a school campus

is a startling occurrence. Considering that the statements of the
bystanders were made immediately after the startling occurrence, they
are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae (People v. Feliciano,
G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014)

(b) Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts. (Rule 130, Sec. 42)

 Requisites:
(a) The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
(b) The equivocal act must be relevant to the issue;
(c) The verbal act must be contemporaneous with the equivocal act;
(d) The verbal act must give legal significance to the equivocal act (Talidano v.
Falcom Maritime & Allied Service, Inc. G.R. No. 172031, 14 July 2008).
 45

 The res gestae exception to the hearsay rule provides that the declarations must have
been "voluntarily and spontaneously made so nearly contemporaneous as to be in the
presence of the transaction which they illustrate and explain, and were made under
such circumstances as necessarily to exclude the idea of design or
deliberation”(People v. Estibal, G.R. No. 208749, 26 November 2014).

Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business

 Requisites:
(a) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
(b) The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer;
(c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a
duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
(e) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty
(Rule 130, Sec. 43; Jose, Jr. v Michaelmar Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 169606, 27
November 2009).

 Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual reliability because their
regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of
precision. If the entries are financial, the records are routinely balanced and audited.
In actual experience, the whole of the business world function in reliance of such
kind of records (LBP v. Monet’s Export and Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 184971, 19
April 2010).

Sec. 44. Entries in official records

 Requisites:
(a) Entries were made by: (i) a public officer in the performance of his duties; or (ii)
by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
(b) The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were
acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the
same; and
(c) Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records
(Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, G.R. No. 162243, 3 December 2009).

 Entrant need not be presented -- The presentation of the records themselves would,
therefore, have been admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule even if the public
officer/s who prepared them was/were not presented in court, provided the above
requisites could be adequately proven (Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, supra; Africa v.
Caltex, 123 Phil. 272).

 Police records of vehicular accidents -- The presentation of the police report itself is
admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule even if the police investigator who
prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the requisites under Rule 130, Sec.
44 could be adequately proved (Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alberto, G.R. No.
194320, 1 February 2012).

Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the like

 A document is a commercial list if:

(a) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
 46

(b) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published

compilation;
(c) said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation,
and
(d) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation (Rule 130,
Sec. 45; PNOC Shipping v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107518, 8 October 1998).

Sec. 46. Learned treatises

 Requisites:
(a) The court takes judicial judicial notice of published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art; or
(b) A witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the
treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as an
expert in the subject (Rule 130, Sec. 46).

Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

 Requisites:
(a) Witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same
interests;
(c) The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although
on different causes of action;
(d) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved
in the present case; and
(e) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former
case.

 Meaning of “unable to testify” -- The phrase "unable to testify" refers to a physical

inability to appear at the witness stand and to give a testimony. Hence
notwithstanding the deletion of the phrase "out of the Philippines," which previously
appeared in Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, absence from jurisdiction
may still constitute inability to testify under the same rule (Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 152375, 16 December 2011).

 Meaning of “same parties” -- To render the testimony of a witness admissible at a

later trial or action, the parties to the first proceeding must be the same as the parties
to the later proceeding. Physical identity, however, is not required; substantial
identity or identity of interests suffices, as where the subsequent proceeding is
between persons who represent the parties to the prior proceeding by privity in law,
in blood, or in estate. The term "privity" denotes mutual or successive relationships
to the same rights of property (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra).

7. Opinion rule

Sec. 48. General rule

 The opinion of a witness is NOT admissible (Rule 130, Sec. 48).

 Exceptions:
(a) Opinion of expert witness;
 47

(b) Opinion of ordinary witness.

Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness

 The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience

or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. (Rule 130,
Sec. 48).

 Courts are not bound by expert’s testimony

Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the opinion of a witness
on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is
shown to possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the word "may" signifies
that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the
part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that courts are bound
by the testimony of the expert witness. The testimony of an expert witness must be
construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties,
but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for the court
to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and the
applicable law (Tabao v. People, G.R. No. 187246, 20 July 2011).

Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses

 The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding; (a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate
knowledge; (b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; (c) the mental
sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and (d) his impressions
of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person (Rule 130, Sec. 48).

 Criteria in Qualifying as an Expert Witness- In our jurisdiction, the criterion

remains to be the expert witness' special knowledge experience and practical
training that qualify him/her to explain highly technical medical matters to the
Court (Casumpang, et al. v. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, 11 March 2015).

 Probative value of a handwriting expert witness’ testimony- The opinion of

handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the expert’s function
being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion.
This principle holds true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting
similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of
specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. A
finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting
experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the
questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its
authenticity (Garbo v. Spouses Garabato, G.R. No. 200013, 14 January 2015).

 Expert witness not necessary if the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable- Where
the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur is warranted, an expert testimony
may be dispensed with in medical negligence cases. Resort to the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur as an exception to the requirement of an expert testimony in medical
negligence cases may be availed of if the following essential requisites are satisfied:
(1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is
negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the
 48

exclusive control of the person charged; and (3) the injury suffered must not have
been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured (Rosit v. Davao
Doctors Hospital, et al., G.R. No. 210445, 7 December 2015).

 Hot Tub Hearing. “A method used for giving concurrent expert evidence in civil
cases. In a “hot tub” hearing, the judge can hear the experts discussing the same
issue at the same time to explain each of their points in a discussion with a
professional colleague. The objective is to achieve greater efficiency and expedition,
by reduced emphasis on cross examination and increased emhphasis on
professional dialogue, and swift identification of the critical areas of disagreement
between the experts.” (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-BioTech
Applications, Inc., v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia- Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 209271, 8
December 2015)

8. Character evidence

Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions

 General rule: Character evidence is not admissible (Rule 130, Sec. 51).
 Exceptions:
(a) Criminal cases
 Accused – may prove his good moral character pertinent to the moral trait in
the offense charged.
 Prosecution – may present character evidence pertaining to accused’s bad
moral character pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged
only in rebuttal.
 Offended party – 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) Civil cases

 Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only
when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
 Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached (Rule 130, Sec. 51).

 Rape shield rule -- In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual
conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and
only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to
the case (R.A. No. 8505, Sec. 6).

Other Exclusionary Rules

1. The Bill of Rights

“The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any evidence
obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. Indeed, while the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to
the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without
contravening the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is
 49

of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of

government.“(Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, 23 November 2007)

2. Bank Secrecy Law

Section 2 of RA 1405 or the Bank Secrecy law institutionalized the policy of

encouraging deposits to banks by characterizing as absolutely confidential in general all
deposits of whatever nature with banks and other financial institutions in the country.
( It declares:

Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or

banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in
bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an
absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or
looked into by any person, government official, bureau or
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 officials, or in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. (BSB
Group, Inc. v. Go, GR No. 168644, 16 February 2010)

3. Anti-Wiretapping Act

R.A. No. 4200 or the Anti- Wiretapping Act states:

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being

authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known
as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise described:

It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in

the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly
possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word
secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the
manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other
person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either
verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of
such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall
not be covered by this prohibition.

Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the

existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same
or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or
secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this
Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
 50

4. The National Internal Revenue Code

Section 201 of RA 8424 or the National Internal Revenue Code states:

Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. - An instrument,

document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which
has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly
stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any
record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any
court until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and
cancelled.

C. Burden of Proof and What Need Not be Proved

Rule 131. Burden of Proof and Presumptions

 Presumption is an inference of an existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are

permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.

 Presumption compared with judicial notice and admissions:

 Presumption - proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the
presumption.
 Judicial notice and judicial admission - as a rule, proponent does not have to
introduce evidence.

 Classification of presumptions
Presumption of Law Presumption of Fact

Praesumptiones Juris Praesumptiones hominis

A deduction which the law A deduction which reason draws
expressly directs to be made from facts proved without an express
from particular facts. direction from the law to that effect.
Based on rules, laws, and Discretionary.
jurisprudence.
Types:
1. 1. Conclusive (juris et de jure)
2. 2. Disputable (juris tantum or
prima facie)

Sec. 1. Burden of proof

Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions

 Conclusive presumptions are not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary.
 Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing is true, and to act upon such belief,
he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted
to falsify it (Rule 131, Sec. 2 [a]).
 51

 The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (Rule 131, Sec. 2
[b]).

Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions

 Disputable presumptions are those which the law permits to be overcome or

contradicted.

 Willful suppression of evidence under par. (e)

 Requisites:
(a) The evidence is material.
(b) Party had the opportunity to produce the same.
(c) Said evidence is available only to said party.

 Presumption does not apply:

(a) If the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. (People v. Ducay, 225 SCRA 1).
(b) The suppression was not wilful.
(c) The suppressed evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative.
(d) The suppression is an exercise of a privilege (People v. Navaja, 220 SCRA 624).

 Presumption of authorship of a recent lawful act (par.1)

 The rationale for this presumption is similar to the rationale for the presumption of
authorship of falsification, which states that in the absence of satisfactory
explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the
forger of said document. If a person had in his possession a falsified document and
he made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear
presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. (Lastrilla v. Granada,
G.R. No. 160257, 31 January 2006).

Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy

Rule 129. What Need Not Be Proved

Sec. 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory

 The following need not be proved:

(a) Facts which a court shall or may take judicial notice of (Rule 129, Secs. 1 and 2);
(b) Judicial admissions (Rule 129, Sec. 4);
(c) Conclusive presumptions;
(d) Disputable presumptions not disputed;
(e) Res Ipsa Loquitur (Latin for "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.“)

 Court is compelled to take judicial notice; takes place at the court's own initiative.
 The court shall take mandatory judicial notice of the following (Rule 129, Sec. 1):
 Existence and territorial extent of states;
 Their political history;
 Forms of government;
 Symbols of nationality;
 Law of nations;
 Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
 Political constitution and history of the Philippines.
 Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines;
 52

 Laws of nature;
 Measure of time;
 Geographical divisions.

Example of Mandatory Judicial Notice:

 “Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court mandates that a court shall take judicial
notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the official acts of the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines. Thus, as both Congress and
this Court have repeatedly and consistently validated and recognized UP's
indefeasible title over its landholdings, the RTC and the Court of Appeals clearly
erred when it faulted the Republic and UP for presenting certified true copies of its
titles signed by its records custodian instead of either the duplicate originals or the
certified true copies issued by the Register- of Deeds of Quezon City. Indeed, the
RTC and the CA should have taken judicial notice of UP's title over its landholdings,
without need of any other evidence.” (Republic v. Rosario, GR No. 186635, 27 January,
2016)

Sec. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary

 Court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable
of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions. at the court's initiative, or on request of a party; requires a hearing
and presentation of evidence.

 Judicial notice is discretionary in the following:

 Matters of public knowledge;
 Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration;
 Matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary

 During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce
its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon.
 After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative
or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to
be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
 Examples of matters of public knowledge:
 Giving of tips, especially in a first rate hotel, is an accepted practice which the Court
can take judicial notice of (PAL v. CA, 257 SCRA 33, 1997).
 The current practice among major establishments to accept payment by means of
credit cards in lieu of cash (Mandarin Villa v. CA, 257 SCRA 538).
 Scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the use.
(Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Isle Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 169606, November 27, 2009).

Sec. 4. Judicial admissions

 Judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of

the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. (Rule 129, Sec. 4).
 The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made. (Rule 129, Sec. 4).
 53

 Judicial admissions may be made in:

 Pleadings filed by the parties; or
 During the course of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations.

 A judicial admission must be made in the same case in which it is offered. If made in
another case or in another court, it must be proven as in any other fact, but entitled
greater weight. This is admissible unless:
 Made only for purposes of the first case;
 Withdrawn with the permission of the court; and
 Court deems it proper to relieve the party.

 Implied admissions of allegations of usury and in actionable documents if not

specifically denied under oath (Rule 8, Secs. 8 and 11).

 Admissions during pre-trial in civil and criminal cases. (N.B.: In criminal cases the
admission must be reduced in writing and signed by accused and counsel [Rule 118, Sec.
4]).

 Admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader.

(Rule 10, Sec. 8). These are treated as extrajudicial admissions which must be proven as
fact.

 Implied admissions in the modes of discovery (Depositions; Interrogatories – Rule 23;

Failure to specifically deny under oath within 15 days a Request for Admission in a
pending case – Rule 26).

 Plea of guilt in criminal case (N.B.: A withdrawn plea of guilt is inadmissible, unlike in
civil cases where a withdrawn judicial admission is considered an extrajudicial
admission).

 Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client absent any gross
negligence which deprives counsel of due process of law or there is outright deprivation
of property or liberty (Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, G.R. No. 174154, 17
October 2008).

 Effect of judicial admissions

 A matter admitted need no longer be proved;
 The matter admitted cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party
making it.

 How judicial admissions may be contradicted:

 Upon a showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake; and
 When it is shown that no such admission was made.

 Foreign laws -- Foreign laws may be taken judicial notice in the following instances:
 When the foreign law refers to the law of nations. (Rule 129, Sec. 1).
 When the court takes judicial notice of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet
on a subject of law as a learned treatise. (Rule 130, Sec. 46).
 When the foreign statute is accepted by the Philippine government (Republic v.
Guanzon, 61 SCRA 360).
 54

 When a foreign judgment containing foreign law is recognized for enforcement.

(Rule 39, Sec. 48).
 If the foreign law refers to common law doctrines and rules from which many of our
laws were derived. (Alzua v. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308).

 Doctrine of processual presumption - Under this doctrine, the foreign law is considered
the same as the law of the forum. It arises if the foreign law, though properly applicable
is either not alleged or if alleged is not duly proved before a competent court.

 To prove foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply
with Rules 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court.

 Law of Nations
 Under the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land (1987 Constitution,
Article II, Section 2).
 Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore technically in the nature of local
laws and thus subject to mandatory judicial notice.

 Municipal ordinances
 Generally, courts are required to take judicial notice of laws. However, courts are not
mandated to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances unless the charter of the
concerned city provides for such judicial notice. (City of Manila v. Garcia, 1967). But
inferior courts sitting in the respective municipalities or cities are mandated to take
judicial notice thereof. The reason is that violations of the ordinances are usually
vested to the inferior courts exclusively in the exercise of their original jurisdiction.

 If an inferior court took judicial notice of a fact and there was an appeal, such court
taking the appeal should likewise take judicial notice. (U.S. v. Blanco, 37 Phil. 126).

 Court Orders
 Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of appellate courts but not
of the decisions of coordinate courts.
 In fact, a court may not take judicial notice of the decision or the facts involved in
another case tried by the same court itself unless the parties introduce the same in
evidence or doing so is convenient.

D. Presentation of Evidence

Rule 132. Presentation of Evidence

A. Examination of Witnesses

Sec. 1. Examination to be done in open court

Sec. 2. Proceedings to be recorded
Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness

 Rights of a witness
(a) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from
harsh or insulting demeanor;
(b) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(c) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
 55

(d) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
(e) 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. (Rule 132, Sec. 3).

 Obligations of a witness:
(a) A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a
claim against him (Rule 132, Sec. 3, par. 1).
(b) A witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense
(Rule 132, Sec. 3, par. 5).
(c) A witness must testify under oath or affirmation (Rule 132, Sec. 1).

Sec. 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness

Sec. 5. Direct examination

 Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party.

 Scope: facts relevant to the issue.

 Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), the judicial affidavits of the
parties’ witnesses shall take the place of such witnesses’ direct testimonies. As such,
the parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits.

Sec. 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent

 Scope
(a) Any matter stated in the direct examination;
(b) or connected therewith (Rule 132, Sec. 5);
(c) If unwilling/hostile/adverse party witness – cross is limited to matters stated
during direct examination. (Rule 132, Sec. 12)
 Purpose
(a) To test witness’ accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or
the reverse; and
(b) To elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (Rule 132, Sec. 5).

 Nature
(a) Fundamental right -- The right of a party to confront and cross-examine
opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in
proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a
fundamental right which is part of due process. (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng
Manggagawang Pilipino, et al., 1975, 62 SCRA 258)

(b) Personal right -- The right to cross-examination is a personal right which may be
expressly or impliedly waived. (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang
Pilipino, et al., 1975, supra).

 Lack of cross-examination; effect

 When cross examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party who offered the witness, the uncompleted testimony is
 56

thereby rendered incomplete and should be stricken from the record. (Bachrach
Motor Co., Inc., v. Court of Industrial Relations, 86 SCRA 27).

 It is not proper to exclude a witness because he heard the cross-examination of a

prior witness. Excluding future witnesses from the courtroom at the time another
witness is testifying, or ordering that these witnesses be kept separate from one
another, is primarily to prevent them from conversing with one another. The
purpose is to ensure that the witnesses testify to the truth by preventing them from
being influenced by the testimonies of the others. In other words, this measure is
meant to prevent connivance or collusion among witnesses. The efficacy of
excluding or separating witnesses has long been recognized as a means of
discouraging fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion. However, without any motion
from the opposing party or order from the court, there is nothing in the rules that
prohibits a witness from hearing the testimonies of other witnesses (Design Sources
International, Inc. v. Eristingcol, G.R. No. 193966, 19 February 2014).

Sec. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent

 Scope
(a) Any matter covered during cross-examination;
(b) Matters not covered during cross, upon the court’s discretion. (Rule 132, Sec. 6).

 Purpose
(a) to explain; or
(b) to supplement his answers given during the cross- examination. (Rule 132, Sec.
6).

Sec. 8. Re-cross examination

 Scope
(a) Any matter covered during re-direct examination;
(b) Other matters, upon the court’s discretion. (Rule 132, Sec. 7).

 Purpose
(a) To test witness’ accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or
the reverse; and
(b) to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.

Sec. 9. Recalling witness

 After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its
discretion, as the interests of justice may require. (Rule 132, Sec. 9)
 A showing of some concrete, substantial grounds for recall, i.e. such as particularly
identified material points were not covered, or particular vital documents were not
presented to the witness or the cross-examination was conducted in so inept manner
as to result in a virtual absence thereof (People v. Rivera, 200 SCRA 786).

 Judge’s participation during examination of a witness

 A judge who presides at a trial is not a mere referee. He must actively
participate therein by directing counsel to the facts in dispute, by asking
 57

clarifying questions, and by showing an interest in a fast and fair trial (Clarin v.
Yatco, 56 O.G. 7042, Nov. 14, 1960).
 He can interrogate witnesses to elicit the truth, to obtain clarification, or to test
their credibility (People v Moreno, 83 Phil. 286).
 However, this power must be exercised by the court sparingly and judiciously
(People v. Ferrer, 44 O.G. 112).
 The judge cannot curtail counsel's right to interrogate witnesses. (People v. Bedia,
83 Phil. 909)

 Recantation of a witness
 Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained
from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary considerations. Hence, a
retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. They are generally
unreliable and looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts (People v.
Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 5 October 2011).
 The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is retracted and a
subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same witness, the
test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the
application of the general rules of evidence (People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 5
October 2011)

Sec. 10. Leading and misleading questions

 A leading question is a question which suggests to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires (Rule 132, Sec. 10).

 General rule: A leading question is not allowed.

 Exceptions:
(a) On cross-examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is difficulty in 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;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) 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. (Rule 132, Sec. 10).

 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.
 General rule: A misleading question is not allowed.
 Exceptions: none.

Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness

 Methods of impeachment of adverse party’s witness:

(a) Contradictory evidence;

Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony of the same witness, or other
evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of another
witness
 58

(b) Evidence of prior inconsistent statements;

Prior inconsistent Statements refer to statements, oral or documentary, made by
the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he
is testifying

(c) Evidence of bad character;

(d) Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence.

Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness

 A party can impeach his own witness only by:

(a) Evidence contradictory to his testimony; or
(b) Evidence of prior inconsistent statements.

 Exception: However, in the case of hostile witnesses, adverse party witnesses or

involuntary witnesses, they can also be impeached by other modes of impeachment,
aside from contradictory statements and prior inconsistent statements made by
them. (Rule 132, Sec. 12).

Sec. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements

 Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony:
(a) the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present;
(b) he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain
them; and
(c) if the statements be in writing, they must be shown to the witness before any
question is put to him concerning them (Rule 132, Sec. 13).

 Non-compliance with the foundational elements for this mode will be a ground for
an objection based on “improper impeachment.” Over a timely objection, extrinsic
evidence of a prior inconsistent statement without the required foundation is not
admissible (Riano, p. 327).

Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of witness

 Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has
been impeached (Rule 132, Sec. 14).
 This arises from the presumption that the witness is truthful and of good character,
hence the necessity of initially showing such traits is unnecessary (Riano, p. 331).

Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses

Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder admissible
Sec. 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness

 Judicial Affidavit Rule

 Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, judicial affidavits of witnesses shall take the
place of their direct testimonies (Sec. 2).
 59

 The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same.

B. Authentication and Proof of Documents

 Authentication is the act or mode of giving authenticity to a statute, authority or other
written instrument, or a copy thereof, so as to render it legally admissible in evidence
(Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. VI, 1999 ed., p. 262).

Sec. 19. Classes of documents

 Public and private documents

 Public documents are:
(c) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(d) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
(e) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law
to the entered therein (Rule 132, Sec. 19, par. 2).

 All other writings are private (Rule 132, Sec. 19, par. 3).

o Baptismal Certificate - While a baptismal certificate may be considered a

public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of
the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with
respect to the child's paternity;" and that baptismal certificates were "per
se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation," and thus "cannot be
admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove [filiation]." (Alado
v. Alcoran, G.R. No. 163362, 8 July 2015).

 As a general rule, public documents need not be authenticated; private

documents have to be authenticated to be admissible in evidence. (J. Benipayo,
Evidence: Basic Principles and Selected Problems)
 “Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making
that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the pubic at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private
document.” (Fabay v. Resuena, AC No. 9723, 26, January 2016)

Sec. 20. Proof of private document

 Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker
(Rule 132, Sec. 20, par. 1).

 Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to
be. (Rule 132, Sec. 20, par. 2).

Sec. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary

 60

 Evidence of authenticity is not required when:

(a) Private document is more than thirty years old;
(b) Produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine;
and
(c) Is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given (Rule 132, Sec. 21).

Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved

 The handwriting of a person may be proved by:

(a) Testimony of:
 Witness who actually who actually saw the person writing the instrument
(Rule 132, Sec. 20a).
 Witness familiar with such handwriting (Rule 132, Sec. 22) and who can
give his opinion thereon, such opinion being exception to opinion rule
(Rule 130, Sec 50b).
 Expert witness (Rule 130, Sec. 49).

(b) Comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine
specimens thereof (Rule 132, Sec. 22).

 No preference rule - The law makes no preference, much less distinction among
and between the different means stated in the Rules of Court in proving the
handwriting of a person. (Domingo v. Domingo, G.R. No. 150897, 11 April 2005)

 Probative value of opinions of handwriting experts - Courts are not bound to

give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting experts,
as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory. (Bautista v. Castro, G.R. No.
61260, 17 February 1992, 206 SCRA 305, 312)

Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence

 Public documents as evidence

(a) Entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (Rule 132, Sec. 23).
(b) All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of:
(i) the fact which gave rise to their execution; and
(ii) date of the document. (Rule 132, Sec. 23).

Sec. 24. Proof of official record

 The record of public documents (referred to in paragraph Rule 132, Sec. 19 [a]) may
be evidenced by:
(a) An official publication thereof; or
(b) By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy.

Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state

 Attestation requirements – primary:

 61

(a) Statement of correctness - The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy
is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
(Rule 132, Sec. 25)
(b) Official Seal - The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the
seal of such court. (Rule 132, Sec. 25)

 Requisites for foreign public documents

(a) Certificate of custody - If the record is not kept in the Philippines the copy must
be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody. The certificate
may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept (Rule
132, Sec. 24).
(b) Authentication – the certificate must be authenticated by the seal of the office of
the issuer (Rule 132, Sec. 24).

 Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records and the
certificate to that effect by a Philippine foreign service officer, a mere copy of the
foreign document is NOT admissible as evidence to prove foreign law (Wildvalley
Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 119602, 6 October 2000).

 Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign

authority or tribunal may be proved by: (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof. Such official
publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof.
The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or
consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that
the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may
be, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.

Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that
the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may
be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be
any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court
(Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, 20 August 2014).

Sec. 26. Irremovability of public record

Sec. 27. Public record of a private document

 The fact that the documents were certified as true copies of the original by the
PCGG does not enhance its admissibility. These documents have remained private
even if it is in the custody of the PCGG. What became public are not the private
documents (themselves) but the recording of it in the PCGG. For, "while public
records kept in the Philippines, of private writings are also public documents...the
public writing is not the writing itself but the public record thereof. Stated
otherwise, if a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its
record, its recordation, or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public
 62

document, but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so
as to make it admissible without authentication (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Tantoco
Jr., G.R. No. 18881, 21 April 2014)."

 Proof of public records of private documents:

(a) The original record; (Rule 132, Sec. 27)
(b) Copy of the original record, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with
an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (Rule 132, Sec. 27)

Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record

 A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or

by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above
provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such
record or entry (Rule 132, Sec. 28).

Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached

 Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:

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

Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents

 Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof, the

certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved (Rule 132, Sec. 30).

Sec. 31. Alterations in document, how to explain

 A party may show that an alteration was:

(a) made by another, without his concurrence;
(b) was made with the consent of the parties affected by it or was otherwise properly
or innocent made; or
(c) that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument (Rule
132, Sec. 31).

Sec. 32. Seal

Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language

C. Offer and Objection

Sec. 34. 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 34).
 63

 The court considers the evidence only when it is formally offered. The
offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the trial court to
base its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly on the evidence
offered by the parties. A piece of document will remain a scrap of paper
without probative value unless and until admitted by the court in
evidence for the purpose or purposes for which it is offered. The formal
offer of evidence allows the parties the chance to object to the
presentation of an evidence which may not be admissible for the purpose
it is being offered (Laborte and Philippine Tourism Authority v. Pagsanjan
Tourism Consumers Cooperative, G.R. No. 183860, 15 January 2014).
 Requisites for evidence to be considered despite failure to formally offer
it: (1) duly identified by the testimony duly recorded, ad (2) must have
been incorporated in the records of the case (Laborte and Philippine Tourism
Authority v. Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers Cooperative, G.R. No. 183860, 15
January 2014; Heirs of Serapio Mabborang v. Mabborang, G.R. No. 182805, 22
April 2015).

Sec. 35. When to make offer

 Testimonial evidence - must be offered at the time the witness is called to testify.
 Documentary and object evidence - must be offered after the presentation of a
party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the
court to be done in writing (Rule 132, Sec. 35).

Sec. 36. Objection

 Rule: grounds for objections must always be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 4).
 When to make objections:
(a) Testimonial evidence - must be objected to immediately after the offer is made.
(Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 1).
(b) Objection to a question during oral examination - must be made as soon as the
grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 2).
(c) Documentary evidence - shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court (Rule 132, Sec. 36,
par. 3).

Sec. 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary

 Repeating an objection is NOT necessary when it becomes reasonably apparent in
the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded
are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether such
objection was sustained or overruled. (Rule 132, Sec. 37).
 In such case, it is sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to
such class of questions. Rule 132, Sec. 37).

Sec. 38. Ruling

 When made: Immediately after the objection is made.

 Exception: Unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the
question presented (Note: 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).
 64

 Content of ruling: The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need NOT be
stated. (In contrast, objections made by lawyers must always specify the grounds
therefor.)
 Exception: If 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.

 Erroneous rulings on admissibility of evidence are:

(a) Considered errors in judgment, not of jurisdiction;
(b) Interlocutory in nature;
(c) May not be the subject of a separate appeal or review on certiorari;
(d) Must be assigned as errors and reviewed in the appeal properly taken from the
decision rendered by the trial court on the merits of the case. (Triplex
Enterprises, Inc. v. PNB-Republic Bank, et al. G.R.,No. 151007, 17 July 2006).

Sec. 39. Striking out answer

 Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to
be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to
be stricken off the record (Rule 132, Sec. 39).
 On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper (Rule 132, Sec. 39).

Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence

 If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror
may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded
is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony (Rule
132, Sec. 40).

E. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Rule 133. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Sec. 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined

 Preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases.
 In determining preponderance of evidence, 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 testify;
 The probability or improbability of their testimony;
 Their interest or want of interest;
 Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial;
 Number of witnesses (note preponderance is not necessarily equivalent with
the no. of witnesses).

Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

 65

 Proof beyond reasonable doubt - is that degree of proof which produces conviction
in an unprejudiced mind; required in criminal cases. Absolute certainty is not
required, only moral certainty.

Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction

 An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, is not a sufficient ground for

conviction UNLESS corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (Rule 133, Sec. 3).

Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient

 Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction:

(a) There is more than 1 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. (Rule 133, Sec. 4).

 Lest this statement be misunderstood, a finding of guilt is still possible

despite the absence of direct evidence. Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence may result if sufficient circumstances, proven
and taken together, create an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable
conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, was the author
of the crime (Almojuela v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183202, 2 June
2014).
 To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential
that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Stated
differently, the test to determine whether or not the circumstantial
evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of
circumstances duly proven must be consistent with each other and that
each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused’s guilt
and inconsistent with his innocence (Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, 12
February 2014).

 The positive identification of the accused-appellant constitutes direct

evidence, and not merely circumstantial evidence (People v. Bas, G.R. No.
195196, 13 July 2015).

 For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove by
clear and convincing evidence that he was at another place at the time of
the commission of the offense but that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the scene of the crime. [Accused] himself admitted that he
was just one kilometer away from the crime scene when the incident
happened during the unholy hour of 1:00 a.m. of July 15, 2001 As such,
[the accused] failed to prove physical impossibility of his being at the
crime scene on the date and time in question. Just like denial, alibi is an
inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive
identification by the witnesses of the petitioners as the perpetrators of the
crime. In the present case, the accused was positively identified by the
prosecution witnesses as one of the assailants. Moreover, alibi becomes
 66

less credible if offered by the accused himself and his immediate relatives
as they are expected to make declarations in his favor, as in this case,
where Emilio, his father and brother insisted that the former was
somewhere else when the incident occurred. For these reasons, Emilio's
defense of alibi will not hold. (Ibañez v. People, GR No. 190798, 27 January
2016)

Sec. 5. Substantial evidence

 Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
 In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.

 Clear and convincing evidence -- Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in

the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be
established. It is intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the
extent of such certainty as required beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 227).

Sec. 6. 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. (Rule 133, Sec. 6)

Sec. 7. 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. (Rule 133, Sec. 7).
 Examples of motions which require presentation of evidence:
 Motion for bail;
 Application for TRO/Injunction; or
 Motion to dismiss.