EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Chapter I
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Concept of "evidence"
1. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
(Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court).
2. Not every circumstance which affords an inference as to whether
the matter alleged is true or false is considered evidence. To be considered
evidence the same must be "sanctioned" or allowed by the Rules of Court.
It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the Rules even if it may
prove the existence or non-existence of a fact. Thus, a coerced
extrajudicial confession of the accused that he indeed shot and killed the
victim, does not fall within the definition of evidence because the type of
confession offered is not sanctioned by the Rules.
Applicability of the rules of evidence
1. The rules of evidence, being parts of the Rules of Court, apply
only to judicial proceedings (Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court). It is a well-
settled procedural principle that the Rules of Court shall not apply to
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases, except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient (Sec. 4, Rule 1, Rules of
Court).
2. It has been held that a reliance on the technical rules of evidence
in labor cases is misplaced. Hence, the application of the concept of
judicial admissions in such cases would be to exact compliance with
technicalities of law that is contrary to the demands of substantial justice
(Mayon Hotel & Restaurant us. Adana, G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005).
3. Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of
the rules obtaining in a court of law. Technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly applied l administrative due process cannot be
fully equated with I process in strict judicial terms (Samalio us. Court of
Appeals 454 SCRA 462, March 31, 2005).
4. In Ong Chia us. Republic, 328 SCRA 749, the C( ruled that the
rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case involving a
petition for naturalization.
5. The rules of evidence under the Rules of Court not apply to
administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings Bantolino us. Coca Cola
Bottlers, Inc., 403 SCRA 699, the Court reiterated previous rulings that the
rules of evidence are strictly observed in proceedings before administrative
bodies where decisions may be reached on the basis of position pal only. It
is not necessary for an affiant to appear and testify be cross-examined by
counsel for the adverse party. Administrative bodies are not bound by the
technical niceties of and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of
law.
Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
It is significant to note that while the definition of' evidence" under
the Rules of Court applies only to judicial proceedings, the Rules on
Electronic Evidence apply to all actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-
judicial and administrative cases (Sec. 2, Rule 1, Rules on Electronic
Evidence).
Scope of the rules of evidence
As used in judicial proceedings, the rules of evidence f be the same
in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by
law or the Rules of Court (Sec. 2, . 128, Rules of Court).
1
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Purpose of evidence
The purpose of evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of
fact in a judicial proceeding (Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court). Litigations
cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, or even presumptions, with
no basis in evidence. The truth must have to be determined by the rules for
admissibility and proof (Lagon vs. Hoover, 349 SCRA 363). Evidence is
required because of the presumption that the court is not aware of the
veracity of the facts involved in a case. It is therefore, incumbent upon the
parties to prove a fact in issue thru the presentation of admissible evidence.
Truth as the purpose of evidence
While the purpose of evidence is to know the truth, the truth
referred to in the definition is not the actual truth. The limitations of a
judicial system cannot guarantee knowledge of the actual or real truth.
Actual truth may not always be achieved in a judicial proceeding because
the findings of the court would depend on the evidence presented before it.
For instance, while it may be the actual truth that it was Mr. X who shot
Mr. Y, if the available evidence presented and admitted in court points to
Mr. Z as the culprit, then the legal truth is that it was Mr. Z who shot Mr.
Y.
When evidence is required
Evidence is the means of proving a fact. The introduction of
evidence is required only when the court has to resolve a question of fact.
Where no factual issue exists in a case, there is no need to present
evidence because where the case presents a question of law, such question
is resolved by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules to
which no evidence is required. Hence, when the pleadings in a civil case
do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted. There is no
more reason to present evidence. The case is then ripe for judicial
determination through a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34 of the
Rules of Court.
Distinction between proof and evidence
1. “Proof” is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of
evidence. It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or
persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence (29
Am Jur 2d, Evidence,§2).
2. Evidence is the medium or means by which a fact is proved or
disproved. Proof is the effect of evidence because without evidence there is
no proof (Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed., 1094). It must be remembered that
bare allegation unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof
(Domingo vs. Robles, 453 SCRA 812, March 18, 2005).
Requisites for the admissibility of evidence
1. Under Sec. 3 of Rule 128, "Evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the or these rules." Thus, for
evidence to be admissible, two elements must concur, namely:
(a) the evidence is relevant, and
(b) the evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent).
These two elements correspond to Wigmore's two axioms of
admissibility, namely: (a) That none but facts having rational probative
value are admissible; and (b) That all facts having rational probative value
are admissible unless some specific rule forbids (I Wigmore, §§9-10, 289-
295). The first axiom is, in substance, the axiom of relevance while the
second axiom of competence.
2
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
2. No evidence is admissible unless it is relevant. However,
relevancy alone does not make the evidence admissible. An item of
evidence may be relevant but not admissible. It is not admissible if it is
incompetent. Neither is evidence admissible merely because it is
competent. Although an evidence is competent, it is still inadmissible if it
is not relevant. The formula for admissibility is a simple one. To be
admissible, the evidence must be both relevant and competent.
Illustrations:
(a) In a prosecution for homicide, the witness swears that the accused
killed the victim because his ever truthful boyhood friend told him
so. The testimony, although relevant, is not admissible because the
witness was not testifying based on his personal knowledge of the
event. The testimony is hearsay and this type of evidence is, as a
rule, excluded by the rules (Sec. 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court). In
short, the testimony offered is relevant but incompetent.
(b) In a prosecution for robbery, the wife of the accused testified that
the husband admitted to her in confidence that it was he who killed
their neighbor. If the testimony is offered as evidence against the
husband and is objected to by the latter, the testimonial evidence
will be inadmissible because it is not competent evidence under the
Rules of Court even if relevant to the issues of the case (Sec. 24[a],
Rule 130, Rules of Court). Here, the testimony is also relevant but
incompetent.
(c) In a civil case for collection of a sum of money, the testimony of a
witness to the transaction between the creditor and the debtor is
competent evidence because the witness would be testifying on the
basis of his personal knowledge. However, if the subject of the
testimony includes the alleged frequent bouts of dizziness of the
debtor, that portion of the testimony is made inadmissible by the
fact that the matters testified to are irrelevant to the issue of
whether or not a debt exists. In this case the testimony is competent
but irrelevant.
(d) Documents obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees
although containing relevant matters are inadmissible because they
are illegally obtained. Evidence illegally seized is inadmissible
(Sec. 3[2], Art. III, Constitution of the Philippines).
(e) A defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim
fire a pistol first at the accused without the latter's provocation. The
testimony of an eyewitness is competent and the matters testified
to are relevant to the plea of self-defense. The testimony is thus,
admissible. It is not only relevant but competent as well.
(f) Upon a timely objection, oral evidence will be exclude to prove a
contract of a sale of a parcel of land which does not conform to the
statute of frauds (Art. 1403[2],Civil Code of the Philippines). Even if
the evidence is relevant to the issue of existence or non-existence
of the contract it is inadmissible because it is excluded by law.
Relevant evidence
1. Under Sec. 4 of Rule 128, evidence to be relevant must have
such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in existence or non-
existence. The concept of relevance is clearly one of logic. It deals with the
rational relationship between evidence and the fact to be proved. In other
words, the evidence adduced should be directed to the matters in dispute
and evidence which has neither direct nor indirect relationship to such
matters must be set aside as irrelevant.
2. The matter of relevance under the Rules of Court quires the
existence of a fact in issue. Necessarily, this fad issue must be a disputed
fact. Since relevant evidence necessarily relates to a disputed fact, it is
obvious that evidence offered to prove an undisputed fact is irrelevant,
and, as such, is inadmissible. Where there is no issue as to a matter, there
exists no purpose for an item of evidence.
3
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
3. It is the relation to the fact in issue which makes evidence either
relevant or irrelevant. If the evidence induces belief as to the existence or
the non-existence of the fact in sue, the evidence is relevant. If it does not
induce such belief, it is irrelevant.
4. Although competency of the evidence is a necessary component
of admissible evidence, the question that most ten arises in court is the
relevance of the evidence. When an advocate offers a piece of evidence
for the court's consideration, he offers the evidence to prove a fact. This
fact may either be the immediate fact in issue or the ultimate fact in issue.
Take the standard car accident as example. Counsel for the plaintiff
presents the testimony of another car driver to testify to the following: that
the defendant was driving at a speed of one hundred twenty (120)
kilometers per hour in a sixty (60) kilometer limit zone at the time
plaintiff was sideswiped and injured by the defendant's car. The witness
claims he knows whereof he speaks because he saw everything that
transpired. Whether or not such testimony meets the test of relevance will
depend upon what counsel wants to prove by the testimony Initially of
course, counsel would want to prove that at the time of the accident, the
defendant was driving way beyond the speed limit. This is the immediate
fact sought to be established. Since there is a traceable connection
between the substance of the testimony and the fact to be proven, the
testimony is relevant. On the other hand, if the testimony is offered to
prove that the defendant is a thief, the testimony has no logical connection
at all to the fact sought to be proven. Certainly, there is no connection
between driving at a very fast pace and the defendant's being a thief. The
testimony is hence, irrelevant.
5. Relevance further requires that the immediate fact proven must
have a connection to the ultimate issue. In the car accident case just
illustrated, assume that counsel has established through the witness that
the defendant was driving way beyond the speed limit at the time of the
accident. Establishing such a fact is not however, sufficient. This fact
must be shown to be related to the ultimate issue in the case. Now, the
usual ultimate issue in every automobile accident case is whether or not
the damage caused to the plaintiff arose out of the defendant's negligent
operation of his car. The question that should necessarily be asked is: Is
the immediate fact proven, i.e:, defendant's driving beyond the speed limit,
related to the issue of negligence? If it is, then the fact proven is relevant
evidence. If it is not related to the issue of negligence, it is irrelevant.
Bar 1981
"S" is indebted to a bank. When the obligation falls due,
he fails to pay and the bank sues for collection. As part of the
evidence of the bank, the accountant of "S" is placed on the
stand and in the course of his examination he is asked if he, in
turn, is also indebted to the bank.
The lawyer of "S" interposes two objections to the
question: (a) that it is impertinent; and (b) it would therefore, be
improper to let him testify against himself.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objections.
Suggested answer:
(a) The objection of "S" that the question is imper-
tinent or irrelevant should be sustained. The issue in the case
is the indebtedness of the defendant to the bank and not the
indebtedness of the accountant of "S" to the bank.
(b) x x x
Test for determining the relevancy of an evidence
1. Because of the definition of relevant evidence under Sec. 4 of
Rule 128, it is obvious that relevance is a matter of relationship between
the evidence and a fact in issue. The determination of relevance is thus, a
matter of inference and not of law. The test would therefore, be one of
logic, common sense, and experience.
4
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
2. The existence of the relationship between the fact in issue and
the offered evidence is one that is perceived only by the mind without
reference to a statute or a rule. It is therefore, a matter of reasoning. It is a
matter of reasoning because relevance is a matter of logic. The matter of
relevance is a matter that is addressed to the court. The case of People us.
Galleno, 291 SCRA 761, is instructive: "There is no precise and universal
test of relevancy provided by law. However, the determination of
whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of
the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic
and everyday experience."
Relevance of evidence of the credibility of a witness
1. Evidence on the credibility or lack of it of a witness is always
relevant. In every proceeding, the credibility of the witness is always an
issue. The credibility of the witness has the tendency to prove or disprove
the truthfulness of his testimony. Every type of evidence proffered,
whether it be an object or a document, requires the testimony of a witness
who shall testify as to the authenticity of the evidence. The probative
value of the evidence will largely depend upon the credibility of the
sponsoring witness. In fact, under Sec. 11 of Rule 132, a witness may be
impeached by contradictory evidence, by evidence that in the past, he has
made statements inconsistent with his present testimony or by evidence
that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad. Under
Sec. 6 of Rule 132, he may be cross-examined on matters that would
indicate his accuracy, truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias or the
reverse. Certainly, an inquiry into the credibility and biases of a witness
although without a direct relationship to the issues of the case, is
admissible. Hence, any objection to a question that shows the lack of
credibility of the witness on the ground that it is irrelevant or merely
collateral should not be sustained.
2. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth
of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself such as the common
experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances (People us. Calumpang, 454 SCRA 719 [2005]).
Competent evidence
1. Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a
particular case (Bautista us. Aparece, [CA] 51 O.G. 805, 808).
2. If the test of relevance is logic and common sense, the test of
competence is the law or the rules. If the law or a particular rule excludes
the evidence, it is incompetent. Competence is therefore, a matter of law
or a matter of rule. The question as to competence is: Is the evidence
allowed by the law or by the rules? If it is allowed, the evidence is
competent. If it is not allowed, it is incompetent.
Imagine and assume for the sake of illustration that a rule of
evidence has just been adopted mandating that only documentary
evidences to which have been attached a yellow ribbon on the bottom right
corner may be marked and admitted in evidence. If the adverse counsel
presents for identification and marking a document to which had been
attached a red ribbon, the document is to be excluded because it is not
competent. It is incompetent because the rule says so regardless of its logical
relation to the fact in issue.
3. Competence refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received
in evidence. However, when applied to a witness, the term competent refers
to the qualifications of the witness. It refers to his eligibility to take the stand
and to testify. It is in this context that the term is normally associated with. A
trial objection employing the ground incompetent is usually used in relation
to the ineligibility of a witness to testify. If an evidence offered is
objectionable on the ground that it is incompetent, a general objection that it
is incompetent is not an accepted form of objection. The objection should
specify the ground for its incompetence such as leading, hearsay or parol.
A1though evidence is incompetent if excluded by law or by the rules, evi-
dence is not objected to on the ground that it is incompetent. It is so general
a term and cannot be appreciated in court. Courts do not need generalities.
General objections are viewed with disfavor because specific objections are
required by Sec. 36, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. For purposes of trial
5
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
objections, evidence is never incompetent. It is people who are. It is sloppy
usage to object to a testimony or a document as incompetent because the
term is more appropriately directed to a witness.
Competence of electronic evidence
An electronic evidence is competent evidence and is admissible if it
complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court
and is authenticated in the manner prescribed (Sec. 3, Rule 3, Rules on
Electronic Evidence).
Collateral matters
1. A matter is collateral when it is on a "parallel or diverging line,"
merely "additional" or "auxiliary" (Black's, 5th Ed., 237). This term connotes
an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in
dispute.
The motive of a person and in some instances, his reputation are
matters that may be considered collateral to the subject of a controversy. A
very strong motive to kill the victim does not ipso facto make motive
relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence because the person with
absolutely no motive to kill could be the culprit. Evidence of the bad
reputation of the accused for being troublesome and aggressive does not
make the evidence admissible to prove his guilt. After all, the culprit could
have been the person with the most endearing reputation.
When collateral matters are allowed
As a rule, evidence on collateral matters are not allowed (Sec. 4,
Rule 128, Rules of Court). This rule is, however, not an absolute rule.
Sometimes a collateral matter may be admitted in evidence. Under the
Rules of Court, a collateral matter may be admitted if it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue (Sec. 4, Rule 128 Rules of Court). In other words, while the evidence
may not bear directly on the issue, it will be admitted if it has the tendency
to corroborate or supplement facts established previously by direct
evidence, or to induce belief as to the probability or improbability of a fact
in issue.
To illustrate: Although evidence of character is generally
inadmissible, evidence of the good moral character of the accused is
admissible when said. Character is pertinent to the moral trait involved in
the offense charged (Sec. 51[a][1], Rule 130, Rules of Court). In civil cases,
evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case (Sec. 51[b], Rule
130, Rules of Court). Also, evidence of the good character of a witness is
admissible if his character has been previously impeached (Sec 14, Rule
132, Rules of Court).
Inadmissibility of character evidence
1. Character refers to what a man is and depends on the attributes
he possesses. It is not the same as a man's reputation because the latter is
what he is supposed to be in accordance with what people say he is and
depends on how people perceive him to be (Black's, 5th Ed., 211).
2. Character evidence is not generally admissible (Sec. 51, Rule
130, Rules of Court). Character is generally irrelevant in determining a
controversy because the evidence of a person's character or trait is not
admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with such character
or trait in a particular occasion (29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §363).
Proof of bad moral character of the accused
1. In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral
character of the accused in its evidence-in-chief. It can only do so in
6
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
rebuttal (Sec. 51, [a][2], Rule 130, Rules of Court). This means that the
prosecution may not offer evidence of the character of the accused unless
the accused himself has offered evidence of his good character. The
prosecution therefore, must wait until the accused puts his character in
issue during the proceedings. Where the accused proves his good moral
character pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged
(Sec. 51[a][1], Rule 130, Rules of Court), he opens the door to the
prosecution to prove that his character is, in fact, bad. Then and only then
may the prosecution prove the bad moral character of the accused.
2. Confining the right of the prosecution to prove the bad moral
character of the accused only by way of rebuttal prevents a
pronouncement of guilt not because there exists sufficient evidence of his
guilt, but because he is a "bad" man. The rule therefore, allows a
conviction only upon evidence affirmatively showing his commission of
the offense charged.
When character evidence is admissible
Character evidence is admissible in the following cases:
(a) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be
proved by the accused if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged (Sec. 51[a][3J, Rule
130, Rules of Court).
(b) The accused may prove his good moral character when
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged (Sec. 51[a][1],
Rule 130, Rules of Court). In doing so, an accused may advance more than
one character trait as evidence so long as each trait is germane to some
issue in the case (United States vs. Curtis [Ca3 Pa] 644 F2d 263). He may
not however, prove his character by evidence of specific instances of good
conduct (29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §367; Government of Virgin Islands vs.
Grant [CA3 V] 775 F2d 508, 19 Fed Rules Evid Serv 620). Hence, he cannot
prove that on one occasion he fed an old woman dying of starvation, and
on another, he came to the aid of a damsel in distress. However, when the
specific acts are the very issues in the case, an inquiry into such acts is
permissible.
(c) In 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 (Sec. 51[b], Rule 130, Rules of Court). Thus, evidence
of a party's intemperance may be admitted when his intemperance is
pertinent to the issues involved.
(d) Evidence of the good moral character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached (Sec. 14, Rule 132,
Rules of Court). It is error for counsel to offer evidence of the good moral
character of his witness who is presented in court for the first time since
he could not have been previously impeached.
Admissibility of opinion evidence
As a rule, the opinion of a witness is inadmissible (Sec. 48, Rule
130, Rules of Court).
When opinion evidence is admissible
1. When the opinion is that of an expert, i.e., the opinion of a
witness requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which
he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence (Sec. 49, Rule 130,
Rules of Court).
2. When the opinion is that of an ordinary witness provided that
the proper basis of the opinion is given and the subject of the opinion is
any of the following matters:
(a) the identity of a person about whom the witness has adequate
knowledge;
7
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
(b) the handwriting of the person of which the witness has adequate
knowledge;
(c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted; and
(d) the impressions of the witness on the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person (Sec. 50, Rule 130, Rules of
Court).
Bar 2005
Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a
chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and money.
Dencio then brought Candida, Marcela's maid, to a bedroom
where he raped her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and
leading: "Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!" After raping Candida,
Dencio fled from the house with the loot. Candida then untied
Marcela and rushed to the police station about a kilometer away
and told Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged
into the house of Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her
of jewelry and money. Candida also related to the police officer
that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. The policeman
noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse.
Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial,
Candida can no longer be located.
(a) x x x
(b) If the police officer will testify that he noticed
Candida to be hysterical and on theverge of collapse, would such
testimony be considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible? Explain.
Suggested answer:
(a) x x x
(b) The testimony would be admissible even if it would
be an opinion. The opinion of an ordinary witness is
admissible when such testimony refers to his impressions of the
of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person (Sec.
50, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Admissibility of previous conduct or similar acts as evi-
dence
1. Assume that Mr. X is accused of physical injuries. Is evidence
that he committed similar acts in the past admissible to prove his
propensity for committing such acts? Answer: The evidence is not
admissible for the purpose for which it is offered. Sec. 34 of Rule 130
clearly provides: "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 a
similar thing at another time ... " (Sec. 34, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
2. In the same vein, evidence that Jose was cleared of a previous
charge of robbery is not admissible to prove that he could not have
committed the robbery for which he is presently charged. The rule
enunciated in Sec. 34 of Rule 130 is founded on common reason. To argue
that a person did or did not commit an act because he did not or did
commit a similar thing in the past is non sequitur (it does not follow).
When evidence of similar acts or previous conduct is
admissible
1. Evidence of similar acts is admissible for any of the following
purposes: (a) specific intent; (b) knowledge; (c) identity; (d) plan; (e)
system; (f) scheme; (g) habit; (h) custom; (i) usage; and the like.
2. For example, evidence of the other crimes, acts or wrongs of the
accused is admissible to show that the offense for which he is currently
8
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
charged and the said previous similar acts show the "signature" or
"handiwork" of the accused, because of identical modus operandi. In other
words, the similar acts may be offered to show that they share distinctive
features as the offense for which the accused is charged.
Admissible evidence distinguished from credible evidence
1. Admissible evidence is not necessarily credible evidence. In fact,
admissibility and credibility must be sharply contrasted. They are entirely
two different matters and present different issues. The term "admissible"
means that the evidence is of such a character that the court, pursuant to the
rules of evidence, is bound to receive it or to allow it to be introduced at the
trial. Admissibility however, does not guarantee credibility. Admissibility is
one thing and credibility is another.
2. The term "credibility" refers to worthiness of belief, that quality
which renders a witness worthy of belief (Black's, 5th Ed., 330). The
meaning of credibility in law is exactly what it means in ordinary usage:
"believability." After the competence of a witness is allowed, the
consideration of his credibility follows.
Admissibility and probative value
The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its
probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain
pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers
to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a
particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight
depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules
of evidence (Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan us. Cormoposa, G.R. No.
152807, August 12, 2003).
Some basic tenets of credibility.
1. Jurisprudence has laid down some basic rules on credibility such
as:
(a) Whether or not a witness or an evidence is credible is an issue
addressed to the judgment of the trial court;
(b) Findings of credibility of the trial court will generally be
respected on appeal; even findings of facts of the Court of
Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence, are
conclusive and binding upon the parties and not reviewable
by the Supreme Court (Millares us. PLDT, G.R. No. 154078, May
6, 2005); and
(c) Credibility or lack of it is largely determined by human
behavior and experience.
2. The determination of the credibility of a witness is within the
domain of the trial court (Llanto us. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288 [2005]).
3. Factual findings of trial courts which have been affirmed in
toto by the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect and
will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked
certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the
outcome of the case (Yulo us. People, 452 SCRA 705 [2005J; Mendoza us.
People, 448 SCRA 158, January 14, 2005).
4. The factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are generally
accorded respect and even finality by the Supreme Court if supported by
substantial evidence in recognition of their expertise on the specific
matters under consideration (Quiambao us. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA 17
[2005]).
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
9
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Literally falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus means "false in one
thing, false in everything" (Dawson us. Bertolinin, 70 R.I. 325, 38 A.2d 765,
768). The doctrine means that if the testimony of a witness on a material
issue is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury
may disregard all the witness' testimony (Hargrave vs. Stock loss, 127
N.J.L. 262, 21 A.2d 820, 823). It is particularly applied to the testimony of
a witness who may be considered unworthy of belief as to all the rest of
his evidence if he is shown to have sworn falsely in one detail.
2. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not strictly
applied in this jurisdiction. It deals only with the weight of the evidence
and is not a positive rule of law. The rule is not an inflexible one of
universal application. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more
flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and
partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at
the trial (People us. Negosa, G.R. Nos. 142856-57, August 25,2003).
Alibi as a defense
1. As a defense, alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light
of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is evidence negative in
nature and self· serving and cannot attain more credibility than the
testimonies of prosecution wit· nesses who testify on clear and positive
evidence (People us. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21,2005). It
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as
perpetrator of the crime. In the face of positive identification of the
accused by the prosecution witness, such alibi crumbles like a sand
fortress (People us. Vargas, G.R. No. 122765, October 13, 2003; People us.
Adam, G.R. No. 143842, October 13, 2003; People us. Enriquez, G.R. No.
158797, July 29,2005).
2. While the defense of alibi is by nature a weak one, it assumes
significance and strength where the evidence for the prosecution is also
intrinsically weak (People us. Canlas, 372 SCRA40l).
3. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is not always a weak
defense. Sometimes, the fact that the accused was some· where else may
just be the plain and unvarnished truth. But to be exonerating, the
defense of alibi must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. It
must be demonstrated that the person charged with the crime was not
only somewhere else when the offense was committed, but was so far
away that it would have been physically impossible to have been at the
place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
The reason is that no person can be in two places at the same time
(People us. Baro, G.R. Nos. 146327·29, June 5,2002).
4. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the following must be
established: (1) The presence of the accused in another place at the time of
the commission of the offense, and (2) The physical impossibility for him to
be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People vs.
Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 13887475, July 21, 2005; People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No.
158797, July 29, 2005). Physical impossibility refers to the distance between
the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place
where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two
places (People vs. Mosquera, 362 SCRA 441).
5. Like alibi, the defense of frame up is viewed with disfavor as it
can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a defense in most
prosecutions arising from the violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The
legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists
(People vs. Lee Hoi Ming, G.R. No. 145337, October 2,2003; People vs. Barita,
325 SCRA22).
6. Self-defense, like alibi is inherently weak because it can be easily
fabricated (Rugas vs. People, G.R. No. 147789, January 14, 2004).
7. Denial, like alibi is an inherently weak defense visa-vis positive
identification (People vs. Guambor, G.R. No. 152183, January 22, 2004).
10
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Bar 1994
AI was accused of raping Lourdes. Only Lourdes tes-
tified on how the crime was perpetrated. On the other hand, the
defense presented AI's wife, son and daughter to testify that AI
was with them when the alleged crime took place. The
prosecution interposed timely objection to the testimonies on the
ground of obvious bias due to the witness close relationship with
the accused.
If you were the judge:
(1) x x x
(2) Will the fact that the version of the defense is
corroborated by three witnesses suffice to acquit AI? Why?
Suggested answer:
(1) x x x
(2) The corroboration of the version of the defense by
three witness is not sufficient for acquittal. Alibi is one of the
weakest defenses due to its being capable of easy fabrication. It
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as
perpetrator of the crime. For an alibi to prevail, the defense must
establish by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was
physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of
the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the
accused was somewhere else. In the face of positive identification
of the accused by the prosecution witness, such alibi crumbles like
a sand fortress (People us. Vargas, G.R. No. 122765, October 13,
2003; People us. Adam, G.R. No. 143842, October 13, 2003).
Positive and negative defenses
A positive testimony normally enjoys more weight than a negative
testimony. In short, a testimony that a fact exists enjoys more weight than
a testimony that the same fact does not exist. A denial evidence is a
negative evidence.
A denial evidence is the weakest defense and can never overcome
a positive testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a
credible witness (People us. Mendoza, January 31,2005). Evidence that is
negative is self-serving in nature and cannot attain more credibility than
the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence
(People us. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21, 2005).
Factum probans and factum probandum
1. Evidence signifies a relationship between two facts, namely:
(a) the fact or proposition to be established (factum
probandum); and
(b) the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be
established (factum probans) (John J. Wigmore, Principles of
Judicial Proof, 5).
2. Stated in another way, the factum probandum is the fact to be
proved; the fact which is in issue and to which the evidence is directed. On
the other hand, factum probans is the probative or evidentiary fact tending
to prove the fact in issue (Black's, 5th Ed., 533). Thus, if P claims to have
been injured by the negligence of D who denies having been negligent, the
negligence is the fact to be established. It is the factum probandum. The
evidence offered by P constitute the material to prove the negligence of P.
The evidence is the factum probans.
Multiple admissibility
11
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or
more purposes. Sometimes it is admissible for one purpose but
inadmissible for another or vice versa. It may also be admissible against
one party but not against another. This kind of evidence is to be received
provided it meets the relevancy and competency tests for which it is
offered. This is commonly termed, multiple admissibility. For instance,
evidence that the general reputation of the accused for truth, honesty, or
integrity is bad is inadmissible to prove that he committed the crime
charged but it may be admissible to impeach his credibility as a witness.
The declaration of a dying person may be admissible for several purposes.
It may be offered as a dying declaration (Sec. 37, Rule 130, Rules of Court),
as part of the res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130, Rules of Court) or as a declaration
against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Bar 2005
(a) x x x
(b) x x x
(c) Maya private document be offered and admitted in
evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
evidence?
(d) x x x
(e) x x x
Suggested answer:
(a) x x x
(b) x x x
(c) A private document may be offered and admit-
ted in evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
evidence depending on the purpose for which the document
is offered. If offered to prove its existence, condition or for
any purpose other than the contents of a document, the same
is considered as an object evidence. When the private
document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is
considered as a documentary evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 130,
Rules of Court).
(a) x x x
(b) x x x
Bar 1991
Two (2) hours after Lt. Yap of the 2nd Air Division,
PAF, at the Mactan Air Base in Lapulapu City, was shot with a .
45 caliber pistol, his Division commander, Brig. Gen. A, visited
him at the Cebu Doctor's Hospital in Cebu City where he was
immediately brought before treatment of the gunshot wound. Lt.
Yap told A that it was Jose Comen who shot him. Forthwith, A,
who is a law graduate took the initiative of taking down in long
hand the statement of Lt. Yap. The latter narrated the events sur-
rounding and categorically stated that it was Jose Comen who
shot him. Lt. Yap signed the statement in the presence of A and
the attending nurse. Ten (10) days later, Lt. Yap died as a
consequence of the gunshot wound. An information for murder
was filed against Jose Comen.
At the trial, the above statement of Lt. Yap marked as
Exh. ''X'' was presented and identified by A who did not,
however, testify that Lt. Yap read it, or that it was read to
him before he (Yap) signed it. A, nevertheless, testified that
it was Jose Comen who shot him. The defense objected to
the testimony of A and to the admission of Exh. "X" on the
ground that they are hearsay. The prosecution contended that
both are exceptions to the hearsay rule as they are part of res
gestae.
12
 EVIDENCE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
(a) Is the prosecution correct?
(b) If the statement cannot be admitted as part of the res
gestae, may it be considered as a dying declaration?
Suggested answers:
(a) The prosecution is not correct. The statement of Lt.
Yap is not part of the res gestae. To be part of the res gestae, the
statement should have been made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior to or subsequent
to such startling occurrence (Sec. 42, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
The statement of Lt. Yap was made two (2) hours after he was
allegedly shot, not neither while he was being shot nor
immediately prior to or immediately after being shot.
(b) The statement cannot be admitted as a dying
declaration. To be admissible as a dying declaration, the
statement should have been made while the declaration was
conscious of an impending death. The facts of the case do not
clearly show that this essential element of a dying declaration
was met.
Bar 1984
When A was stabbed on the chest during a street brawl,
he instinctively shouted for help. B, who was nearby, heard the
shout and immediately run towards A who, upon inquiry by B,
stated that C had stabbed him.
If A should die on account of the stab wound, upon
what rule or rules of evidence could B's testimony be received?
Explain.
Suggested answer:
The testimony could be admitted either as a dying
declaration or as part of the res gestae.
Assuming that A was under the consciousness of an
impending death when he stated that C had stabbed him, the
declaration may be admitted as a dying declaration. If the
statement was made without such consciousness, it could be
admissible as part of the res gestae since the same was made
immediately after a startling event, i.e. the stabbing.
13
Conditional admissibility
It happens frequently enough that the relevancy of a piece of
evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered but the relevance of
which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not
yet offered. The proponent of the evidence may ask that the evidence be
conditionally admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he is
going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later time. If the con-
nection is not shown as promised, the court may, upon motion of the
adverse party, strike out from the record the evidence that was previously
conditionally admitted.
For instance, Mr. P files an action for recovery of ownership of a
parcel of land against Mr. D. The complaint alleges that Mr. P is the
owner of the property. During the trial, Mr. P testifies and adduces
evidence that sometime in 1995, the property subject of the action was
bought by Mr. 0 from a certain Mr. M. The defendant, Mr. D objects on
the ground that the evidence is irrelevant to support the claim of
ownership of Mr. P. The problem presented in such a situation is whether
or not to interrupt the examination of the witness to first present the
connecting evidence or to admit the testimony conditionally, subject to
presentation of the said connecting evidence later in the trial. Mr. P may
ask the court to conditionally allow the testimony with the undertaking to
show later that he bought the property from Mr. 0 who in turn bought it
from Mr. M.
Curative admissibility
The concept of curative admissibility refers to a situation where
incompetent evidence was erroneously received by the court despite
objection from the other party. It will not apply where the evidence was
admitted without objection because of a waiver of the inadmissibility of
the evidence. Where the objection was incorrectly overruled, the court
must allow the other party to introduce evidence to contradict the
evidence improperly admitted. This is for reasons of fairness. For
example, in an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plain -
tiff introduced evidence to show that on several occasions the defendant
in the past had injured pedestrians because of his negligence. Of course,
under the rules of evidence, this kind of evidence is inadmissible because
evidence that a person did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that he did the same or a similar thing (Sec. 34, Rule 130, Rules of
Evidence). Under the concept of curative admissibility, the court must
give the party against whom the evidence was admitted the chance to
contradict or explain the alleged past acts he committed to counteract the
prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused.
Direct evidence
Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact
without the need to make an inference from another fact. The testimony
of the prosecution witness claiming that he saw that it was actually the
deceased who attacked the accused without the latter's provocation is a
direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence
1. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that indirectly proves
a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the
evidence established (People vs. Matito, G.R. No. 144405, February 2,
2004).
2. Circumstantial or indirect evidence is the exact opposite of
direct evidence. When the evidence is circumstantial, a fact is established
by making an inference from a previously established fact. In other
words, in this type of evidence, the court uses a fact from which an
assumption is drawn. When the court does not have to make an inference
from one fact to arrive at a conclusion, the evidence is direct. For
instance, the testimony of the victim that he dreads the mere presence of
the accused is direct evidence that the statement was made. However, it
is also circumstantial evidence to show that this fear prevented the victim
from attacking the accused without provocation.
3. In a criminal case, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for
conviction provided the following requisites concur:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are. derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 4, Rule 133, Rules of Court;
People vs. Sevilleno, G.R. No. 152954, March 11, 2004).
4. All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other,
and they are to be taken together as proved. Being consistent with each
other, and, taken together, they must point unerringly to the direction of
guilt and mere suspicions, probabilities, or suppositions do not warrant a
conviction (Underhill, Criminal Evidence, 4th Ed., §18).
Bar 1998
A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the ad-
missibility of the following pieces of evidence:
1. xxx
2. A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime
scene and which, over the objection of A, required him to put on
and when he did it, the same fit him well.
Suggested answer:
The evidence is admissible as a circumstantial evidence
although not sufficient in itself to support a conviction.
5. A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude each
and every hypothesis consistent with innocence. Hence if the totality of the
circumstances eliminates beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of
innocence, conviction is proper (Mallari vs. People, 446 SCRA 74,
December 10, 2004). Circumstantial evidence may be a basis for conviction
and such conviction can be upheld provided the circumstances proven
constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that points to the accused to the exclusion of all others as the
guilty person. Direct evidence is not the only matrix from which the trial
court may draw the conclusions and findings of fact (People vs. Bernal,
G.R. Nos. 132791140465-66, September 2,2002). Circumstantial evidence is
not a weaker defense vis-it-vis direct evidence (People vs. Matito, GR. No.
144405, February 2,2004). As to probative value, the Court considers
circumstantial evidence of a nature identical to direct evidence because no
greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial
than when it is direct. In both types of evidences what is required is proof
beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Bernal, G.R. Nos. 1.'32791140465-66,
September 2,2002).
6. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt
of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of direct evidence,
the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence. Crimes
are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment
is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted on under all circum-
stances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in
secret or secluded places will be impossible to prove (People vs. Sevilleno,
G.R. No. 152954, March 11, 2004). Direct evidence is not indispensable to
prove a crime charged. It may be proved by circumstantial evidence
(People vs. Darilag, 421 SCRA 45, January 26,2004).
7. When the prosecution's evidence rests on circumstantial
evidence alone, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances establish
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the
circumstances would allow no other conclusion other than the guilt of the
accused. If from the same set of facts relied upon by the prosecution to
show the guilt of the accused, an opposing inference consistent with the
innocence of the accused can be drawn, the evidence would be in
consistent with guilt. Thus, the Supreme Court in People us. Corpus, G.R.
No. 148198, October 1, 2003, held that where the evidence admits of two
interpretations one of which is consistent with guilt and the other with
innocence, the accused must be acquitted (People us. Corpus, G.R. No.
148198, October 1, 2003).
Cumulative evidence
Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind that tends
to prove the same fact. When two or more witnesses testify that they saw
the event which the first witness claimed he saw, the subsequent
testimonies constitute cumulative evidence.
Corroborative evidence
1. As commonly used, the term connotes evidence which tends to
confirm, validate, or strengthen evidence already presented. The
corroborative evidence may be of the same kind as that already proferred.
For instance, the testimony of X that he saw Y hack the victim corroborates
the previous testimony of Z that indeed he also saw Y strike the victim with
a bladed weapon. Here, the previous testimony is corroborated by evidence
of the same kind, i.e., testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses.
2. Corroborative evidence may also be of a different type from that
previously offered but which tends to prove the same fact. For instance, a
witness claims that he saw Mr. X sign the document subject of the action.
Mr. X denies the authenticity of his signature. Evidence by a handwriting
expert that the signature is indeed that of Mr. X is corroborative evidence.
Here, we have a testimonial evidence from an eyewitness, and a testimony
from an expert who did not personally witness the signing of the document.
Positive and negative evidence
1. These categories of evidence are normally associated with
testimonial evidence. Evidence is said to be positive when a witness
affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts do exist or that a certain
event happened. It is negative when the witness states that an event did
not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist do not actually exist.
Thus, the testimony of W that he saw P fire a gun at the victim is a
positive evidence. The testimony of W that he could not have fired the
gun because he was not armed during the incident, is a negative
testimony.
2. A denial is a negative evidence. It is considered by the Court to
be a very weak form of defense and can never overcome an affirmative or
positive testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a
credible witness (People vs. Mendoza, 450 SCRA 328, January 21,2005).
Liberal construction of the rules of evidence
1. Like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the rules of
evidence must be liberally construed (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court). Rules
of Procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate
the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must
always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary objective of enhanc-
ing substantial justice.
Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not
to frustrate substantial justice (Quiambao vs. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA
17, March 28, 2005). However, to justify relaxation of the rules, a
satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements
have always been required (Barcenas vs. Tomas, 454 SCRA 593, March 31,
2005).
2. The Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise be construed
liberally (Sec. 2, Rule 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
Absence of a vested right in the rules of evidence
There is no vested right in the rules of evidence (Ayala de Roxas
vs. Case, 8 Phil. 197) because the rules of evidence are subject to change
by the Supreme Court pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure (Sec. 5[5], Constitution of the
Philippines). The change in the rules of evidence are however, subject to
the constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex post facto laws (Art. 3,
Sec. 22, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the Philippines). An ex post facto law
includes that which alters the rules of evidence and receives less or
different testimony than that required at the time of the commission of the
offense in order to convict the accused (Mekin vs. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74).
Waiver of the rules of evidence
1. The rules of evidence may be waived. When an otherwise
objectionable evidence is not objected to, the evidence becomes
admissible because of waiver. Thus, a hearsay evidence if not objected to
becomes admissible. The benefits of the parol evidence rule and the best
evidence rule may be waived in the same manner.
2. May the parties stipulate waiving the rules of evidence? The
Civil Code of the Philippines (Art. 6) provides that "rights may be waived,
unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or
good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by
law." As long as no law or principles of morality, good customs and public
policy are transgressed or no rights of third persons are violated, the rules
of evidence may be waived by the parties.
Burden of proof in civil cases
1. The burden of proof, or "onus probandi," traditionally refers to
the obligation of a party to the litigation to persuade the court that he is
entitled to relief.
As defined in the Rules of Court, "it 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" (Sec. 1, Rule 131,
Rules of Court).
2. In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it (Gamboa, Rodriguez, Rivera & Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
117456, May 6, 2005; Dela Cruz vs. Sison, 451 SCRA 754, February 17, 2005).
It is a basic rule that he who alleges must prove what is alleged (Nikko
Hotel Manila Garden us. Reyes, 452 SCRA 532, February 28, 2005; Acabal us.
Acabal, 454 SCRA 555, March 31, 2005; Go vs. Achas, 453 SCRA, March 11,
2005). It is thus, inaccurate to state that the burden of proof solely rests on
the shoulders of the plaintiff. The burden of proof, under the clear terms
of Sec. 1 of Rule 131, is the duty to present evidence not only to establish
a claim but also a defense.
3. If a party alleges the existence of a fact, that party has the
burden of proof whether that party be the plaintiff or the defendant. If the
plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes him a sum of money, the plaintiff
has the burden to prove the debt.
4. The burden of proof that a debt was contracted lies with the
creditor-plaintiff. Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat-- he who
asserts, not he who denies, must prove (Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank
us. Daito, 453 SCRA 283, March 11,2005). If the defendant admits the debt
but defends by alleging that it has already been paid, waived or otherwise
extinguished, he has the burden to prove the extinguishment of the alleged
obligation (Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana, 458 SCRA 609 [2005]).
Example: In an eminent domain case, the local government that
seeks to expropriate private property has the burden of proving to show
the existence of compliance with the elements for the valid exercise of the
right of eminent domain (Jesus is Lord Christian Foundation, Inc. us. City of
Pasig, G.R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005). This is because the burden of proof
is on the party making the allegations (Gamboa & Co., 458 SCRA 68
[2005]).
Test for determining where burden of proof lies
The test for determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask
which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence
competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to
obtain. If the defendant has affirmative defenses, he bears the burden of
proof as to those defenses which he set up in answer to the plaintiff’s
cause of action. Hence, if the defendant sets up the affirmative defense of
prescription, he must prove the date when prescription began to run (Aznar
Brothers Realty Co., vs. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005).
Where burden of proof is fixed
The burden of proof is fixed by the pleadings. The claim of the
plaintiff which he must prove, is spelled out in his complaint. The
defendant's defenses which he must likewise prove, are to be found in his
answer to the complaint. The burdens of proof of both parties do not shift
during the course of the trial. The burden of proof to establish that the
defendant owes the plaintiff remains with the plaintiff. The burden of
proof to establish that the loan has been paid remains with the defendant
throughout the litigation.
Burden of proof in criminal cases
In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution
because of the presumption that the accused is innocent until the contrary
is proven (Art. III, Bill of Rights, Philippine Constitution). The obligation to
convince the trier of facts to show the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution, as a rule, throughout the trial
(Stafford vs. United States, 300 Fed 537). However, when the accused
invokes self-defense, the burden of proof rests upon the defense to prove
that the killing was justified (People vs. Tan, 315 SCRA 75).
Burden of evidence
The burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with
the evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence against him (Bautista
us. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587). The burden of going forward with the
evidence may shift from one side to the other as the exigencies of the trial
require (Chamberlayne, Sec. 203,108,169) and shifts with alternating
frequency (People vs. Bickerstaff, 46 Cal. App. 764, 190 Pac. 656;
Chamberlayne, Modern Evidence, Vol. 2, §§930-125 cited iT Underhill,
Criminal Evidence, 4th Ed., §50).
Bar 2004
Distinguish clearly but briefly between:
1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence
xxx
Suggested answer:
Burden of proof is the obligation 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 (Sec. 1, Rule
130, Rules of Court). Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to
go forward with the evidence to overthrow any prima facie
presumption against him (Bautista vs. Sarmiento,, 138 SCRA
587).
Preponderance of evidence
1. The term, "preponderance of evidence" applies only to civil
cases. It means the "greater or superior weight of evidence." It is the
evidence that is more convincing and more credible than the one offered
by the adverse party.
It means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is, as a
whole, superior to or has greater weight than that the other (Habagat
Grill vs. DMC-Urban Property Developer Inc., 454 SCRA 653, March 31,
2005).
2. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence (Sec 1, Rule 133, Rules
of Court; Umpoc vs. Mercado, 449 SCRA 220, January 21,2005). In
determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court
may consider the following;
(a) All the facts and circumstances of the case;
(b) The witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or probability of their testimony;
(c) The witnesses' interest or want of interest, and their personal
credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial;
(d) The number of witnesses, although it does mean·
preponderance is not with the greater number (Sec 1, Rule 133,
Rules of Court). To persuade by the preponderance of evidence
is not to take the evidence quantitatively but qualitatively
(McDonald vs .Union Pacific, 109 Utah 493).
Equipoise or equiponderance doctrine
1. The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the
parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on w side the evidence
preponderates. In this case the decision should be against the party with
the burden of proof. Hence, where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff
and the evidence does not suggest that the scale of justice should weigh in
his favor the court should render a verdict for the defendant (Rivera vs.
Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 673; Marubeni Corp. vs. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998,
August 10, 2001).
2. In labor cases, if doubt exists between the evidence presented by
the employer and the employee, the scales justice must be tilted in favor of
the latter (Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana, G.R. No. 157637, May 16,
2005).
3. The equipoise doctrine is based on the principle that no one shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law (Sec. 1,
Art. III, Constitution of the Philippines).
Bar 1995
1. Explain the equipoise doctrine in the law of evi-
dence and cite its constitutional basis.
Suggested answer: (Please refer to paragraphs 1 and 2 of
the preceding topic).
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
1. In a criminal case, conviction requires a proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. This kind of proof
does not mean such a degree of proof that excludes all possibility of
error. Only moral certainty is required (Sec. 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court;
People us. Sevillano, G.R. No. 152954, March 11, 2004).
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in order to overcome the
cardinal rule that the accused must always be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proven. This presumption applies regardless of the enormity of
the crime for which he is charged and remains until a verdict is finally
rendered.
2. Reasonable doubt does not refer to any doubt or a mere
possible doubt because everything in human experience is subject to
possible doubt. Reasonable doubt is that state of the case which, after a
comparison of all the evidence, does not lead the judge to have in his
mind, a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. Where there is
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, there must be an acquittal
(People vs. Calma, 295 SCRA 629; U.S. vs. Johnson, C.A. N.Y., 343 F.2d 5,6).
Thus, if the facts and circumstances are susceptible of two
interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused, and the other interpretation is consistent with guilt, then there is
no compliance with the moral certainty required and there is no basis for
conviction.
Substantial evidence
This degree of proof applies to cases filed before administrative
or quasi-judicial bodies and which requires that in order to establish a
fact, the evidence should constitute that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion (Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court; Advincula vs. Dicen, G.R. No.
162403, May 16, 2005; Benares vs. Pancho, 457 SCRA 652 [2005]).
1. This degree of proof applies to cases filed before administrative
or quasi-judicial bodies and which requires in order to establish a fact, the
evidence should constitute amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind IT accept as adequate to support a conclusion (Sec. 5, Rule Rules of
Court; Advincula vs. Dicen, G.R. No. 162403, Ma, 2005; Benares vs. Pancho,
457 SCRA 652 [2005]).
2. In a relatively recent case however, while recognizing the rule
that in administrative proceedings, complain have the burden of proving
the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence, the Supreme
Court held that administrative proceedings against judges are highly penal
in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal
cases. The quantum of proof required to support administrative charges
against judges should thus be more than substantial and requires proof
beyond reasonable doubt (Duduaco vs. Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601,
August 11, 2005). This quantum of proof was later extended to cases, against
other judicial employees (A.M. No. P-05-2059, Amado vs Suarin, August 19, compromised, ar offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
2005). evidence as an implied admission of guilt (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of
Court).

Bar 2003 3. Generally in civil cases, there is no presumption for or against

a party. In criminal cases, the accused enjoys the presumption of
Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial innocence. Note that there are some civil easel where a presumption
evidence. exists against the defendant as in a contractual suit against the carrier.
Example: A common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or
negligent in case a passenger is injured in the course of his transportation
Suggested answer: by the carrier (Art. 1756, Civil Code of the Philippines).

The term, "preponderance of evidence" applies only to The above differences also constitute exceptions to the rule that
civil cases. It means the "greater or superior weight of evidence." the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts am in all proceedings
It is the evidence that is more convincing and more credible than
(Sec. 2, Rule 128, Rules of Court).
the one offered by the adverse party. It means that the evidence as
a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other
(Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, November 18,
2003). Evidentiary weight of electronic evidence

Substantial evidence proof applies to cases filed before 1. In assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic evidence,
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies and which requires that in certain factors may be considered, like:
order to establish a fact, the evidence should constitute that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might (a) The reliability of the manner in which it was
accept as adequate to support a conclusion (Sec. 5, Rule 133, generated, stored or communicated;
Rules of Court; Advincula vs. Dicen, GR. No. 162403, May 16,
2005; Benares us. Pancho, 457 SCRA 652 [2005}).
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator
was identified;
Evidence in civil cases distinguished from evidence in
(c) The integrity of the information and communication
criminal cases
system;
1. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made
his claim by a preponderance of evidence (Sec. 1 Rule 133, Rules of Court).
the entry with the communication and information
In criminal cases, the guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond
system; the nature and quality of the information and
reasonable doubt (Sec. 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court).
(e) Other factors which the court may consider (Sec l Rule
2. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an ad mission of
7, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror (Sec.
27, Rule 130, Rules of Court). In criminal cases, except those involving
2. All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight
quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
of an electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating facts
of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records.
The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to
testify on the matters contained (Sec. 1, Rule 9, Rules on Electronic
Evidence). 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules on 1 Electronic Evidence).
Matters Of Judicial Notice
(Rule 129)
1. There are matters in a litigation which must be admitted without
need for evidence. For example, when the complainant in a criminal case
alleges that he was assaulted by the accused in Quezon City, it would be
ridiculous to require the prosecution to prove that a place called Quezon
City exists. Also, if the accused is charged with the violation of a statute,
there is no need to introduce evidence that said statute exists because the
court is charged with knowledge of the within its jurisdiction.
There is likewise no need to adduce evidence to prove there are
twenty-four (24) hours in a day or that the sun rise in the east and sets in
the west. The fact that Cebu lies in Visayan region needs no further
evidence. To require evidence for such obvious facts would be to indulge
in utter absurdity Now, all these matters which the court may take
cognizance of without evidence are called matters of "judicial notice."
2. Judicial notice is based on the maxim, "what is known need not
be proved," hence, when the rule is invoked, the court may dispense with
the presentation of evidence on judicially cognizable facts (Thayer,
Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, p. 277 cited in Jones, The Law on
Evidence in Civil Cases, Volume I, 3rd Ed.).
3. To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely
another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed
with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired (State Prosecutors
vs. Muro, 236 SCRA 505. [1994]).
The above differences also constitute exceptions to the rule that
the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts am in all proceedings
(Sec. 2, Rule 128, Rules of Court).
Evidentiary weight of electronic evidence
1. In assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic evidence,
certain factors may be considered, like:
(f) The reliability of the manner in which it was
generated, stored or communicated;
(g) The reliability of the manner in which its originator
was identified;
(h) The integrity of the information and communication
system;
(i) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made
the entry with the communication and information
system; the nature and quality of the information and
(j) Other factors which the court may consider (Sec l Rule
7, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
2. 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.
The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to
testify on the matters contained (Sec. 1, Rule 9, Rules on Electronic
Evidence). 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules on 1 Electronic Evidence).
Matters Of Judicial Notice
(Rule 129)
 1. There are matters in a litigation which must be admitted without
need for evidence. For example, when the complainant in a criminal case
alleges that he was assaulted by the accused in Quezon City, it would be
ridiculous to require the prosecution to prove that a place called Quezon
City exists. Also, if the accused is charged with the violation of a statute,
there is no need to introduce evidence that said statute exists because the
court is charged with knowledge of the within its jurisdiction.
There is likewise no need to adduce evidence to prove there are
twenty-four (24) hours in a day or that the sun rise in the east and sets in
the west. The fact that Cebu lies in Visayan region needs no further
evidence. To require evidence for such obvious facts would be to indulge
in utter absurdity Now, all these matters which the court may take
cognizance of without evidence are called matters of "judicial notice."
2. Judicial notice is based on the maxim, "what is known need not
be proved," hence, when the rule is invoked, the court may dispense with
the presentation of evidence on judicially cognizable facts (Thayer,
Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, p. 277 cited in Jones, The Law on
Evidence in Civil Cases, Volume I, 3rd Ed.).
3. To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely
another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed
with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired (State Prosecutors
vs. Muro, 236 SCRA 505. [1994]).
Function of judicial notice
1. The function of judicial notice is to abbreviate litigation by the
admission of matters that need no evidence because judicial notice is a
substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence (People vs. Rowland, 4
Cal 4th 238, 14 Cal Rptr 2c 377; 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §24, 1994).
Judicial notice takes the place of proof and is of equal force. It displaces
evidence and fulfills the purpose for which the evidence is designed to
fulfill. Hence, it makes evidence unnecessary (Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1980, p. 38 citing Alzua vs Johnson, 21 Phil. 308). When
the court takes judicial notice of a matter, the court accepts and recognizes
the same without necessity of formal proof. It is another way of saying that
evidence shall be dispensed with because the matter is so well known and
is of common knowledge not to be disputable.
2. While the court has the power to dispense with proof of
judicially cognizable adjudicative facts when the principles of judicial
notice are properly invoked, judicial notice cannot however, be used to fill
in the gaps in the party's evidence (Hammond vs. Doody [Ind App] 553
NE2d 196). Judicial notice should not also be used to deprive an adverse
party of the. opportunity to prove a disputed fact (29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence
§24,1994).
When judicial notice is mandatory
1. The application of judicial notice may either be mandatory (Sec.
1, Rule 129, Rules of Court) or discretionary (Sec.2, Rule 129, Rules of
Court). When the matter is subject mandatory judicial notice, no motion or
hearing is necessary for the court to take judicial notice of a fact. This is a
matter which a court must take judicial notice of. When the matter is
subject to discretionary judicial notice, a hearing is necessary before
judicial notice is taken of a certain matter. This is a matter which the court
may or may not take judicial notice of.
2. The following are matters subject to mandatory judicial notice.
(a) the existence and territorial existence of state
(b) the political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality of states;
(c) the law of nations;
(d) the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
(e) the political constitution and history of the Philippines;
(f) the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines;
 (g) the laws of nature;
(h) the measure of time; and
(i) the geographical divisions.
When judicial notice is discretionary
1. Under the principle of discretionary judicial "A 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" (Sec. 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court).
2. The principles of discretionary judicial notice will only apply to
cases where the following requisites are met:
(a) The matter must be one of common knowledge;
(b) The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt (if there is
any uncertainty about the matter, then evidence must be
adduced); and
(c) The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court
(Berget vs. State [Okla Crim] 824 P2d 364; 29 Am Jur 2d,
Evidence, §25 1994; State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 236 SCRA 505).
3. Judicial notice under Sec. 2 of Rule 129 rests on the wisdom and
discretion of the court. The power to take judicial notice must be exercised
with caution and care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists. Any
reasonable doubt on the matter sought to be judicially noticed must be
resolved against the taking of judicial notice (State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 236
SCRA505).
Stage when judicial notice may be taken
1. Judicial notice may be taken during the trial of the case. The
court, during the trial, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of
any matter. It may do so on its own initiative or on the request of any party.
However, before it actually takes judicial notice of any matter, the court
may allow the parties to be heard (Sec. 3, Rule 129, Rules of Court). This
hearing is only for the purpose of determining the propriety of taking
judicial notice and not for the purpose of proving the issues in the case.
2. Judicial notice may also be taken by the proper court after the
trial, and before judgment or on appeal. Unlike a judicial notice during the
trial, here the court need not announce its intention to take judicial notice of
a fact. It may even take judicial notice of any matter on its own initiative or
on request of a party even without a hearing. A hearing may be conducted
however, if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case (Sec. 3,
Rule 129, Rules of Court).
Judicial notice and knowledge of the judge
1. Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought to
know because of their judicial functions (Sec. 2. 129, Rules of Court). It
must however, be made clear that judicial knowledge does not mean the
personal knowledge of the judge. It is inappropriate for a judge to rely
solely on personal knowledge in making a ruling. Judicial notice is not
limited by the actual knowledge of the individual judge or court. A judge
must take judicial notice of a fact if it is one which is the proper subject of
judicial cognizance even if it is not within his personal knowledge.
Consequently, a judge may not take judicial notice of a fact which he
personally knows if it is not part of the evidence or not a fact generally
known within its territorial jurisdiction (29 Am Jur, Evidence, §35; Moore
vs. Dresden Investment Co., 162 Wash, 289, 298 Pac. 465, 77 A.L.R. 1258
cited in Jones, The Law of Evidence in Civil Case, Vol 1,§132).
2. Judicial notice is not the knowledge of the judge. It is not
judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge judge is not the judicial
knowledge of the court, and the judge is not authorized to make his
individual knowledge of the basis of his action (State Prosecutors vs. Muro,
236 SCRA 505).
Bar 1980
 A resident American, who came here from
Massachusetts, made a will where he. stated that, in form, it is
executed in accordance with Massachusetts law. The will,
instituting his Filipino widow as his sole heir, would not be valid
in form under Philippine law. Upon his death, the widow
presented the will to the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Probate was objected to by distant relatives of the testator in
California. The Judge had studied Harvard, and was familiar
with Massachusetts law. Without the introduction of formal
evidence, he granted probate, stating that the will was, indeed,
executed in accordance with Massachusetts law.
How should the matter be resolved on appeal? Explain your
answer.
Suggested answer:
The judgment should be reversed on appeal. The trial
judge erred when he took judicial notice of Massachusetts law
on the basis of his personal knowledge of the said law. The mere
personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge
of the court, and the judge is not authorized to make his
individual knowledge of a fact the basis of his action (State
Prosecutors vs. Muro, 236 SCRA 505). Besides, it is a basic rule
that courts of the forum will not take judicial notice of the law
prevailing in another country. Foreign laws must be alleged and
proved (29 Am Jur, Evidence, §116).
Judicial admissions
A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case (Sec. 4, Rule 129,
Rules of Court). To be a judicial admission, the same must be made by a
party to the case. It must be emphasized that the admission must be made
in the course of the proceedings in the same case. Thus, an admission
made in another judicial proceeding will not be deemed a judicial
admission under Sec. 4 of Rule 129. It will be considered an extrajudicial
admission for purposes of the proceeding where such admission is
offered. The form of the admission is immaterial. Sec. 4 of Rule 129
recognizes either a verbal or a written admission.
Admission in drafted documents
An admission made in a document drafted for purposes of filing as
a pleading but never filed, is not a judicial admission. If signed by the
party, it is deemed an extrajudicial admission. If signed by the attorney, it
is not even an admission by the party. The authority of the attorney to
make statements for the client extend only to statements made in open
court or in pleadings filed with the court (Jackson us. Schine Lexington
Corp, 305 Ky. 823,205 S.W. 2d 1013).
Admissions made in pleadings
1. Admissions made in the pleadings of a party are deemed
judicial admissions (Ching vs. Court of Appeals; 331 SCRA 16 [2000]).
2. An admission made in a pleading may either be an actual
admission as when a party categorically admits a material allegations
made by the adverse party. An admission may likewise be inferred from
the failure to specifically deny the material allegations in the other party's
pleadings. The rules of civil procedure for example, require a defendant to
specifically deny the material averments of the other party. "Material
averments in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of damages,
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied ... " (Sec. 11, Rule
8, Rules of Court).
Averments in pleadings not deemed admissions
There are averments in the pleadings which are not deemed
admitted even if the adverse party fails to make specific denial of the
same like immaterial allegations (Sec 11 Rule 8, Rules of Court)
conclusions and non-ultimate f the pleading (Sec. 1, Rule 8, Rules of
Court) as well amount of unliquidated damages (Sec. 11, Rule 8, R Court).
Implied admissions of allegations of usury
 Under Sec. 11 of Rule 8, if the complaint makes an allegation of
usury to recover usurious interest, the defendant must not only
specifically deny the same but must likewise do so under oath. Failure to
make the proper denial under oath would involve an implied admission of
the allegation usury.
Implied admissions of actionable documents
1. When an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, the genuineness and due execution of the same instrument
shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically
denies them and sets forth what he claims to be the facts (Sec. 8, Rule 8,
Rules of Court).
2. The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an
actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against the
document by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statue of
limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration (Acabal vs. Acabal, G.R.
No. 148376, March 31,2005). He is however, precluded from arguing that
the document is a forgery because the genuineness of the document has
been impliedly admitted by his failure to deny the same under oath.
Admissions in the pre-trial of civil cases
Admissions in the pre-trial (Sec. 7, Rule 18, Rules of Court; Heirs of
Conahap vs. Heirs of Regania, 458 SCRA 741 [2005]) as well as those made
during the depositions, interrogatories or requests for admission are also
deemed judicial admissions because they are made in the course of the
proceedings of the case.
Implied admissions in the modes of discovery
Under Sec. 2 of Rule 26, when there is a request for admission by
a party, each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be
deemed admitted unless, within the period designated in the request,
which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service of the request,
the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party
requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the
matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Under Sec. 3 of Rule 26, any admission made pursuant to the request for
admission is for the purpose of the pending action only. The admission
not be considered as one for any other purpose nor may the same be used
against him in any other proceeding.
1. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 26 of the Rules of court, a party, at any
time after the issues have been joined, may file and serve upon any other
party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness
of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the
request. The request for admission may also be of the truth of any material
and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
2. The party to whom the request is directed must file and serve
upon the party requesting the admission a statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth
in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those
matters. The sworn statement must be filed and served within the period
designated in the request which shall not be not less than fifteen (15) days
after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on
motion. If the sworn statement required is not filed and served, each of the
matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted
(Sec.2, Rule 26, Rules of Court).
Bar 1984
Through his lawyer plaintiff A sent to defendant B
through B's counsel, a request for admission of certain facts
stated therein material to the case pending between them, B did
not reply at all.
On appeal from an adverse decision, A assigned as error
the trial court's disregard of the facts, the admission of which
was the subject of his unanswered request. A contended that as
his request for admission forms part of the records of the case,
although not formally submitted in evidence, and the records do
not show that the defendant ever replied thereto, there was a
clear judicial admission by the defendant of all the material
 facts stated in the request, and that had the trial court considered
such admissions, it would have been contrary to the findings of
fact.
Is the plaintiff correct?
Suggested answer:
The plaintiff is correct. Sec. 2 of Rule 26 of the Rules
of Court requires the other party to file and serve a sworn
statement either denying specifically the matter of which an
admission or requested or setting forth in detail the reasons
why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Failure to do so will result into an implied admission of each
of the matters of which an admission is requested. Since the
defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the
Rules, he is deemed to have made an implied admission of
the matters subject of the request for admission.
Admissions in the pre-trial of criminal cases
In criminal cases, an admission made by the accused in a pre-trial
cannot be used in evidence against him unless reduced to writing and
signed by him and his counsel (Sec. 4, Rule 118 Rules of Court; Fule vs.
Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 446).
Admissions in amended pleadings
When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes
the pleading that it amends and the admissions in the superseded pleading
may be received in evidence against the pleader (Sec. 8, Rule 10, Rules of
Court).
Nature of admissions in superseded pleadings
It has been held that the admissions in a superseded pleading are
to be considered as extrajudicial admissions which must be proven
(Bastida vs. Menzi & Co., Inc., 58 Phil. 18t Torres us. Court of Appeals, 131
SCRA 24). In Ching us. COUT of Appeals, 331 SCRA 16, the Supreme Court
held that pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record,
lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions, and to
be utilized as extrajudicial admissions, they must order to have such
effect, be formally offered in evidence
Admissions in dismissed pleadings
Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are
merely extrajudicial admissions (Servicewide Specialists, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 117728, June 26, 1996).
Hypothetical admissions in a motion to dismiss
A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the
allegations of the complaint (Magno vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-28486,
September 10,1981). It partakes of a demurrer which hypothetically admits
the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint. However, the
admission extends only to such matters of fact that have been sufficiently
pleaded and not to mere epithets charging fraud, allegations of legal
conclusions or erroneous statements of law, inferences from facts not
stated, matters of evidences or irrelevant matters (De Dios us. B
Laboratories, 55 SCRA 349). Only material allegations, not conclusions in
a complaint are deemed admitted (Dalandan vs Julio, 10 SCRA 400, 410).
Admissions by counsel
Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon a client
(Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 129). Even the negligence of counsel
binds the client (Sarraga vs. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, G.R.
No. 143783, December 9, 2002). This rule is not however, without
exception. In cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel derives
the client of due process of law, or when its application will result in
outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property or the interests of
justice so require, relief is accorded the client who suffered by reason of
the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence (Salazar vs. Salazar,
G.R. No. 142920 February 6, 2002).
Consequences of judicial admissions (c) Foreign Laws.

The following are the effects of judicial admissions: (d) x x x

(a) They do not require proof; and (b) They cannot be contradicted
except upon showing that: (1) they were made through palpable mistake, or Suggested answer:
(2) that no such admission was made.
(a) x x x

(b) x x x
Judicial notice of foreign laws; doctrine of processual
presumption (c) Please refer to pars. 1, 2, and 3 of the preceding
topic for answers.
1. In general, and in the absence of statutory requirement to the
contrary, the courts of the forum will not take judicial notice of the law (e) x x x
prevailing in another country (29 Am Jur, Evidence, §116). Foreign laws
must be alleged and proved. In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be
presumed to be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case un - Bar 1997
der the doctrine of processual presumption (Northwest Orient Airlines vs.
Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 192). (a) Give three instances when a foreign court can take
judicial notice of a foreign law.
2. Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the
court such as when the law is generally well known, had been ruled upon in (b) Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the
defense of the defendant but no evidence was presented to
previous cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise, the court
prove the existence of said law, what is the presumption to be
may take judicial notice of the foreign law (PCIB vs. Escolin, L-27936 & taken by the court as to the wordings the law?
27896, March 29, 1974).

3. When the foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or Suggested Answers:
pamphlet and the writer is recognized in his profession or calling as expert
in the subject, the court may take judicial notice of the treatise containing (a) Please refer to the immediately preceding pf graphs
the foreign law (Sec. 46, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 1, 2, and 3.
(b) The court should presume that the law of foreign
country is the same as Philippine laws under doctrine of
Bar 2005 processual presumption.

Explain briefly whether the Regional Trial Court may

motu propio, take judicial notice of the following: Judicial notice of the law of nations

(a) x x x When the foreign law refers to the law of nations, said law is subject
to a mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1 of Rule 129. Under the
(b) x x x
Philippine Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land (Sec. 2, Art. II,
Constitution of the Philippines). They are therefore, technically in the nature
of local laws and hence, are subject to a mandatory judicial notice.
Judicial notice of municipal ordinances
1. Municipal trial courts must take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit (U.S.
vs. Blanco, 37 Phil. 126).
2. A Court of First Instance (now RTC), should also take judicial
notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities within their
jurisdiction but only when so required by law. For example, the charter
of the City of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial
notice of all ordinances passed by the city council (City of Manila vs.
Garcia, 19 SCRA 413). Such court must take judicial notice also of
municipal ordinances on appeal to it from the inferior court in which the
latter judicial took notice of (U.S. vs. Hernandez, 31 Phil. 542; U.S. us.
Blanco, 37 Phil. 126).
3. The Court of Appeals may take judicial notice of municipal
ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it from taking
cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable
demonstration (Gallego vs. People, 8 SCRA 813).
Bar 2005
Judicial notice of a court's own acts and records
A court may take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the
same case (Republic us. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 633).
Judicial notice of records of other cases
Explain briefly whether the Regional Trial court may,
motu propio, take judicial notice of the following:
(a) x x x
(b) Ordinances approved by municipalities under its
territorial jurisdiction;
(c) x x x
(d) x x x
Suggested answer:
(a) x x x
(b) A Court of First Instance (now RTC), should take
judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the
municipalities within their jurisdiction but only when so
required by law. For example, the charter of the City of Manila
requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all
ordinances passed by the city council (City of Manila us. Garcia,
19 SCRA 413). Such court must take judicial notice also of
municipal ordinances on appeal to it from the inferior court in
which the latter judicial took notice of (U.S. us. Hernandez, 31
Phil. 542; U.S. us. Blanco, 37 Phil. 126).
(c) x x x
(d) x x x
While courts may take judicial notice of its own acts records in the
same case, as a rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the
contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been
tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that
both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same
judge (Tabuena us. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650; BPI-Family Savings
Bank, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA 507)
Exceptions to the bar on judicial notice of the records of
other cases
The following are the exceptions to the above rule in the
immediately preceding paragraph: (a) when in the absence of any
objection, with the knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of said
other case are clearly referred to by title and number in a pending action
and adopted or read into the record of the latter; or (b) when the original
record of the other case or any part of it is actually withdrawn from the
archives at the court's discretion upon the request, or with the consent, of
the parties, and admitted as part of the record of the pending case
(Tabuena vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650; People vs Mendoza, 204 SCRA
288).
Rule on judicial notice of post office practices
That a registered letter when posted is immediately stamped with
the date of its receipt, indicating therein the number of the registry, both on
the covering envelope itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who
delivered the letter to the office is not a proper subject of judicial notice.
This post office practice is not covered by any of the instances under the
Rules and is not of unquestionable demonstration (Republic us. Court of
Appeals, 107 SCRA 504).
Judicial notice of financial condition of the government
Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the government is
and has for many years been financially strapped, to the point that even the
most essential services have suffered serious curtailment (La Bugal-B'laan
Tribal Association vs. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1). However, the allegation that
there is a so-called consensus to extend the terms of barangay captains
cannot be subject of judicial notice (Balajonda vs. Commission on Elections,
452 SCRA 643, February 28,2005).
Judicial notice of presidential powers under the law
The trial court should take judicial notice of R.A. 6734 as
implemented by E.O. No. 429 as legal basis of the President's power to
reorganize the executive department. The official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments are proper subjects of mandatory
judicial notice (DENR vs. DENR Region 12 Employees, G.R. No. 149724,
August 19, 2003).
Judicial notice of certain facts
1. Courts can take judicial notice of the general increase in rentals
(Catungal vs. Hao, 355 SCRA, March 22, 2001).
2. The supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls cannot be
considered of common knowledge or of general notoriety. Taking judicial
notice of said matter is erroneous (State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 236 SCRA
505).
3. Notwithstanding a person's standing in the business
community, the court cannot take judicial notice of s son's home address
or office after his departure from government as a cabinet member
(Garrucho vs. Court of Appeals, 448 SCRA 165, January 14, 2005).
4. Taking judicial notice of the supposed lifting of foreign
exchange controls is erroneous. It is a matter that is not. of common
knowledge or of general notoriety. A court cannot also take judicial
notice of an administrative regulation or of a statute that is not yet
effective. The reason is simple. A law which is still inexistent cannot be
of common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable
demonstration (State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 236 SCRA 505).
Concept of presumptions
1. A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of
law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of
facts found or otherwise established in the action (Black's, 5th Ed., 1067
citing Uniform Rule 13; NJ Evidence Rule 13).
 2. A presumption is not evidence (California Evidence Code cited
in Black's, 5th Ed., 1167). They merely affect the burden of offering
evidence (1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence Sec. 64). It is not evidence in
itself but it is an assumption resulting from the evidence.
In a sense, a presumption is an inference which is mandatory
unless rebutted (29 Am Jur 29, Evidence, §181).
Inference distinguished from a presumption
An inference is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn
from other facts (Computer Identics Corp. vs. Southern Pacific Co. [CAl
Mass]). It is however, one that is a result of a reasoning process. It need
not have a legal effect because it is not mandated by law.
A presumption is mandated by law and establishes a legal relation
between or among the facts.
Kinds of presumptions
1. A presumption may either be:
(a) conclusive (presumptions juris et de jure); or
(b) disputable/disputable (presumptions juris tantum).
A presumption is conclusive when the presumption becomes
irrebuttable upon the presentation of the evidence and any evidence
tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible. This presumption is
in reality a rule of substantive law (29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §183).
A presumption is disputable or rebuttable if fit may be contradicted
or overcome by other evidence (Sec. 2[b], Rule 131, Rules of Court). When
evidence that rebuts the presumption is introduced, the force of the
presumption disappears. Example: While evidence of receipt of payment
of a later installment gives rise to the presumption that previous
Example: D is the debtor of C, creditor for PI million payable in
twelve (12) equal monthly installments. If evidence is introduced that the
installment payment for December has been received by the creditor, a
presumption arises that previous installments have been paid. This is
because under the law, the receipt of a later installment of a debt, without
reservation as to prior installments, shall give rise to the presumption that
such installments have been paid (Art. 1176, Civil Code of the
Philippines).
installments have been paid, yet when evidence is shown that prior
installments remain unpaid, the presumption falls.
2. Traditional treatises have classified presumptions into:
(a) Presumption of law or presumption juris; or
(b) Presumption of fact or presumption hominis (Ward vs. Met. Li.
Ins. Co., 66 Conn. 227; Platt vs. Elias, 186 N.Y. 374).
A presumption of law is an assumption which the law requires to
be made from a set of facts.
A presumption is one of fact when the assumption is made from
the facts without any direction or positive requirement of a law.
The presumption that an accused is innocent of the crime charged
until the contrary is proven is a presumption of law embodied in the
Constitution (Sec. 14[2], Art. III, Bill of Right, Constitution of the Philippines).
Art. 1176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines also illustrates another
presumption mandated by the law. Under the said provision, when the
receipt of the principal by the creditor without reservation with respect to
the interest is proven, this gives rise to the presumption that said interest
has been paid.
An assumption of fact does not arise from any direction of the law.
It arises because reason itself allows a presumption from the facts. If A
attacks B without provocation, the logical presumption arises that A does
not have tender feelings towards B. A presumption of fact is actually a
mere inference because it does not necessarily give rise to a legal effect.
This must be the reason for the trend to discard the distinction between a
presumption of fact and a presumption of law (Black’s, 5th Ed., 1067).
 3. Traditionally, a presumption of law has been further classified
into a conclusive and a disputable presumption. The classification of
presumptions as to conclusive and disputable is the existing classification
in the Rules of Court.
Accordingly, the trend is to reject the classification into a
presumption of "law" and a presumption of "fact" (Black’s, 5th Ed., 1067).
Conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court
1. The following are the conclusive presumption the Rules of
Court:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, or omission,
intentionally or deliberately led another to believe a particular
thing 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.
(b) 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 (Sec. 2[a], Rule 131, Rules of Court).
2. The conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court are based
on the doctrine of estoppel. Under this doctrine, the person making the
representation cannot claim benefit from the wrong he himself committed
(Phil. Price Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 164).
Example: Persons who assume to be a corporation without legal authority
to act as such shall be considered a corporation by estoppel and shall be
liable as general partners (Sec. 21, Corporation Code of the Philippines).
3. For the enumeration of disputable presumptions, please refer to
Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Admissions And Confessions
(Rule 130)
Concept of admissions and confessions; distinctions
1. An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact (Sec. 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court). It is a voluntary
acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain
facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action (Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th Ed., 44).
2. A confession is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein
(Sec. 33, Rule 130, Rules of Court; Tracy's Handbook, 62 Ed., 242). It is a
statement by the accused that he engaged in conduct which constitutes a
crime (29A Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §708).
3. An admission in a general sense includes confessions, the former
being a broader term because accordingly, a confession is also an
"admission ... by the accused of the fact charged against him or of some
fact essential to the charge” (4 Wigmore, Sec. 1050). A confession is a
specific type of admission which refers only to an acknowledgment of
guilt. As used, the term admission refers to acknowledgment of facts
which although may be incriminating, falls short of an admission of guilt.
4. An admission may be implied like an admission by silence; a
confession cannot be implied. It should be and positive acknowledgment
of guilt.
Admissions distinguished from declarations against interest
An admission is oftentimes confused with a declaration against
interest. They are however distinct from each other: (a) To be admitted as
a declaration against interest, the declarant must be dead or unable to
testify; an admission is admissible even if the person making the
admission is alive and is in court; (b) A declaration against interest is
made before the controversy arises; an admission is made at any time,
even during the trial; (c) A declaration against interest is made against
one's pecuniary or moral interest; an admission is admissible as long as it
is inconsistent with his present claim or defense and need not be against
one's pecuniary or interest; (d) A declaration against interest is admissible
only against third persons; an admission is admissible only against the
party making the admission; (e) A declaration against interest is an
exception to the hearsay rule; an admission is not, and is admissible not as
an exception to any rule.
Effects of admissions
1. An admission by a party may be given in evidence against him
(Sec. 26, Rule 132, Rules of Court). His admission is not admissible in his
favor, because it would be self-serving evidence. Declarations of a party
favorable to himself are not admissible as proof of the facts asserted (Cole
vs. Ralph, 252 US 286, 64 L Ed 567, 40 SC Ct 312, USTC 312a, 3 AFTR
3051; State vs. Warren, 242 Iowa 1176, 47 NW2d 221; Jones vs. Dugan, 124
Md. 346, 350, 92 A. 775).
2. An example considered as an admission by the Supreme Court
are the following alleged statements of former President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada as contained in the so-called Angara Diary: (a) his proposal for a
snap election in which he would not participate; (b) his statement that he
would leave by Monday if the second envelope would be opened by Mon-
day; and (c) statements like: "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado
nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. I just want to
clear my name, then I will go" (Estrada vs. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108). These
words were taken by the Court as an admission of his resignation.
Classification of admissions and confessions
1. An admission may be express or implied. An express admission is
a positive statement or act. An implied admission is one which may be
inferred from the declarations or acts of a person. A confession cannot be
implied. It must be a positive acknowledgment of guilt and cannot be
inferred. Sec. 33 of Rule 130 refers to a confession as a "declaration"
which connotes an affirmative statement from the person making the
confession.
2. An admission may be judicial or extrajudicial. An admission is
judicial when made in the course of a judicial proceeding. An admission is
extrajudicial when made out of court or even in a proceeding other than
the one under consideration (Perry vs. Simpson, Conn. 313). A confession
may be also judicial or extrajudicial for the same reasons (29A Am Jur 2d,
§711).
3. An admission may also be adoptive. This admission occurs when
a person manifests his assent to the statements of another person. The
admission may be received in evidence if it can be shown that a party
adopted the statements as his own (Fed. Evid.R. 801[d][2][B]; Black's, 5th
Ed., 44).
The statements of President Estrada as written in the Angara Diary
were deemed by the Court as adoptive admissions. To rebut the argument
that the diary is not the diary of the former president and thus, could not be
admissible against him, the Court declared: " ... The argument overlooks
the doctrine of adoptive admission. An adoptive admission is a party's
reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to
treat the party's reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by
the other person ... " ( Estrada vs. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108).
Effect of extrajudicial confession on guilt
1. While a judicial confession may sustain a conviction, an
extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction. The rule requires
that the confession be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti (Sec. 3,
Rule 133, Rules of Court).
2. Corpus delicti is the 'body of the crime' or the offense (People vs.
Strook, 347 Ill. 460, 170 N.E. 821). Strictly speaking, it means the actual
commission of the crime and someone criminally responsible therefore
(People vs. Stoll, 84 Cal App. 99, 257 Pac. 583 cited by Underhill, Criminal
Evidence, §34).
3. Corpus delicti, and all the elements thereof, may be proved by
circumstantial evidence but such proof must be convincing and compatible
with the nature of the case (Underhill, Criminal Evidence, §37).
4. While an extrajudicial confession will not be sufficient for
conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti (Sec. 3, Rule
133, Rules of Court), a judicial confession will support conviction without
proof of corpus delicti independent of judicial confession (State vs. Dena, 28
N. Mexico, 479, 214, Pac. 583).
Admission by silence
1. Admission by silence has been traditionally received even
in common law as admissible evidence. The usual pattern for its
admissibility involves a statement by a person in the presence of a
party to the action, criminal or civil. The statement contains
assertions against the party, which, if untrue would be sufficient
cause for the party to deny. His failure to speak against the
statement is admissible as an admission.
2. Suppose upon seeing a policeman, a bystander points to a man
and accuses him as the killer of another man found dead the night before.
The man pointed at does not respond. He does not deny the accusation.
His failure to respond may be given in evidence against him. The idea of
the rule on admission by silence is that if an accusation is made, and a
reasonable person would have denied the same if it were false, the failure
to deny the accusation by the person accused is an implied admission of
the truth of the accusation.
3. Admission by silence as expressed in the Rules of Court
provides: "An act or declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or 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, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in
evidence against him" (Sec. 32, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
4. The rule on admission by silence applies to both criminal and
civil cases although must be received with caution because not every
silence is an admission. For instance, the silence of a person under
investigation for the commission of an offense should not be construed as
an admission by silence because of constitutional reasons (Sec. 2[b], RA.
7438).
5. Not every silence of a party is admissible. To be admissible, it
is necessary: (a) that he heard and understood the statement; (b) that he
was at liberty to make a denial; (c) that the statement was about a matter
affecting his rights or in which he was interested and which naturally
calls for a response; (d) that the facts were within his knowledge; and (e)
that the fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue (People vs.
Paragsa, 84 SCRA 105). Thus, in one case, despite the many
opportunities given to the respondent, he refused to comment and present
his side. The gravity of the charges and the weight of the evidence
against him would have prompted an innocent man to come out and clear
his name. However, he opted to maintain his silence. His silence can
easily be interpreted as an admission of guilt (Ortiz vs. De Guzman, A.M.
No. P-03-1708, February 26,2005; OCA vs, Bernardino, 450 SCRA 88,
January 31, 2005).
Res inter alios acta
1. The expression if fully expressed reads: res inter alios acta alteri
nocere non debet which literally means "things done to strangers ought not
to injure those who are not parties to them" (Black's, 5th Ed., 1178).
2. The res inter alios acta rule has two branches namely:
(a) The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another (Sec. 28, Rule 130, Rules of
Court).
(b) The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one
time is not admissible to prove that one did or did not do the
same act at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
3. The first branch is a very simple and logical rule which holds that
whatever one says or does or omits to do should only affect him but should
not affect or prejudice others. In other words, both common reason and
fairness demand that a man's actions and declarations should affect him
alone and should not affect others. Thus, if X makes a statement before the
media admitting his participation in a previous murder, his statement is
admissible against him under Sec. 26 of Rule 130. The rest of his statement
pointing to Y and Z as co-participants in the murder are not admissible
against Y and Z under the first branch of the res inter alios acta rule in Sec.
28 of Rule 130. Under this rule, the statement of X should not affect or
prejudice Y and Z.
 4. The rule has reference to extrajudicial declarations. Hence,
statements made in open court by a witness implicating persons aside from
his own judicial admissions, are admissible as declarations from one who
has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.
Bar 2003
X and Y were charged of murder. Upon application of
the prosecution, Y was discharged from the information to be
utilized as a state witness. The prosecutor presented Y as
witness but forgot to state the purpose of his testimony much
less offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to
kill the victim but it was X who actually shot the victim. The
testimony of Y was the only material evidence establishing the
guilt of X. Y was thoroughly cross-examined by the defense
counsel. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a
motion for demurrer to evidence based on the following
grounds:
Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule
1. The first branch of the rule admits of certain exceptions, to wit:
(a) admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29, Rule 130);
(b) admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30, Rule 130); and
(c) admission by privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130).
2. The basis for admitting the above admissions is that the person
making the statement is under the same circumstances as the person
against whom it is offered. Such circumstances give him substantially the
same interest and the same
motive to make a statement about certain matters (4 Wigmore, Sec. 1080a,
140).
Admissions by a co-partner or agent
1. An agent performs some service in representation or on behalf of
his principal (Art. 1868, Civil Code of the Philippines). The agent therefore, is
(a) x x x
(b) Y's testimony is not admissible against X pursuant to the
rule on res inter alios acta.
Rule on the motion for demurrer.
Suggested answer:
(a) x x x
(b) The demurrer should be denied. The reliance on the rule on
res inter alios acta is misplaced. The rule applies only to
extrajudicial declarations and not to statements made in
open court. Y testified as a witness and was in fact, cross-
examined.
in legal contemplation, a mere extension of the personality of the principal
and unless the agent acts in his own name, the principal must comply with
all the obligations which the agent may have contracted within the scope of
his authority (Art. 1883; Art 1910, Civil Code the Philippines). Hence,
whatever is said by an agent to a third person during the course of the
agency and within the scope of his actual or apparent authority, relative to
the business contemplated by the agency, is for legal purposes also the
statement of the principal and is therefore, admissible against said principal
(29A Am Jur 29, Evidence, §815 citing Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. vs. Mitchell,
245 U.S. 229, 62 L Ed 260, 38 S Ct 65).
2. The relationship among partners is on the same footing with the
relationship of an agent to his principal. Both the contracts of agency and
partnership involve fiduciary relationships. Under the law (Art. 1818, Civil
Code of the Philippines), every partner is an agent of the partnership for the
purpose of its business and the act of the partner in carrying out the usual
course of business binds the partnership as a rule. Hence, under the same
principle governing an agency, the declaration of a partner may be
admissible against the other partners or the partnership.
3. However, not every declaration or act made or done by a partner
or agent is admissible against the other partners or the principal. For the
admission of a co-partner or agent to be admissible, the following requisites
must concur:
(a) The declaration or act of the partner and agent must have been
made or done within the scope of his authority;
(b) The declaration or act of the partner and agent must have been
made or done during the existence of the partnership or agency
(while the person making the declaration was still a partner or
an agent was an agent); and
(c) The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by
evidence other than the declaration or act of the partner and
agent (Sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
4. Any declaration made before the partnership or agency existed
or those made after are not admissible against the other partners or the
principal but remains admissible against the partner or agent making the
declaration. It is also necessary for the application of the exception that
the proof of the agency or partnership be from a source independent of the
declaration made by the partner or agent.
5. The above rules also apply to the declarations or acts of a joint
owner, joint debtor, or other persons jointly interested with the party (Sec.
29, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Admissions by a co-conspirator
1. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it
(Art. 8, Revised Penal Code). Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of one
is the act of all. The statement therefore of one, may be admitted against
the other co-conspirators as an exception to the rule of res inter alios
acta.
2. Assume that two months after a successful bank robbery, A was
arrested as a direct participant in the crime. During a television interview,
he admitted his participation in the robbery. He also implicated B and C as
his other companion in planning and executing the robbery. Is his
statement admissible? The statement is admissible as to him (Sec. 26, Rule
130) but not as to B and C (Sec. 28, Rule 130). While A was a co-
conspirator, his statement will affect and be admissible against B and C
only when the following concur:
(a) The declaration or act be made or done during the
existence of the conspiracy;
(b) The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy ;
and
(c) The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other the
declaration or act (Sec. 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Note that the declaration of A was made long after the conspiracy
was over. Even assuming that the conspiracy can be proven by
independent evidence and even if. his statement was related to the
conspiracy, the declaration is not admissible as an exception to the rule of
res inter alios acta.
Incriminating declarations of co-conspirators made in the absence
of or without the knowledge of the others after the conspiracy has come to
an end is inadmissible (US vs. Nerlinger [CA2 NY] 862 F2d 967,27 Fed
Rules Evidence Serv 271; 29A Am Jur, Evidence, §838). The arrest of the
declarant is often found to terminate the declarant's participation in the
conspiracy so that the declarant's post arrest statements do not qualify as
admissible co-conspirator statements (29A Am Jur, Evidence, §840).
3. The rule requiring the concurrence of the above elements does
not apply when the co-accused takes the witness stand and repeats his
extrajudicial confession as a witness. The declarations referred to here are
extrajudicial statements or declarations.
An extrajudicial confession made by an accused is admissible
against him but not admissible against his co-accused who took no part in
the confession (Sparf vs. US, 156 US 51). An extrajudicial confession is
binding only upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-
accused (People vs. Raquel, 265 SCRA 248) but those made by witnesses in
open court are admissible as testimonies of a person based on his personal
perceptions and knowledge (Sec. 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
 4. The Supreme Court held in one case that a distinction must be
made between an extrajudicial and judicial confession. An extraiudicial
confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not
against his co-accused since the latter are not afforded the opportunity to
cross-examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against the
declarant's co-accused since the latter are afforded the opportunity to
cross-examine the former. Sec. 30 of Rule 130 applies only to extrajudicial
admissions and not to testimonies at trial where the party adversely
affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant (People vs.
Palijon, 343 SCRA 486).
5. To be admitted as an exception, the extrajudicial statements of
the co-conspirator must be proven by evidence other than the admission
(Sec. 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court; US vs. Arias- Villanueva [CA9 Or] 998 F2d
1491; 29A Am Jur, 2d, §847). This requisite only applies when the
admission is extrajudicial. Where the statement of the co-conspirator is
made as witness in court, there is no need for the conspiracy to be shown
by independent evidence (People vs. Serrano, G.R No. L-17937, April 27,
1959).
(b) The act, declaration or omission of the predecessor must have
occurred while he was holding (not after) the title to the
property;
(c) The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to the
property (Sec. 31, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
3. Accordingly, when the former owner of the property made the
declaration after he ceased to be the owner of the property, the rule on
admission by privies does not apply and what applies is the general rule
that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another (Gevero vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 189 SCRA
201).
Offer of compromise in civil cases
Admission by privies
1. "Privies" are persons who are partakers or have an interest in
any action or thing, or any relation to another (Black's, 5th Ed 1077).
Examples: (a) A lessor and his lessee, a grantor and a grantee; an assignor
and an assignee are privies in estate or a contract; (b) An executor or an
administrator and the estate of the deceased are privies in representation or
(c) An heir and his ascendant are privies in blood or succession.
2. Assume that X, father of Z, while the former was alive, openly
told his acquaintances, that the land where his house stood had already
been sold to Y. Is this declaration by X admissible against Z, the sole heir
of Y? It is not, because the statement was made after X held his title to the
land. For an admission of a predecessor-in-interest to be admissible against
the successor-in-interest, the following requisites must be present:
(a) There must be an act, declaration or an omission by a
predecessor-in-interest;
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any
liability, and is not an admission against the offeror (Sec.27, Rule 130, Rules
of Court)
Offer of compromise in criminal cases
1. An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt (Sec.27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Example: Although the marriage of the accused in a rape case extinguishes
the penal action (Alonto vs. Savellano, Jr., 287 SCRA 245), an offer of
marriage is, generally, speaking, an admission of guilt (People us. Bul( No.
123542, June 26, 2001).
2. There is no implied admission of guilt if the offer compromise is
in relation to (a) quasi-offenses (criminal negligence); or (b) in those cases
allowed by law to be compromised (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Example: Liability BP 22 may be compromised. The drawer may pay the
amount of the check or make arrangements for its payment within (5)
banking days from notice of dishonor.
Bar 1989
Pedro was charged with homicide for having hacked
Ramon to death. Before the case could be tried, the of Ramon
sought out Pedro and discussed with him the possibility of
settlement of the case. Pedro agreed to a settlement. When the
heirs asked how much he was willing to pay, Pedro offered
P30,OOO which the heirs accepted. Is the agreement to settle as
well as the offer to pay P30,OOO by Pedro admissible in
evidence against him as an implied admission of guilt?
Suggested answer:
The evidence is admissible. Under the Rules of Evi-
dence, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by
law to be compromised, an offer of compromise in a criminal
case may be received in evidence as an admission of guilt.
Homicide is neither a quasi-offense nor one of those cases
allowed by law to be compromised (Sec. 24, Rule 130, Rules of
Court).
Plea of guilty later withdrawn
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, is not admissible in evidence
against the accused who made the plea (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
An unaccepted plea of guilty to a lesser offense
An unaccepted plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in
evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer (Sec. 27, Rule 130,
Rules of Court).
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or
other expenses
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses
occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or
criminal liability for the injured party (Sec 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court). This
is sometimes called the "good samaritan rule”.
--oOo--