PROOF is the result or effect of evidence.

When the quantum of

evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight, the
result is called the proof of such fact.

FACTUM PROBANDUM is the ultimate fact or the fact sought to be

established.

FACTUM PROBANS is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the

factum probandum is to be established.

FACTUM PROBANDUM refers to the proposition, whereas

FACTUM PROBANS refers to the materials which establish that
proposition.

The rules of evidence are specifically applicable only in judicial

proceedings. In quasi-judicial proceedings, the same apply by analogy, or
in suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient,
EXCEPT where the governing law on that particular proceeding
specifically adopts the rules of evidence in the Rules of Court.

The Rules classify evidence according to form, into:

a) object (real) evidence - Section 7, Rule 130

b) documentary evidence - Section 2-19, Rule 130
c) testimonial evidence - Section 20-51, Rule 130

OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE is that which is directly addressed to the

senses of the court and consists of tangible things, exhibited or
demonstrated in open court, in an ocular inspection or at a place
designated by the court for its view or observation of an exhibition,
experiment or demonstration.

Autoptic preference by proffering or presenting in open court the

evidentiary article for the observation or inspection of the tribunal.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE is evidence supplied by written instrument

or derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are
represented on material substances.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE is that which is submitted to the court
through the testimony or deposition of a witness.

RELEVANT EVIDENCE is evidence having any value in reason as

tending to prove any matter provable in an action.

MATERIAL EVIDENCE is evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as

determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings.

COMPETENT EVIDENCE is one that is not excluded by the Rules, a

stature or the Constitution.

RELEVANCY of evidence refers to the logical relation of the evidentiary

fact to the fact in issue. (If evidence tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue).

MATERIALITY of evidence is determined by whether the fact it intends

to prove is in issue or not.

Whether the fact in issue or not is determined by substantive law, the

pleadings, the pre-trial order, and by the admissions or confessions on file.

DIRECT EVIDENCE is that which proves the fact in dispute without the
aid of any inference or presumption.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is the proof of a fact or facts from

which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact
in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE is evidence of the same kind and to the same

state of facts.

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is that which standing alone,

unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition
affirmed.

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is that class of evidence which the law does

not allow to be contradicted.

PRIMARY or BEST EVIDENCE is that which the law regards as

affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE is that which is inferior to the primary
evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not
available. Also called SUBSTITUTIONARY EVIDENCE.

POSITIVE EVIDENCE, evidence is positive when the witness affirms that

a fact did or did not occur.

NEGATIVE EVIDENCE, evidence is negative when the witness states he

did not see or know the occurrence of a fact.

NOTE: When a witness declares of his own knowledge that a fact

did not take place, that is actually positive testimony since
it is an affirmation of the truth of a negative fact.

Two (2) requisites of admissibility:

1. it must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved;

2. it must be competent (it is not excluded by the law or the rules on
evidence)

Relevancy of evidence according to Sec. 4, Rule 128, is when it has

such relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. It is therefore determined by the rules of logic and human
experience.

Competency is determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of

evidence.

Two axioms of admissibility:

1. None, but facts having rational probative value are admissible.

2. All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some
specific rule forbids their admission.

EVIDENCE how offered?

The admissibility of evidence is determined at the time it is offered to
the Court. (Section 35, Rule 132).
 Object evidence is offered to the court when the same is
presented for its view or evaluation, as in ocular inspection or
demonstrations when the party rests his case and the real evidence
consists of objects exhibited in court.

Testimonial evidence is offered by the calling of the witness

to the stand.

Documentary evidence is formally offered by the proponent

immediately before he rests his case.

OBJECTIONS how made?

Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the

time such evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the objection to its
admissibility shall have become apparent, otherwise the objection shall be
considered waived.

In testimonial evidence, objections to the qualifications of the

witness should be made at the time he is called to the stand, and if the
witness is otherwise qualified, the objectionable question is asked or after
the answer is given if the objectionable features became apparent by
reason of such answer.

Objection to real or object evidence must be made either at the time

it is presented in an ocular inspection or demonstration or when it is
formally offered.

Objections to documentary evidence is at the time it is formally

offered. (Secs. 35-37 of Rule 132)

OTHER DOCTRINES OR RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY

- where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial

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

- where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more

purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the
purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the
requirements of law for its admissibility therefore.

CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY

- this doctrine treats upon the right of a party to introduce incompetent

evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of
evidence adduced by the adverse party.

What should determine the application of the rule of curative

admissibility?

1. Whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to; and

2. Whether, regardless of the objections, the admission of such
evidence will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against
whom it was admitted.

Collateral matters are matters other than the facts in issue and which
are offered as a basis for inference as to existence or non-existence of the
facts in issue.

Relevant Collateral matters are admissible because they tend in any

reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the facts
in issue.

Irrelevant collateral matters are prohibited under the Rules.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is the evidence of collateral facts or

circumstances from which an inference may be drawn as to the probability
or improbability of the facts in dispute.

o it is legal evidence
o if sufficient, can sustain a judgment (Sec. 4, Rule 133)
o it is an evidence of relevant collateral facts
Admissibility is determined by its relevance and competence.

Weight of evidence depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines

provided by Rule 133 and decisional rules of SC.

The Court may refuse the introduction of object evidence and rely on
testimonial evidence alone, if:

a) the exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy, morals or

decency;

b) to require its being viewed in court or ocular inspection would result

in delays, inconvenience and unnecessary expenses;

c) such object evidence would be confusing or misleading;

d) the testimonial evidence or documentary evidence already

presented clearly portrays the object in question.

Documents can be considered object evidence, if the purpose:

1) is to prove their existence or condition;

2) the nature of the handwritings;

3) to determine the age of the paper used, blemishes, alterations

thereon, as where falsification is alleged.

Document is documentary evidence if the purpose is to establish the

contents or tenor thereof.

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

- when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no

evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.

EXCEPTIONS to the Best Evidence Rule:

1) when the original (document) has been lost or destroyed or cannot
be produced, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
 2) when the original is in the customary or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered and the latte fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;

3) when the original consists of numerous accounts or other

documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of
time and the fact sought to be established is only the general result
of the whole;

4) when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer

or is recorded in a public office.

The best evidence rule as applied to documentary evidence

operates as a rule of exclusion, that is secondary evidence cannot initially
be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court except
in the four instance mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130.

The non-production of the original document unless justified under

the exceptions in Section 3 of Rule 130 gives rise to the presumption of
suppression of evidence under Section 3 (e), Rule 131 which states that
“evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced”.

However, in order for such presumption to arise, it is necessary:

a) that the evidence is material;

b) that the party had the opportunity to produce the same; and
c) that said evidence is available only to said party.

With respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence

rules applies only when the contents of such document is the subject of
inquiry.

If the issue however is only whether such document was actually

executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial or parol
evidence is allowed or admissible.

Is the best evidence applicable in affidavits and

depositions?
 Strictly speaking, under such circumstances, the best evidence rule
is not involve since the contents of said affidavits or depositions are not the
issues in the case but are only intended as evidence to establish the issue
in controversy.

The use of affidavits is regulated by the hearsay evidence rule (Sec.

26, Rule 130) to safeguard the right of cross-examination, while the use of
depositions is regulated by Section 4, Rule 23.

Section 4, Rule 130, Original Document

a) the original of a document is one the contents of which are the

subject of inquiry;

b) when a document is in two or more copies, executed at or about the

same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals.

C) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business,

one being copied from another at or near the time of the
transanction, all the entries are like equally regarded as originals.

The Supreme Court has held that each carbon copy is considered an
original provided that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet,
including the signature of the party sought to be charged thereby,
produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being
thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the
surface or exposed impression.

It is still considered original even if said signature on each copy was

written through separate acts or even on separate occasions.

SECONDARY EVIDENCE

- when the original document has been lost or destroyed or cannot be

reproduced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his
part, may prove its content by a coy or by recital of its contents in
some authentic document, by the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated. (Sec. 5, Rule 130).
 In order that such secondary evidence may be admissible, there
must be proof by satisfactory evidence of the following:

1) due execution of the original;

2) loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals without bad

faith of the offeror;

3) reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to

produce the original.

The due execution of the document should be proved through the

testimony of either:

1) the person/s who executed it;

2) the person before whom its execution was acknowledged;
3) any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or
who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures or one to whom
the parties thereto had previously confessed the execution thereof.

When original is outside the jurisdiction of the Court, as when it is in

a foreign country, secondary evidence is admissible.

Secondary evidence may consist of:

1) a copy of said document

2) a recital of its contents in an authentic document or
3) the recollection of witnesses

Second exception:

Sec. 6, Rule 130 – “If the document is in the custody or under

the control of the adverse party, he
must have reasonable notice to produce
it. If after such notice and after satisfactory
proof of its existence, he fails to produce the
 document, secondary evidence may be
presented as in the case of its loss.

The justified refusal or failure of the adverse party to produce the

document does not give rise to the presumption of suppression of
evidence or create an unfavorable inference against him. It only
authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence.

Where such document is produced, such document is not

necessarily admissible in evidence, unless the requisites for admissibility
are present; nor is the party who sought its production obliged to offer it as
evidence. (Section 8, Rule 130).

Production of documents under Rule 130, Sec. 7 distinguished from

Rule 27.

Under Section 7, Rule 130, the production of the original document

is procured by mere notice to the adverse party. The requirement of
such notice is a condition precedent for the subsequent introduction of
secondary evidence by the proponent.

The production of document under Rule 27, on the other hand, is in

a nature of a mode of discovery and can be sought only by proper
motion in the trial court and is permitted only upon good cause shown.

Third exception:

The third exception to the best evidence rule is justified not only by
the fact that the records are voluminous but by the fact that the factum
probans is only the general result of the whole and not the detailed
contents of the records.

Thus, for the exception to apply:

a) the voluminous character of the records must be established;

and
b) such records must be made accessible to the adverse party
so that their correctness may be tested on cross-examination.
Fourth Exception:

Section 7, Rule 130

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

How can an official record or public record of a private document be

proved?

An official record may be evidenced by an official publication thereof

or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record.
(Sec. 24, Rule 132). In the case of an authorized public record of a private
writing, the same may be proved by a copy thereof attested by the legal
keeper of the record. (Sec. 27, Rule 132).

PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE:

When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be
between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to

the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written

agreement;
b) the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
c) the validity of the written agreement; or
d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or by their
successors-in-interest, after the execution of the written agreement.

The term written agreement includes wills (Sec. 9, Rule 130)

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

The parole evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be
invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least
one party to the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written
instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right
originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.

PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

1.presupposes that the original 1. contemplates the situation wherein

document is available in court. the original writing is not available
and/or there is a dispute as to
whether said writing is the original.

2. prohibits the varying of the terms 2. prohibits the introduction of

of a written agreement substitutionary evidence in lieu of
the original document, regardless
of whether or not it varies the
contents of the original.

3. with the exception of the wills, 3. applies to all kinds of writings

parole evidence rule applies
only to documents which are
contractual in nature.

4. can be invoked only when the 4. can be invoked by any party to an

controversy is between the action regardless of whether such
parties to the written agreement, party has participated or not in the
their privies or any party directly writing involved.
affected thereby

In order that parole evidence may be admissible, the mistake or

imperfection of the document, or its failure to express the true agreement
of the parties or the validity of the agreement, the same must be put in
issue by the pleadings. Thus, the same should be alleged.
 Under the first exception, includes latent or intrinsic ambiguity.
There is intrinsic ambiguity when the writing on its face appears clear and
unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which
makes the meaning uncertain or where a writing admits of two construction
both of which are in harmony with the language used.

Mistake under this exception refers to a mistake of fact which is

mutual to the parties.

Parole evidence is not admissible if patent or extrinsic ambiguity or

such ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and
requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the
words used.

Falsa demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat which means

that false description does not vitiate a document if the subject is
sufficiently identified.

QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESS:

Generally, all persons who can perceive and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others may be witnesses.

Exceptions: (Disqualifications)

a) those whose mental conditions, at the time of their production for

examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others;

b) children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable

of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and
relating them truthfully.

NOT grounds for disqualifications:

1) religious or political belief

2) interest in the outcome of the case
3) conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law.
 Qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are determined as
of the time the said witnesses are produced for examination in the court or
at the taking of their depositions.

MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE or SPOUSAL IMMUNITY

During the marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for
or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. EXCEPT
in a civil case by one against the other or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct ascendants or
descendants. (Sec. 22, Rule 130).

In order that the marital disqualifications rule will apply, it is

necessary that the marriage is valid and existing as of the time of the offer
of testimony and that the other spouse is a party to the action.

This immunity may be waived as in the case of other witnesses

generally.

Where a husband in his testimony imputes the commission of a

crime to his wife, he is deemed to have waived his objection to the latter’s
testimony in rebuttal.

Where the wife is a con-defendant in a suit charging her and her

husband with collusive fraud, she cannot be called as an adverse party
witness as this will violate the marital disqualification rule.

SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE or DEAD MAN

STATUTE

Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf

a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person or against a person of unsound mind,
upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or
against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of
fact occurring before the death of such person or before such person
became of unsound mind. (Sec. 23, Rule 130).

Dead Man Statute constitutes only a partial disqualification as the

witness is not completely disqualified but is only prohibited from testifying
on matters of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or
before such person became of unsound mind whereas marital
disqualification rule is a complete and absolute disqualification.

Dead Man Statute applies only to a civil case or special proceedings

over the estate of a deceased or insane person. The marital
disqualification rule applies to civil or criminal case, subject to the two
exceptions provided under the Rules (which is Sec. 22, Rule 130).

Requisites for Dead Man Statute to apply. It is necessary that:

a) the witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff, or the

assignor of said party, of a person in whose behalf of a case is
prosecuted;

b) the case is against the executor or administrator or other

representative of a person deceased or unsound mind;

c) the case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such

person who is de eased or of unsound mind; and

d) the testimony is given is on a matter of fact occurring before the

death of such deceased person or before such person became
unsound mind.

Under the first requisites, the rule does not apply:

1) to a mere witness who is neither party to the case, his assignor, nor
person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted.

2) to a nominal party

3) to officers and stockholder of a plaintiff corporation

4) where a counter-claim has been interposed by the defendant as the

plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense
 5) the same is true where the deceased contracted with the plaintiff
through an agent and said agent is alive and can testify, but the
testimony of the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed by the
agent.

Under the second requisite:

It is necessary that said defendant is being sued and defense in

such representative capacity and not in his individual capacity.

Heirs of deceased are considered his representative, involving

property adjudicated to them (Sec. 17, rule 3). Guardians of person of
unsound mind (Sec. 3, Rule 96).

NOTE: The Dead Man Statute applies regardless of whether the

deceased died before or after the suit against him is filed,
provided that he is already dead at the time of the
testimony is sought to be given.

Under the third requisite:

The subject matter of the action is a claim or demand against the

estate of the deceased or person of unsound mind, hence the rules does
not apply where (1) it is the administrator who brings an action to recover
property allegedly belonging to the estate or (2) the action is by the heirs of
the deceased plaintiff who were substituted for the latetr.

Under the fourth requisite:

Matters prohibited from being testified to under this rule includes any
matter of fact which bears upon a transaction or communication between
the witness and the decedent even though without the presence or
participation of the latter.

Negative testimony or testimony of a fact did not occur during the

lifetime of the deceased, are not covered by the prohibition.

Section 24, Rule 130. Disqualification by reason of PRIVILEGED

COMMUNICATION.
 The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence in the following cases:

a) the husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be

examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage
EXCEPT in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s
direct descendants or ascendants.

Basis: the basis of the privilege is the confidential nature of the

communication.

Requisites for marital privilege to apply, it is necessary

that:

a) there was a valid marital relation;

b) the privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication
c) the spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has not
given his or her consent to such testimony.

Exceptions:

1) if there was a waiver, express or implied

2) privilege cannot be claimed with respect to communications

made prior to the marriage

3) where the communication was not intended to be kept secret

4) third person who may have overheard such communication or

comes into hand of a third person, provided that there was no
collusion with or voluntary disclosure by either spouse to the
third person. Otherwise, said third person becomes an agent
thereby covred.

MARITAL DISQ. RULE MARITAL PRIVILEGE

1. it can be invoked only if one of 1. can be claimed whether or not
the spouses is party to the action the spouse is a party to the action

2. applies only if the marriage is 2. can be claimed even after the

existing at the time the testimony marriage has been dissolved
is offered

3. it constitutes a total prohibition 3. applies only to confidential

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

Even if the communication between the spouses is not confidential,

hence not privileged, the spouse who is a party to the action can still
prevent the other spouse from testifying against him under the marital
disqualification rule; and, conversely, even if the spouse who is party to the
action does not object to the other spouse testifying therein, thus waiving
the marital disqualifications, he can still prevent the disclosure by said
spouse-witness of confidential communications covered bys the privilege.

Disqualification based on the Attorney-Client Privilege:

Requisites:
1) there is an attorney and client relation;

2) the privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential

communication between them in the course of professional
employment; and

3) the client has not given his consent to the attorney’s

testimony thereon; or if the attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk
is sought to be examined that both the client and the attorney have
not given there consent thereto.

The attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity,

even if no fee has been paid therefore.

Preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating the

attorney-client relationship are within the privilege.
 Communications covered by the privilege includes:

1) verbal statement;
2) documents or papers entrusted to the attorney; and
3) of facts learned by the attorney through the act or agency of
his client

Privilege does not apply to communications which are:

1) intended to be made public;

2) intended to be communicated to others;
3) intended for an unlawful purposes;
4) received from third persons not acting in behalf or as an agent of
the client
5) or made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to
attorney-client relationship.

Communications regarding a crime already committed, made by the

offender to an attorney, consulted as such are privileged. Contrarily,
communications between attorney-client having to do with the clients
contemplated criminal act or in aid or furtherance thereof, are not
covered by the privilege.

Disqualification arising from physician-patient privilege:

Requisites:

1) the physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or

obstetrics;

2) the information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given

by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and
curing the patient;

3) the information, advice or treatment, if revealed would blacken the

reputation of the patient; and

4) the privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the patient is party

thereto or not.
 EXCEPTIONS:

1. the communication was not given in confidence;

2. the communication is irrelevant to the professional employment;

3. the communication was made for unlawful purpose as when it is

intended for the commission or concealment of a crime;

4. the communication was intended to be made public;

5. there was a waiver of a privilege either by provision of contract or

law.

Disqualification because of privileged communications to public

officers: Requisites:

1. communication was made to the public officer in official confidence;

and
2. that public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such
communication, as in the case of state secrets.

EXCEPTION:

- where no public interest would be prejudiced.

TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE

Sec. 5, Rule 130 – Parental and Filial Privilege

No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other

direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

It is not a rule of disqualification, as the descendant (person who

may testify) was not incompetent or disqualified to testify against his
ascendants but was actually a privilege not to testify, hence it was referred
to as a filial privilege.

However, under the Family Code (Art. 215) the descendant may be
compelled to testify against his parents and grandparents, if such
testimony is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant
or by one parent against the other.

Sec. 26, Rule 130 – Admission of a party.

The act, declaration or omission of a party as to relevant fact may be

given in evidence against him.

Admission is any statement of fact made by the party against his

interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is
inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.

Requisites: To be admissible, an admission must:

a) involve matters of fact and not of law;

b) be categorical and definite;
c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
d) be adverse to the admitter’s interest, otherwise, it would be
self serving and inadmissible.

A judicial admission is one made in connection with a judicial

proceeding in which it is offered. (Sec. 4, Rule 129) whereas, extra-judicial
admission is any other admission.

ADMISSION CONFESSION

1. it is a statement of fact which does 1. it is a statement of fact which

not involve an acknowledgement of involve an acknowledgment of
guilt or liability guilt or liability

2. may be made expressly or impliedly 2. must be made expressly

3. admissions may be made by third 3. confessions can be made only

persons and, in certain cases, are by the party himself, in some
admissible against a party instances, are admissible to
co-accused

ADMISSION DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST

1. need not be made against the 1. must have been made against
propriety or pecuniary interest the propriety or pecuniary interest
of the party of the parties

2. made by the party himself and 2. must have been made by a person
is a primary evidence and competent who is either deceased or unable
to testify

3. can be made at any time 3. the declaration must have been

made ante-liten motam

Self-serving declaration is one which has been made extra-judicially by the

party to favor his interest. It is not admissible in evidence.

Sec. 27, Rule 130. Offer of Compromise, not admissible.

In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any

liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.

In criminal cases, EXCEPT those involving quasi-offenses (criminal

negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused by be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt.

A plea of guilt later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of

guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the
accused who made the plea or offer.

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 injury.

AS A RULE, an offer of compromise in civil case is not a tacit

(implied) admission of liability and CANNOT be proved over the objection
of the offeror, UNLESS such offer is clearly not only to “buy peace” but
amounts to an admission of liability.
 In Criminal cases, an offer of compromise is GENERALLY an
admission of guilt, EXCEPT:

1) criminal cases involving criminal negligence; or

2) those allowed by law to be compromised.

Ex. Violations of Internal Revenue laws, such offer of

compromise are not admissible in evidence as the law
(Sec.204, NLRC) provides that the payment of any internal
revenue tax may be compromised, EXCEPT those already
filed in court and those involving fraud.

Rape cases can be compromised by the marriage of the

accused with the victim, in good faith.

NOTE: An offer to pay or the actual payment of medical, hospital

and other expenses by reason of the victim’s injury is not
admissible to prove civil or criminal liability therefore.
(REASON) Such humanitarian acts should be encouraged
and rewarded, instead of being discouraged and penalized
by being considered an admission of liability.

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI NOCERE NON DEBET

1) Sec. 28, Rule 130. Admission by third-party

The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,

declaration or omission of another, EXCEPT as provided by
the rules.

2) Sec. 34, Rule 130. Similar acts as evidence.

EXCEPTIONS to inter alios acta: Requisites

a) that the partnership, agency or joint interest is established by

evidence other than the act or declaration;

b) the act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership, agency

or joint interest; and
 c) such act or declaration must have been made during the existence
of the partnership, agency or joint interest

AS A RULE, statements made by a partner after the partnership

has been dissolved does not fall within this exception, however, if made in
connection with the winding-up of the partnership affairs are still admissible
as the partner is acting as an agent of his co-partners in said winding-up.

3. Admission by conspirator

Requisites:

An admission by a conspirator is admissible against his co-

conspirator if:

a) such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde;

b) the admission was made during the existence of the
conspiracy; and
c) the admission relates to the conspiracy itself.

NOTE: The admission made herein by the conspirator relates to extra-

judicial acts or statements and not to testimony given on the witness stand
at the trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant.

How can conspiracy be proved to exist?

The existence of the conspiracy:

1) may be inferred from the acts of the accused; or

2) from the confessions of the accused; or
3) by the prima facie proof thereof.

Extra-judicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy has

been terminated and even before trial are ALSO not admissible against the
co-conspirator, EXCEPT:

a) IF made in the presence of the latter (con-conspirator) who

expressly or implied agreed therein (Admission by Silence)
 b) Where the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in the
individual extra-judicial confessions made by the co-
conspirators after their apprehension

c) As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness

d) As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the

latter’s participation

In order that the extra-judicial statements of a co-accused may be

taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness, it is
necessary that the statement be in a manner of an interlocking confession.

What is an interlocking confession?

An INTERLOCKING CONFESSION is a statement made by several

accused, the same are in all material respect identical and there
could have been no collusion among said co-accused in making
such statements.

ADMISSION BY PRIVIES where one derives title to property from

another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the
title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. (Sec. 31,
Rule 130).

Requisites: To be admissible, the following must concur:

a) there must be a relation of privity between the party and

the declarant;

b) the admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor-

in-interest, while holding title to the property; and

c) the admission is in relation to the property

ADMISSION BY SILENCE

Requisites: To be admissible, the following must concur:

 a) he must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the
other person;

b) he must have had the opportunity to deny it;

c) he must have understood the statement;

d) he must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally

have done so, if the statement was not true;

e) the facts were within his knowledge; and

f) the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is

material to the issue.

CONFESSION is a categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an

accused in a criminal case, without any exculpatory statement or
explanation.

If made with exculpatory explanation or justification, the same is

merely an admission.

JUDICIAL CONFESSION is one made before a court in which the

case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by
itself can sustain a conviction even in capital offenses.

An EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION is one made in any other place or

occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence
of the corpus delicti (Sec. 3, Rule 133).

Requisites of Confession: To be admissible, it is necessary that:

1) the confession must involve an express and categorical

acknowledgement of guilt;

2) the facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense

3) the confession must have been given voluntarily

4) the confession must have been intelligently made, the accused

realizing the importance or legal significance of his act; and
5) there must have been no violation of Sec. 12, Art. III of the 1987
Constitution.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

A witness can testify ONLY to those facts which he knows of

his PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE; that is, which are derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided by the Rules.

What is a HEARSAY EVIDENCE?

Any evidence, whether ORAL or DOCUMENTARY, is hearsay

if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the
witness but on the knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of
some other person not on the witness stand.

Hearsay evidence is excluded because the party whom it is

presented is deprived of his right and opportunity to cross-examine the
person to whom the statement or writings are attributed.

INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS

Where, regardless of the truth or the falsity of a statement, the

fact that it has been made irrelevant, the hearsay rule does not apply,
but the statement may be shown. Evidence as to the making of such
statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the
existence of such a fact.

Two classes of independently relevant statements:

1) those which are the very facts in issue; and

 2) those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in
issue

EXCEPTION to the HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE:

1) DYING DECLARATION, also known as an ante mortem statement or

statement in articulo mortis. (Sec. 37, Rule 130)

Sec. 37 DYING DECLARATION

The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of

an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death.

Requisites:
1) that death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact;
2) that the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding
circumstance of such death;

3) that the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent

to testify to; and

4) that the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarants

death is the subject of the inquiry.

Dying declaration is applicable in civil, criminal and administrative

cases.

Dying declarations are on the same footing as testimony of a

witness on the stand and whatever would disqualify such witness would
also make such declaration incompetent evidence.

Sec. 38 DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST

 Requisites:

1. that the declarant is dead and unable to testify;

2. that it relates to facts against the interest of the declarant;

3. that at the time he made said declaration the declarant was

aware that the same was contrary to his interest; and

4. that the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such

declaration to be true

What is the distinction between admission against interest and

declaration against interest?

ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST are those made by a party to a

litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest which such
party and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a
witness.

DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST are those made by a person who

is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary
evidence but constitute an exception to the hearsay rule, and are
admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.

Sec. 39 ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE

The pedigree of a person may be proved by the following:

1) the act or declaration of a relative (Sec. 39, Rule 130)

2) by the reputation or tradition existing in his family (sec. 40,

Rule 130)
 3) by the entries in family bibles or other family books or charts,
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like; (Sec. 40,
Rule 130) and

4) with respect to marriage, also by common reputation in the

community (Sec. 41, Rule 130)

Requisites: In order that pedigree may be proved by acts or

declarations of relatives, it is necessary that:

1) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;

2) the act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject

by birth or marriage

3) the relationship between the declarant or the actor and the

subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

4) The act or declaration was made ante litem motam, or prior to the
controversy.

Sec. 40 FAMILY REPUTAION or TRADITION PEDIGREE

Requisites: In order to prove family reputation or tradition regarding

pedigree, it is necessary that:

1) the witness testifying thereto must be a member, by consanguinity or

affinity, of the same family as the subject; and

2) such reputation or tradition must have existed in that family ante

litem motem

Sec. 41 COMMON REPUTATION

Common reputation is the definite opinion of the community in which

the fact to be proved is known or exist.

Common reputation, which means general reputation, is admissible

to prove:

1) facts of public or general interest more than thirty (30) years old;
2) marriage
3) moral character
 Matters of public interest are those of national interest.

Matters of general interest are those affecting inhabitants of a particular

region or community.

Common reputation may be established either by (1) testimonial

evidence of competent witnesses; (2) by monuments and inscription in
public places; or (3) by documents containing statements of reputation

Sec. 42 PART OF RES GESTAE

Res gestea refers to:

1) spontaneous statements in connection with a startling occurrence

relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof; and

2) statements accompanying an equivocal act, otherwise known as

“verbal acts”, on the theory that they are the verbal part of the act to
be explained.

Elements of the first type of res gestea, it is required that:

a) the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence,

b) the statements forming part thereof were made before the declarant
had the opportunity to contrive; and

c) the statements refer to the occurrence in question and its attending

circumstances.

Requisites for the admissibility of evidence of spontaneous declarations

are:

1) there must be a startling occurrence;

2) that the statement must relate to the circumstances of the starling

occurrence; and

3) that the statement must be spontaneous and unpremeditated

VERBAL ACTS
- are utterances which accompany some act or conduct to which it is
desired to give a legal effect when such act has intrinsically no definite
legal significance or only an ambiguous one, its legal purport or tenor may
be ascertained by considering the words accompanying it, and these
utterances thus enters merely as a verbal part of the act.

Requisites for the admissibility of verbal acts are:

1) the act characterized by the verbal acts must be equivocal or

ambiguous in tenor;

2) that the verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal

or ambiguous act;

3) that the equivocal or ambiguous act must be material to the

issue; and

4) that the verbal act must be contemporaneous with and

accompany the equivocal or ambiguous act.

Sec. 43 ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS

Requisites for admissibility of entries in the course of business.

1) the person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;

2) the entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to

which they refer;

3) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;

4) the entries were made in his professional capacity or in the

performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;

5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business.

Sec. 44 ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS

Entries in official records to be admissible, it is necessary that:

1) the entries were made by a public officer in the performance of his

duties or by a person in the performance of a duty specifically
enjoined by law;

2) the entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or

such facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons
under legal duty to submit the same;

3) such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official

records

Sec. 45 COMMERCIAL LIST AND THE LIKE

Sec. 46 LEARNED TREATIES

Learned treaties are admissible in evidence to prove the truth of a

matter stated therein:

a) if the court takes judicial notice thereof; and

b) the statement in the treaties, periodical or pamphlet is testified to by

a witness recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the
subject.

Sec. 47 TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER

PROCEEDING

The requisites for the admissibility of testimony at a former

proceedings are:

1) the witness is dead or unable to testify;

2) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or

proceeding, judicial or administrative between the same parties
or those representing the same interest;
 3) there is identity of parties;

4) identity of subject matter;

5) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the

witness in the former case.

OPINION RULE

General Rule – the opinion of a witness is not admissible (as

evidence). (Sec. 48, Rule 130)

Opinion, under the law of evidence, is an inference or conclusion

drawn by a witness from facts, some of which are known to him and other
assumed or drawn from facts, which although lending probability to the
inference do not evolve it by a process of absolutely necessary reasoning.

Reason for exclusion of opinion:

It contradicts the general law that a witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of his own knowledge, that is, which are derived from
his perception, except as otherwise provided in the rules.

EXCEPTIONS to Opinion Rule:

The opinion rule of a witness is admissible in evidence in the

following instances:

1) on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or

training which he possesses, that is when he is an expert
thereon; (Sec. 49, Rule 130)

2) regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person, when he

has knowledge of the person or handwriting, whether he is an
ordinary or expert witness; (Sec. 22, Rule 132)

3) on the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently

acquainted with the former or if the latter is an expert witness;
 4) on the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person
which he has observed; and

5) on ordinary matters known to all men of common perception,

such as the value of ordinary household articles.

EXPERT EVIDENCE is admissible only if:

a) the matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise; and

b) the witness has been qualified as an expert

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Sec. 51 Character evidence not generally admissible, except;

Summary of rules on admissibility of character evidence:

1) In criminal case, the prosecution may not at the outset prove the bad
moral character of the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged. If the accused, however, in his
defense attempts to prove his good moral character then the
prosecution can introduce evidence of such bad moral character at
the rebuttal stage.

2) Also in criminal case, the good or bad moral character of the

offended party may always be proved by either party as long as
such evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.

3) In civil cases, the moral character of either party thereto cannot be

proved unless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the
case.

4) In both civil and criminal cases, the bad moral character of a witness
may always be proved by either party (Sec. 11, Rule 132) but not
evidence of his good character, unless it has been impeached. (Sec.
14, Rule 132)

Burden of Proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in

issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law. (Sec. 1, Rule 131). Also known as “onus
probandi”.
 In civil cases, the amount of evidence or quantum of evidence
required by law to sustain the proponent of an issue is preponderance of
evidence.

Meaning of preponderance of evidence:

by preponderance of evidence is meant to simply evidence whish is

of greater weight or more convincing, than that which is offered in
opposition to it. (32 C.J.S. 1051)

Preponderance of the evidence means which is more convincing to the

court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

In criminal cases, to sustain conviction, the quantum of evidence is

evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 2, Rule 133)

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree

of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty is only required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

The phrase “proof beyond reasonable doubt” and “proof to a

moral certainty” are synonymous and are equivalent, and each signifies
such proof as satisfies the judgment and conscience of the trial judge, a
reasonable man, that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be

defeated if no evidence were given on either side.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

Distinction between Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

1. Does not shift 1. It shifts

It remains through out the Shifts from party to party

trial with the party upon whom it is depending upon the exigency of
imposed. The case in the course of the trial

2. Generally, determined by the 2. Generally, determined by the

pleadings filed by the party. developments at the trial, by the
provisions of substantive law or
procedural rules

In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of evidence lies with the
party who asserts an affirmative allegation.

In both civil and criminal cases, negative allegations do not have to

be proved EXCEPT where such negative allegations are essential part of
the cause of action or defense in a civil case or are essential ingredients of
the offense in a criminal case or the defenses thereto.

What need not be proved?

1) facts which are presumed (Rule 131)

2) facts which are judicial notice (Rule 129)

3) facts which are judicially admitted (Rule 129)

PRESUMPTION

- a presumption is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a

fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.

In the case of presumptions, the proponent still has to introduce

evidence of the basis of the presumption.

In the case of judicial notice and judicial admissions, as a rule, the

proponent does not have to introduce any evidence.

Presumptions are classified into:

 1) presumptions of fact
2) presumptions of law, which are:

a) conclusive presumption (or absolute, or juris et de jure)

b) disputable presumptions (or rebuttable or juris tantum or prima
facie)

Conclusive presumptions are inferences which the law makes so

peremptory that it will not allow them to be over-turned by any contrary
proof however strong.

Disputable or rebuttable presumption is a specie of evidence that

may be accepted and acted on when there is no other evidence to uphold
the contention for which it stands. One which may be overcome by other
evidence.

A presumption of law is described as a certain inference must be made

whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis of the inference.

Presumption of fact leaves the trial court at a liberty to infer certain

conclusions from certain set of circumstances.

Judicial notice is the recognizance of certain facts which judges may

properly take and act without proof because they already know them.

Judicial notice is based on considerations of expediency and

convenience. It displaces evidence since, being equivalent to proof, it
fulfills the object which evidence is intended to achieve and, therefore,
makes such evidence unnecessary.

Requisites:

1) the matter must be one of common or general knowledge;

2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or

uncertain;

3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the

court.

Doctrine of processual presumption

 absent any evidence to prove the foreign law or admissions thereto,
the court may presume that the foreign law to be the same as that in
the Philippines.

Sec. 4 Judicial admissions

An admission verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the

proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only (1) by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or (2) that no such admission was made.

Sec. 48. Rule 39 Rule on Civil Procedure Effect of foreign

judgments or final orders.

— The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a

foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment
or final order is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon

a specific thing, the judgment or final order is
conclusive upon the title to the thing; and

(b) In case of a judgment or final order

against a person, the judgment or final order
is presumptive evidence of a right as between
the parties and their successors in interest by
a subsequent title.

In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by

evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. (50a)