Transcript Law On Evidence First Exam

LAW ON EVIDENCE based on the lectures of ATTY.
JESS ESPEJO
June 17, 2016 The term “evidence” is susceptible of no other definition than that
by which the law provides.
INTRODUCTION
Evidence is the means
Law
This means that evidence is a method, a manner by which you go
In its general sense, law is defined as the science of moral laws about something. What is this something? What is its purpose? This
based on the rational nature of man, which governs his free activity is to ascertain in a judicial proceeding a truth respecting a matter of
for the realization of his individual and social ends, and which by its fact.
very nature is demandable and reciprocal.
Evidence is sanctioned by the Rules
In its specific sense, it is a rule of conduct, just, obligatory,
promulgated by legitimate authority, and of common observance The Rules of Court provides for the guidelines and principles that
and benefit. (Sanchez Roman) one should remember when prosecuting a case in court.
Branches of Law Example: A creditor wants to collect by way of an action for specific
performance. But how does he prove it before the court? He must
1. Substantive Law – that branch of law that creates, defines, prove his claim by presenting evidence. Without evidence, you
and regulates rights and duties concerning life, liberty, or prove nothing, you win nothing.
property, the violation of which gives rise to a cause of
action. Rules of Court, not the sole repository of law on evidence
2. Remedial, Procedural, or Adjective Law – that branch of Rules 127 – 133 of the Rules of Court deal with evidence. But the
law that prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights Rules of Court is not the sole repository of rules that can be
and obligations created by substantive law by providing a considered evidentiary.
procedural system for obtaining redress for the invasion of
When you say evidentiary rule, it is a rule that you use or follow that
rights and violations of duties, and by laying out rules as to
would limit your ability to prove or disprove something.
how suits are filed, tried, and decided upon by the courts.
(Bustos vs. Lucero)
Examples of evidentiary rules that can be found somewhere else
Branches of Philippine Remedial Law
1. Article 1403, paragraph 2 (Statute of Frauds, Civil Code) –
enumerates the agreements that are unenforceable by
1. Civil Procedure (Rules 1 - 56 of Rules of Court) – defines
action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum
and regulates the remedies in private civil lawsuits.
thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged
or his agent.
2. Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions (Rules 57 -
Evidence of the agreement cannot be received without the
71) – provides for remedies which the parties may resort
writing. This is an example of an evidentiary requirement,
for the preservation or protection of their rights or
although found in substantive law.
interest, and for no other purpose, during the pendency of
the principal action.
2. Article 2199 (Actual Damages, Civil Code) – “Except as
provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
3. Special Proceedings (Rules 72 - 109) – proceedings which
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss
aim to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation
is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.”
4. Criminal Procedure (Rules 110 - 127) – provides for the
methods prescribed by law for the apprehension and There are different types of damages under the law but
prosecution of persons accused of any criminal offense actual damages would require proof of pecuniary loss,
and for their punishment, in case of conviction. which is usually dispensed with in the form of receipts
(best evidence of actual damages).
5. Evidence (Rules of 128 – 134) – provides for the means, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, a truth respecting a 3. Section 3 (2), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution (Fruit of
matter of fact. the Poisonous Tree Doctrine) – “Any evidence obtained in
violation of this section (privacy of communication and
correspondence) or the preceding section (right against
RULE 128 – GENERAL PROVISIONS unreasonable searches and seizures) shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.”
4. Article 114, paragraph 2 (Treason, Revised Penal Code) –

Rule 128, Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means, “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act,
or on confession of the accused in open court.” (Two-
the truth respecting a matter of fact.
witness Rule)
1 3 - MANRESA 2016: BANAL. BIRUAR. BUHAY. BUNIEL. CASAN. JARDINEL. LOMONDOT. RESURRECCION. SUAN.
LAW ON EVIDENCE based on the lectures of ATTY. JESS ESPEJO
Going back to the definition of evidence: 1. Object or Real Evidence – Objects as evidence are those
addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is
Ascertaining in a judicial proceeding relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court. (Rule 130, Section 1)
The term “judicial proceeding” tells you that the law on evidence is
primarily applicable to courts and in judicial cases, not in Whatever the court sees, smells, hears, touches, or tastes
administrative or quasi-judicial cases. is object evidence.
Example: Before the Labor Arbiter, is there a requirement that you Example: This microphone can be used as a weapon to
need to present a witness? An object or documentary evidence? strangle someone. This can be object evidence because it
There is none. This is dispensed with by filing of a position paper. is addressed to the senses of the court. It is the very thing
that is considered the evidence.
ANG TIBAY VS CIR (1940) What about if your evidence in court refers to an
agreement or a letter between parties and such letter
The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by contains certain contractual concessions? This is what you
technical rules of procedure, and the Commonwealth Act No. 103 call documentary evidence.
requires it to "act according to justice and equity and substantial
merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms 2. Documentary Evidence - Documents as evidence consists
and shall not be bound by any technicalities or legal forms and shall of writings or any material containing letters, words,
not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable." expressions offered as proof of their contents. (Rule 130,
Section 2)
The truth respecting a matter of fact
Example: A contract denominated as a deed of sale. If you
There are two types of fact in Civil Procedure: present that in court, what is your evidence? Is that the
paper itself or is it what is written in the paper? Your
1. Ultimate Facts (Factum Probandum) – are principal, determinate evidence is what is written because documentary evidence
and constituted facts upon which the existence of the plaintiff’s must be offered as evidence of its contents. Not the
cause of action or defendant’s defense rests; factum probandum are physical attributes of the paper.
simply propositions; and
3. Demonstrative Evidence - Evidence in the form of objects
2. Evidentiary Facts (Factum Probans) – these are facts necessary such as maps, scale models, symbol, diagrams or objects
for the determination of the ultimate facts. As in the law of that has, by themselves, no probative value but is used to
pleadings, evidentiary facts are not supposed to be included. illustrate and clarify a factual matter in issue or aid a
testimony. What is relevant is not the object itself but the
How do they differ? Ultimate facts represent propositions to be
inference that can be drawn from such evidence. In other
established and hence hypothetical whereas evidentiary facts would
words, demonstrative evidence is used to illustrate or to
constitute the material in evidencing the proposition and hence
explain something by way of a certain experimentation.
existent. No ultimate fact will prove itself, evidentiary fact is
required.
Note that demonstrative evidence is not specifically
mentioned in the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, its
Example: A debtor is liable to a creditor for P50,000. This is an
presentation is not prohibited.
ultimate fact that can appear in a pleading. It is hypothetical
because it does not prove itself. An ultimate fact is something that
Example: A diagram of a place where a collision took place.
needs to be proved.
A diagram is useful when you want to prove the position
Now, what proves the fact of debt? A promissory note. Because a of the victim and the vehicle that bumped him at the time
promissory notes evidences that there is a debt, it is an evidentiary of the collision.
fact, a factum probans.
Is the evidence the diagram? No. the evidence is the
Truth understanding that the court derives from the
interpretation of your diagram.
Does the truth matter? In criminal, civil, or administrative case,
sometimes, truth does not matter. What matters is what you prove In demonstrative evidence, the court uses the same five
or disprove. senses in object evidence. But more importantly, the court
applies intelligence to make analysis, draw conclusions,
Knowledge on Rules of Evidence is important because sometimes, it and inferences from the objects presented. What is
would allow you, in a court of law, in a litigation, to dispense the important in documentary evidence is not the object but
truth. the information but the object creates.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE Summary
AS TO TYPE If the evidence is the object itself, it is an object evidence.
If the evidence is what is written and that is the fact in

issue in the case, it is documentary evidence. Example (1): “At the time of the collision, was the
If the evidence is in the form of an object or even in a headlight of a motorcycle turned on?” Witness: “Yes”.
document but what is important is not what is written but
the understanding that the court derives from the By answering yes, it affirms the fact that the headlight of
appreciation of the object or document, it is
the motorcycle at the time of the collision is turned on.
demonstrative evidence.
Example (2): “At the time of the collision, was the
4. Testimonial or Oral Evidence - oral or written assertion
offered in court as a proof of the truth of what is being headlight of a motorcycle turned on?” Witness: “No”.
stated for as long the witness whose testimony is offered
can perceive, and perceiving, or can make known his Even if the answer is no, counched in a negative term, this
perception to others. does not mean that the evidence is negative. It is still a
positive evidence because it affirms that a fact did not
Examples: occur.
A. Written testimonial evidence – affidavit of loss, 2. Negative evidence – when the witness avers that he did
deposition
not see or know the occurrence of a fact (did not know or
B. Verbal testimonial evidence- what the witness says in see). The witness cannot confirm nor deny.
an open court is an example of testimonial evidence.
Example (1): “At the time of the collision, was the
Hierarchy of Evidence headlight of a motorcycle turned on?” Witness: “I do not
know.”
PEOPLE VS LAVAPIE (2001)
Example (2): Alibi means “elsewhere” (neither confirming
Greater credence is given to physical evidence as evidence of the
highest order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred nor denying)
witnesses. This is because object evidence is self-evident.
3. Pregnant Denial/ Negative Pregnant – It is a combination
GSIS vs CA of positive and negative evidence because by affirming a
fact, you are actually denying something else. You are
Testimonial evidence is easy of fabrication and there is very little qualifying by your affirmation something that is part of the
room for choice between testimonial evidence and documentary question.
evidence. Generally, therefore, documentary evidence prevails over
testimonial evidence.
Example (1): “Did you meet the accused on January 1 and
January 10?” Witness: “I met the accused on January 1.”
Therefore, the hierarchy is:
This is negative pregnant because the witness only
1. Object (self-evident) affirmed that he met the accused on January 1. But he is
not saying anything whether he met the accused on
2. Documentary (at least it has been reduced into writing) January 10. He is affirming the meeting on January 1, but
he is denying by not saying anything about January 10.
3. Testimonial (the most prone to fabrication)
Note: Demonstrative evidence is not part of the hierarchy since such Example (2): “Have you ever smoked marijuana?” Accused:
type of evidence is not specifically mentioned in the Rules of Court. “I have never smoked marijuana in school.”
Atty Espejo: For me, testimonial evidence is the most important. This is negative pregnant because although he is saying
Going back to our example earlier where a microphone is used as a that he has never smoked marijuana in school, the
weapon for strangulation, the object cannot testify for itself. You implication is he smokes marijuana elsewhere.
cannot place it in a witness stand.
Between positive evidence and negative evidence, which one
My point is, despite the testimonial evidence being the weakest in prevails? Positive evidence.
our judicial system in terms of hierarchy, it is important because all
types of evidence must, in a sense, be sponsored by a witness. PEOPLE VS MACALABA
AS TO WHETHER EVIDENCE AFFIRMS OR NEGATES We have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail over
the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, just like alibi, is a
1. Positive evidence – when a witness affirms that a fact self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who
occurred or did not occur (yes or no);
testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony a former Olympic gold medalist in shooting, a
that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the sharpshooter.
former is generally held to prevail. Is the fact that X is an Olympic Gold medalist in shooting
material to the fact in issue? In other words, does it
Basic postulate: Between alibi and positive identification of a directly prove that X killed the victim?
witness, positive identification of a witness prevails.
Again, when is evidence material? When it tends to prove
AS TO MATERIALITY
the fact in issue.
In this case, it is not material.
1. Material evidence – Evidence is material when it tends to
prove the fact in issue in a case.
Now, the next question is, is it relevant? Does the fact that
X is an Olympic Gold medalist in shooting tend to establish
How do you determine a fact in issue? By examining the
the probability that he was the one who shot the victim? It
pleadings (when the issues are already joined).
does. Therefore, while it is immaterial, it is relevant.
An issue arises when the parties have conflicting versions
There is a big difference between materiality and
of the facts.
relevancy.
Example: Collection case. The creditor’s material evidence
Material Evidence Relevant Evidence
is a promissory note which proves the indebtedness. As for
Evidence has the tendency in
the debtor, his material evidence to prove that his debt Evidence is offered to prove or reason to establish the probability
has already been paid is a receipt. disprove a fact in issue. or the improbability of the fact in
issue.
2. Immaterial evidence – Evidence is immaterial when it May either be direct or
Direct proof
does not tend to prove the fact in issue in a case. circumstantial
May require reasoning and
Self-evident
inference
Example: Collection case. Is the gun of the debtor material
Material evidence is ALWAYS Relevant evidence is not always
in determining whether or not he has paid? Of course, not. relevant. material.
AS TO COMPETENCY OR ADMISSIBILITY
June 22, 2016
1. Competent evidence – Evidence is not excluded by law or
the Rules of Court. REVIEW
2. Inadmissible evidence – Evidence is deemed inadmissible Relevant evidence is evidence which has tendency in reason to
because it is excluded by law or the Rules of Court. establish a probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Remember, it is the fact in issue and not the issue. There is a big
Note: We do not use “incompetent” to describe difference between an issue and a fact in issue. Meaning, a fact that
inadmissible evidence because it has a different context has a bearing in the resolution of a case.
under the law. Incompetency does not necessarily relate
to evidence. Irrelevant evidence, on the other hand, is evidence that is totally
unrelated to the fact in issue.
Example: Fruit of a Poisonous Tree (Exclusionary Rule)
Evidence is material when it has the tendency to prove the facts in
AS TO RELEVANCY issue in the case. It is directly related, directly material to the fact in
issue in the case.
1. Relevant evidence – Evidence which has a tendency in
reason to establish a probability or improbability of the Example: in a case for collection of a debt. What would be material
fact in issue. Relevant evidence, therefore, is one which evidence to support the claim of the plaintiff here? Remember that
tends to prove or disprove a material fact. when it is a case for collection of a debt, the issue would more or
less be WON the defendant has an obligation to pay to the plaintiff.
Example of Dean Inigo: There was a shooting of a person. What would be material there would be, say, a promissory note
The circumstances of the shooting are quite peculiar in because it evidences the obligation that is yet to be paid.
that he was shot from a very long distance and right
Immaterial evidence, on the other hand, is evidence which really
between his eyes. During the trial of X, the accused, the
does not tend to prove the fact in issue. It is unrelated. In other
prosecutor presented evidence trying to prove that X was
words, it is inadmissible for that reason. In a collection for a debt,
let’s say you present an evidence which is not relevant, not material does not arise from a attendant circumstances from
to the fact in issue. presumption. which the judge might infer the
occurrence of a fact in dispute.
We also distinguished materiality and relevancy. When we talk of Direct evidence. Prove the fact or point in issue as distinguished
materiality, evidence is material when it is offered to prove or from circumstantial proof. Direct evidence is proof that if belief
disprove a specific fact in issue - to say whether a fact in issue is true establishes the truth or falsity of the fact in issue and does not arise
or false. Whereas, relevancy talks about the tendency in reason to from a presumption.
establish the improbability or probability of the fact in issue.
Materiality, therefore, relates to whether a piece of evidence is a Example: assume that we’re in a court of law and you’re the
direct proof of a fact. When you talk about relevancy, it can either audience there. I have an eyewitness. One of you, the lawyer,
be directly or circumstantially relevant to the fact in issue. directly examined the witness. The question is, ‘Who killed the
victim?’ The answer of the witness is, ‘The accused.’ ‘Why do you
What is circumstantially relevant evidence? It is in Rule 128, Section know that?’ ‘Because I saw him kill the victim.’ That is direct
4. evidence. Do you need to presume from it? No. The witness is
directly stating that it is the accused that killed the victim. If the
Rule 128, Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must judge believes the testimony of the accused, then it already
have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its establishes the truth that it is the accused that killed the victim.
existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not
be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to Circumstantial evidence. It is evidence not bearing directly on the
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which
the judge might infer the occurrence of a fact in dispute. Let’s go
When you talk about collateral matters, you are talking about back to the example. There’s a witness in a crime of murder. And at
circumstantially relevant evidence. the witness stand, the prosecution asked the witness who killed the
victim. The witness answered, ‘It’s the accused.’ ‘Why do you know
As to materiality, remember that material evidence is self-evident. that?’ The witness answered, ‘At the time of the shooting, I saw him
In other words, when you look at a particular piece of evidence, running away from the scene of the crime.’ ‘What else did you
there is no need to draw inferences from the evidence. What you observed, if any?’‘The accused held a gun and his shirt was
see is what you get. splattered with blood.’ With that testimony, without inferring
anything or analyzing his testimony, will that establish the guilt of
An example would be testimony directly identifying and implicating the accused? Will that point directly to the culpability of the
the accused in a crime. You’re an eyewitness to the crime of rape. accused? That he was the one who shot the victim? The answer is
That eyewitness account is material evidence. It is self-evident. no. Did the witness say that he saw the accused shot the victim? No.
What you see is your evidence. But the circumstances related by the witness tend to prove that the
accused has some xxx in time. Why would he run? Why was he
Whereas relevancy may sometimes require reasoning or inference.
holding a gun? Why was there blood splatters on his shirt? So it
It may not necessarily and directly prove the fact in issue. But it is
does not directly prove but if you put one and one together, you get
related to the fact in issue making the court accept it because it has
two.
probative value.
In the case of People vs. Ramos, the SC defined direct and
An example would be, somebody was stabbed. But nobody saw the
circumstantial evidence.
perpetrator do the stabbing. But certain evidence was left at the
scene of the crime. A knife, for example, which the police
People vs. Ramos (January 18, 1995)
investigators assumed to be the murder weapon. The weapon
usedin the stabbing assuming na wala namatay. So if let’s say X has Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is that
a knife does it necessarily mean that he is the culprit because he evidece which proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning
owns a knife? No. Not necessarily so. You have to allot more or inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder.
inferences in order to put one and one together. Naa pay logical Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a
process na kinahanglan. fact in issue. The factfinder must draw an inference or reason from
Remember that material evidence is always relevant. Whereas
relevant evidence is not always material. Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial
evidence is sufficient if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b)
AS TO THE NEED TO INFER OR PRESUME
the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
Direct Evidence Circumstantial Evidence
Direct evidence is proof that if Circumstantial evidence is conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
belief establishes the truth or evidence not bearing directly on
falsity of the fact in issue and the fact in dispute but on various
It ought to be noted that our rules "make no distinction between the fact in issue? WON Y killed the victim. Does that directly prove
direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the fact in issue? No. Nobody saw exactly that Y shot the victim. That
the existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of is not material, not direct evidence. But were those testimonies
certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when offered by the prosecution to establish motive and opportunity,
it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must be convinced were they admitted by the court? Yes. Despite the fact that if you
beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused." look at it, not direct evidence, they are even immaterial to the fact in
issue. They may have been immaterial but they were still relevant.
There can be conviction based on circumstantial evidence, even if The motive and the opportunity were collateral matters. They were
there is no direct evidence on the fact in issue, provided there is collateral matters or circumstantial evidence on the fact in issue.
more than one circumstance, facts from which the inferences are Although they do not tend to prove the fact in issue directly, they
derived are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances is have a tendency in reason to establish the probability or
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. improbability of the fact in issue. And that made them admissible
evidence.
It ought not to matter whether the evidence is direct or
circumstantial. A conviction can still be produced. Did I win the case? Yes. What was my evidence? Alibi. I presented 3
witnesses. Nag inom, nag videoke, 45 minutes away from the scene
Case: X was murdered. Y, his neighbor and brother in law, was the of the crime. That is an inherently weak defense. It’s a negative
suspect. My client is the accused. X and Y had a public long standing evidence. Remember that negative evidence will always be
grudge. The public saw them having many altercations. Y was even overthrown by positive or affirmative evidence. Did they have
reputed to be a gun for hire in the community. However, when X affirmative evidence? No. Nobody saw my client shoot the victim. To
was killed, there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting. Y was make the long story short, my client was acquitted, free into the
accused of the crime. The prosecution’s evidence consisted in world, probably to kill again.
testimony offered to prove that the accused was at the vicinity when
the crime was committed. They were at their barangay. My client, Y, Not all the time na negative imong evidence, let’s say alibi, that it’s a
allegedly was in the barangay were the victim was shot. Second, weak defense. Not necessarily. Dili na sya automatic na pildi na
there’s also testimony to the effect that a person wearing a helmet dayon ka becausealibi imong evidence. Dili pud automatic na pildi na
with the accused’s same height, same built was seen fleeing on a pud ka kay circumstantial tanan imong evidence.
motorcycle away from the scene of the crime. There was also
testimony offered to prove the animosity, the altercations, the bad AS TO ORIGINALITY
blood between X and Y. What was my defense? Simple. Alibi. It
Primary or Best Evidence Secondary Evidence
could not have been my client because at the time of the
Evidence which the law Inferior or substitutionary
commission of the offense, he was in an entirely different
regards as effecting the evidence or evidence which itself
municipality. He could not have been the one who shot him because greatest certainty of the fact in indicates the existence of a more
that municipality was 45 minutes away from the scene of the crime. issue original source of information
We presented witnesses placing the accused elsewhere than at the
scene of the crime. Naa sya diri sa among barrio kay pyesta man Primary or best evidence. You want to prove that you are entitled to
gud to, nag inom inom mi ato, nagkanta kanta mig videoke. With damages. What’s the best evidence? The original copy of your
the facts I already told you, let’s analyze. receipts. Kung nahospital ka, present your medical bill. That’s the
best evidence of actual damages in the form of hospitalization bills
What’s the first piece of evidence? Testimony that the accused was as evidence.
at the vicinity and that a person matching the accused’s description
was seen fleeing from the scene of the crime. What’s the purpose of Secondary evidence. Example: a photocopy of a receipt. A mere
the prosecution in presenting evidence to that effect? That a person photocopy. It means that there’s an original.
of similar height and built was seen fleeing from the scene of the
crime on a motorcycle, when in fact nobody saw the face of that Take note that in Rule 130, Section 3, we will be discussing the so
person. The prosecution wanted to establish opportunity. called Best Evidence Rule. The original document must be produced
Opportunity, meaning, Y, if that person were Y, had the opportunity subject to certain exceptions.
to shoot, to commit the crime. What about the testimony that Y and
the victim had history of animosity? That they were really, really Take note that in a case, naay ginatawag na evidence in chief, the
mortal enemies despite the fact that they were brothers in law. main evidence. And you also have supporting evidence.
What’s the purpose? To establish motive. So you have motive and
TYPES OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
opportunity, you now have probable cause.
Cumulative Evidence Corroborative Evidence
Those two things, evidence with respect to the motive and to the
Additional evidence of the Additional evidence of a different
opportunity, are they direct evidence? No. Are they material to the same kind and character as that kind and character tending to
fact in issue? No. Do they directly prove the fact in issue? No. What’s already given and tends to prove the same point but
prove the same proposition different types of evidence

Prima facie evidence. Example: In bribery cases, the acceptance of
Cumulative evidence. In other words, you want to place the accused the gift is not per se illegal but it becomes prima facie evidence of
in the scene of the crime and so you got 10 witnesses, all saying that bribery. And what is the effect when there is that prima facie
on this day and at this time, the accused was there. That’s evidence? It shifts the burden to the defendant to prove that the
cumulative evidence. Evidence of the same kind. Testimonial acceptance of the gift was innocent. That it was not in furtherance
evidence. They are trying to testify to the same basic facts. of any bribery purposes.
Corroborative evidence. This is deemed necessary only when there Another is BP 22. The presumption or evidence of knowledge of
are reasons to suspect that the witness did not tell the truth or that insufficient funds. Remember that you’re given a certain number of
his observation had been xxx. Example: Stephen Julian was caught days after notice of dishonor to make good of the check, to deposit
shoplifting at NCCC Mall. What would probably be evidence that enough funds. Upon notice of dishonor, that will now give rise to the
would prove that? Object evidence could be CCTV footage. prima facie evidence that you have knowledge of the insufficiency of
Testimonial evidence would be eyewitness testimony na nangawat funds or something to that effect.
sya didto ug lipstick kay gihatag sa uyab. They are different types of
evidence but they tend to prove the same point. That’s Rebutting evidence. This is more particularly applied to that
corroborative evidence. evidence given by the plaintiff to explain or repel the evidence given
by the defendant.
People vs. Ayupan (February 13, 2002)
Example: in a collection case, the evidence of the plaintiff is a
It is well-settled that the testimony of a lone witness -- if found by promissory note. What is possible rebutting evidence? Receipt that
the trial court to be positive, categorical and credible -- is sufficient you have already paid it. Or you are in possession of the PN. That
to support a conviction. This is so, especially if the testimony bore gives rise to the presumption that the obligation has been paid.
the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered
spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner. Conclusive evidence. That is to say, either not open or not able to be
Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to questioned as where it is said that a thing is conclusively proved. It
suspect that the witness bent the truth, or that his or her means that such result follows from the facts shown as the only one
observation was inaccurate. Evidence is assessed in terms of quality, that is possible.
not quantity. It is to be weighed, not counted. Therefore, it is not
Example: What are the different ages of criminal responsibility?
uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the
What age would exempt you from criminal responsibility? If you are
testimony of a lone witness.
below 9 years old, that is the age of complete criminal
irresponsibility. Meaning, even if you’re 7 years old, you commit a
It does not matter how many pieces of evidence you produce. What
crime, you’re exempt and no questions asked. But if you are
matters is that you’re able to introduce and present evidence in
between 9 and 15 years of age, you need to remember that the law
court that the court actually can use.
distinguishes. The law distinguishes whether the crime was
Example: In a crime of rape, usually that happens in private. Nobody committed with or without discernment. Let’s say, you’re 10 years
is supposed to see because that would defeat the clandestine old, like my daughter. She commits a crime. The law will therefore
purpose of what the person wants to do. Nobody usually sees that. determine whether or not the child acted with discernment in order
So most prosecutions of crime of rape is made by just presenting to exempt him or her from criminal responsibility. Why is it that
one witness, main witness, the victim herself. And then later on, you below 9 years, the law does not even ask WON there was
can present a medico legal officer to testify as to the biological discernment? Because age, in that situation, is conclusive evidence
samples left in the body of the victim. Can you convict the accused of lack of discernment. The law conclusively presumes that a child
by just the testimony of one witness, the victim herself? Yes. If the below 9 years of age is incapable of discernment. *talks about his 6-
court believes the testimony of the victim, there’s no requirement as year old son*
to the number of witness you’re supposed to present. One could be
In the case of Jarco Marketing vs. CA(1999), the SC said that a child
enough under certain circumstances.
below 9 years of age is incapable of contributory negligence. That is
AS TO CONTROVERSION already conclusive evidence.
Prima Facie Rebutting Evidence Conclusive Evidence Jarco Marketing vs. CA (1999)
Evidence
Evidence that is Given by a party in a Evidence which is In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively
sufficient to case to explain, incontrovertible presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, on that
establish a fact and repel, counteract or account, exempt from criminal liability. The same presumption and a
if not rebutted, disprove facts given like exemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person
becomes conclusive by evidence on the
over nine and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that he
of that fact other side
has acted with discernment. Since negligence may be a felony and a There is only one admissible opinion evidence in court. And that is
quasi-delict and required discernment as a condition of liability, expert evidence.
either criminal or civil, a child under nine years of age is, by analogy,
conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence; and that the Expert evidence. It consists in the opinion of a witness of a matter
presumption of lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is
the case of a child over nine but under fifteen years of age is a shown to possess. This is under Rule 130, Section 49.
rebuttable one, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that a child
Example: Let us suppose you are a patient. And then you go to the
under nine years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of
hospital, you have been scheduled for appendectomy. It’s the
contributory negligence as a matter of law.
removal of your appendix kay basin mubuto na sa sulod.
AS TO THE TENOR OF TESTIMONY
Example, nag-ambak ambak ka paghuman nimo ug kaon. Na-
appendicitis ka. So you’re now scheduled in the hospital. *blah blah*
Character/Reputation Evidence attesting to one’s
Evidence character and moral standing in the But when you came out, you had a vasectomy. What does that
community prove? What case is that? In Torts and Damages, we call that
Opinion Evidence Evidence of what the witness Medical Malpractice, Medical Negligence. The treatment was
thinks, believes, or infers in regard supposed to be one for appendectomy but there was a deviation of
to facts in dispute as distinguished the standard of care and the usual standards of the medical
from personal knowledge or facts
profession that you came out more injured than when you came in.
themselves
That’s medical negligence. How do you prove that? You need to
Expert Evidence Consists in the opinion of a witness
of a matter requiring special have expert opinion evidence in the form of another doctor
knowledge, skill, experience or saying,“These are the standards of the medical profession and by
training which he is shown to the facts of the case, it’s my opinion that the attending surgeon
possess there deviated from those standards and therefore, was medically
Ordinary Evidence Consists in the testimony of a negligent.” That is expert opinion. That’s admissible in that situation.
witness who testifies to those facts
which he knows of his personal Majority of evidence would not be character/reputation evidence,
knowledge which are derived from
opinion evidence, or expert evidence. It’s usually ordinary evidence.
his own perception
Ordinary evidence. This consists in the testimony of a witness who
Character/reputation evidence. Generally, the character is regarded testifies to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge
as illegally irrelevant in determining a case. Let’s suppose A was which are derived from his own perception. When you say
being accused of physical injuries. He allegedly assaulted B. And so A perception, it’s what the witness sees, hears, smells, tastes or
for his defense, he wanted to present people who would attest that touches. It’s the use of the senses. Now what if your testimony –
he is not a troublesome individual, that he is peace loving. Is that because ordinary evidence is testimonial evidence – relates to
relevant to the fact in issue? Not really. It is irrelevant to the something which somebody else simply told you? Ingon in X na si Y
question of WON he assaulted B. What about B? Can he present and nagpatay kay Z. That’s hearsay evidence or those evidence that
evidence that A was really a troublemaker? Generally, no. Because it are not derived from the personal knowledge of the witness. That is
is irrelevant in determining WON A assaulted B. Let’s assume a under Rule 130, Section 36.
different role. That the character or reputation of a person is
relevant in a court of law in a particular case. What will happen? All AS TO THE SOURCE OF EVIDENCE
cases will become simply popularity contests. Di na lang ta
magkaso. Intrinsic evidence Extrinsic evidence
Information necessary for the Evidence form a source outside
Opinion evidence. Evidence of what the witness thinks, believes, or determination of an issue that is the subject document
infers in regard to facts in dispute as distinguished from personal gleamed from the provisions of
knowledge or facts themselves. Remember that the Rules on the document itself
Evidence, as a general rule, does not permit opinion evidence. For
example, there’s a witness called by the prosecution. Question was Intrinsic evidence. It is information necessary for the determination
“Do you think the accused killed the victim?” “I don’t think so.” of an issue that is gleamed from the provisions of the document
“Okay, witness is excused.” Prosecution calls another witness. “Do itself. There’s an issue but the resolution of the issue can be derived
you think the accused killed the victim?” “No, I don’t think so.” from the document itself.
That’s opinion. What you think, what you believe is actually
Example (intrinsic ambiguity that can be cured by the document
irrelevant in court. There’s only one opinion that matters in court as
itself): In a will, it says I bequeathed to my nephew John a car or a
a general rule and that is the opinion of the judge.
white car. It turns out daghan syag nephew na John. John 1, John 2,
so on and so forth. Kinsa mukuha ana karon? Can you present
external evidence specifically saying that ang ginamean sa testator
is John 1 and not John 2? You can’t, generally. Because that would You’re prosecuting a case under civil procedure, apply the rules of
now be extrinsic evidence, which is not allowed to cure the intrinsic evidence. Or a case under criminal procedure, apply the rules of
ambiguity. evidence. So it binds everything together.
Extrinsic evidence or evidence aliunde or parol evidence. Refers to Except as otherwise provided by law or these rules
evidence form a source outside the subject document. As provided
under Rule 130, Section 9, “When the terms of an agreement have There are some laws or rules that apply a different evidentiary
been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms standard. An example would be under Section 24, Rules of Civil
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their Procedure.
successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.” BP 129, Section 24. Special Rules of Procedure. – Whenever a
Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of juvenile and domestic
Example: A and B entered into a contract. Daghan kaayog relation cases and/or agrarian cases, the special rules of procedure
conditions, stipulations. So when they reduced their agreement into applicable under present laws to such cases shall continue to be
writing, that is supposed to contain everything else and everything applied, unless subsequently amended by law or by rules of court
not stated in writing is deemed waived. Can you say that the Ten promulgated by the Supreme Court.
Commandment written in stone is actually eleven? I don’t think you
can say that. Ten gani, kay napulo man gyud na. Anything that you It may be a court type case but the Rules of Evidence applied is
claim is that eleventh or the twelfth commandment, that is already modified.
parol evidence. You’re not allowed to add. Same thing with
contracts. When you reduced your contract into writing, you should For example, under regular rules, you may hear in court this
write all your stipulations. Anything not included, waived. What if statement: “Objection, Your Honor, leading question.” A leading
the other contracting party says, “Actually we agreed that the period question is one that suggests to the witness the answer which the
for payment is extended to two years. I’m not supposed to make any proponent wants to hear. How do you testify in court without
payment until two years from now.” Would that be allowed? Can he talking about Judicial Affidavit Rule? Testimony is one question,
present testimony saying that the terms for payment is actually answered by one fact. “What is your name?” You answer your name.
extended two years more? He can’t, under the Parol Evidence Rule. “How old are you?” You answer how old you are. That is not leading.
As a general rule, he can’t. Who, what, when, where, how, and why. These are questions that
are designed to elicit specific facts. That’s the proper way of asking
Now, word play ta. We already encountered two words that began questions in court. What about, “Your name is Maja, isn’t it?” Your
with “ali”. Alibi and Aliunde. Alibi means another place. Aliunde answer will be yes or no. “You’re 30 years old, aren’t you?” Yes or
means another source. Let’s relate this to Civil Procedure. When you no. “You’re pretty aren’t you?” Of course! These are questions
implead defendants in your complaint, you need to state all the where, who’s actually testifying? It’s actually the proponent who’s
names of the defendants. But later on, pwede na nimo ishortcut. testifying. And all that he’s asking the witness to do is to affirm or
Let’s say, you have six defendants. Maja vs. X, Y, Z, A, B, C. But you deny the question. That is a leading question and is not allowed in
can shortcut that. You can say, Maja vs. X, et. al. What does “al” court. “You killed the victim, didn’t you? Yes or no?” You are not
mean? It’s a general term to mean another person. *blah blah* allowed to do that, except in cross-examination. The general rule is
(Basically, “al” = another.) leading questions are not allowed.
Rule 128, Section 2. Scope. – The rules of evidence shall be the same But in AM 004-07-SC, you are allowed to ask leading questions to a
in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise child witness. Say, for example, a child was a victim of sexual
provided by law or these rules. molestation. Would the child understand if you ask, in a lawyerly
manner, the term ‘penetration’? Would the child understand that?
The same in all courts Would the child even understand the term vagina or penis? They
would normally use the terms, unsa man, tintin and other
First the law says, “the same in all courts.” When you say “all appellations that I will not repeat anymore (haha!). “What did he do
courts”, it means all subordinate courts. We’re talking about the next?” The child does not even understand sometimes. Like, what’s
Municipal Trial Courts, Regional Trial Courts, and Court of Appeals. next? And so the proponent is allowed to ask questions like, “After
But not the Supreme Court. Because the SC is not a trier of facts. that, did he take off his pants?” So that is allowed because of
You don’t present evidence and witnesses before the SC. You merely Section 2. The law provides that with respect to child witnesses, it is
make arguments before the SC. Therefore, you cannot use the rules subject to different rules.
on evidence before the SC.
Agrarian cases, also. Naay rules of procedure ang Department of
All trials and hearings Agararian Reform and Adjudication. Also, the rules on summary
procedure where affidavits take the place of testimonies. Before
What about “all trials and hearings”? The applicability of the rules of magpresent gyud kag witness but in the rulesof summary
evidence shall be the same whether it is a criminal case or civil case. procedure, you can pray to the court that the affidavit of the witness
be taken as his direct examination but subject to cross examination. But is it relevant? Does it advance the inquiry? Does it make the fact
Another is the rules of procedure for small claims cases which is in issue more or less probable? If the answer is in the affirmative, it
heard by a small claims courts, which is exclusively a municipal trial becomes relevant and therefore admissible in a court.
court. Do you present evidence in small claims cases? You don’t. You
don’t even use pleadings. What you do is you fill up certain forms, Remember that whatever the case you’re prosecuting, in order to
submit it to the court and wait for it to be heard. Ingani kapaspas. win it, what do you need to prove? In the ultimate analysis, what do
You don’t make testimonies anymore. Then we have the judicial you need to prove? Your factum probandum or ultimate fact. In a
affidavit rule. What happens in the JAR? The usual way of examining civil case for collection, the ultimate fact is the debtor is indebted to
a witness is different already. The rules of evidence on that regard the creditor. The debtor owes the creditor. And in order to prove
do not apply anymore. Because direct testimony is supposed to be in your ultimate fact, you need to supply facti probans or evidentiary
the form of a judicial affidavit. So lahi-lahi na karon ang rules of facts. How would you know that your evidentiary facts tend to
evidence. establish the probability or improbability of your factum
probandum? Common sense. To determine whether something is
Rule 128, Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. – Evidence is relevant to the fact in issue, that’s common sense.
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
Example: Let’s assume that this is a crime scene. Somebody was
law or these rules.
killed. Let us also suppose that this sign pen was the murder
We’re talking about very important requirements here: (1) relevant weapon. Gidunggab, patay! Nobody saw anybody do the stabbing.
to the issue, which deals with the term relevancy, and (2) not Your evidence is that a knife (sign pen siguro) was left at the crime
excluded by the law or these rules, which refers to competency of scene. There’s a finger print on the ballpen. And that fingerprint
evidence. happened to belong to a person na itago nato sa pangalan na
Matteo. His fingerprints were found therefore, Matteo killed the
TWO REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE victim. Correct? Is that logical reasoning correct?
1. Relevancy. It is defined under Section 4. Okay, to make it easier, let’s just say that this is a knife. A knife was
2. Competency. Not excluded by the law or these rules. found at the scene of the crime. The knife had fingerprints and the
fingerprints were those of Matteo. Therefore, Matteo killed the
Rule 128, Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must victim. Is that correct? No, there is something wrong there. What
have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its does it prove? It proves that the fingerprints of Matteo were found
existence or non-existence. on the knife. It doesn’t prove anything. Is is material? No. Is it
relevant? Yes, it advances the inquiry. Because if the suspect is
Is it relevant? Does it advance inquiry into the fact in issue? If it Matteo and the fingerprints found on the knife were not Matteo’s,
does, you have already solved the question of relevancy. then maybe we can eliminate him from suspicion anymore and it no
longer advances the inquiry on Matteo. But because it advances the
Let’s harken back to Dean Iñigo, who always mentions about the
inquiry, it is relevant. Now, what do you need to do in order to
axioms propounded by Wigmore. He is a well-known authority and
ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that the fingerprints were really
commentator in American law and jurisprudence. For him, there are
from Matteo? Maybe go to the NBI. Maybe ask for fingerprint
two axioms.
analysis. So you’re now talking about an expert witness. Then the
expert witness will testify as to his qualifications, that he has
1. Axiom of Relevancy. Those facts with rational probative
value are admissible. knowledge about fingerprinting and he will testify also that there
will be a match with the fingerprints found on the knife and the
2. Axiom of Competency. All facts having a rational probative fingerprints of Matteo. Because an expert witness already proved
value are admissible unless prohibited by some specific that the fingerprints were Matteo’s, therefore, Matteo killed the
rule. In our law, this is “not excluded by the law or these victim. Correct? No, there’s something missing. But is it relevant?
rules.”
Yes. So do you even know if it was the knife that was used for killing
But if you really look at it, the two axioms put together make up our
the victim? So you need to know what is the cause of death. If it is
Section 3.
the stabbing, how do you prove that? You bring the cadaver in court
1. AXIOM OF RELEVANCY. Probative value means the tendency of and then you show it? No. You ask a medico-legal expert to testify
evidence to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than that that is the cause of death and by his examination, it was the
it would be without evidence. knife that pierced the body of the victim. Therefore, Matteo killed
the victim? Dili lang gihapon. So we know for sure that the knife was
Example: Somebody was shot right in between the eyes from a very found at the scene of the crime, that in all probability that was the
far distance. X is being prosecuted for it. Prosecution presents knife that was used to stab the victim and that knife, the stabbing,
evidence, testimony tending to prove that X was an Olympic was also the cause of the death. And the knife belonged to Matteo
medalist in long distance shooting. Is that material? No. It does not because his fingerprints were found on the knife. Leading to an
directly prove the fact in issue as WON the accused shot the victim.
assumption that he might be the one who used the knife to stab admission is related to the genuineness and due execution of the
somebody. receipt for not filing a reply. That is a rule of exclusion. Your
evidence would have been competent and admissible in court. But
What you’re actually doing here is just saying to the court what is by reason of the effects of Civil Procedure, you cannot present that
plausible and what is implausible. If the evidence that you’re trying type of evidence anymore.
to present actually makes a matter of fact more plausible, it is
relevant. And when it is relevant, it will be admitted by the court. So In Evidence, the most prominent rule on exclusion is hearsay.
because it was admitted, you automatically win your case? No. Giingon ni A man gud na si X ang nipatay kay Y. Objection, Your
Because admissibility is different from credibility of the evidence. Honor, hearsay. That is excluded. Because evidence that is not based
When you talk about credibility, you’re talking about the on the personal knowledge of the witness is inadmissible.
believability of evidence. Mutuo ba ang huwes sa imohang gipresent
na evidence? Kung mutuo, daug ka. Kung dili mutuo, pildi ka. What’s In special laws, there is RA 4200. It is an act to prohibit and penalize
your recourse? Go to the chamber of the judge, bring some money, wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of
and I did not finish my sentence. communication and for other purposes. So if evidence is a result of
wiretapping, it is inadmissible. What are the exceptions to this law?
Relevancy, again, would be determined by logic of common sense. It
will determine WON you’re entitled to present evidence to advance 1. The conversation is not private. In the case of Navarro vs.
the inquiry. CA (August 26, 1999), even if it is wiretapped, if the
exchange that is recorded is actually intended to be public
and not private, its tape recording is not prohibited. Let’s
2. AXIOM OF COMPETENCY. All facts having a rational probative
say in a rally during election, Duterte badmouthed Leila De
value are admissible unless prohibited by some specific rule. In Lima. Giingnan niya si De Lima, “Tambok ka! Tambok!”
Philippine law, if it is not excluded by the law or the rules, it is Somebody recorded that. And then De Lima filed a case for
admissible. libel, even if it’s true (haha!). Can Duterte object that it is
violative of the Anti-Wiretapping Law? No. That’s intended
Examples: 1987 Constitution, Bill of Rights. not to be private but public. That’s an exception.
1. Right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, 2. Also in RA 9372 (Human Security Act). In Section 7
houses, effects, etc. against unreasonable searches and thereof, if you are suspected of terrorism, police
seizure authorities are actually allowed to wiretap you. The only
2. Privacy of communication and correspondence requirement of the law is to procure an ex-parte written
3. Fruit of the poisonous tree. If evidence was illegally order from the court. Ex-parte means without the
obtained, it cannot be presented in court. participation or knowledge of the subject of the legal
proceeding. Like, for example, ex-parte presentation of
In Civil Procedure, as well. Diba, denials have to specific? What’s the evidence as a result of default. The party declared in
effect of a general denial? It is treated as an admission. How many default will no longer participate. He cannot object, cannot
pleadings are allowed by the rules? There are only 7. Most of the present his own evidence to rebut the other’s evidence. So
time, only 3 are used by practitioners – complaint, answer, reply. Is under the Human Security Act, if you’re suspected of
terrorism, that’s what happens. You can be wiretapped
it mandatory for a party to file a complaint? Of course. It’s the filing
and that would be admissible. To my mind, that’s not fair.
of the complaint that sets the wheels of justice in motion. Without Why? Because it would lead to profiling. Kana bitawng, if a
it, a court is passive. Is it mandatory for a defendant to file an certain person fits a particular person, if he looks like
answer? Of course. Because if he does not, he can be declared in Osama Bin Laden, he’s already a terrorist. So you can
default. What about the filing of a reply, is it mandatory? No. In fact, wiretap him. They can inquire into his bank accounts.
it is optional. Even if you do not file a reply, the rule is that all That’s wrong.
matters that are found in the answer are deemed to be
I need you to read these cases for next meeting.
automatically controverted without the necessity of filing a reply.
That’s the GR.
 People vs. Eugenio (1 Sep 2010)
 People vs. Macatinag (19 Jan 2009)
What’s the exception? When is it mandatory to file a reply? An
 People vs. Almorfe (29 Mar 2010)
exception is when the answer alleges an actionable document.
Remember that an actionable document must be denied under These are cases regarding the chain of custody requirement. The
oath. Otherwise, you are deemed to have admitted the genuineness purpose of this is to prevent planting of evidence. 90% of people
and due execution of the actionable document. Now, suppose who are prosecuted for violation of RA 9165 claim that they have
nagfile sya ug answer and nag-attach sya ug receipt. That’s an been framed up. That is the response of the law – Section 21, chain
actionable document. It is the basis of a party’s cause of action or of custody requirement.
defense. You do not deny that under oath because you were unable
to file a reply. Later on, you want to present testimony to the effect DIFFERENT TYPES OF ADMISSIBILITY
na katong iyahang resibo is forged. Can you? No. Because you will
be presenting evidence that is contrary to your admission. Your Multiple When a fact is offered for one purpose, it is
Admissibility admissible insofar as it satisfies all rules negligence per se. You’re driving with a license that is not reflective
applicable to it when offered for that of the xxx. There’s a presumption in torts and damages to that
purpose effect. If you’re violating traffic regulations, such as the obtaining of
Conditional When evidence is admitted only in a valid license, you are presumed to be prima facie negligent at the
Admissibility dependence upon some other facts
time of the accident. So that is what counsel is trying to prove but at
Curative A party has a right to introduce inadmissible
Admissibility evidence in his behalf where the court has the beginning, it may not have been relevant and material to the
admitted the same kind of evidence fact in issue.
adduced by the adverse party
Multiple admissibility of evidence. This means that when a fact is Curative admissibility of evidence. This means that a party has a
offered for one purpose, it is admissible insofar as it satisfies all rules right to introduce inadmissible evidence in his behalf where the
applicable to it when offered for that purpose. Its failure to satisfy court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the
some other rule which would be applicable for it offered for another adverse party. So the adverse party was allowed to present
purpose does not exclude it. It simply means that an evidence inadmissible evidence and so you, to prevent manifest injustice, can
admissible for one purpose can also be admissible for another also present the same incompetent evidence.
purpose.
Example: In a case I had before. It was subject to the rules of
Example: birth certificate. What does it attest to? When you were summary procedure. And you need to remember that in the rules of
born. But does it also prove who your parents are? Yes. So that’s summary procedure, if you were not able to submit that affidavit,
multiple admissibility. Another is a document. Can a document be you cannot testify. That witness cannot testify. If you’re not able to
offered to prove its contents? Yes. But can you also offer a present your document during the pre-trial conference, you cannot
document to prove its appearance, its physical condition? Yes. In present it later on. But I just took over the case. And I found out that
that situation, it’s not offered as documentary evidence but as there are pieces of evidence that I needed to present to make my
object evidence. Because you are talking of what you can see from case more convincing but they were not previously marked and
the document. This has been asked in the Bar twice. Foremost of identified during pre-trial. Supposed to be not included and
which is in 2005. The question was: May a private document be presented in court. That’s the rule of exclusion. But I persuaded the
offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary and as judge and was able to present it. What was I talking about? I’m
object evidence? Explain. The answer is yes. Again, if it offered as talking about murag infringement bitaw. You’re selling substances,
proof of its contents, then it’s documentary. But if it is offered as dili banned, chemicals that you’re claiming to be your own when it
something else other than the contents of the document, such as fact it was my client’s. How do you prove that? I showed my canister
the physical condition, appearance of the document, then it’s and compared it to the canisters of those that the defendant is
considered an object evidence. selling. So gipakita nako na sa court. So that the court can
appreciate that these are similar in composition. There’s unfair
Conditional admissibility of evidence. This means that evidence is competition in this case. The judge allowed it even if I was not able
admitted only in dependence upon some other facts. It is received of to have it pre-marked during pre-trial. What would be the better
the expressed assurance of counsel when objection is manifested thing to do for the judge? To also allow the adverse party to present
that the other facts would be duly presented at a suitable similar inadmissible evidence to prevent manifest injustice. So the
opportunity before the case is closed. So counsel here is saying that court allowed the adverse party to present evidence that was not
although his question is objectionable at this time, he will connect previously marked during pre-trial. That’s curative admissibility.
with some other facts which will make it admissible at the later time.
Example: Counsel asks a question that is so out of this world, “How July 8, 2016
old are you?” And then we’re talking here about an accident case.
Nakabangga kuno sya and he’s a witness. It seems that it is Laws that would affect the admissibility (relevancy and
irrelevant. “How long have you been driving?” The answer is, “I’m competency) of evidence
already 30 years old and I’ve been driving for the last 12 years.” The
1. RA 4200 (Anti Wire Tapping Law) - renders evidence that would
judge now says, “What the hell are you talking about? You are not normally be admissible as inadmissible. It is grounded upon privacy
talking about the facts of the case, that’s the driving experience. of persons protected under the constitution.
Immaterial and irrelevant.” Counsel will say, “No, Your Honor. Allow
us to show the relevance of this line of questioning later on.” Then Any exceptions to non-admissibility of wire-tapped conversation?
the Judge allows. The counsel will ask the witness, “Mr. Witness, let
a) When there is consent by two parties.
me show you a copy of your birth certificate.” Sa iyang birth
certificate, he’s not really 30 years old. This was the habit before. A
SALCEDO CASE: Involves declaration of nullity of marriage.
lot of people want to drive early and so they falsify their records so
The husband instructed military operatives to wiretap conversation
they can obtain a license as early as when they’re already in high of his wife. The issue here is WON the wiretap conversation may be
school. What is counsel trying to prove here? That his license is used as evidence to declare the marriage a nullity. SC declared that
actually illegally obtained. And you can make a case that that is the wiretap was not admissible.
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or

b) It is not private. seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society
Even without consent is not covered by the anti-wiretapping law groups and any elected public official. The Board shall
because there is no reservation of expectation of my privacy. draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper
Example, I shouted that I will kill Mateo... you can use that against disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be
me because I did not reserve an expectation to privacy. borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of
lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be
2. Section 21 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) – donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes:
talks about the custody requirement and confiscation of seized Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly
surrendered dangerous drugs, etc. weighed and recorded is retained;
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or (5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, which, together with the representative sample/s in the
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or quantity as determined by the Board;
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner: (6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or
counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
above proceedings and his/her presence shall not
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender
or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her
counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the
Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; attorney's office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon
confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of case wherein the representative sample/s was presented
as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn,
shall request the court for leave to turn over the said
laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper
disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours
quantitative examination;
from receipt of the same; and
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours
results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined
herein which are presently in possession of law
(24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided,
That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned
or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of Court, DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the
accused/and or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the
testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory
examination report shall be provisionally issued stating organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and
therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be burning or destruction of seized/surrendered dangerous
drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by
examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however,
That a final certification shall be issued on the completed the DOH.
forensic laboratory examination on the same within the
next twenty-four (24) hours; So imagine a situation where there is a buy bust operation. There’s
a poseur-buyer who goes to the drug pusher and then proposes to
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, buy. So dakpon tong pusher. What will happen to the drugs? There
within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular was a big problem before because of that constant defense that
inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered people accused in drug cases, evidence has been planted. So under
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and Sec 21, it gives you the chain of custody requirement with respect to
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including seized dangerous drugs and other paraphernalia.
the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four So according to Sec 21, there is a requirement that immediately
(24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team should
burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or the physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused, the persons from whom such items were confiscated or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media, RULING: While a perfect chain of custody is almost always
the DOJ and any elected public official who shall be required to sign impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable
the copy of the inventory and be given the copy thereof. and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its
susceptibility tampering, contamination and even in substitution and
There’s a lot of people who need to be involved in transferring change. Hence, every link must be accounted for. In fine, the
custody of these drugs. So it’s very difficult to comply with it prosecution failed to account for every link of the chain starting
sometimes. Say for example you go to a place where there’s no from its turnover by the accused to the investigator, and from the
available elected public official or no member of the media, so you investigator to the chemist as for the presumption of regularity in
cannot comply with it. So it becomes a problem. And then within the performance of official duty relied upon by the court, the same
24 hours, the drugs shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensics cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence or
Laboratory for quantitative and qualitative examination. After that, constitute guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And by that, the accused
a certification of the examination results shall be issued within 24 was acquitted.
hours after the receipt of the subject items.
Take note of the requirement imposed by the SC in Alnorfe. If you
Remember that when there is forensic laboratory examination of failed to follow the chain of custody requirement under Sec 21, it’s
dangerous drugs, you need to make a qualitative examination of the NOT FATAL for as long as you are able to explain or account for the
substance to determine what type of substance is it, if it is really a different links in the chain of custody. You have to afford a
prohibited drug. Quantity is required because remember according reasonable explanation why you were not able to follow the
to RA 9165, the quantity of the drugs seized from the suspect would requirement of inventory, photograph, etc. Failure to account
have an effect on the penalty to be imposed upon the accused. renders the regularity presumption enjoyed by public officers
nugatory.
And then after the filing of the criminal case, the court shall within
72 hours conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated seized or So there is really no conflict among the three cases mentioned.
surrendered dangerous drugs, etc. and thru the PDEA within 24 Though noncompliance is not fatal, you still have to explain or
hours thereafter shall proceed with the destruction or burning of the account for every link in the chain of custody. So with that, we are
dangerous drugs. So that’s the chain of custody requirement. done with Rule 128.
Again what’s the reason for the chain of custody requirement: To Rule 129 provides for instances where proof can be dispensed with.
ensure the integrity of the evidence. To ensure nga walay planting
of evidence.
RULE 129 – WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Remember, the seized dangerous drugs shall not be kept. They
must be destroyed under Sec 21. Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take
judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
If you fail to comply with any of the links of chain of custody, existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
would that produce the effect of inadmissibility? Would the drugs forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
be inadmissible in evidence? the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts
PP VS EUGENIO (Sept 1, 2010) – SC said that noncompliance with of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
Sec 21 RA 9165 is NOT FATAL as long as there are justifiable grounds the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
therefore, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the divisions. (1a)
confiscated items are properly preserved by the investigating team.
What is important is the preservation of the integrity and Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take
evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would determine judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
the innocence or guilt of the accused. capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to
judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)
PP VS MACATINAG (Jan 19, 2009) – SC could not find any provision
in law that would bring about the non-admissibility of the Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the
confiscated drugs due to noncompliance with Sec 21 RA 9165. But trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may
SC cautioned that when there is a noncompliance of Sec 21, while it announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and
may not affect the admissibility of evidence, it may however affect allow the parties to be heard thereon.
the weight or evidentiary probative value of the evidence. So the
weight that must be given by the court on the evidence is After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court,
dependent on the circumstances obtaining in each case. Hence, it on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice
does not affect admissibility but the believability of evidence. of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such
matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)
Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written,

PP VS ALMORFE (March 29, 2010) – After a buy bust operation,
made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same
drugs in the possession of the accused were seized. However, the
drugs were not physically inventoried and photographed in the case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted
only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that
presence of the accused. And because of that evidence, the accused
was later on convicted. no such admission was made. (2a)
Presumption With respect to judicial admissions, when a fact is already admitted

by a party in court, you don’t have to prove it. When you make an
What is the effect of presumption of innocence in the constitution? admission, the effect is you are not allowed to contradict your
That the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. admission anymore.
As far as the accused is concerned, he does not have to present any
proof. He has to rely on the ability or inability of the prosecution to Judicial Notice
present proof that would rebut the presumption of evidence. If the
prosecution fails to prove that, the accused is acquitted. REPUBLIC VS SANDIGANBAYAN (Dec 16, 2011) – Judicial notice is
the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act
on without proof because these facts are already known to them.
Types of Presumption Put differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact without need
of further traditional evidentiary support. The principle is based on
1. Conclusive presumption – one which the law no longer allows to convenience and expediency in securing and introducing evidence
be rebutted. on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not
bona fide disputed.
Example: A child below 9 years of age is conclusively presumed to be
incapable of discernment. The foundation for judicial notice may be traced to the civil and
canon law maxim, manifesta (or notoria) non indigent probatione
REPUBLIC VS LUZON STEVEDORING – there’s a tugboat and a (manifest things require no proof). The taking of judicial notice
bridge, nagbangga! Whose fault? The bridge is stationary, it does means that the court will dispense with the traditional form of
not move. So under the facts and circumstances, it must be the presentation of evidence. In so doing, the court assumes that the
tugboat that hit the bridge. matter is so notorious that it would not be disputed.
Doctrine enunciated in the said case: Presumption of Res Ipsa Rationale for Judicial Notice
Loquitor (the thing speaks for itself). It applies when it is so
improbable that the damage would not have arisen if it were not for 1. Expediency
the intervention of a particular person. The defendant usually has 2. Convenience
the full control of the instrumentality that caused the damage.
The taking of the judicial notice is a matter of expediency and
Another instance of Res Ipsa Loquitor is when you go to the hospital convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence intended to
for an appendectomy but you came out with a vasectomy. Who has achieve and in its sense, it is the equivalent of proof.
control of the instrumentality that causes damage? The doctor, of
course. It could not have been you. It gives rise to the presumption PP VS ORULLETA? – SC said it would be superfluous, inconvenient
that the defendant (doctor) must be negligent. and expensive to both parties in the court to require proof in the
ordinary way of facts which are already known.
Remember, whoever alleges must be the one to present proof. If
you are the prosecution, you have the burden of proving the Examples:
accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Case is for murder. Accused pushed the victim from the
If you are the plaintiff, you have the burden of proving the elements 30th floor of the building. Then the judge asked: when the
of your cause of action otherwise you render your cause of action to A pushed B, did B fall? Of course, yes! The judge is
the remedy of demurrer to evidence. A demurrer to evidence is supposed to take judicial notice of the law of nature
another way of saying a motion to dismiss. It’s just that the motion including gravity. Sometimes it will lead to absurd results
to dismiss is filed in the middle of the case after the plaintiff has if we will not require judges to take judicial notice.
presented his evidence in chief. So you fail to discharge the burden
and therefore when the presumption applies, you don’t have the A Filipino married to an American. The judge refused to
burden of proving anything yet. Applying the presumption of Res take judicial notice of America coz he has not seen it. So
Ipso Loquitor, the defendant is presumed to be negligent. The the judge has to conduct ocular inspection of America. It
plaintiff has nothing to prove yet. So the burden of proving will result to absurdity as he is supposed to take judicial
evidence is shifted to the defendant to prove that he is not notice of the existence and territorial extent of states.
negligent.
Rule 129. Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court
So compared to the matters within the realm of judicial notice and shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of
those subject to judicial admissions, what presumptions do will be to
the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
postpone the need of presenting evidence. But eventually you forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
might have to still present evidence. But if the other party failed to
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
discharge his burden, you (the person upon whom the presumption political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts
is established) will not have to present evidence because the former
of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
failed to discharge the burden.
the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. (1a)
2. Disputable presumption
Judicial Admission
Matters mentioned in Sec 1 are those of public common knowledge In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, we have our own laws for the
that’s why judges are expected to know them or take judicial notice Anti Terrorism Act and Crimes against International Humanitarian
of them. Act. We transform that into domestic law.
PAGDILAO VS RABANILLO Another mode of transformation is when 2/3 of the Senate concurs.
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE b) Doctrine of Incorporation – such as in the incorporation clause in

Sec 2 Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
(1) The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
How do we determine that particular principle is treated as a
(2) It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or generally accepted principle of international law? Naa ba nay
uncertain; and standard? Like rape, is it universally good or bad? Is Genocide
(3) It must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the generally accepted in the realm of international law?
court.
According to international law authors, 2 standards are as follows:
The power of taking judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with
caution. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists and a) Wide-spread state practice which means that the states
every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved universally abhor an act like rape
in the negative.
b) Opinio Juris which means you follow this act because you believe
it is right; that is the psychological aspect of international law
As to the first requisite, the SC said in the case of SALUDO VS
AMERICAN EXPRESS INTL (2006), concept of facts of common
Take note that the term Law of Nations does not mean a law of a
knowledge in the context of judicial notice has been explained as
those facts that are so commonly known in the community as to particular nation. I don’t care about the laws in China. It may or
may not benefit me but I don’t care. I don’t know about it. Courts
make it unprofitable to require proof, and so certainly known to as
are not allowed to take judicial notice of the laws of a particular
to make it indisputable among reasonable men.
country. Therefore, existence of foreign law per se is not within the
realm of mandatory judicial notice. Foreign laws actually present
Keyword is unprofitable to require proof. You gain nothing from
a question of fact. As a general rule, they may not be taken judicial
requiring evidence of certain facts which are within the realm of
notice of and have to be pleaded and proven as any matter of fact.
public knowledge, and therefore within the realm of judicial notice.
How do you prove foreign law?
Types of Judicial Notice:
1. Mandatory – Sec 1
1. Written foreign law – Rule 132 sec 24 & 25, easier to prove than
2. Discretionary – Sec 2
unwritten foreign law
3. When hearing necessary – Sec 3
2. Unwritten foreign law – Rule 130
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
Principles governing foreign law
1. The existence and territorial extent of states, their political
history, forms of government and symbols of nationality
A foreign law may be admitted without proof if it is subject to a
For example, America. We know that there is a USA that exists. As
judicial admission (Sec 4, Rule 129). If the other party admits that a
to territorial extent, where is America located?
certain law exists, then there is that admission. But admission as to
the existence of a foreign law would not mean admission as to its
So as to existence and territorial extent of states, their political
applicability to the case. It is for the judge to determine whether
history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, for
such foreign law is applicable or not. And in the absence of
purposes of convenience and expediency, judges should not be
evidence, foreign law is presumed to be the same with that of the
ignorant about these matters. They are expected to know and take
Philippine law (Processual Presumption).
judicial notice of them.
2. Law of Nations CONDON VS COMELEC (2012) - Here, the Maja is the winning vice
mayoralty candidate of Caba, La Union. A petition for Quo Warranto
Under Article 2 Sec 2 of 1987 Constitution, the Philippines
renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the was filed against her stating that she as a dual citizen, under RA
9225, must execute a sworn renunciation of her Australian
general accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land, etc.. citizenship. So the petitioner answered when she execute a
renunciation of her Australian citizenship in Australia, she is deemed
How do we adopt principles of international law as part of the law to have renounced her foreign citizenship. And she wanted the
court to take judicial notice of the laws of Australia, which says that
of the land? Under Public International Law:
renunciation of her citizen under the laws of Australia is binding to
a) Doctrine of Transformation – treaties are converted into the whole world. She also contended that her mere act of running
for public office is a clear abandonment of her foreign citizenship.
municipal law by implementing a similar statute.
According to the Supreme Court, we do not take judicial notice of a
foreign law such as the Australian Citizenship Act. It must be
pleaded and proven as a matter of fact. A sworn renunciation of
foreign citizenship is still required under RA 9225.
3. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial Unfortunately for the petitioner, it cannot avail of judicial notice.
departments of the Philippines Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provide that:
With respect to statutes, all judges are presumed to know the law as SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take
to whether the law has been amended, repealed or reinstated. judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
However, not all legislative acts are laws. For example in the case forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
of: the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
CHAVEZ VS PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY (Nov. 11, 2003), a Senate of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
investigation report is deemed covered by mandatory judicial notice Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
because that is an official act of the legislative department. geographical divisions.
Congressional debates and other records that predicated the
passage of the law are considered to be official acts of the legislative SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take
department and therefore within the realm of mandatory judicial judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
notice. capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to
judges because of their judicial functions.
There are executive acts that are considered as laws. Executive
orders and presidential decrees have the full force of law when they The Management Contract entered into by petitioner and the PPA is
take authority from the legislative power directly granted to the clearly not among the matters which the courts can take judicial
executive or made pursuant to the valid legislative delegation notice of. It cannot be considered an official act of the executive
granted to the president. Example is the Family Code (EO 292). department. The PPA, which was created by virtue of Presidential
Decree No. 857, as amended, is a government-owned and controlled
PASEO VS LOPEZ (Aug 19, 1993) – SC discussed the matter whether corporation in charge of administering the ports in the country.
the presidential issuance can be considered a law. SC said that to Obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function when
form part of the law of the land, a decree order or letter of it entered into a Management Contract with petitioner. As such,
instruction must be issued by the President in the exercise of his judicial notice cannot be applied.
extraordinary power of legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of
the 1976 Amendments of the Constitution. Not all decree order or Power of Clemency
letters of instruction by the President become part of the law of the
land. The president has the power to pardon. He can commute
sentences. He can suspend executions.
SANAGA VS CA (April 17, 2001) – there are some official acts that
can be considered within the realm of mandatory judicial notice. Assume that a convict was later on pardoned. While he was
The action of an administrative agency in granting, denying or even pardoned, a policeman saw him and the police had knowledge that
suspending or revoking a license of franchise or certificate of public the said guy was a convict. So he’s going to arrest him and bring him
convenience is administrative or quasi-judicial. Decisions of the to court for evasion of sentence. Our courts are obliged to take
office of the president are official acts and those acts exercising judicial notice of the fact that the said convict was already pardoned
quasi-judicial power by the executive department are within the so that he would not be prosecuted anymore.
realm of mandatory judicial notice which courts are mandatorily task
to take judicial notice under Sec 1 of Rule 129. Judicial notice must But not all exercises of the president’s power of executive clemency
be taken of the organization of the executive department, its are subject to mandatory judicial notice. Take note pardon is
principal officers, elected or appointed such as its president. granted by the chief executive and as such it is a private act which
must be pleaded in court by the person being pardoned because the
REPUBLIC VS SOUTH SIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, INC. (Sept 2006) court takes no judicial notice thereof.
– WON a land that is under a military reservation can be subject to
an application for titling? In order for a parcel of land to be part of However, amnesty by proclamation of the chief executive with the
the alienable land of public domain, there has to be a declaration concurrence of congress is a public act of which the courts should
that the same is alienable and disposable. That’s the only time that take judicial notice.
you can apply for titling under PD 1529. However, SC said that
application for titling (PD 1529), or the presidential decree providing Amnesty Pardon
for lands covered under military reservation is a matter cognizable Subject to mandatory judicial NOT subject to mandatory
by the court pursuant to Sec 1 Rule 129. Hence the same is within notice judicial notice
the realm of mandatory judicial notice. Need not be pleaded Must be pleaded
ASIAN TERMINALS VS MALAYAN INSURANCE (2011) Official Acts of the Judicial Department
(Judicial notice does not apply)
These refer mostly to decisions and cases. An example would be the
Finally, petitioner implores us to take judicial notice of Section 7.01, Rules of Court. Courts should take judicial notice of the decisions
Article VII of the Management Contract for cargo handling services it rendered by the SC.
entered with the PPA, which limits petitioner’s liability to P5,000.00
per package. Why take judicial notice of acts of judicial dept?
Article 8 of the CC: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the Those are the two requisites you need to remember:
laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the 1. absence of objection and
Philippines. 2. consent of the parties.
Can a court take judicial notice of a decision of CA? Or is it limited Ordinances

only to what the SC is saying? Ordinances are not included in the enumeration of matters covered
by mandatory judicial notice under Sec 1 Rule 129 of Rules of Court.
Decisions of lower courts are not given judicial notice. In
prosecuting a case for trial, generally, courts are not authorized to SJS VS ATIENZA (2008)
take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases
even when such cases are pending in the same court and The Rule On Judicial Admissions Is Not Applicable Against
notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or are pending Respondent .
in the same judge. But this however admits certain exceptions. So
there could be permissible judicial notice of records of lower courts. The oil companies assert that respondent judicially admitted that
As a matter of convenience to all the parties, Ordinance No. 8027 was repealed by Ordinance No. 8119 in civil
case no. 03-106379 (where Petron assailed the constitutionality of
GR: A court cannot take judicial notice of records or decisions of a Ordinance No. 8027) when the parties in their joint motion to
lower court unless the case is decided by the SC. withdraw complaint and counterclaim stated that "the issue ...has
been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the passage of
From 2015 TSN: [Ordinance No. 8119]." They contend that such admission worked as
an estoppel against the respondent.
What else? Issuances by the Supreme Court such as Rules on
Electronic Evidence issued by the Supreme Court or Rules on the Respondent countered that this stipulation simply meant that
procedure of environmental cases issued by the Supreme Court. Petron was recognizing the validity and legality of Ordinance No.
Courts must take judicial notice of these matters. The decisions that 8027 and that it had conceded the issue of said ordinance’s
pertain to mandatory judicial notice are only decisions of the constitutionality, opting instead to question the validity of
Supreme Court. How do you prove a decision of the Court of Ordinance No. 8119. The oil companies deny this and further argue
Appeals or the lower courts? You have to give the court a copy, if that respondent, in his answer in civil case no. 06-115334 (where
they do not have a copy yet of the record or order of the lower Chevron and Shell are asking for the nullification of Ordinance No.
court. 8119), expressly stated that Ordinance No. 8119 replaced Ordinance
No. 8027:
Ok, Question 1: Can the court take judicial notice of matters pending
in another case? Question 2: Can a court be allowed to take judicial ... Under Ordinance No. 8027, businesses whose uses are not in
notice of records in different courts for a purpose of a particular accord with the reclassification were given six months to cease
case? Can the judge say, “You don’t need to present evidence on [their] operation. Ordinance No. 8119, which in effect, replaced
that fact; that is already established in a case that I tried a year ago Ordinance [No.] 8027, merely took note of the time frame provided
and I will take judicial notice that the owner of the gun is X.” Can the for in Ordinance No. 8119.... Ordinance No. 8119 thus provided for
court do that? an even longer term, that is[,] seven years;
GR: the court cannot take judicial notice of the decisions of the Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides:
coordinate courts not even the decision or the facts of a similar case
tried by the same court. Even if the judge has personal knowledge, Section 4. Judicial admissions. ― An admission, verbal or written,
the court does not have personal knowledge thus the court cannot made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
take judicial notice. It emphasizes the difference of a court and a does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
judge. Diba sa Civil Procedure, you learned the difference of a court showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
and a judge. So whatever is within the personal knowledge of the admission was made.
judge, being an officer of the court, does not equate to judicial
notice. While it is true that a party making a judicial admission cannot
subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what
REPUBLIC VS CA (August 18, 1997), the Supreme Court said: A court was pleaded, the aforestated rule is not applicable here. Respondent
will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, made the statements regarding the ordinances in civil case nos. 03-
of facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the 106379 and 06-115334 which are not "the same" as this case before
authenticity of its own records of another case between the same us. To constitute a judicial admission, the admission must be made
parties, of the files of related cases in the same court, and of public in the same case in which it is offered.
records on file in the same court. Hence, respondent is not estopped from claiming that Ordinance
No. 8119 did not supersede Ordinance No. 8027. On the contrary, it
However, there is a qualification provided for by an earlier case: is the oil companies which should be considered estopped. They rely
on the argument that Ordinance No. 8119 superseded Ordinance
No. 8027 but, at the same time, also impugn its (8119’s) validity. We
OCCIDENTAL LAND TRANSPO VS CA (1993): That there should be
frown on the adoption of inconsistent positions and distrust any
an absence of objection, meaning both parties agree, as a matter of
convenience between two parties to treat the records of another attempt at clever positioning under one or the other on the basis of
what appears advantageous at the moment. Parties cannot take
case as read into the records.
vacillating or contrary positions regarding the validity of a statute or The testimony of the star witness was like this: “I stepped out to see
ordinance. Nonetheless, we will look into the merits of the what was going on. And then I heard the sound of two vehicles
argument of implied repeal. colliding with one another….and then I saw the vehicles colliding
with one another.” In other words, the sound came before the
When an ordinance is subject to judicial notice: actual collision. What is correct? The sound occurs immediately after
the collision. The Supreme Court said that we have to take judicial
1. MTC: it is required to take judicial notice of the ordinances of notice of the laws of nature. If true, the Supreme Court said: “If true,
the municipality or city where it sits. this would rate as one of the greatest scientific revelations of all
time. But since courts are obliged to take judicial notice of the laws
RTC: must take judicial notice of ordinances only when required to of nature, this Court prefers to side with prudence.” So the Supreme
do so by the statute. Court can be sarcastic at times.
2. In the case of appeal before them, they should also take judicial 5. Geographical Divisions
notice.
CHONGBIAN OLIVA VS REPUBLIC (2007)
3. When an ordinance is capable of unquestionable demonstration.
When a court takes judicial notice that a city is a highly urbanized
But even when there is a statute requiring a court to take judicial city, every barangay in the city would therefore be highly urbanized
notice of ordinances, a court is not required to take judicial notice of as well.
ordinances to which it does not have access. The party asking the
court to take judicial notice of the ordinances is obligated to supply
Rule 129. Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary . – A court
the court with the plain text of the rules which the party desires to
may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge,
be followed or applied for the court to take judicial notice of the said or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be
ordinances.
known to judges because of their judicial functions.
Take note that the intent of the statute requiring the court to take
It is discretionary because it depends solely on the judgment of the
judicial notice of a local ordinance is to remove any discretion that
court unless the matter falls within Sec 1, no party can compel the
the court might have in determining WON to take judicial notice of
judge to take judicial notice of the same. Judicial notice under Sec 2
an ordinance. The statute does not direct the court to act on its own
cannot be compelled by Mandamus.
in obtaining evidence for record and the party must make the
ordinance available to the court for it to take notice of. So the party
must procure a copy of an ordinance from the Sangguniang MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO VS COMELEC (2012)
Panglusod and present the same to the court.
FACTS: Magdalo filed an application for a Party-list registration with
4. Laws of Nature comelec for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections. Comelec
The most celebrated use of the laws of nature in judicial notice is in denied the application. Comelec also took judicial notice of the fact
a very old case in 1800s involving Abraham Lincoln. There is a brawl that Magdalo was the one responsible for the Oakwood Mutiny.
during one night and there is an eyewitness from afar of the
assailant from a distance of 150 feet. You have to remember that Magdalo contended that Comelec could not take judicial notice of
during this time there were still no light posts or wide spread used of those facts, that comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
electricity. The crime was committed at 11 pm. Therefore, because denying their registration since it based not on reliable records of
of the poor visibility it makes the identification of the assailant from facts but on mere speculations.
afar questionable.
ISSUE: WON the Comelec can take judicial notice of the fact that
One witness said that he was able to see the assailant because of Magdalo was responsible for the Oakwood Mutiny
the light of the moon. What Abraham Lincoln did was take a farmer’
almanac ( a farmer’s almanac will tell you what would be the RULING: YES. Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may be
position of the moon at night) and prove that the moon has already taken of matters that are of "public knowledge, or are capable of
set at 3 minutes before midnight and therefore visibility of the unquestionable demonstration." Further, Executive Order No. 292,
assailant would have been impossible. So the court took judicial otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code, specifically
notice that a setting moon will not cause illumination and that empowers administrative agencies to admit and give probative value
caused the accused’s acquittal. to evidence commonly acceptable by reasonably prudent men, and
to take notice of judicially cognizable facts. Thus, in Saludo v.
PEOPLE VS MENESES (1998) American Express, this Court explained as follows:
It was established that a crime took place in the wee hours in the The concept of "facts of common knowledge" in the context of
morning before the crack of dawn at around 3 am. The court can judicial notice has been explained as those facts that are "so
take judicial notice of the laws of nature such as in this case that commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to
around 3 in the morning during the Christmas season, it is still quite require proof, and so certainly known x x x as to make it indisputable
dark and that daylight comes late during this time of the year. among reasonable men."
GABRIEL VS CA (2004) This Court has, in a string of cases, already taken judicial notice of
the factual circumstances surrounding the Oakwood standoff. The
incident involved over 300 heavily armed military officers and

enlisted men – led by the founding members of MAGDALO – who (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
surreptitiously took over Oakwood in the wee hours of 27 July 2003. uncertain; and
They disarmed the security guards and planted explosive devices
around the building and within its vicinity. They aired their (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of
grievances against the administration of former President Gloria the court. The provincial guide in determining what facts may be
Macapagal-Arroyo (former President Arroyo), withdrew their assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can
support from the government, and called for her resignation, as well be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public
as that of her cabinet members and of the top officials of the records and facts of general notoriety.
Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP). After the ensuing negotiations for these military To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely
agents to lay down their weapons, defuse the explosives and return another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be
to the barracks, the debacle came to a close at 11:00 p.m. on the dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired.
same day. That the Oakwood incident was widely known and This is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious
extensively covered by the media made it a proper subject of judicial that it will not be disputed. But judicial notice is not judicial
notice. knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make
Thus, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally
it treated these facts as public knowledge, and took cognizance known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of
thereof without requiring the introduction and reception of those matters which are "commonly" known.
evidence thereon. In the present case, the Oakwood incident was
one that was attended with violence which warranted comelec’s Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial
denial of Magdalo’s registration. notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in
the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be
However, in view of the subsequent amnesty granted in favor of the matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are
members of MAGDALO, the events that transpired during the capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts
Oakwood incident can no longer be interpreted as acts of violence in which are universally known, and which may be found in
the context of the disqualifications from party registration. encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially
noticed, provided they are of such universal notoriety and so
So it’s proper also for the comelec to take judicial notice of the fact generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of
that Magdalo were granted amnesty by PNoy for their acts in the the common knowledge of every person.
past. It would no longer be considered as a disqualification for
party-list registration. Respondent judge, in the guise of exercising discretion and on the
basis of a mere newspaper account which is sometimes even
referred to as hearsay evidence twice removed, took judicial notice
STATE PROSECUTORS VS. MURO (1994)
of the supposed lifting o foreign exchange controls, a matter which
was not and cannot be considered of common knowledge or of
FACTS: On August 13, 1992, respondent judge issued an Order
general notoriety. Worse, he took cognizance of an administrative
dismissing eleven (11) cases:
regulation which was not yet in force when the order of dismissal
was issued. Jurisprudence dictates that judicial notice cannot be
Respondent Judge issued his Order solely on the basis of
taken of a statute before it becomes effective. The reason is simple.
newspaper reports (August 11, 1992 issues of the Philippine Daily
A law which is not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be
Inquirer and the Daily Globe) concerning the announcement on
of common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable
August 10, 1992 by the President of the Philippines of the lifting by
demonstration, which is one of the requirements before a court
the government of all foreign exchange restrictions and the arrival at
can take judicial notice of a fact.
such decision by the Monetary Board as per statement of Central
Bank Governor Jose Cuisia
Rule 129. Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary.
ISSUE: W/N the Judge was correct in taking judicial notice of the During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a
supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls which appeared in party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any
a newspaper. matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
RULING: NO After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court,
on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice
The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such
of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety
exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be What is Judicial Notice?
promptly resolved in the negative.
It is when the court accepts a fact as true without requiring proof.
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material Whether it’s mandatory or discretionary, the court accepts a fact as
requisites: true without requiring proof.
(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
When we talk about judicial notice, it’s actually repugnant to lands in Licab, Nueva Ecija without apprising the parties of its
reception of evidence. Is it not a fact that judicial notice by its very intention to take judicial notice thereof.
nature dispenses with evidence and therefore dispenses with a
hearing? Section 3 is contrary to the essence of judicial notice. ISSUE: W/N the market value should have been taken judicial
notice of without the requirement of hearing.
In Sec 3, judicial notice is taken only after the parties have been
heard on the issue of WON the court has to take judicial notice. So RULING: NO.
the parties will have the opportunity to ask the judge WON to take
judicial notice of a particular fact or matter. The parties may be Inasmuch as the valuation of the property of Wycoco is the very
required to present evidence. issue in the case at bar, the trial court should have allowed the
parties to present evidence thereon instead of practically assuming a
Judicial Notice on Age / Appearance valuation without basis.
Example: Your knowledge about your birthday is totally hearsay. While market value may be one of the bases of determining just
You were just told by your parents that you were born on that day compensation, the same cannot be arbitrarily arrived at without
based on your birth certificate. Later on mo na nabasa imong birth considering the factors to be appreciated in arriving at the fair
cert. You don’t really have personal knowledge regarding your birth, market value of the property e.g ., the cost of acquisition, the
making your birthday a mere hearsay. current value of like properties, its size, shape, location, as well as
the tax declarations thereon. Since these factors were not
Let’s say your age is relevant to the fact in issue in the case. The considered, a remand of the case for determination of just
best evidence to determine your age is your birth certificate. What compensation is necessary.
if wala kay birth certificate? Can the judge take judicial notice by just
looking at you and estimate your age based on your physical The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with
appearance? NO because judicial notice is repugnant to the caution especially where the case involves a vast tract of land. Care
concept of autoptic proference. must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every
reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the
Autoptic Proference negative. To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is
It means self observation. When the court conducts autoptic merely another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be
proference, it actually uses its senses. When the court is using its dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired.
senses, it’s actually applying Rule 130 Sec 1 – Objects as Evidence. This is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious
This is the appreciation of physical objects. that it will not be disputed. But judicial notice is not judicial
knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
The court can never take judicial notice of age by using autoptic judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his
proference. No matter how accurate your estimation is of a individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally
person’s age by just looking at his physical appearance, it can never known, the basis of his action.
be accurate.
Let’s go back to judicial notice on age. Minority, in criminal cases,
When a trier of facts observes the appearance of a person to can be an exempting circumstance. In the crime of rape, age can be
ascertain his/her age, it’s not taking judicial notice of such fact, considered as a qualifying circumstance. In qualified rape, the victim
rather it is conducting an examination of an evidence, the evidence is under 18 and the accused is a relative or the victim is under 7 yrs
being the appearance of the person. of age. Or age can be an element of the crime itself such as in
Statutory Rape.
Why would age be relevant sometimes in cases?
In case of statutory rape, when the victim is below 12 years old, the If you are a court of law, would you be justified in taking judicial
consent of the latter as to the consummation of the crime of rape is notice of the age of a person (witness, victim, or accused) if he has
immaterial for the prosecution of the accused. no birth certificate or other evidence of his age? (Pp vs Villarama
2003)
In making of wills, the testator must be at least 18 years of age.
PP VS VILLARAMA 2003
In marriage, the contracting parties must be at least 18 years of age.
Court decisions on rape of minors, in order to justify the imposition
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. WYCOCO (2004) of death penalty, there must be independent evidence showing the
age of the victim.
FACTS:
What independent evidence must be presented? What will be the
Feliciano F. Wycoco is the registered owner of a 94.1690 guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or
hectare unirrigated and untenanted rice land as a qualifying circumstance? (Pp vs Pruna)
In line with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

PEOPLE VS. PRUNA 2002
of the government, Wycoco voluntarily offered to sell the land to
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for P14.9 million
FACTS:
In arriving at the valuation of Wycoco’s land, the trial court took
judicial notice of the alleged prevailing market value of agricultural
On 27 January 1995, an information[2] for rape was filed against In the present case, no birth certificate or any similar authentic
accused-appellant Manuel Pruna y Ramirez or Erman Pruna y document, such as a baptismal certificate of LIZETTE, was presented
Ramirez to prove her age.
Jacqueline, Lizette’s mother, declared that at the time of the LIZETTE testified on 20 November 1996, or almost two years after
alleged rape, LIZETTE was 3 years old, but at the time Jacqueline the incident, that she was 5 yearsold. However, when the defense
testified on 17 October 1995, LIZETTE was 4 years old. LIZETTEs last counsel asked her how old she was on 3 January 1995, or at the time
birthday was on 19 April 1995 of the rape, she replied that she was 5 years old. Upon further
question as to the date she was born, she could not answer.
Pruna was convicted
For PRUNA to be convicted of rape in its qualified form and meted
ISSUE: W/N it was sufficiently established that Lizette was 3 years the supreme penalty of death, it must be established with certainty
old at the time of the commission of the crime. that LIZETTE was below 7 years old at the time of the commission of
the crime. It must be stressed that the severity of the death penalty,
RULING: NO. especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes
the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the
A persons age is best proved by the birth certificate. But is the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.
presentation of the victims birth certificate a sine qua non
requirement to prove her age for the appreciation of minority either In view of the uncertainty of LIZETTEs exact age, corroborative
as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance? Recent evidence such as her birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any
jurisprudence has conflicting pronouncements. other authentic document should be introduced in evidence in order
that the qualifying circumstance of below seven (7) years old is
Guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime appreciated against the appellant. The lack of objection on the part
or as a qualifying circumstance: of the defense as to her age did not excuse theprosecution from
discharging its burden. That the defense invoked LIZETTEs tender
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an age for purposes of questioning her competency to testify is not
original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such necessarily an admission that she was below 7 years of age when
party. PRUNA raped her on 3 January 1995. Such being the case, PRUNA
cannot be convicted of qualified rape, and hence the death penalty
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic cannot be imposed on him.
documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which
show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
July 13, 2016
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is
shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims mother or a member Before we leave judicial notice and proceed with judicial admissions,
of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to let me just point out certain things that you need to remember. Let’s
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date go back to Rule 129, Section 1 – Judicial notice when mandatory.
of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 (an
exception to the Hearsay Rule. Hearsay is not based on personal
knowledge) of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take
following circumstances: judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is
sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. divisions. (1a)
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or

Make sure you know what are the subects of mandatory judicial
the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the
victims age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it notice. Remember when judicial notice is mandatory under Section
is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 1, the courts will have no discretion whatsoever as to WON to take
judicial notice of a particular fact. And when a court refuses to take
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the judicial notice of matters, which are subject of mandatory judicial
offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the notice under Section 1, that would be tantamount to gross
testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. ignorance of the law. So you can always question the court for
excercising discretion when no discretion exists. That could be
The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the
age of the victim. subject to appellate review if a court does not take judicial notice of
a matter subject of mandatory judicial notice.
There’s nothing much about Section 1 in remembering specifically instances where taking judicial notice of the records of a
what case or what particular object of mandatory judicial notice court in a particular case is permissible. I gave you 2 cases
would be construed in a particular way except with respect to laws. there - ESPANOL and the case of OCCIDENTAL LAND
TRANSPORT. Please remember those cases, it will tell you
LAWS what would be permissible judicial notice of records of a
case. Remember that there should be no objections of the
With respect to laws remember that laws could either be domestic other party. That’s a very important requisite and it must
or international laws. With respect to domestic law, laws are be read into the records of the case.
supposed to be official acts of the legislative department which
means it is subject of mandatory judicial notice. Now, we go to SECTION 2 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN
DISCRETIONARY.
With respect to international law, remember that what is subject to
mandatory judicial notice would be those generally accepted Take note that no matter how you look at Section 2, the
principles of international law only. When we talk about particular requirement simply is that the court shall exercise the power to take
international law meaning the law of a particular law like Germany discretionary judicial notice sparingly. It has to be very careful to
or Australia as in the case we discussed, you have to prove that as a ensure that the requisite NOTORIETY exists. It must be one of
fact. The rules of court could provide you with the process by which common or public knowledge that it would be unprofitable to
you are able to prove international law or a law of a particular require it.
nation as opposed to generally accepted principles of international
law. Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take
Take note right now, the arbitration court ruled in favor of the judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
Philippines! Boo China! The hell with you China! But it’s a matter of capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to
WON we may be able to enforce it. But that decision of the judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)
international tribunal would be used as a jump off point for
diplomatic solutions as to our problem here in the South China Sea
Then you have SECTION 3.
or the way we call it the West Philippine Sea. You know what as far
as I am concerned, the claim of China is anchored to the certain
extent to the fact that it is called the South China Sea. Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the
trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may
Going back, what about ordinances? Remember when a court is announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and
required to take judicial notice of a particular ordinance. allow the parties to be heard thereon.
OFFICIAL ACTS OF JUDICIAL DEPT of the PH After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court,
on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice
Take note that when we talk about official acts of the judicial of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such
department of the Philippines, we are talking about the acts of the matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)
judiciary (the Supreme Court primarily) that would have force and
effect of laws. And what would that be?
The case there I assigned is the LANDBANK VS WYCOCO (Jan. 14
2004).
1. Judicial decisions pursuant to Art. 8 of the Civil Code.
Judicial decisions which interpret the laws of the land,
form part of the legal system of the Philippines. ISSUE: WON a court can take judicial notice of a supposed prevailing
market value of a lot.
2. Supreme Court issuances which governs pleading, practice
and procedure before the courts. So when a particular RULING: So according to the SC here (applying section 3) when you
matter falls whithin what I told you about then that would
talk about market value of a land that is something that should
be subject to mandatory judicial notice. Take note that a
court generally will not be allowed to take judicial notice require evidence. It should be something that should be heard by
of a matter, which is in contrversy, or a matter that has the court. Remember in an expropriation case, the parties are of
been litigated or is in litigation. So the court cannot course required to prove WON the taking is proper and at the same
therefore take judicial notice of the records of the court. time the amount of just compensation – WON is it proper. You have
Unsa lang man ang gina take notice? DECISIONS of the SC to prove consequential benefits and damages. We learned that from
with respect to the jurisprudence of the land. But the political law. In that situation the parties are entitled to be heard
decisions of CA, not necessarily.
thereon. The court cannot simply take judicial notice of a supposed
prevailing market value without asking the parties. It brings me to
You do not take judicial notice of a subordinate or co-
equal court’s decisions. But take note what are the
the conclusion that under Section 3 and reading from the case, that
it is really repugnant. Remember katong variances. You want to prove that the child is this
age but you only succeeded in proving that he is at a different age.
The concept of judicial notice is actually repugnant to what section 3 When the child herself would testify as to her age, remember that
obtains. Because Section 3 tells you that judicial notice may be taken that would only be admissible in the absence of the objection of the
at the initiative of the court or upon request of the party and then accused. If there’s an objection you cannot do it anymore.
allow the party to be heard thereon. When you hear parties,
remember that the requirement of hearing would entail SECTION 4 – JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
argumentation and presentation of evidence. In that situation, the
court actually exercises its power to receive evidence. And when you Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written,
receive evidence you are no longer taking judicial notice. So as far as made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same
I am concerned, Section 3 is aberrant. It’s not supposed to be judicial case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted
notice, regardless of how it originates. only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that
no such admission was made. (2a)
Because in Section 3, it might originate from the court in which case,
the court will announce its intention to take judicial notice of a
This will not be the first time that you will be hearing the word
particular fact and then of course allow the parties to be heard later
admission and its special signification in the law of evidence.
on.
Admissions can either be of two kinds.
1. Judicial admission - made by the party in the course of the

JUDICIAL NOTICE VS AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE proceeding in the same case where the admission has
been offered to prove something or it can be
How do you contrast judicial notice with autoptic proference? When
you talk of autoptic we are talking here about the presentation of 2. Extrajudicial admission – which we will talk in rule 130. Not
object evidence so you are bringing something so that the court may in 129.
observe. It comes from the word auto and optic – self perception of
But take note that when we talk about a judicial admission, a
the court. It is related to the term autopsy. Spy or to observe. So
layman’s understanding simply is that it is made in the course of a
repugnant gyud na xa because the court when it looks at a person’s
proceeding in a case. But Section 4 tells you that it has to be in the
appearance to determine for example the age of the victim or the
same case. So let us suppose you made an admission in case A
witness or accused regardless of the whether the purpose is
pending before Branch 16 and then it is now being used as evidence
jurisdictional or evidentiary, it is no longer taking judicial notice but
against you in Branch 15 in a different case. Remember that when
receiving evidence through the process of of autoptic proference.
you make an admission in a different court and a different case, that
is not considered a judicial admission but an EXTRAJUDICIAL
Do you remember tha case of PRUNA? What are the guidelines for
admission. That’s one rule that we need to remember at the onset
you to prove the age of the victim in a rape case. Precisely because
of our discussion of judicial admission.
in rape cases under the expanded rape law which transformed rape
from a crime against chastity to a crime against persons, their age
Judicial admission or an admission in judicio is a deliberate, clear,
sometimes becomes an aggravating circumstance or a qualifying
unequivocal statement by a party about a concrete fact within the
circumstance. The very element of the crime itself such as statutory
party’s knowledge. It must be deliberate first because an admission
rape where the age of the victim is an element of a crime. So in
will not bind the party making it if it was made by mistake. If he
those kinds of situations, what can and what can’t be proved if this
never really intended to make an admission therefore, it is not
is your evidence. Remember the best evidence to be presented is
deliberate and therefore its not considered an admission. It must be
the birth certificate and baptismal certificate or other authentic
clear and unequivocal and must not admit of two or more
records showing the age of the accused. In the absence of those,
interpretations.
that’s the time that you can resort to testimony, or substitutionary
or secondary evidence. Now what will you present? Testimony of
It can also be defined as a formal concession in the pleadings or
the mother or may be the testimony of the victim herself. I have
stipulations by the party or counsel that is binding on the party
already proven to you that that is unreliable.
making them, although a judicial admission is not itself evidence. It
has the effect of withdrawing a fact. Let’s focus on that second
When a person testifies as to his age with the knowledge that he or
definition.
she was born on a particular date, that’s actually not personal
knowledge. Because you as a baby, do not have the ability to
A formal concession – when you say concession it means that you
observe your birth and you cannot remember exactly when you
are surrendering, you concede! You are no longer controverting a
were born. So everything you know about your age or birthday is
fact. When the party says naa kay utang and then you say “yes naa
actually hearsay. Therefore, kinihanglan mog independent
koy utang” that’s an admission. You concede already. It can be
testimony, or evidence to prove your age.
proved a concession through the pleadings where for example the examine and sometimes I really do witnesses lying in court but it
party in its answer admits to particular allegations in the complaint doesn’t happen everyday. Why? Because any good lawyer before he
of the plaintiff. Or it can be stipulations. When do you usually make presents a witness for direct examination and cross examination by
stipulations of facts? the adverse party, should be able to tell the client immediately or
witnesses that you should watch out for this. This could be asked. So
Remember in your CIVPRO, Rule 18 relating to pre trial. One of the as counsel, you need to be able to anticipate possible cross
mandatory objects of pre trial would be stipulation of facts and examination questions. Remember that during direct examination, it
evidence. So parties can actually concede during pre trial. And when is supposed to be a question to be answered by specific acts so it
a party makes an admission, that fact is already withdrawn from must not be leading in nature. When you say question answered by
contention. There’s no more issue regarding that fact. That’s a very a specific act, it must not be answerable by a yes or no. So who
important effect of making a judicial admission. where what how why, etc.
When you are making a judicial admission, you are no longer You do not ask a question that will not fit that formula. But during
allowed later on to controvert it pr to present evidence that is cross examination, all the witness has to answer is yes or no. If you
contrary to the admission that you’ve made. You admit for example are skilled at cross examination, you don’t actually make witnesses
in the pleadings that a party has the legal capacity and personality to answer questions na kanang who what when where why etc. You do
sue. Meaning he has the power to file the case against you. And it only when the witness has no choice. It is like in debates, you start
then later on during trial you make representations, saying that he is a series of yes or no questions and then eventually you trap the
not actually allowed to sue that he has no legal capacity to sue. That opponent that you are interpolating to revealing a particular fact to
will not be done anymore. All the other party has to point out is the be contrary to what he previously stated. That’s how you do it also
fact that there has been prior judicial admission to a different effect. in court.
So pag abot sa ing.ana dili naka pwede mupresent ug evidence
contrary to the admission that you previously made. It is very ideal that the counsel may be able to catch a party making
an admission or telling an outright lie. Even the best of them will not
Remember the latin maxim here is CONFESSIO FACTA IN JUDICIO be able to do that everytime. And every lawyer prepares his witness
OMNI MAJOR EST which means confession made in a trial is ahead of time. In my case, I even go to the extent of asking a
stronger than all proof. Mas bug.at siya compared to any proof that different lawyer, to hear the supposed direct examination of my
you might be able to present because you have already admitted it. witness in my own office and that other lawyer i.e. Yangyang Espejo
Now let’s go back to Political law a little bit. Remember that there is will cross examine my witness and my wife also does the same thing.
a right to remain silent, do you recall that? The Miranda Warning! Her witness testifies in front of me and I will cross examine. So that’s
Now, why is it that the Constitution itself that you an accused would how we prepare our witnesses. So that pag abot sa panahon that he
have that right to remain silent? Because anything you say can be is already being cross examined by the other party’s counsel he will
used against you in a court room. That always reminds me what not be surprised anymore. Especially if I’m the one cross examining.
Dean Inigo says, regardless of where he says it (Civ Pro, Evidence) he I don’t know why but I think people get scared when I cross
keeps on saying LESS TALK, LESS MISTAKE and therefore NO TALK, examine.
NO MISTAKE.
(Tells stories about him being a judge in a beauty contest na wa
What is the reason there? Why is it na you always say to your client katubag sa follow up question ang contestant.)
to remain silent. Because when he says something, that can be
construed as an admission. And when he is deemed to have already The ability to coerce or to compel a party to make an admission, that
made an admission specifically a judicial admission you cannot is of course contrary to the cause that he is espousing… meaning it
present proof to counteract the effects of your admission. So please should be an admission against his interest. Because if he makes an
remember that. admission that serves his interest, that’s considered as self serving
admission which will not do your case any good if you are cross
In the case of SPS BINARAO vs PLUS BUILDERS June 16, 2006 – The examined. So it is really difficult to obtain judicial admissions.
SC had the occasion to lay down or enumerate, what are the sources
of judicial admission. According to the SC, a party may make That’s the most common source of judicial admission but you will
admissions: learn when you become lawyers and you have ample knowledge of
CIVPRO that there are a lot of sources diay that you can take
a. in the pleadings advantage of. That lawyers seem to be unaware.
b. during the trial – verbal or written manifestations
c. other stages of the judicial proceeding So let us look at the instances when admissions can be made for
example during hearings. So it can be admissions made by a party in
The most common there would be letter b, where we envision a the course of the trial either by verbal or written stipulations or in
counsel who is skilled in the art of cross examination, being able to other stages of a judicial proceeding as in the pre trial case.
make a party make an admission. I pride myself in my ability to cross
Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or

requests for admission are also considered judicial admissions. Another example which is my favorite – RULE 8 Section 8.
Now, here’s this case that I have just read – ADOLFO vs ADOLFO
Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an action or
March 18, 2015. In addition to taking note of judicial admissions,
defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached
please take note as well about the distinctions between judgment
to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section,
on the pleadings and summary judgment. Sometimes parties get
the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be
confused between these distinctions. So remember that by way of
deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically
review and apply that to the concept of judicial admissions.
denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does
When you make admissions, what does that mean especially in the
not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with
pleadings? It means that you are not tendering an issue or you are
an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a)
posing no genuine issue to be tried – which necessitates either
judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. Kung example
imo answer puro admission sa mga stipulations or allegations in the It talks about actionable document. What is it? It’s a document upon
complaint, what will happen? That will now be ripe for judgment on which the plaintiff’s cause of action and defendant’s defense is
the pleadings because there is not genuine issues to be tried or they founded upon. So when an action or defense is founded upon an
can be shallow issues. Take note of that because it is no longer my instrument attached to the corresponding pleading, as provided in
responsibility to review CIVPRO. Just read the case – ADOLFO. the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
ADMISSIONS CAN BE MADE IN BOTH INITIATORY AND RESPONSIVE under oath specifically denies them and sets forth what it claims to
PLEADINGS. Example – in a complaint defendant Geronimo be the facts but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the
contracted a loan with the plaintiff Sara. While defendant had paid adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or
the first 5 installments, all the succeeding installments remain when compliance with an order for inspection is refused. Focus only
unpaid. Ning bayad na kalima si Geronimo, ang uban wala pa. In an on the first part because that’s where the meat of the provision lies.
answer for example “defendant admits the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint in as much as they merely So when is a document actionable in a sense that it is the foundation
allege the personal circumstances and capacities of the parties. of your complaint? Give me an example – in case there is a debt the
actionable document or foundation or basis for your complaint for
Now the 1st one appears in a complaint so what’s the admission specific performance – Promissory Note. That’s your actionable
being made by the plaintiff there? That the defendant made document.
payments. It is just that there are other installments that the
defendant has not yet paid. Therefore that would now be the basis And remember under Rule 8 Sec. 7 – you are supposed to be told
of the cause of action for specific performance para mabayran iyang how you are supposed to allege, how do you plead and actionable
utang. So the plaintiff made an admission that will now limit the document. Its either you copy verbatim and make it part of your
issues to be tried. Because of instead of the entire loan being pleading or you attach it and incorporate it in your pleading and you
unpaid, the plaintiff is now limiting voluntarily by way of an make reference. That’s the manner by which you make an allegation
admission the amounts that were yet to be paid. So later on the of an actionable document.
plaintiff cannot present evidence saying that “actually mas daghan
pa diay sa uban installments ang wala pa nia nabayran”. In an answer therefore, if the answer alleges that “no, nakabayad
nako” despite the presence of the PN, how do you deny for example
What about in the 2nd one? In an answer defendant admits the if you are contesting na lang the existence and due execution of the
allegations contained in paragpraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint in as PN. In effect you are saying na wala koy utang, how will you do it?
much as they merely allege the personal circumstances and
capacities of the parties. That is the way I usually answer or to allege According to Rule 8 Section 8, you have to do it under oath. Which is
in an answer, responses to the recitations to the personal satisfied by the requirement that you verified your answer. Not all
circumstances of the parties. pleadings need to be verified. But in this situation, the answer is
required to be verified because you have to deny it under oath.
For example, what usually appears in par. 1 of a complaint – “the That’s the requirement of verification. It is an affidavit under oath:
plaintiff Sara G. of legal age, Filipino, single, resident of Metro
Manila PH etc. For purposes of this complaint she may be served 1. That you have caused the preparation of the answer
with summons and other orders of the Honorable Court in blah2.” 2. That you have read the contents of the answer
So, are you gonna contest that? Or you simply make an admission? 3. That the allegations thereon are true and correct based on your
Now if you say that you admit the personal circumstances, you no personal knowledge or authentic records.
longer refute the name, marital status, nationality of plaintiff. You
cannot contradict that later on.
Diba mao man na? Can you recall that from CIVPRO? I hope you do. against you in default – Under Rule 9. So you failed to file an answer,
That’s very important. There are cases saying that a defect in it might lead to different scenarios:
verification would also lead to the defect in the requirement that
the denial should be under oath. Which leads to the effect that you 1. the court may proceed to render judgment by default and
are deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of grant the plaintiff what he is praying for in his complaint
2. it may choose to receive evidence which may be delegated
the actionable document.
to the clerk of court.
Now, you file an answer and if the PN is the best evidence to prove Remember when the court proceed to render judgment, the court is
the existence of the debt, what would be the best evidence to prove not allowed to award matters which are different from that prayed
that you have made payments already… full payment of the debt – for by the plaintiff and it cannot award unliquidated damages. Those
it’s a receipt! Because it really says that you have already paid are the basic limitations on a default judgment.
everything. If the utang in the PN is 1M then you have a receipt
making reference to the utang for 1 M that means you are fully paid A reply? Is it mandatory? Very clearly from SECTION 10 it is not. But
and may lead to the dismissal of the action because the claims set Casent Realty case says in effect, because the plaintiff failed to file a
forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid and is extinguished – reply, it becomes mandatory. But you need to remember that IT IS
under RULE 16. MANDATORY ONLY WHEN AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT IS
ALLEGED IN AN ANSWER.
But now, plaintiff is stating that the receipt that you have attached
to the answer is authentic. I think that is a forged receipt because I Rule 8 Sec. 8 specifically applies to actions or defenses founded
do not remember ever issuing a receipt when you paid anything to upon a written instrument and provides the manner of denying it. It
me. Im not even admitting that you paid anything to me. So now, in is more controlling than Rule 6 Section 10 which merely provides for
the case of: the effect for failure to file a reply. THUS, WHERE THE DEFENSE AND
THE ANSWER IS BASED ON AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT, A REPLY
CASENT REALTY VS PHILBANKING CORP (Sept 14, 2007) – take note SPECIFICALLY DENYING IT UNDER OATH MUST BE MADE,
of what the SC said, “since the respondent failed to file a reply, in OTHERWISE THE GENUINESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE
effect respondent admitted the genuineness and due execution of DOCUMENT WILL BE DEEMED ADMITTED.
the said documents. This judicial admission should have been
considered by the appellate court in resolving the demurrer to Let’s try to tie that up with Civ Pro. WHILE THE FILING OF A REPLY IS
evidence. This is pursuant to RULE 129 Section 4 of the Rules of OPTIONAL, IT BECOMES MANDATORY WHE THE ANSWER ALLEGES
Court.” AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT. In which case, a reply must be filed
So that’s supposed to be a judicial admission. Now, the SC is saying and must be denied under oath and therefore the reply must be a
you did not file a reply. In other words, the admission relates to the verified reply. That’s a very important effect. If you do not file a
due execution and genuineness of an actionable document attached reply, automatic admission rather than automatic controversion. –
or referred to in an answer. How do we reconcile that with the fact (CASENT vs PHILBANKING 2007)
that a reply is actually optional? Diba the filing of a reply is optional?
It is not mandatory. In fact, look at Rule 8 Section 11 - Allegations not specifically denied deemed
admitted. — Material averment in the complaint, other than those
Section 10 on Pleadings – “a reply is a pleading the function of which as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed
is to deny or allege facts in denial of avoidance of new matters admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a
complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not
alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make
denied under oath. (1a, R9)
issue as to such matters if the party does not file such reply, all the
new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted.” So you divide the provision into two. The first one what’s the judicial
admission that’s present in the first sentence. If you fail to properly
So there is that effect of automatic controversion. Regardless of deny to specifically deny an averment in a complaint, that is already
whether you file that reply, there is an effect. All new matters deemed admitted. So if you make a general denial, that would not
alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. So why is it that the suffice. A general denial has the effect of an admission. So unsaon
diay pag deny? You have to specifically deny it, how do you make a
SC here, in effect punished the respondent for failing to file a reply,
specific denial? BY TELLING THE COURT YOUR VERSION OF THE
when in fact a reply is an optional pleading, not mandatory. What is STORY.
a mandatory pleading? A complaint for example is a mandatory
pleading. Without the filing of the complaint, the court acquired no If the version of the plaintiff is this, you have to refute that version
jurisdiction over the subject matter, issues of the case, res, person. by saying what accordingly transpired. Mao na siya and manner of
specific denial. So that’s also very important because if it has the
What about an answer? Is it a mandatory pleading? YES! Because effect of being deemed admitted when not specifically denied, all
you have to do is to look at the answer and see which areas he did
failure to file an answer can cause the court to render judgment
not make a specific denial. If that is a general denial, that’s a point
for you.
pay a particular docket fee for a particular cause of action, the court
That fact is already withdrawn from contention you, don’t have to acquires jurisdiction over that cause of action. But what if ang
prove it. If he tries to prove something contrary to his general payment nimo will not cover the cause of action as amended. So the
admission by reason of a general denial it has the effect of an court will not acquire jurisdiction there. In that situation, can you
admission – you can object now! It is contrary to the admission. He still do it? Even if the defendant is about to file an answer and
should not be allowed to present evidence under RULE 129 SECTION complains that gi change man niya! Pwede ba nimo ichange or
4. iamend imong pleading as a matter of right? Yes you can.
See how important this is? Sometimes CivPro and Evidence go hand And remember, the requirement is responsive pleading.
in hand. It is very important that you know the rules when they
intercept in a particular case. Let’s say for example you filed an action before the RTC and your
complaint states that it is an action for unlawful detainer or forcible
2nd sentence of Rule 8 Sec. 11 – what will be deemed admitted? That entry. Pwede dili? No! Because that is exclusively lodged in the
the contract is usurious. Simple is that. But right now usury jurisdiction of the MTC. And so when the defendant receives a copy
technically speaking does not exist as it was suspended by Central of your complaint, the defendant is thinking “haha! Nagbinugo ka!”
Bank Circulars. The rule right now with respect to interests is that So he now prepares a motion to dismiss because the court has no
the parties are free to stipulate – whatever terms and conditions jurisdiction over the subject matter of his claim. The RTC cannot
which they deem proper provided they are not contrary to law, entertain actions for FE. So he files a motion to dismiss.
morals, good customs, public order, public policy. Isn’t usurious
interest contrary to morals, and public policy? It may not be contrary On July 13 niya gifile ang amended complaint. And the plaintiff said
to law but it sometimes is contrary to morals. “OMG, what was I thinking? May nalang I remember my professor
Technically speaking usury does not exist and the parties may Atty. Espejo when he said you can never file a case for FE before the
stipulate as to the amount or interest that they want to charge in a RTC. And I also remember my professor telling me that there are
contract in a loan or forebearance. Ginaingon sa SC na they will not certain actions relating to real property that would fall under the
hesitate to strike it down if: jurisdiction of the RTC depending on the assessed value of the
property. So depende 20,000 – 50,000. Tama ba? Let’s assume that’s
1. It leads to the hemorrhaging of the assets of the debtor; correct. It happens that the value of the property for FE is more than
2. When it is shocking to the morals or unconscionable. 20,000 outside MM. So let’s say the value of the property is 1M. So
now, gichange niya ang allegations sa complaint making it an action
Those are the times when the SC strikes down usurious interest. for recovery of possession. So you know amend it because you have
When you answer bar exams or your exam questions, you use the not yet received the motion to dismiss. So it is now with the
language of the law or the SC because sometimes they will disagree jurisdiction of the RTC.
with me saying that its better to answer on my own words. The legal
profession is supposed to be an exact profession. Kelangan exact On July 14 a day after you filed an amended complaint, ning file ang
atong definitions. Kung dili tinamad ka dili ka kapasag bar! defendant ug motion to dismiss. What happens to the motion to
Pasensiya. dismiss? Because the ground for dismissal does not exist anymore.
The defendant is saying that’s unfair. He is saying you are not
Rule 10 Section 8 - Section 8.Effect of amended pleadings. — An allowed to do that! Is the defendant correct? Of course no!!!
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. Amendment here is a matter of right.
However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in
evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein Let us change it a little bit. The motion to dismiss was filed on July
not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. 13. So the plaintiff, after receiving a copy of the motion to dismiss,
(n) the plaintiff files an amended answer to this effect that instead of it
being a FE case, it becomes a recovery of possession case. Now, the
So there is a complaint and then an answer. Now, let’s go back to defendant complains… “HAHA! I got you finally!” As in he really said
what you recall under Rule 10 and that is Amendments of Pleadings. HAHA!
Remember that amendments can either be a matter of right or
judicial discretion. When is it a matter of right? Why, ngano man? Why according to the defendant he got him?
Because he filed it after I filed my motion to dismiss and according
There are two instances: to the law, it is only an amendment as a matter of right if its filed
before a responsive pleading has been served. So would that change
1. Formal Amendment – meaning naa lang kay ichange. Mali now? Or is amendment still a matter of right? I’ll ask you this
ang spelling, ichange nimo. question – IS A MOTION TO DISMISS A RESPONSIVE PLEADING?
NO!!! There are only 7 pleadings allowed:
2. Substantial amendment before responsive pleading has
been served – So wala pa naka-file ug answer. You count 1. Complaint
the 15 day period within which the defendant should file 2. Answer
an answer from date of receipt of summons together with 3. Reply
the copy of the complaint. Wala pa siya naka file, can you 4. Counterclaim
amend the pleading as a matter of right? Yes. You can. 5. Cross-claim
6. 3rd party complaint
Now, what if you are changing your pleading. You are changing 7. Pleadings in intervention
practically all of your allegations. Yes you can still do it provided it
will not affect your obligation to pay the required docket fees. If you
A motion to dismiss is not a pleading. So when you file a motion to A written judicial admission can be in motions, written
dismiss, it does not affect the ability of the plaintiff to file an manifestations, briefs, memoranda, affidavits, submission in answer
amended complaint as a matter of right. So that is why the law to a request for admission.
cautions you. If you are a defendant the law cautions you. Instead of
filing a motion to dismiss, you are supposed to file an answer and ADMISSIONS IN OTHER STAGES OF THE CASE
plead your grounds for a motion to dismiss as an affirmative defense
in your answer. Because in that situation if you file an answer with Instances:
affirmative defense, unsay effect? - No longer a matter of right ang 1. Pre-trial where admissions and stipulations of facts are
pagfile ug amendment. mandatory subjects of pre trial
2. Availment of discovery procedures before trial, or pending
No longer amend his complaint as a matter of right. Will it affect his appeal such as:
ability to cause the dismissal of the case immediately? NO! You need  Depositions
to remember under Rule 16, when you file an answer with  Request for admission
affirmative defense which ought to have been grounds for a motion  Physical or Mental examination of
to dismiss, the court may order a preliminary hearing to be had persons (modes of discovery)
thereon as if a motion to dismiss have been filed.
Let’s go to Pre Trial – Rule 18 of The Rules of Court.
So you have a complaint, it is responded to by an answer. Then an
answer is supposed to be responded by a reply (which is optional There is supposed to be a portion during Pre Trial where you have to
and inc certain cases, mandatory). Let us supposed in your answer, list down your supposed stipulation of facts. Why? Because if the
you made judicial admissions. “The defendant admits the admission other party admits it during Pre Trial or also during his pre trial brief
in paragraph 7 of the complaint”. So that has the effect of a judicial then there’s no need to prove that in court.
admission. But later on you realized, “OMG, I made a mistake.
Anyway, wala pay reply, under the Rules I still have the ability to Well-settled is the rule that judicial admissions are conclusive on the
amend my answer as a matter of right.” And so he does. He amends party making it. When you say conclusive what does it mean?
the answer as a matter of right. What happens now to the judicial
admissions contained in the answer? Rule 10 Section 8: An IN SANTIAGO VS DELOS SANTOS 61 SCRA 146 – An admission
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are
So technically speaking, the pleading no longer exists. It is as if it was conclusive as to him and that all proofs submitted by him contrary
never filed. That’s the general rule. But the exception is, admission thereto or inconsistent therewith shall be ignored whether objection
in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the is interposed.
pleader. So naa pay effect. So the answer which made a judicial
admission of paragraph 7, can you still use it against the pleader or So even in the absence of an objection, you cannot present any
defendant? YES! But Rule 10 Sec. 8 says, it is no longer considered a proof contrary to your judicial admission. Dili jud na dapat maka
judicial admission. It becomes an EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION. lusot. It is one of those instances under the law on evidence where
objection is unnecessary.
What is the difference now between a judicial and an extra judicial
admission? Another instance would be in the matter of a hearsay testimony or
hearsay evidence – because even if makalusot siya and it is admitted
JUDICIAL ADMISSION – no need to prove it because he is precisely by the court because of lack of admission, it does not mean that the
the one making an admission. court would give it evidentiary weight. Hearsay evidence whether
objected to or not has no evidentiary value. We will go to that when
EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION – in order for it to be received as we reach Rule 130 Sec. 36 and its exceptions.
evidence, it must be pleaded and proven. So you plead it in
pleadings and then prove it later on, present evidence. It must be made in the same case. If you make it in another case,
that cannot be considered a judicial admission in the context of
Remember these are very basic principles relating to admissions. RULE 129 Section 4.
Admissions made in superseded pleadings cease to be judicial
admissions, they are considered extra judicial admissions. So in
REPUBLIC GLASS vs QUA 2004
order to be utilized as extra judicial admission, they must be
formerly offered as evidence after pleading it then prove it.
“To constitute a judicial admission, it must be made in the same case
in which it is offered. If made in another case or court, the fact of
VERBAL OR WRITTEN ADMISSIONS
such admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact.
Although, if made in a judicial proceeding, it is entitled to be
Admissions during trial can either be VERBAL or WRITTEN.
_____(?).”
A verbal judicial admission can take the form of a manifestation or
Nothing much about this case.
testimony in court.
So if I were you if you get into trouble, somebody files a case against If made in the same case – JUDICIAL ADMISSION, if not the same
you, do not get a lawyer who is very talkative in court. I am talkative case – EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION. Therefore, it has to be pleaded
in class but not in court. Less talk, less mistakes. No talk, no and proved as in the case of any other fact. Although if it is made in
mistakes. any other judicial proceeding must believable siya compared to one
that is made outside of the court.
criminal case and during pre trial, you have to sign not only the
Exceptions: The admission may be contradicted only by showing accused but also the counsel. So what’s the effect in this case na
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such walay pirma. The prosecution did not present evidence anymore.
admission was made. Kay nag confess naman so naghulat na lang ug conviction. During
appeal, the CA reversed it on the ground that, again, there is failure
So you made an admission and now it is taken against you. You still to sign the pre trial agreement by counsel and accused. According to
have a recourse. That is – hide behind the exceptions. the SC, pag wala, that becomes inadmissible in evidence. So in
effect the stipulation of facts that you made will not be binding
“MADE THROUGH PALPABLE MISTAKE” anymore.
What do you mean by mistake? Sayop, mali! We all know what This is the FULE DOCTRINE. Kung dili signed, not admissible as
mistake means but what is palpable lahi na siya sa papabol. It’s a evidence.
mistake that is obvious to both sides. So it is clear to the plaintiff and
clear to the defendant that clearly no admission was intended by the What the prosecution should have done upon discovery that the
party making the admission. So obvious to both sides. accused did not sign, was to submit the evidence to establish the
elements of the crime instead of relying solely on the supposed
“NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE” admission of the accused in the stipulation of facts. So now klaro na
na siya sa RULE 118 Sec. 2
So you are actually saying, I never did it. I never said anything to
that effect and therefore I did not make such admission. RULE 118, Section 2.Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or
admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be
Under your Rules of Evidence, prior to recent amendments, this is reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel,
the only exception to the rule that judicial admission binds the party. otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The
Isa lang ni siya ka exception but now they added the “no such agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule
admission was made”. shall be approved by the court. (Sec. 4, cir. 38-98)
Take note of this case: It is now there, the requirement in the case of FULE was now
reduced into a clear provision of law.
ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING VS CIR Nov 17, 1999. Im not going
to discuss that anymore. Try to contrast the case of FULE vs CA with the case of KING vs
PEOPLE Dec. 2, 1999.
NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE – they had not been made at all or
the admission was taken out of context or not in the sense in which KING vs PEOPLE – In an appeal from a conviction for BP 22, the
the admission was made to appear. You know what, lawyers you see accused contends that the pieces of documentary evidence
one thing, they add another thing = automatic pildi naka in this presented by the prosecution during pre trial are inadmissible
mind of his. because she did not sign the pre trial agreement. So what is Betty
King trying to say since wala ko nag prima edi libre nako. So ang
ATILLO III VS CA JAN 23, 1997 – for instance if a party invokes an contention niya is she should be acquitted as there is no reason for
admission of an adverse party but cites the admission out of conviction because those pieces of evidence during pre-trial could
context, then the one making the admission may show that he made not be taken against her on the ground that they were inadmissible
no show admission or that the admission was taken out of context. for her failure to sign the pre trial agreement. She is using the FULE
This may be interpreted to mean not in the sense in which the Doctrine to reverse her own conviction for BP 22.
admission is made to appear that is the reason for the codifier
“such”. The SC said… “True, a pre trial agreement not signed by the party is
inadmissible. However, the conviction of King in this case was not
SILOT VS DELA ROSA FEB 4, 2008 – Admission made by counsel is based on the agreement but on the documents submitted during
binding upon the clients. So again kung lawyer ka, do not be so the trial all of which were admitted without any objection from her
careless in making such admissions. counsel. Tanga ang lawyer, wala ni object.
FULE VS CA - Pre-Trial is mandatory also in mandatory in criminal During the hearing on September 17, 1993, the prosecution offered
cases. So in this case what happened here was of course, stipulation as evidence the dishonored checks, the return check tickets
of facts. Then what if the accuse admits or stipulates as to the addressed to private complainant, the notice from complainant
existence of certain facts and the effect of that would be for him to addressed to petitioner that the checks had been dishonored, and
make a confession or an admission of his guilt in the criminal case. the postmaster's letter that the notice had been returned to sender.
Can he be convicted based on confessions or admission? Of course,
Petitioner's counsel did not object to their admissibility.
you can. In fact, a mere extrajudicial admission together with the
corpus delicti would be sufficient to warrant a conviction.
It is clear that the prosecution evidence consisted of documents
So here, after Pre-Trial, of course you have a Pre Trial order or pre offered and admitted during the trial. In view of this, the CA
trial agreement between the accused and the prosecution. But the correctly ruled that Fule v. Court of Appeals would not apply to the
problem is wala gipirmahan sa accused and counsel ang pre trial present controversy. In that case, a hearing was conducted during
agreement. So if you make your confession remember there are which the prosecution presented three exhibits. However, Fule's
very important formal requirements of a confession especially in a conviction was "based solely on the stipulation of facts made during
rile pre-trial on August 8, 1985, which was not signed by the

petitioner, nor by his counsel." Because the stipulation was
inadmissible in evidence under Section 4 of Rule 118, the Court held
that there was no proof of his guilt.
In the present case, petitioner's conviction was based on the

evidence presented during trial, and not on the stipulations made
during the pretrial. Hence, petitioner's admissions during the trial
are governed not by the Fuleruling or by Section 4 of Rule 118, but
by Section 4 of Rule 129.
So mao na siya ang contention. On the one hand, we have Fule on

the other hand we have King. So make sure that you know the facts
of FULE and you also know how it is different from the facts of KING.
Kung naay pangutana sa bar about unsigned pre trial agreement, it
could either be FULE or KING.
July 22, 2016 green siya, rectangular in shape, so what does the class card
contain? It is the content of the document itself that is relevant.
We are at the pint of the semester that we really have to deal with In a way, in the appreciation of the documentary evidence, the court
Evidence Proper Already. If you are going to look at the entire law of rather than the mere use of the object evidence actually uses
evidence, you will find out that two rules are of prime significance. intelligence. When you talk about the content of the document you
First, Rule 130 on the Rules of admissibility, where you will be told have to construe it sometimes, you have to understand it; you have
what can and what cannot be admitted into evidence and Rule 132, to determine the respective rights and obligations of a party,
depending on what is written in the document. So in addition to the
which will tell you how to present evidence. Offers, objections and
five senses, the court if any uses intelligence. If any lang, kung nay
other rules that you need to remember. intelligence ang court. 
So we begin now with Rule 130 and for tonight’s lesson, we will only
3. Testimonial Evidence
be dealing with object evidence. I will limit it object evidence
because we cannot proceed to documentary evidence on the reason
Are oral or Written assertions offered in a court as a proof of what is
that I need to discuss with you DNA evidence. stated for as long as the witness whose testimony was offered,
perceived and in perceiving can make known its perception to
Lets us proceed to the Rules of Admissibility. Recall that when we others.
introduced evidence to this class. We classify them into three. We
have object evidence, documentary evidence and of course we have Requirements of a Testimonial Evidence
testimonial evidence.
First, the capacity of perception; you must be able to perceive, you
RULE 130 – RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS must be able to observe.
1. Object Evidence Second, is the capacity of recollection; mahinumduman nimu imung

na perceive, it is an object, document, and
Rule 130, Section 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are
those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is Third, the capacity of communication; you are able to make known
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined, or your perception to others. Those are the three capacities required in
viewed by the court. testimonial evidence.
These are evidence that is addressed to the senses of the court. Let us review a little bit of which among the three types of evidence
They are viewed and examined by the court because they are would be most preferred by the courts. Remember the case of:
relevant to the fact in issue in the case. (Rule 130, Section1)
PEOPLE VS LAVAPIE
They are also tangible evidence meaning it is something that you can
easily perceive. You do not have to imagine it, you see it, you hear it,
and you smell it, etcetera. Directly involve in the matters of the case The Supreme Court actually said that greater credence is to be given
as a matter of fact which tends to prove, relate to appearance, to physical evidence or real evidence as the evidence of a highest
existence, condition, and other matters related to the physical order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
existence of an object.
So on top of the hierarchy is the object evidence. It is the type of
In the appreciation of the object evidence, the court of course the evidence that we will be discussing tonight. And in the case of:
senses of sight, hearing, taste, and smell. And it is also called real
evidence because of what it has to do with the thing, the res. And it
GSIS vs. Court of Appeals
is the thing or object that is addressed to the senses of the court.
2. Documentary Evidence The Supreme Court also distinguishes between testimonial evidence
and documentary evidence. Generally, documentary evidence
Rule 130, Section 2. Documentary evidence – Documents as prevails over testimonial evidence.
evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written Atty JZE: But we also pointed out that actually there is a little room
expressions offered as proof of their contents. (n) for choice between the two types of evidence. Meaning in the
greater scheme of things, both of them are actually unreliable. So
As you have memorized, documents as evidence consist of writing object evidence lang gyud ang evidence of the highest order.
or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols
or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their Then between oral and written testimony, open court declarations
contents. (Rule 130, Section 2) takes precedence over written affidavits in the hierarchy of
evidence. Unlike written statements, there is flexibility on the part
For documentary evidence, what is important is not the physical of the questioner to adapt his questions to illicit out the answers in
document itself like this class card. This is not what is important order to ferret out the truth. So mas okay ang open court
declarations. We will learn later on the requirement that a to the case.

testimony must actually be made in the open court because it gives Actual Illustrative
the other party to cross examine and determine the truth or Demonstrative evidence tends
falsehood of a statement made by the witness. So we get that to show that the object fairly
hierarchy already. represents or illustrates what it
alleges.
But informally, there is a 4th class of evidence recognized by the
rules. So what do we call that 4th class? It tends to prove that the Atty JZE: Parehas kadtong akong
evidence is used in other example ganiha. What did I want
likelihood, making it material to show? The position where the
4. Demonstrative Evidence
evidence. bumping took place, where the
vehicle was coming from and
It is evidence in the form of an object like maps diagrams, or models
where my client was actually
that have, in themselves, no probative value but are used to
from. It is a representation an
illustrate and clarify the matter in issue. Demonstrative evidence, as
illustration on what is or what
evidence, not really prohibited though not specifically mentioned in
was alleged to have happened.
the Rules of Court.
It is an evidence in itself. It is an aid in testimony.
In appreciating demonstrative evidence, the court use the same five

So let us now go to Section 1, objects as evidence:
senses, but more importantly applies intelligence as well to draw
conclusions or inferences in the object presented. Thus, for
demonstrative evidence what is more important is not then object, Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are those
not the map, not the diagram, not the model, but the information addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to
that the objects create. the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court. (1a)
In my practice, I had the occasion to apply demonstrative evidence
by reason of necessity. Why? Remember when I told you that few We have also noted previously that when we talk about object
years back have like the dumbest witness I ever had. It is true evidence or real evidence, we are actually referring as well to what
because when he was bumped by a motorcycle. Gipangutana siya we call as AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE.
kung unsa siya kalayo nalagpot he said 50 METERS. If remember it
correctly. So the counsel for the defense, the PAO lawyer here even
BALINGIT VS. COMELEC, FEBRUARY 9, 2007
made a very crafty examination. So he asked, kung tinuod gyud na
nalagpot ka ug 50 metros nganung buhi pa ka? So what type of
question is that? That is actually very sarcastic. Autoptic proference, in legal parlance, simply means a tribunal's self-
perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself.
So what did I do? I made a demonstrative evidence in the form of a
diagram. To show clearly kung asa siya nabangaan when the So if we look at the etymology of the word itself it means “seen with
motorcycle bumped and kung asa siya nalagpot. So what we were your own eyes.” Auto means self and optic pertaining to the eyes.
trying to prove there is that the accused was really negligent in the So belonging to or connected with personal observation. That is the
operation of his vehicle as it that has caused him to bump somebody relation to the word autopsy. It actually means the same thing.
who was in the position on the road where he should not have been
bumped. So ingato akong gibuhat. Demonstrative evidence. So when applied to a Philippine Court, AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE is
the act of the tribunal or a majestry in exercising its senses to
Now will that demonstrative evidence constitute evidence by itself? determine the probative value of a particular object.
The answer is no because that was merely a visual aid, to aid the
witness in the progress of his necessity. So simple as that. The CALDE VS. COURT OF APPEALS ,JUNE 27, 1994.
diagram is not the evidence itself but the information that can be
culled from the presentation of the diagram and what the witness
says in court. So does the court exercise intelligence? It exercised In the making of a notarial will, there is a requirement that the
intelligence. Unsay nasabtan sa korte based on the testimony and witnesses must sigh in the presence of one another. All the attesting
what was presented by the diagram. witnesses in the making of the notarial will must sign in the presence
of the testator and in the presence of one another. That is a very
important requirement.
So how do we differentiate now real evidence from demonstrative
evidence?
In this case, two witnesses testified that only one pen was used in
the signing of the will. Only a black pen was used. However, the
Real Evidence Demonstrative Evidence court noted that there were actually two colors that were used in
Real Evidence consists of the actual will and in the codicil attached to the will, black and blue
intangible objects that played an Demonstrative Evidence is pen. So naa karuy doubt as to whether the will followed the formal
actual rule in the matter that tangible evidence that merely requirements under the law on succession.
gave rise to the case in litigation. illustrates the matter of
So it really has a part, it is really importance in the litigation.
So According to the Supreme Court:
very integral to the fact in issue
A review of the facts and circumstances, however, fails to convince - Or means to perpetrate the crimes; like keys kanang
us that the testamentary documents in question were subscribed false keys for example in a crime of trespass.
and attested by the instrumental witnesses during a single occasion. - Or a murder weapon by itself; A gun, a knife and so
The signatures of some attesting witnesses in decedent’s will and its on and so forth. So you bring it before the court room
codicil were written in blue ink, while the others were in black. This and have the court inspect it.
discrepancy was not explained by petitioner. Nobody of his six (6)
witnesses testified that two pens were used by the signatories on 2.) That which consist in the inspection of the object outside
the two documents. In fact, two (2) of petitioner’s witnesses even the court room.
testified that only one (1) ballpen was used in signing the two
testamentary documents. The will and the codicil.
Examples:
That a person is of small height or is of dark complexion (is this guy - Ocular inspection in a boundary dispute. So muadto
talking about me?); as to such matters, the perception by the
ang court didto with the interpreter and with the
tribunal that the person is small or large, or that he has a dark or clerk of court usahay pa gyud just to see the
light complexion, is a mode of acquiring belief which is independent
muniments of the property.
of inference from either testimonial or circumstantial evidence. It is
- Ocular inspection of a crime scene. You cannot order
the tribunal’s self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself. From
the other party by way of a subpoena to bring with
the point of view of the litigant party furnishing this source of belief,
you a parcel of land in dispute. You cannot do that
it may be termed Autoptic Proference. because it is incapable of being brought inside the
court room.
So in the case of Calde, it actually paved the way for autoptic - An ocular inspection of the court without the
proference over positive testimony. There was a testimony that presence of the parties or without due notice to
they signed in the presence of one another. But, by reason of both of them is not valid because when you conduct
autoptic proference, by the initiative of the court itself, they an ocular inspection it is technically speaking part of
invalidated the will for the reason that there might have been non- the trial. Instead of bringing objects into the court
compliance with the requirements of article 805 of the Civil Code. room, the court is brought outside to examine the
object.
So, in black and white — or more accurately, in black and blue —
that more than one pen was used by the signatories thereto. Thus, it 3.) That which consist in experimentation
was neither erroneous nor baseless for respondent court to
disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both testamentary documents in
- Experimentation in evidence is that which requires
question were subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of
the manipulation of the physical objects within or
Art. 805 of the Civil Code.
outside a courtroom to determine a fact in issue. So
remember ha, experimentation can both be done
Interesting na kaso. That is the importance of autoptic proference. inside or outside the courtroom.
That is the importance of object evidence.
Let us look at some of the examples:
Again. How many witnesses were they able to produce? 6 witnesses.
All attesting to the fact that they sign in the presence of one
a.) Examination inside the courtroom:
another. I don’t know why nganu niabot ug six witnesses na turo ra
man ang kinihanglan. All of them were saying that we signed in the
presence of one another. But since autoptic proference speaks more - The accused, a frail and short individual, is charged of
eloquently than a hundred witnesses, it is autoptic proference that murdering Mateo by repeatedly bashing his head
prevails. REMEMBER THIS CASE. with a hammer. The defense asked the accused to
raise the hammer and demonstrate to the court the
impossibility of him using the hammer as a murder
Take note that autoptic preference is not limited to the view of the weapon. And the accused may also ask the court to
object. Dili lang kay magtan aw ka. It extends to visual, auditory, hold the hammer and say “Bug-at ba, Judge?” Or
tactile, gustatory, and olfactory. Simply, it is sight, hear, taste, ipagunit nimu sa prosecution. “Bug-at ba?”
touch, and smell.
Can the accused physically lift that in order to use it
Now there is this CLASSIFICATION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE. We need as a murder weapon? That is the experimentation.
to take note of what they are. According to our noble author Moran, You manipulate an object inside a court room.
1.) Those object evidence which consist in the exhibition or - Blood sampling like what happened in the case of
production of the evidence inside the court room. PEOPLE VS. YATAR inside the courtroom in the
presence of the counsel. It can be considered as an
Examples: experimentation.
- Objects of the crime; kadtong gikawat then na b.) What about experimentation outside the courtroom?
retrieve so gipresent sa court to be identified
- In the crime scene. In order to view or appreciate But later on, he was found out civilly liable for the wrongful
what happened. You can conduct a re-enactment. death, awarding the families of the victims millions of dollars.
That is allowed. Re-enactment is said to be The quantum of proof required is simply preponderance of
demonstrative evidence. You can do that outside of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. There goes the
the court room. In the crime scene. life and crime of ORIENTAL JAMES SIMPSON.
Now here is an example of evidence which consist in One thing you need to remember when you become lawyers,
experimentation,” IF THE GLOVES DON’T FIT, YOU MUST never present in court anything that would later on bring in
ACQUIT.” unexpected consequences. If you don’t know what is going to
happen never present it. Never ask a question that you never
Are you familiar with this guy? (Sir shows the picture of O.J know the answer to yet. 
Simpson). He is a quintessential football player and an
occasional actor. He gained a lot of fame due to different Now, WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
movies re-enacting what has transpired in the case of: OBJECT EVIDENCE? We go back to the basics here.
PEOPLE VS. O.J SIMPSON 1.) It must be relevant to the fact in issue to the case
2.) It must be authenticated.
OJ Simpson married Nicole Brown who is according to gossip is 3.) It must not be hearsay
a very promiscuous individual,  Eventually, they say he is a 4.) Not privileged or not otherwise excluded by the law
wife beater. They were estranged from one another. or the rules.
5.) It must meet any additional requirements set by the
law.
Nicole began dating another man in the name of Rod Goldman.
When both Nicole and Rod went home to the old conjugal
dwelling of O.J and Nicole, someone attacked them via knife Requisite (1) - RELEVANCY
and killed them.
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
The evidence found was blood splatters scattered all over the belief in its existence or non-existence. That is basic relevancy. In the
scene of the crime. After the police learned of the incident, case of:
they went to the house of O.J to supposedly inform him of what
has happened to his wife. When they were at the house of O.J, PEOPLE VS. RULLEPA, MARCH 5, 2003
there were traces of blood all. A bloody glove similar to what he
is wearing then was found in the premises. The police retrieved
A person's appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object
it and packed it to be used as evidence. evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the court.
O.J had the Dream Team of the best defense criminal lawyers in
QUESTION: Since we are talking here of relevancy, the probability or
the U.S including the Atty. Kardashian, the father of Kim
improbability of the fact in issue, when do you consider a fact in
Kardashian and her other slutty siblings  . It was said to be
issue?
the trial of the century.
The answer is simply when THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT of the

In the course of the trial, the prosecution proposed that O.J will
parties which makes in an issue.
have to try the glove, which is experimentation. If maigo, it will
engender a belief in the mind of the jury that he was wearing
the gloves which was probably used during the commission of Let us try to broaden our understanding a little bit. So what would
the offense. If it fits, it will leave a lasting impression on the be the fact in issue for prosecution for violation of R.A 9165 after a
jury. Hence, buy-bust operation? (Called a student)
But unfortunately the gloves did not fit. The gloves cannot even That the SALE OF DRUGS HAS BEEN CONSUMMATED. The
be closed. prosecution would want to approve it and the accused denies it.
So by reason of experimentation, what was the lasting Now remember that the requirement if relevancy answers the
impression that remained in the minds of the jury? That it does question of whether or not particular evidence is related to the fact
not fit. So, the lawyer of O.J pleaded to the jury the very the in issue to a case. What do you think would be a good relevant
famous mantra which says: evidence in the violation of R.A 9165?
“It does not fit, so, If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit” The DRUG ITSELF AND THE MARKED MONEY. It is because it proves
that there is a sale. So you have to remember the requisites of a
valid sale. (Consent, subject matter, and the price certain money).
By reason thereof he was acquitted by the jury - by reason of
the blunder by the prosecution in engaging in autoptic
proference by experimentation. So in the case of:
PEOPLE VS. DE LOS REYES (1994) If you look documentary evidence, there are rules there as to the
authentication and proof of documents. But for object evidence,
actually the rules are not quite clear.
The admissibility of the marked money in evidence is governed by
Section 1, Rule 130 of the 1989 Rules on Evidence, which provides
that when an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be By the way, why do we need to authenticate something?
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. The marked money,
being the consideration paid for the shabu, was relevant to the fact a.) To prevent the introduction of an object different form
in issue — the sale of shabu. the one being testified about.
According to Wigmore, OBJECT EVIDENCE LIKE ANY OTHER o An exchange of evidence. Something innocent
EVIDENCE MUST PASS THE TEST OF ADMISSIBILITY OR RELEVANCE becoming incriminatory.
AND COMPETENCY. Thus, if an object is excluded by the law or the
rules such as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the object is b.) To ensure that there has been no significant changes in
not admissible. the objects original condition.
Likewise, autoptic proference must also be relevant, and it is o Example: in an ocular inspection, the court goes
relevant only when it makes a fact of consequence, more or less to the area to determine that there has been an
probable, in the absence of autoptic proference. Object evidence in encroachment in the property of the other. That
itself does not establish factum probandum because there is no is boundary dispute. But inig abot diay sa area
factum probandum solely by autoptic evidence. kay wala nay encroachment.
o I have like a weird case before, in the hinterlands
What do I mean that there is no factum probandum? Example nay of Davao del Sur. It is a boundary dispute as to
nabilin na kutsilyo. What does it prove by itself? Wala, kutsilyo lang who own the mango tree. A crime of theft was
siya. But you have to relate it to other factum probans like charged against the employee of the owner of
evidentiary facts or by circumstantial evidence. Kay kinsa na siya? the adjacent land. So you need to determine
Asa gikan ang kutsilyo? Asa gigamit ang kutsilyo? Until finally you who owns the mango tree. Settled ang case in
can come up with a factum probandum that it was the accused that the end. So in that situation, what if pag-abot
used the knife to kill the victim. See? There is no factum probandum didto there has been changes in the condition of
that can be proved solely by object evidence. Daghan pa ka ug manga? Diba?
kinahanglan.
So what I am going to tell you now is something that you need to
Object evidence must, therefore, be supported by other remember. WHAT IS THE PROCESS OF AUTHENTICATING OBJECT
propositions and in the ultimate analysis it must be proven that it EVIDENCE?
has a logical relationship with the fact in issue. Remember that.
1.) Produce proof of the identity of the object.
Requisite (2) - AUTHENTICATION
- How do you prove that? By the testimony of the witness as
Authentication only means that the genuineness of the object must to objects that are readily identifiable by sight, provided
be proven. It requires that the admission of an object must be there is a basis for identification by the witness. This may
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the object either be markings, place of the witness in the object such
in question is what it purport or claims it to be. as his initials, his pictures in the digital cameras, or by
peculiar characteristic of the objects. For example, by
It is quite mouthful to read and understand. So let us simplify certain physical features which sets it apart from others
everything. So when you authenticate something, what in essence from the same kind or class by which is readily identified
you are trying to do? You are trying to prove to the satisfaction of like a hole in a sweater caused by burning or a knife na
the court that the object is what it purports to be. What it is offered nabali ang gunitanan.
for.
When there are peculiar characteristics or when there are markings,
So if it is a knife used in an unlawful killing, you are going to all you have to do is to readily identify the object. Because you know
authenticate it by trying to prove that it was used in the killing, that the peculiar characteristic and you also know of the marking, you
it was the very murder weapon. That is authentication. What else are the one who placed the marking.
do you need to do? You have to prove it by evidence sufficient to
support the finding that the object is what it claims or purport to be. 2.) Proof of the integrity of the object.
That will be a little bit tricky. We are going to explain that later on
kung unsa na. - It is where you now have the need to look at the chain of
custody in the event the object is passed on to different
I invite you to look at your Rules of Court and try to find a provision persons.
in the rules of evidence relating to authentication of objects.
An example of that is Section 21 of R.A 9165. Daghan kayo
requirements but these requirements are intended to ensure a
proper chain of custody in the handling of the dangerous drugs. We
will deal to that later on. But in the onset, let me just tell you that General Rule: The one who took the photograph, the
the process of authentication in Republic Act 9165 actually happens photographer.
outside of the courtroom because eventually, it is no longer brought
inside the courtroom kay diba there is that requirement na dapat i- Exception: Anyone who is familiar with the persons,
destroy, or sunogon. So all that you have will be the measurements, places, or things shown can testify if it is already
the photographs of the dangerous drugs. . impossible for the photographer to authenticate.
Let us try to simplify that; you need to account for every step that
took place or every chain or link in the chain of custody for retrieval
for presentation of evidence. All the links must be accounted for and
that would now be proof of the identity of the object evidence.
When the object passed into the possession of the stranger, or SISON VS. PEOPLE, NOVEMBER 16, 1995.
somebody who had no right to hold the object, there is doubt as to
the integrity, and worse the identity of the object, because now you In a prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented photographs
can tamper with the object evidence. For example: a sachet of drugs showing the accused mauling the victim. Gikuhaan ug picture. Unya
came into the possession of a stranger who changed it with a VETSIN kadtong picture nato mao na to ilang gibuhat na ebidensya to prove
or TAWAS. that they are the ones who mauled the victim.
Proof of integrity also by proving the proper preservation of the The person who took the photographs was not presented as a
object which consists of showing that the object was kept in a witness. Instead, the prosecution presented the companions of the
secured place as to make contamination or alteration difficult and it victim who testified that they are the ones in the photographs.
has not been brought out until its presentation in the court.
The defense objected the admissibility of the photographs because
Example: In O.J Simpson case, the blood samples, stains seen in the the person who took the photographs was not presented as the
scene of the crime. What he police investigator or the forensic team witness.
did when they get to the scene of the crime was to photograph and
retrieve samples for later analysis sa kung kay kinsang dugo ang Would that contention be tenable?
nakita. The prosecution is trying to prove that the blood seen in the
scene of the crime belongs to O.J Simpson. Why do they need to do
No. The general rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when
that? Because it places him at the scene of the crime contrary to
presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to
what he was saying that he was not there. An alibi. So why would his
its production and testified as to the circumstances under which
blood be there where in fact he was not the victim? So possible na
they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its
nagsukol ang victims and caused him to lose some blood.
being a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and
its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene
But the defense was able to prove the fact na pagkakuha sa blood, at the time of the crime.
gibutang sa iyang bulsa, niuli ug balay, natulog, naligo unya gisulod
balik ang jacket, balik sa laboratory. Kadto pa niya gipa analyze. So
The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify
the integrity of the evidence can be suspected in that situation. It
the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a
was not kept in a secured place to prevent contamination or
faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima
alteration. So that is proof of integrity.
facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other
competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to
What you need to do is prove the identity and integrity of the impeachment as to its accuracy.
object for authentication of object evidence.
Here the photographs are admissible as the correctness thereof is
Now take note that for specific objects, naa tay mga specific process testified thereto by the companions of the victim. So nakita nila na
of authentication: uy ako ni, akoa na kauban kanang naa sa picture. So according to the
Supreme Court, that is enough authentication, no need to present
A.) Photographs, pictures, maps, diagrams- (Example- illegal the photographer.
structures constructed in the land of Atty. Espejo’s client.
Photographs were presented to prove it. ) B.) Tape Recording
o Authenticity is the act of proving the accuracy of

TORRALBA VS. PEOPLE
the things, persons, or places in the photograph
which may be through the testimony of the
photographer or anyone familiar with the The accused here is charged with libel. Presented as evidence is a
person, places, or things shown therein. tape recording of the radio broadcast made by the daughter of the
complainant. Meaning, habang ginabroadcast, giingnan sa
complainant iyang adopted daughter to record it.
Who can authenticate a photograph?
The daughter was not presented as a witness. Only the complainant o An example is a bolo knife made as a killing
who, in open court, testified that he was not familiar with the knife which could be identified by a witness
process of the recording. When he was asked what was the process testimony. Nganu man nay nag-identify?
of recording, he said that he does not know. Because it is made unique. It is no longer a bolo
but it is already that bolo.
So is the tape recording properly admitted?
c.) Non-unique objects - There is no way that they can
have identifying marks and cannot likewise be
According to the Supreme Court, the person who actually took the
recording must be presented in order to lay the foundation for the marked. Perfect example is footprints left at the
crime scene which was also a piece of evidence in the
admission of the tape recording.
O.J Simpson case. Naay shoe print didto. They were
trying to prove na ang shoe print nga to kay Simpson
In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a but it was already disregarded.
tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value,
the following requisites must first be established, to wit:
Now chain of custody is important when you are trying to
authenticate. But in trying to prove chain of custody, what you are
1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking actually trying to do is to present circumstantial evidence or
testimony; evidence on collateral matters. They do not bear directly on the
object but it relates on the circumstances in handling the object. So
(2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent; mao na ang chain of custody. It is necessary to raise the chain of
custody when the object evidence is not unique as it is not readily
(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the identifiable or was not made under the trial identified or cannot be
recording; made identifiable.
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been Example: blood, it came from the crime scene. Oil, drugs in powder
made; form, fiber, grains of sand, and other similar objects. So how do we
mark them? We can mark them without actually trying to destroy
the integrity of the object. So ang importantly dira is you should be
(5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording;
able to prove the chain of the custody.
(6) identification of the speakers; and

Now take note that chain of custody is important because it
prevents tampering or exchange of evidence. Remember, because
(7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made they are non-unique objects, they belong to a class that can be easily
without any kind of inducement replaced by something else.
C.) Videos The purpose again is to guarantee the integrity of the evidence and
to prevent the introduction of evidence which is not authentic.
- It is a lot easier than authenticating tape recording. You
just have to authenticate it just like authenticating But when the exhibit is positively identified because it is capable of
photographs. Mubalik lang ta sa doctrine sa Sison vs. positive identification, the chain of custody of the object evidence is
People. It can be the videographer, who will be presented no longer significant. Nganu? Kay identified na man. Most especially
or anyone competent, according to the Supreme Court. kung identified in court.
Any other witness who can testify as to its exactness and
accuracy. So now it will be part of the records of the court, so there is no
longer a need to explain the chain of custody in certain situations.
For purposes of authentication, object evidence can be of three
classes: Requisite (3) - MUST NOT BE HEARSAY
a.) Unique Objects or those who have readily identifiable The witness who testified about the object must have personal
marks. knowledge of it. For example ang imung gidala sa courtroom as your
evidence would be a can of sardines. Whose can of sardines is that?
o Example: A car with a plate number: MGA239, or Does it belong to the witness? Kung wala silay relasyun, well that is
a 45-caliber pistol with serial number 14344. So hearsay. He/she must have the personal knowledge over the can of
these are identifiable marks. It sets them apart sardines.
from all others of the same class. It has been
segregated already. Requisite (4) - MUST NOT BE PRIVILEGED OR NOT OTHERWISE
EXCLUDED BY THE LAW OR THE RULES
b.) Objects made unique. By nature they are not unique
but they can be made unique. It means that the object must pass the axiom of competency.
For example, wiretap recording proposed to be played in court. Dili For example, a hand writing. Can a person be compelled to produce
pwede because that is not a competent evidence. So kung ing ana a sample of his handwriting to determine his liability as the author
imung evidence, it is excluded by the law and the rules, it cannot be of a certain document? So ang issue didto kay kadtong pagpasulat
presented as evidence. sa imuha, is it a testimonial compulsion or is it a purely mechanical
act?
Now, according to Edmund Locard’s Evidentiary Exchange Principle,
when you go to the crime scene, you leave traces behind. So if you No. Writing is not a merely a mechanical act. It is produced through
are the attacker, you leave something with you behind like hair, skin the use of an intellect. It involves the application of your intellect.
samples and sometimes blood samples. In a crime of rape and When you are using intellect it is not anymore a purely mechanical
where there is seminal discharge, you leave your seed, magbilin act.
gyud ka ug biological sample. So how do you now determine
whether the biological sample is really that of the accused? So the If the accused, however, testifies in his own behalf and denies
means where the agent of the State may resort to is to get a sample ownership, he may be compelled to produce a sample. In that
from you. To compare it with what was left in the crime scene. situation, it is better for the accused not to testify, not to take the
witness stand altogether.
So the question is would the blood samples taken from the accused
violate his right to remain silent and his right against self- PEOPLE VS. WILLIAM, JUNE 15, 1992
incrimination where, you cannot be compelled to be a witness
against yourself? Would it be incriminating, if you will supply that
Would object evidence would still be admissible on the premise that
last link to get the verdict?
it is beyond the commerce of man?
THE ANSWER OF COURSE IS IT WILL NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT. The

Let us go back to Sales again, diba there is this requirement, that the
carnal of the right is not all compulsion but against testimonial
subject matter in the contract of sale should be licit. So, what is a
compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is simply the legal
sample of a subject matter that is illicit? Of course narcotics under
process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of
R.A 9165, human body it cannot be sold, dynamites, explosives, rare
guilt. It does not apply when the evidence sought to be admitted is
wild birds, rare mammals, wild plants,
not incrimination but as part of object evidence.
In this case, what he wanted to be excluded as object evidence is

The Supreme Court here confirms that when a biological sample is
marijuana. He contends that it is inadmissible as it is beyond the
taken from you, it is object evidence. Therefore, there cannot be any
commerce of man.
incrimination. Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to finger
printing, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA as there is no
testimonial compulsion. This case of People vs. Yatar actually paved How did the Supreme Court Rule? Quoting with approval the
the way for the use of DNA evidence in the Philippines. Solicitor General. According to Supreme Court: P.L Pataka lang ka.
In the U.S and in other countries, dugay na nila ginagamit ang DNA, The probative value of the evidence is not affected by the fact that it
even during the time of O.J SImson. 1990’s ni na kaso. They were is beyond the commerce of man. Appellants raised the strange
using DNA profiling already and DNA tests to determine the argument that it does not have the probative value, because the
probability and improbability of guilt. subject thereof, marijuana, is beyond the commerce of man. This is
untenable.
In People vs. Yatar, the Supreme Court actually mentioned it. DNA is
part of object evidence. Therefore, there cannot be any violation of
the right against self-incrimination.
PEOPLE VS. ADULAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2008
After the case of People vs. Yatar, the Supreme Court already came
The "objective" test in scrutinizing buy-bust operations. In People v.
out with the Rule on DNA evidence. In an attempt to exclude the
Doria, we said:
evidence, the appellant here contends that the blood samples taken
from him as well as the DNA testing conducted is in violation of his
right to remain silent and his right against self-incrimination. But We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations
that contention is untenable. Pwede ka ma compel. That’s what the demands that the details of the purported transaction must be
case is saying. clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial
contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the
When you say right against self-incrimination, what acts does it consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject
cover? It covers all acts that would incriminate the accused but it of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made,
excludes acts which are purely mechanical or purely physical. whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the
drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the
Ingani akong pangutana, if you are the accused, then the judge will illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer,
say. “How did you rape the victim? You simulate raping the victim must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-
there.” Can you do that? Can that be considered as incrimination? abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.
Atty JZE: If you look at it, it is like the Supreme Court is trying to LOPEZ VS PEOPLE (2008)
establish the elements of a sale. There is an offer; there is
acceptance of the price, until consummated by the transfer of the As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
illegal drugs. Imporatante nimu ipakita ng consideration, the drug requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
money and the drugs itself. sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
PEOPLE VS. BRECINIO, MARCH 17, 2004 touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness
Mateo is charged for the murder of Gerald. After trial, Mateo was possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition
found guilty as charged. On appeal, Mateo argued that the trial in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
court should have acquitted him as the lower court has not proved witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the paraffin test there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
conducted on him two days after he was arrested yielded a negative opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the
result. Hence, he could not have shot Gerald. same.
Is Mateo Correct? No. Let us review our concepts a little bit here. Specifically with respect
to object and admissibility of the evidence:
Likewise, while the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did
not ipso facto prove that the appellant was innocent. Time and 1.) Take note that Object evidence is the evidence of the
again, we have held that a negative paraffin result is not conclusive highest order as it speaks a little more eloquently
proof that a person has not fired a gun. than a hundred of witnesses.
2.) Remember also that no object evidence must be
Stated otherwise, it is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for admitted unless it is identified by a competent
nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his witness. All evidence that must be presented must be
hands afterwards. Since appellant submitted himself for paraffin sponsored evidence. There has to be a witness
testing only two days after the shooting, it was likely he had already testifying in court otherwise the same cannot be
washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing all traces of nitrates settled in court.
therefrom.
When can the presentation of evidence be dispensed with and
Atty JZE: Kanang result sa paraffin test unsa man na? That is replaced by mere testimony or documents?
experimentation. The fact that you are subjected to paraffin test and
result ingun ana is an object evidence by experimentation. a. If its exhibition is contrary to public morals or decency.
Remember that case.
b. To require being viewed in court or in ocular inspection would
Requisite (5) - OBJECT EVIDENCE MUST MEET OTHER result in delays, inconvenience, or unnecessary expenses which is
REQUIREMENTS BY LAW not in proportion to the evidentiary value of such object.
Section 21 of Republic Act 9165. CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIREMENT c. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading as when
IN DRUGS CUSTODY CASES. the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object and there
is no preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change
But, why is it seen as an additional requirement under the law? in the said condition; which is applicable to ocular inspections; or
Under ordinary chain of custody, it does not require photographing, d. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented
the presence of a barangay official, or presence of the members of clearly portrays the object in question as to render the view thereof
the media. Walay ingun ana. It is just in drugs cases. That is a specific unnecessary.
requirement in dangerous drugs cases.
e. Where the existence of the object is not very the fact in issue but
REVIEW: FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT is merely a collateral fact, or is merely used as reference.
EVIDENCE
Examples:
1.) Relevant;
2.) Must be authenticated; 1. When a witness testifies that the accused was drinking a bottle of
3.) Must not be hearsay; gin. When he threatened to shoot the witness, it is not necessary to
4.) Must not be privileged or excluded by law or produce the bottle.
evidence;
5.) Must meet additional requirements set forth by the 2. The witness claims that the accused threw a stone at his car, the
law; presentation of the stone is not anymore necessary.
3. Where the article cannot be recovered or outside the coercive It happened to me. I was a collaborating counsel in a case I handled
jurisdiction of the court. in Cebu. The guy was cheating on his wife. Case for concubinage was
actually filed against him since there was no anti-VAW-C law at that
PEOPLE VS TAGUBA 342 SCRA 199. time yet. The ground was there was sexual intercourse with a
woman not his wife under scandalous circumstances. The only
proof that we presented was the sex-tape in VHS. So how do you
In cases involving the illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution attach that to the complaint? Of course you need to replay, get
has the burden of proving (a) the existence of the subject firearm, screen shots out of it. That is what you attach. But that will not really
and (b) the fact that the accused does not have corresponding prove whether carnal knowledge was indeed under scandalous
permit to possess. circumstances. So I was the one who presented the evidence, and
the evidence was the video tape.
As to the first requisite the evidence can be best established by the
presentation of the firearm but there is no requirement that the So there was a question, “Your Honor, is there a need to present the
actual firearm itself must be presented in court. It is not fatal if the evidence in court considering that it contains an obscene and
prosecution did not present the firearms itself. Its existence can be indecent show? “ But the court said, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
established by a testimony. WE WILL WATCH THE VIDEO TAPE. So all the lawyers, together with
the judge, went to his chamber. We watched the videotape to
Where the articles however are not common or not familiar to determine whether or not it is scandalous. 
ordinary persons, and cannot be identified by sight, they must be
presented in court. We are done with object evidence. Let us know a little bit about
documentary evidence.
Other limitations:
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence
 The admission of the object evidence is subject to the consist of writing or any material containing letters, words,
demands of decency and propriety, unless the admission is numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression
extremely necessary. offered as proof of their contents. (n)
Examples: Distinction between object evidence and documentary evidence.
Exhibition of the private parts in sex cases. Alangan muingun si *Atty. Espejo called Ms. Glorybelle Resurreccion and gave her a
judge the court is interested on how you commit it. Diba?  stone
Presentation of the corpse or disembodied body parts. Atty. Espejo: Does it smell good?
Re-enactment of violent/ offensive acts. (Halimbawa, Mateo Glorybelle: It does not smell anything.
raped Maja. His defense that he did not rape Maja is because
he is incapable of an having an erection. He maintains that rape
Atty. Espejo: Meaning it is clean. Can you please describe to
for him is an impossible crime due to the fact that his manhood me the stone’s physical attributes?
is an ineffectual means to commit the crime. So can the judge
say na ”Show me that it is really ineffectual”? The judge cannot
do that. The judge cannot ask Mateo to experiment on himself. Glorybelle: Black, roundish, smooth, and the weight is 30ish
grams. 
 Objects which are offensive to man’s sensibilities or

repulsive objects should not be presented anymore. Waste Atty. Espejo: So by its physical attributes, it is always an
matters like human excreta, corpses of dead animals, or object. So it cannot be a document. Right? Now
killing of an animal to prove that the substance is poison. turn over the stone. Read what is written there.
You can just have a chemical analysis of it. Have a chemist
testify for it. No need for experimentation. Glorybelle: “Pay to B or his order, P 50,000, signed A”
While obscene or indecent objects are no longer needed to be Atty. Espejo: So if you are trying to propose this for an
presented in court, there may be instances where they may be admission in court and you want to prove what it
permissible to be exhibited. looks like, how much it weighs (30ish grams), it is
an object.
 If a view of the object is necessary in the interest of
justice, such object may still be exhibited. But the court But despite it being an object, being a stone, if
may exclude the public from such view. The view may not there is something written on it, it makes it a
be refused if the indecent or immoral objects constitute documentary evidence. So do not look at
the very basis of the criminal or civil action (e.g obscene documentary evidence from the point of view of
pictures or exhibits). material, whether it is papyric or non-papyric in
nature. Even if it is not in a paper, it can still be
considered as a document.
I will give you an example which happened in It boils down now on whether it is documentary or an object
Germany. When a man is about to die in an evidence. If it is documentary evidence, the Best Evidence Rule
accident, at his body he wrote using the blood applies. If it is not, no need to apply the Best Evidence Rule.
flowing from him “ALL TO WIFE”. So meaning he
is giving all his property to his wife. That can be The answer is the photocopy is object evidence. It is not
perceived as a document. documentary evidence because it is not offered as proof of its
contents. Being object evidence, Best Evidence Rule does not apply.
Atty. Espejo: I have here another object. A crumpled paper.
What are its attributes? Of course it is rough, BAR QUESTION (2005)
10ish grams, but because it is paper, it is possible
na pwede siyang sulatan. Let us try to open and
see what is written in the crumpled paper. I Q: May a private document be offered, and admitted in evidence
think there is a story on it and it is addressed to both as documentary evidence and object evidence?
me.
Suggested Answer: Yes. A private document can be admitted both
“DEAREST ATTY. ESPEJO: as documentary evidence and object evidence. A document can also
be considered as an object for purposes of the case. Objects as
evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. (Section 1,
I PROMISE TO PAY YOU MY DEBT AMOUNTING TO P100, 000. I Rule 130)
PROMISE ALSO TO LOVE YOU FOREVER.
Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing

XXXX”
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents. (Section 2, Rule 130)
Atty. Espejo: So what does it say? If it is crumpled, does it Hence, a private document may be presented as object evidence in
prove anything else? No. What about the order to establish certain physical characteristics that are visible on
contents? It proves na naa siyay utang kay Atty. the paper and writings that comprise the document.
Espejo.
Conclusion: Despite the fact that it is papyric in nature, it does not

have to be documentary evidence. Perfect example there is money.
Is the serial number of the money relevant to the fact in issue? No.
Therefore, money, generally, is an object.
QUESTION: IS THERE AN INSTANCE WHERE A DOCUMENT CAN BE July 22, 2016

TREATED AS AN OBJECT? OR OBJECT TREATED AS A DOCUMENT?
Atty. Espejo: Read all of the decided cases after the effectivity of the
Yes. So if a document is presented to present its physical DNA Evidence Rule up to the latest case of Poe-LLamanzares vs.
characteristics, regardless of what it is, it is object evidence. But, if it COMELEC. But take particular attention only to the Separate Opinion
is used to prove anything written upon it, it is documentary of Chief Justice Sereno. The main opinion of the Court did not
evidence. What matters therefore is the INTENT. What do you mention DNA evidence but only the Separate Opinions of Sereno,
intend to do, that’s what it is. Carpio and Jardeleza.
So the writing or material must prove its contents in order for it to DNA EVIDENCE
qualify as documentary evidence. Note that for the evidence itself to
be considered as documentary, it is not dependent on the material What is DNA?
for writing. For this reason, a non-papyric material may be “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules
considered documentary evidence. found in every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an
individual’s DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins
BAR QUESTION (1994) “DNA Evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results
and other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing
At the trial of A for the violation of Dangerous Drugs Act, the of biological samples.
prosecution offered in evidence a photocopy of the marked
P100bills used in the buy-bust operation. A objects the presentation Interesting Facts:
of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule 1. 97% of our DNA is considered JUNK DNA, or components
prohibits the introduction of the secondary evidence in lieu of the with no known biological functions
original. 2. Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans,
depending on how it is calculated.
Can the photocopy be admissible as evidence? 3. Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82%
with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69%
with rats and 67% with mice.
4. Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans.
5. 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans, 90% of

the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the Mengele, a psychopath, was a notorious member of the team of
human genome, 99% of mouse genes turn out to have doctors responsible for the selection of victims to be killed in the gas
analogues with humans chambers and for performing deadly human experiments on
6. The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares 60% of its DNA with prisoners.
humans. About 60% of the chicken genes correspond to a
similar human gene. His experiments:
 Twin boy toddlers were sewn together so Mengele could
How similar is the DNA of one person with another? investigate how Siamese twins behaved.
 Genome-wide variation form one being to another can be  In another case, one twin was infected with TB then both
up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity) were killed so Mengele could observe the different
pathology.
Q: Given this similarity, how accurate can DNA evidence be in  Twin girls were forced to have sex with a pair of male
identifying a possible perpetrator and excluding others? twins and, if they got pregnant, kill them and remove the
embryos for study.
A:Pretty accurate. The set of chromosomes in a cell makes up
its genome; the human genome has approximately 3 billion So, Germany fell, Mengele fled and eluded capture.Decades into the
base pairs of DNA arranged into 46 chromosomes. According to manhunt for Mengele, there were alleged sightings of him as late as
the FBI, the chance of misidentification is 1 in a billion. No two 1985
persons have identical DNA except with respect to identical
twins In 1969, a man named Wolfgang Gerhard drowned in Brazil and was
buried there. Blood specimens from Mengele’s wife and son were
Edmund Locard (1877-1966) used to reconstitute Mengele’s DNA pattern. In 1992, the remains of
Dr.Locard was a pioneer in forensic science who became known as Gerhard were confirmed to be those of Mengele.
the Sherlock Holmes of France. He formulated the basic principle of
forensic science: “Every contact leaves a trace.” This became known Determination of Parentage and Pedigree: The Russian Imperial
as the Locard’s exchange principle. Romanov Family
Locard’s Exchange Principle: After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, deposed Tsar Nicholas II,
"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even his wife and five children were executed by the Bolshevik Troops
without consciousness, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not upon orders of Lenin on July 17, 1918.
only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his
clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he They were all buried in unmarked graves for fear of desecration.
scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these Rumors persisted, however, that the youngest daughter, Anastasia
and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does had survived and escaped Russia. Survival of a member of the Royal
not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is family could have been used as a rallying point by anti-Bolshevik
not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. groups to depose the new communist regime.
Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot Then, in 1920, a woman named Anna Anderson surfaced in Germany
be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and claiming to be “lost” Romanov heiress, Anastasia.
understand it can diminish its value."
In 1991, the bones of the Romanov family were discovered and
Atty. Espejo: What Locard is saying is that DNA, biological samples, verified through DNA matching with a relative, Prince Philip,
[or] all other object evidence that might be found in the crime scene, husband of Queen Elizabeth II.
that is the best evidence. That is the best witness because that type
of witness will not lie. By that time, Ann Anderson was already dead. A sample of
Anderson’s tissue, part of her intestine removed during her
Purposes of DNA Evidence operation in 1979, had been stored at Martha Jefferson Hospital,
 Identification (unidentified corpses in airplane crashes, Charlottesville, Virginia. Anderson’s mitochondrial DNA was
decomposed murder victims, for example) extracted from the sample and compared with that of the Romanovs
 Determination of parentage and pedigree (paternity and and their relatives.
maternity testing)
 Criminal Investigation (inclusion and elimination of suspect It did not match that of the Duke of Edinburgh or that of the bones,
by the police in building a case) confirming that Anderson was not related to the Romanovs.
Criminal Prosecution, in which DNA could be used to convict DNA in Criminal Prosecution
perpetrators of crime as well as to exonerate innocent individuals.
This makes DNA evidence either: Between 1983 and 1986, two 15-year old girls were separately
 Inculpatory raped and murdered. The modus operandi of the crimes were
 Exculpatory similar. Semen samples obtained from the bodiesreavealed that
there was only one assailant.
DNA IN THE COURSE OF HISTORY
The main suspect was Richard Buckland, a 17-year-old youth with
DNA for Identification: Josef Mengele a.k.a. The Angel of Death, a learning difficulties, who revealed knowledge of one of the girls’
Nazi Officer during WWII.
body, and admitted the crime under questioning, but denied the the prosecutions principal witness. OlimpioCorales, a brother in
first murder. law of accused Jurry and Ricardo Andal. DNA testing proposed by
petitioners to have an objective and scientific basis of
Having no solid lead on the crimes, investigators turned to Sir Alec identification of semen samples to compare with those taken from
Jeffreys. Jeffreys is a British geneticist, and the man credited for the vagina of the victim are thus unnecessary or are forgotten
developing techniques for DNA fingerprinting and DNA profiling evidence too late to consider now.
which are now used worldwide in forensic science to assist police
detective work and to resolve paternity and immigration disputes. Atty. Espejo: The SC here placed and imprimatur on eye-witness
identification rather than scientific means of ascertaining identity.
Jeffreys compared semen samples from both murders against a
blood sample from Buckland which conclusively proved that both PEOPLE vs. PENASO (GR No. 121980, Feb. 23, 2000)
girls were killed by the same man, but not Buckland. Buckland
became the first suspect in the world to be exonerated by the use of In November 1989, Penaso allegedly raped his daughter’s
DNA evidence. classmate. The victim became pregnant and gave birth on July 16,
1990 or eight months later.
The police then undertook an investigation in which 5,000 local men
were asked to volunteer blood or saliva samples. This took six After being convicted and on appeal to the Supreme Court,
months, and no matches were found. Penaso asked for DNA Testing to determine if he was really the
father of the child. If the result came out negative, he proposes
Then, in 1987, the police discovered that one man, Colin Pitchfork that he should be acquitted.
had paid his co-worker to give a DNA sample while posing as him.
After collecting a DNA sample from Pitchfork, the authorities were Held: Pregnancy is not an element of rape. The issue of "DNA
able to make a positive match with the semen samples. tests" as a more accurate and authoritative means of
identification than eye-witness identification need not be
He was sentenced to life imprisonment and concurrent terms for belabored. The accused was properly and duly identified by the
rape and murder. Thus, as early as 1984, the use of DNA as evidence prosecutions principal witness.
in cases had been accepted internationally.
Atty. Espejo: In this case, it was stated by the victim in the
What about the Philippines? information that by reason of the rape, she got pregnant. It is an
important factual allegation that if refuted by the accused, would
First mention: PEOPLE vs. TEEHANKEE, JR. (GR Nos. 111206-08, put reasonable doubt in the case. SC reiterated its ruling in Andal
Oct. 6, 1995) case.
The appellant was convicted of murder on the testimony of three PEOPLE vs. FAUSTINO (GR No. 129220, September 6, 2000)
eyewitness, the Supreme Court stated as an obiter dictum that
“while eyewitness identification is significant, it is not as accurate Decided a few months after Penaso. This is a case for robbery with
and authoritative as the scientific forms of identification evidence homicide.
such as the fingerprint or DNA testing”.
Atty. Espejo: As early as 1995, the Supreme Court was aware that In an obiter, the SC revisited Teehankee stated that: “An
DNA testing is an emerging prosecutorial and investigative tool in eyewitness identification, which authors not infrequently would
other countries. describe to be ‘inherently suspect,’ is not as accurate and
authoritative as the scientific forms of identification evidence like
PE LIM vs. CA (GR No. 112229, Mar. 18, 1997) by fingerprint or by DNA testing.”
DNA, being a relatively new science, it has not as yet been TIJING vs. CA (GR No. 125901, March 8, 2001)
accorded official recognition by our courts. Paternity will still have
to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant The Supreme Court opened the possibility of admitting DNA as
incriminating acts, verbal and written, by the putative father. evidence of parentage. The Court issued a writ of habeas corpus
against respondent who abducted petitioner’s youngest son.
Commentary: Relatively new? This paternity case held against a Testimonial and documentary evidence and physical resemblance
putative father on the basis of love letters which were taken as were used to establish parentage.
admissions against him. The SC was hesitant to give recognition to
DNA testing to provide evidence in the resolution of a case. However, the SC noted: “Parentage will still be resolved using
conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific
ANDAL vs. PEOPLE (GR No. 138268, May 26, 1999) ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and
expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage
There are three gang rapists here. After being convicted of rape testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research
and sentenced to the death penalty, the accused asked for DNA Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the
testing as a means to reverse their conviction. If the testing capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR)
proved negative, they propose that they should be acquitted. analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a
child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and
Held: The issue of DNA tests as a more accurate and authoritative the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged
means of identification than eye-witness identification need not father and child are analyzed to establish parentage.
be belabored. The accused were all properly and duly identified by
Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test through further analysis. The possible margin of error should be
as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the [accounted to?].
appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the
admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore,
apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of courts should consider, among others things, the following data:
situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress. 1. How the samples were collected;
Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in 2. How they were handled;
future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution 3. The possibility of contamination of the samples;
of parentage and identity issues.” 4. The procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
whether the proper standards and procedures were
Note: In the Philippines, it was only in 2002 where the SC used DNA followed in conducting the tests; and
evidence in convicting the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the 5. The qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
case of:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the
PEOPLE vs. VALLEJO (GR No. 144656, May 9, 2002) decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, finding
accused-appellant Gerrico Vallejo y Samartino alias Puke GUILTY
(This is the first case that the SC convicted the accused on the basis beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide and
of DNA Evidence. After this case was decided, the SC kept on sentencing him to the supreme penalty of DEATH and directing
asking for DNA evidence on related cases. This case also paved him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount
way to the new Rule on DNA Evidence. This is a very important of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
case.) damages, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Vallejo was charged with raping and murdering a 9-year-old child.

The victim’s DNA samples from the bloodstained clothes of the Changing Tide: After a period of hesitation, the SC was beginning
accused were admitted in evidence. Also, the DNA profile from to as for DNA evidence.
the vaginal swabs taken from the rape victim matched the
accused’s DNA profile. The high Court affirmed the accused’s
PEOPLE vs. JANSON (GR No. 125938, April 4, 2003)
conviction of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death.
This case involves a complex crime of rape with homicide.
Held: DNA is an organic substance found in a person’s cells which
contains his or her genetic code. Except for identical twins, each
The SC acquitted the accused charged with rape for lack of
person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique.
evidence because “doubts persisted in our mind as to who were
the real malefactors. Yes, a complex offense had been perpetrated
When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene
but who were the perpetrators? How we wish we had DNA or
of the crime or from the victim’s body for the suspects DNA. This
other scientific evidence to still our doubts!”
is the evidence sample. The evidence sample is then matched with
the reference sample taken from the suspect and the victim.
PEOPLE vs. JANSON (GR No. 125938, April 4, 2003)
The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association
exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample.
This case involves a complex crime of rape with homicide.
The samples collected are subjected to various chemical
The SC acquitted the accused charged with rape for lack of
processes to establish their profile.
evidence because “doubts persisted in our mind as to who were
the real malefactors. Yes, a complex offense had been perpetrated
The DNA test may yield THREE possible results (Possible Bar
but who were the perpetrators? How we wish we had DNA or
Question):
other scientific evidence to still our doubts!”
1) EXCLUSION. The samples are different and therefore
must have originated from different sources. This conclusion is
absolute and requires no further analysis or discussion; PEOPLE vs. MOJELLO (GR No. 145566, Mar. 9, 2004)
2) INCONCLUSIVE. It is not possible to be sure, based on the The cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to
results of the test, whether the samples have similar DNA types. asphyxiation and physical injuries; she was strangled to death and
This might occur for a variety of reasons including degradation, left on the seashore as manifested by the frothing in her lungs. No
contamination, or failure of some aspect of the protocol. Various physical, scientific or DNA evidence was presented to pinpoint
parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or a appellant as the person who killed the victim. Thus, appellant
different sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or cannot be convicted of rape with homicide considering the
3) INCLUSION. The samples are similar, and could have insufficiency of evidence which thereby created a reasonable
originated from the same source. In such a case, the samples are doubt as to his guilt for the said special complex crime.
found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the
statistical significance of the similarity. Appellant should instead be held liable only for the crime of
statutory rape, the victim LenlenRayco being then eleven years
Atty. Espejo: If it is a result of exclusion, you do nothing further. If old.
inconclusive, it calls for additional testing. If inclusion, for example,
the semen taken from the scene matches that of the sample given PEOPLE vs. YATAR (GR No. 150224, May 19, 2004)
by the accused, does not mean automatic conviction. It has to go (Bar Question)
1. DNA Testing in court involves a scientific procedure.

Yatar was convicted of the crime of Rape with Homicide. Testing Testimony tending to interpret the results of such
showed that the DNA of the sperm specimen from the vagina of scientific procedure would be rendered by experts.
the victim was identical the semen to be that of appellant’s gene Atty. Espejo: Recall that DNA evidence is an object
type. evidence. For example, semen has been obtained in
the crime scene. How does the court appreciate that
Held: In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, it was ruled that pertinent as evidence? It has to be analysed first, then link it to
evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as other facts to come up with a conclusion. There has
long as it was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert, were to be testimony of somebody who knows how to
allowed greater discretion over which testimony they would allow conduct the tests and to interpret the results. A
at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific layman, then, cannot testify. It has to be an expert.
techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure.
2. In American jurisprudence, there are tests to determine
Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly admissibility of scientific/expert evidence.
to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA TESTS (Bar Question):
evidence obtained through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) 1. The Frye Test (Frye vs. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 [D.
testing and utilizing short tandem repeat (STR) analysis, and which C. Cir. 1923])
was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it 2. The Daubert Test (Daubert vs. Merrell Dow
is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 S.Ct. 2786 [1993]) as later
genetics and molecular biology. on expanded in Kumho Tire vs. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137,
119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999)
Arguments of the Accused to exclude DNA Evidence in Pp. vs.
Yatar: Atty. Espejo: [I’m not familiar with the Frye case]. In the case of
Argument #1: In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, the Daubert, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals is being sued for the
appellant contends that the blood sample taken from him as well medicine they are selling, which caused birth defects. To determine if
as the DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain [there is indeed a flaw], you have to test the medicine, analyse the
silent as well as his right against self-incrimination under Secs. 12 effect and come up with a causal connection between the two. So,
and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution. this involves scientific procedures and expert testimony.
Held: This contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not FRYE TEST
against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The Scientific evidence is admissible if it was based on a scientific
right against self- incrimination is simply against the legal process technique generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.
of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It Expert testimony was admitted simply by virtue of the expert’s
does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not credentials, experience, skill and reputation. Any deficiencies or
an incrimination but is part of object evidence. flaws in the expert’s conclusions would be exposed through cross-
examination.
We ruled in People v. Ronderothat although accused-appellant
insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken from him and Atty. Espejo: The expert’s testimony will be admitted by the court.
submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for forensic For the opponent of the expert testimony, he may impeach such
examination, the hair samples may be admitted in evidence testimony by getting another witness. That witness my testify
against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial something that is contrary to the testimony of the expert.
compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired
from the accused under duress. Applying this rule, Frye court refused to admit testimony based on
an early lie detector (polygraph) test reasoning that lie detector
Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, testing had not gained general scientific acceptance or recognition
photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial at that time.
compulsion involved.
The standard therefore in Frye is simply general acceptance.
Argument #2: Appellant further argues that the DNA tests
conducted by the prosecution against him are unconstitutional on If a procedure is not generally accepted, evidence obtained using
the ground that resort thereto is tantamount to the application of this procedure would be inadmissible.
an ex-post facto law.
In a way, this is echoed in:
Held:This argument is specious. No ex-post facto law is involved in PE LIM vs. CA (GR No. 112229, Mar. 18, 1997)
the case at bar. The science of DNA typing involves the
admissibility, relevance and reliability of the evidence obtained DNA, being a relatively new science, it has not as yet been
under the Rules of Court. Whereas an ex-post facto law refers accorded official recognition by our courts. Paternity will still have
primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling requires a factual to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant
determination of the probative weight of the evidence presented. incriminating acts, verbal and written, by the putative father.
Note: DAUBERT TEST

The US Supreme Court expanded the “general acceptance test” and
said that trial judges have the role of “gatekeeper” to ensure “that
any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only intercourse with the plaintiff’s mother,
relevant, but reliable.” FlorenciaRegodos, but denied paternity to the child. The
child was presented before the Court, and if the Court is
The Court stated that the trial judge should determine whether the to decide this case, based on the personal appearance of
reasoning and methodology is “scientifically valid” and whether the child, then there can never be a doubt that the
“that reasoning properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” plaintiff-minor is the child of the defendant.”
Atty. Espejo: In American court, the trial judge has to ensure that the Held: In this age of genetic profiling and deoxyribonucleic acid
evidence presented to the jury is relevant and reliable. In here, no (DNA) analysis, the extremely subjective test of physical
more simple test of general acceptance. You have to scrutinize the resemblance or similarity of features will not suffice as evidence
methodology employed in obtaining evidence. to prove paternity and filiation before the courts of law.
Four Daubert Factors: Private respondent’s petition for recognition and support is
(1) whether a theory or technique can, or has been, tested; dismissed.
(2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and
publication; IN RE: DE VILLA (GR No. 158802, Nov. 17, 2004)
(3) in respect to a particular technique, the known or potential
rate of error and the existence or maintenance of standards The Supreme Court already convicted De Villa by final judgment of
controlling the technique’s operation; and raping his niece Aileen. The judgment made reference to the fact
(4) whether the theory or technique enjoys general that it was the act of rape that got the niece pregnant and for here
acceptance within a relevant scientific community. to consequently bear a child. Since it was never alleged that Aileen
gave birth to a full-term nine-month old baby, the SC gave
Atty. Espejo: Take note of the four Daubert Factors. SC of the credence to the prosecution’s contention that she prematurely
Philippines lifted the language from Daubert and made it our own gave birth to an eight-month old baby by normal delivery.
standards here. Prior to DNA Evidence Rule, Frye and Daubert were
merely controlling [principles]. By reading the DNA Evidence Rule, it While serving sentence, De Villa sought the conduct of a blood
can be ascertained that the Philippines follows the Daubert Test and type test and DNA test in order to determine the paternity of the
not the Frye Test. child allegedly conceived as a result of the rape. Denied by the SC,
De Villa had the DNA test conducted independently.
Daubert Test: The standard therefore is simply relevancy and
reliability. The result: He is not the father of Aileen’s child. De Villa then filed
a petition for habeas corpus and asked for new trial on the ground
Kumho expanded the application of the Daubert test not only to of newly discovered evidence.
cover scientific knowledge but also technological or technical
knowledge. Held: Petitioner invokes the remedy of the petition for a writ
of habeas corpus to seek a re-examination of the records, without
Note: asserting any legal grounds therefor. For all intents and purposes,
But obviously, neither the Frye standard nor the Daubert-Kumho petitioner seeks a reevaluation of the evidentiary basis for his
standard is controlling in the Philippines. At best, American conviction. We are being asked to reexamine the weight and
jurisprudence merely has a persuasive effect on our decisions. sufficiency of the evidence in this case, not on its own, but in light
Here [in the Philippines], evidence is admissible when it is relevant of the new DNA evidence that the petitioner seeks to present to
to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by the law or the this Court. This relief is outside the scope of a habeas
Rules. corpus petition. [Note: Writ of habeas corpus is granted usually
when there is a deprivation of a constitutional right.] The petition
However, it bears to mention that Yatar seems to approve Daubert. for habeas corpus must, therefore, fail.
Take note however, that Daubert was applied to determine the
weight, not the admissibility, of evidence. The issue of paternity is not central to the issue of petitioner’s
guilt or innocence. The rape of the victim is an entirely different
CABATANIA vs. CA (GR No. 124814, Oct. 21, 2004) question, separate and distinct from the question of the father of
her child. The fact of the victim’s pregnancy and resultant
Florencia Regodos was employed as the household help of Camelo childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was
Cabatania. It was while working there as a maid that, on January raped. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape.
2, 1982, Camelo brought her to Bacolod City where they checked Whether the child which the victim bore was fathered by the
in at the Visayan Motel and had sexual intercourse. Camelo purported rapist, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment
promised to support her if she got pregnant. Florencia claimed she in determining an individual’s guilt.
discovered she was carrying Camelo’s child 27 days after their
sexual encounter. The child was born in September 1982 or eight Therefore, the DNA evidence has failed to conclusively prove to
months later. this Court that Reynaldo de Villa should be discharged. Although
petitioner claims that conviction was based solely on a finding of
Florencia, on behalf of her son, filed petition for recognition and paternity of the child Leahlyn, this is not the case. Our conviction
support. The trial court ruled that: was based on the clear and convincing testimonial evidence of the
“In view of the evidence presented by the plaintiff, the victim, which, given credence by the trial court, was affirmed on
Court finds the evidence of the plaintiff to be appeal.
meritorious; defendant admitted having a sexual
HERRERA vs. ALBA (GR No. 148220, June 15, 2005)

AGUSTIN vs. CA (GR No. 162571, June, 15, 2005)
Petitioner raises the issue of whether a DNA test is a valid
probative tool in this jurisdiction to determine filiation. Petitioner Petitioner contends that compulsory DNA testing to determine
asks for the conditions under which DNA technology may be paternity violates his right to privacy and right against self-
integrated into our judicial system and the prerequisites for the incrimination as guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution.
admissibility of DNA test results in a paternity suit.
Held: Compulsory DNA testing was allowed by the Supreme Court
Petitioner further submits that the appellate court gravely abused in a paternity case.
its discretion when it authorized the trial court to embark on a
new procedure to determine filiation despite the absence of Petitioner’s invocation of his right to privacy fails to persuade us.
legislation to ensure its reliability and integrity, want of official In Ople v. Torres, where we struck down the proposed national
recognition as made clear in Pe Lim vs. Court of Appeals and the computerized identification system embodied in Administrative
presence of technical and legal constraints in respect of its Order No. 308, we said:
implementation. Petitioner maintains that the proposed DNA In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right
paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual
privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and
Atty. Espejo: In this case, the court ordered Herrera to submit technological advancements that enhance public service
himself to DNA examination. It has already been decided in People and the common good... Intrusions into the right must
vs. Yatar that this is not a violation of the right to self- be accompanied by proper safeguards that enhance
incrimination. public service and the common good.
Held: Despite our relatively liberal rules on admissibility, trial Historically, it has mostly been in the areas of legality of searches
courts should be cautious in giving credence to DNA analysis as and seizures, and the infringement of privacy of
evidence. We reiterate our statement in Vallejo: communication where the constitutional right to privacy has been
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, critically at issue. Petitioner’s case involves neither. His hollow
therefore, courts should consider, among other things, invocation of his constitutional rights elicits no sympathy here for
the following data: how the samples were collected, the simple reason that they are not in any way being violated. If,
how they were handled, the possibility of contamination in a criminal case, an accused whose very life is at stake can be
of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the compelled to submit to DNA testing, we see no reason why, in this
samples, whether the proper standards and procedures civil case, petitioner herein who does not face such dire
were followed in conducting the tests, and the consequences cannot be ordered to do the same.
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
Atty. Espejo: For compulsory DNA testing in criminal cases, your
DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity basis would be People vs. Yatar. For compulsory DNA testing in
should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is paternity cases, it would be Agustin vs. CA and Herrera vs. Alba. If
less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA analysis should be ever asked in the Bar, you would at least be able to cite the proper
considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of W is 99.9% jurisprudence.
or higher, then there is refutable presumption of paternity. This
refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected to the
Vallejo standards. PEOPLE vs. MACAPAL (GR No. 155335, July 14, 2005)
Section 17, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that no Accused allegedly raped a 23-year old mental retardate named
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Ligaya. She got pregnant and bore a child. He was convicted.
Petitioner asserts that obtaining samples from him for DNA testing
violates his right against self-incrimination. Petitioner ignores our Accused argues that he was deprived of his right to fully defend
earlier pronouncements that the privilege is applicable only to himself in light of the trial court’s denial of his ‘MOTION FOR DNA
testimonial evidence. TEST’ wherein he raised as main issue whether he fathered the
victim’s child.
It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA profile matches that
of the putative father. A complete match between the DNA profile Held: The identity of the father of a rape victim's child is non-issue
of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father does not in a charge for rape, the impregnation of the victim not being an
necessarily establish paternity. For this reason, trial courts should element of the offense.
require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the Probability of
Paternity (W) prior to a paternity inclusion. W is a numerical More importantly, it should be pointed out that these
estimate for the likelihood of paternity of a putative father consolidated cases are criminal cases for rape, not civil actions for
compared to the probability of a random match of two unrelated paternity or filiation. The identity of the father of the victim's child
individuals. An appropriate reference population database, such is a non-issue. Even her pregnancy is beside the point. What
as the Philippine population database, is required to compute for matters is the occurrence of the sexual assault committed by
W. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions, W will appellant on the person of thevictim on four separate occasions.
never equal to 100%. However, the accuracy of W estimates is
higher when the putative father, mother and child are subjected Appellant's act of committing, along with his parents, in the
to DNA analysis compared to those conducted between the Agreement forged with the victim while the case was on
putative father and child alone. preliminary investigation before the Prosecutor's Office 'to
shoulder one-half (1/2) of the expenses to be incurred by [the

victim] . . . in connection with the delivery of her child is the coup
de grace that dissipates any nagging doubts on his guilt.
PEOPLE vs. RAYLES (GR No. 169874, July 27, 2007)

(last decided case of the SC prior the effectivity of DNA Evidence
Rule)
Accused-appellant would have this Court credit him for having

insisted that a DNA test be conducted on AAs daughter. He claims
that had he raped the victim and fathered her child, he would not
have the nerve to challenge the result of a DNA test, as such
procedure would definitely reveal whether he is the father or not.
Held: Pregnancy and the subsequent birth of her child are not
elements of the crime of rape. Moreover, non-paternity of the
appellant, if that be the case, will not necessarily negate the crime
of rape as positively proved and established by AAs credible
testimony. There may or may not be conception after the
commission of the crime of rape because the offense may be
consummated even without full penetration or even complete
ejaculation on the part of the assailant. We have time and again
stressed that among the most important consideration in a rape
case is the credible testimony of the victim. We have repeatedly
held that when a woman says she had been raped, her declaration
alone is all that is necessary to show that she had indeed been
raped and her sole testimony is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting
standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.
A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (Oct. 2, 2007)

 The Rule on DNA Evidence, which took effect on Oct. 15,
2007
 Promulgated by SC after 12 years of cases involving DNA
Evidence
JULY 27, 2016
PETITION TO TAKE THE BAR EXAMINATIONS BY JULIUS CESAR RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (RODE) - A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC
(June 25, 2002)
SECTION 1. Scope – This Rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence,
Julius Cesar actually passed the 1999 Bar Examinations but was not as defined in Section 3 hereof, is offered, used, or proposed to be
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath in view of the letter complaint by offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil action as well
a certain Tuesday Castro charging him with immorality and grave as special proceedings.
misconduct. Castro alleged that she and petitioner were former
lovers; that she bore him a son named Michael Angelo Castro on
May 5, 1999. Examples:
The issue before the Supreme Court is whether petitioner - Unlawful killings (Murder, Homicide, Parricide, Infanticide)
possesses the good moral character required to be admitted to the - Rape
Philippine Bar. Complainant presented evidence tending to show - Kidnapping (ex. Tijing vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
that petitioner does not possess such character since he refused to 125901, 8 March 2001; if katong gikidnap na bata, ila ba
give financial support to a child he has legally acknowledged to be tong anak)
his own. - Etc. i.e. Adultery – DNA testing can be a viable tool when it
comes to prosecution for crimes of Adultery
Petitioner claims otherwise. Aside from the fact that he was merely
forced into acknowledging paternity of Michael, he wanted to Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have
remove first his reasonable doubts regarding the child’s paternity sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man
through DNA Testing. who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even
if the marriage is subsequently declared void. (Article 333, RPC).
Julius promised to abide with the result of the DNA test and to give
financial support as religiously as before, even more, if Michael
was proved to be his son.
Suppose that the wife became pregnant. DNA evidence can
Tuesday, however, refused to undergo DNA testing. (Sir: What I therefore be presented to prove that the child is not the husband’s
want you to focus on in this case is what would be the implication and as proof of sexual intercourse.
if you do not undergo DNA testing when doubt would possibly be
resolved by means of DNA testing yet you fail to undertake or VILLAFLOR vs. SUMMERS (1920)
refuse to undertake?)
FACTS: Villaflor was charged with the crime of adultery. The trial
We take judicial notice of the fact that DNA typing is fast becoming judge ordered her to subject herself to a physical examination to
an important procedure not only in the field of medical science but see whether or not she was pregnant and thus determine the
in criminal law and paternity disputes as well. crime of adultery being charged to her. Petitioner refused such
physical examination, interposing the argument that such
Considering the foregoing and the fact that petitioner promised to examination was a violation of right against self-incrimination. She
abide by the result of the DNA test as well as to shoulder the was found in contempt of court and was ordered to be committed
expenses therefore, we find petitioner’s proposal for a DNA testing to Bilibid Prison until she would permit the medical examination
to be quite reasonable and complainant’s aversion to the test acquired by the court. (Sir: So what the Court wants here is to have
surprising. If her claim that petitioner fathered her child is really blood testing. To determine if you are really pregnant or even a
true, she has no reason to fear the result of the test for it would be simple pregnancy test.)
another evidence on her favor. Moreover this case should be
decided on a strong foundation of truth and justice rather than on ISSUE: Whether the compelling of a woman to permit her body to
blind adherence to prima facie rules. be examined by physicians to determine if she is pregnant violates
her right not be compelled to be a witness against herself.
Finding the proposal of petitioner for DNA testing at his expense to
be fair and reasonable, unless the test is conducted and the results HELD: NO. The constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be
thereof submitted to this Court within forty-five (45) days from compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, is
notice thereof, the Court will be constrained to grant the petition of limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-
JULIUS R. CESAR to be allowed to take his oath as a lawyer and to incrimination. An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
be admitted to the Philippine Bar. permissible. (Sir: although they are using the term ocular
inspection here, it is in quite general terms. Because right now
when you are talking about ocular inspection, you are talking
about the examination of objects outside of the subject)
All’s well that ends well. CESAR, JULIUS, R.; Tagbilaran City; February
26, 2003; Roll No. 47694. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor – Bohol
After 12 years of cases involving DNA evidence, the Supreme Court Remember that, in Agustin: DNA testing and its results, as per our
promulgated A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (2 October 2007), or the RULE ON ruling in Yatar, are now similarly acceptable, and they do not include
DNA EVIDENCE, which took effect on October 15, 2007. a determination; it’s excluded from the realm of self-incrimination
because that’s merely object evidence. So what the SC did in Agustin
and Yatar are actually only to expand what happened in the case of
Villaflor. But now, specifically seeing that in testing it’s mere object
evidence; it’s autoptic preference that is not covered by the realm of been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs,
self-incrimination; such as several kinds of object evidence taken the period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of
from the person of the accused. These include photographs, hair, the birth of the child or of the fact of registration of said birth,
and other bodily substances. We have declared as constitutional whichever is earlier. (263a)
several procedures performed on the accused such as pregnancy
tests for women accused of adultery XXX. Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the
child within the period prescribed in the preceding article only in
In Jimenez v. Caizares, we even authorized the examination of a the following cases:
woman’s genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband,
to verify his claim that she was impotent, her orifice being too small (1) If the husband should died before the expiration of the
for his penis. Some of these procedures were, to be sure, rather period fixed for bringing his action;
invasive and involuntary, but all of them were constitutionally
sound. DNA testing and its results, per our ruling in Yatar, are now (2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without
similarly acceptable. (AGUSTIN VS. CA. G.R. No. 162571, 15 June having desisted therefrom; or
2005)
(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband.
CROSS-REFERENCE
Presumption of Legitimacy * The mother might have declared against the illegitimacy of the
child. Even if the mother had myths na dili na siya anak sa iyang
Children born or conceived of the wife during the marriage are bana, there is still a presumption of legitimacy.
presumed legitimate. This presumption of legitimacy is based on the
provisions of Articles 164, 166, 167, 170, and 171 of the Family NOTES
Code.
 The presumption of legitimacy of children born during a
Sir: Everything that you can do; every presumption that you can valid marriage is DISPUTABLE.
accord to a minor child should be given preference. The law will not  The finding of adultery does not, by itself, rebut the
disturb the legitimate status of the child. That presumption of presumption of legitimacy.
legitimacy is based on the provisions of the Family Code.  DNA Evidence can therefore be presented to prove that
“for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could
Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the not have been that of the husband”.
parents are legitimate.
IN CIVIL ACTIONS
Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife
with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are The Rule on DNA Evidence actually does not distinguish between
likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided, ordinary and special civil actions. It is therefore possible to apply the
that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a rule to special civil actions.
written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth
of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry A perfect example is an action for support. Entitlement to support is
together with the birth certificate of the child. (55a, 258a) dependent on family relationship. DNA testing can be done to
determine that family relationship or pedigree.
Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the
following grounds: IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
XXX XXX
(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, (c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
the child could not have been that of the husband, except in the establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (Rule 1, Sec. 3c)
instance provided in the second paragraph of Article 164 (artificial
insemination); XXX
Art. 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the Examples: Paternity suits (see Herrera vs. Alba)
mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been
Sir: Therefore, if you want to establish paternity or filiation in a suit,
sentenced as an adulteress. (256a)
that is trying to establish a status or a fact; the fact that you are a
Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be daughter or a son of a particular putative father.
brought within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its
And also,
recording in the civil register, if the husband or, in a proper case,
any of his heirs, should reside in the city or municipality where the
HABEAS CORPUS CASES UNDER RULE 102
birth took place or was recorded.
Habeas Corpus may be resorted to in cases where “the rightful
If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the
custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.”
place of birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was
recorded, the period shall be two years if they should reside in the The writ is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the
Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child has custody of a minor child. (Salvana vs. Gaela, 55 Phil 680)
Example: Tijing case – The Court here did not resort to DNA testing Remember that there should be testimony; findings by a
psychologist or clinical psychiatrist to determine really whether or
not there is psychological incapacity to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage.
RODE Sec. 2. Application of other Rules on Evidence. – In all
matters not specifically covered by this Rule, the Rules of Court If you are going to call for DNA testing, the presentation of the
and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall apply. expert witness in effect becomes mandatory. There has to be a
witness expert on the field of DNA Science to testify as to the results
and the methodology used in obtaining such results.
Let us appreciate first what are the Characteristics of DNA Evidence
so that we can connect that to particular rules that would be taken RODE Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Rule, the
from the Rules of Court to apply suppletorily. Remember that it’s following terms shall be defined as follows:
object evidence; therefore, evidence of the highest order. But
remember that object evidence do not testify by themselves. Object “Biological sample” means any organic material originating from
evidence must be sponsored by testimony of a competent and a person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is
reliable witness. So remember also that when you obtain the results susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva and other
of DNA testing, it is not self-explanatory. In which case you would body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones;
need an expert witness to testify as to the results of the DNA testing.
Ex. NBI, UP expert, etc. “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of
molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of
Remember that expert testimony is opinion. While a particular an individual’s DNA is unique for the individual, except identical
expert testifies on particular results, he is stating an opinion. But twins;
opinion as a general rule under the Rules on Evidence is actually not
admissible; their opinion does not matter. What matters are the “DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles,
facts derived from personal knowledge. But by way of exception, results and other genetic information directly generated from DNA
opinion of an expert witness is admissible. testing of biological samples;
CHARACTERISTICS OF DNA EVIDENCE “DNA profile” means genetic information derived from DNA
testing of a biological sample obtained from a person, which
 It is OBJECT or PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, and therefore biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that
evidence of the highest order. person;
 However, it is one that can only be appreciated through
the aid of expert testimony (which is, for all intents and “DNA testing” means verified and credible scientific methods
purposes, mere opinion evidence). which include the extraction of DNA from biological samples, the
 Object evidence does not lie but the expert, who generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information
processes it and testifies about it, may. Object evidence by obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the
itself is reliable but the manner of collecting, processing purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not
and preserving it may be prone to error. the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples
 Thus, based on Section 2, we apply the Rules of Court originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the
(Evidence) suppletorily to cases covered by the Rule on biological samples originate from related persons (kinship
DNA Evidence. analysis); and
“Probability of Parentage” means the numerical estimate for

Example:
the likelihood of parentage of a putative parent compared with the
Section 49 of Rule 130. Opinion of expert witness. – The opinion of probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a
a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience given population.
or training which he has shown to possess, may be received in
Sec. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. – The appropriate court
evidence.
may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any
person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a
DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to
EXPERT WITNESS the parties upon a showing of the following:
If the opponent admits that the witness is an expert, he can a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
immediately proceed with this testimony and give his opinion. But, if
the opponent does not admit to the qualifications of the witness as b) The biological sample:
an expert, before he may testify, he must first be qualified; he must
undergo a process which we call: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA
testing now requested; or
“QUALIFYING A WITNESS” – This means the act of proving that the
witness is an expert. This is done by making him to testify, through (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the
preliminary questions, as to his training, education and expertise. results may require confirmation for good reasons;
Sir: Do you recall cases under the law which absolutely requires c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
expert testimony? Psychological incapacity – Republic vs. Molina.
d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new When would that usually happen? When would there be a scarcity
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; of DNA samples? Say for example in a crime of rape; patay na. And
and then the only way that you could test for DNA is from the vaginal
swabs from the rape kit. That is the only remaining DNA na relevant.
e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may So, that is possible. Rape with homicide na siya; when you can no
consider as potentially affecting the accuracy of integrity of the longer order an additional examination of the body of the victim.
DNA testing.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior and shall not be appealable. Any petition for certiorari initiated
court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the implementation thereof,
agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced. unless a higher court issues an injunctive order. The grant of DNA
testing application shall not be construed as an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence
In reference to the initial paragraph of Sec. 4 - Take note that DNA that may be obtained as a result thereof.
testing may be ordered by the Court on its own initiative or it may
be upon the application of any person (anybody who has a legal
interest in the matter in litigation). IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY, NOT APPEALABLE
Ex. In a criminal case, application by the accused for DNA testing for Take note that the issuance of a DNA Testing order is merely
exonerating evidence or by the prosecution for identification; to interlocutory. For this reason, the remedy of appeal is not allowed.
determine w/n the accused is the one who committed the crime.
Remember that in your Civil Procedure, what would distinguish a
Sir: To my mind, if you resort to DNA testing prior to a suit or matter that is appealable and is not appealable? The nature of the
proceeding against your opponents, ambid-ambid (akin) na siya sa order. If the nature of the order is merely interlocutory, your
deposition. Remember that depositions may be taken pending remedy is not appeal because there is something yet to be done by
action or when a case is already pending and can even be before the Court. So what is your remedy?
action or pending appeal.
REMEDY: Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) which falls within the
Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. – If the court finds that the concurrent jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals
requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied with, the and the Supreme Court subject to the principle of hierarchy of
court shall – courts.
a) Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be taken EFFECT: The filing of the petition for certiorari shall not, in any way,
from any person or crime scene evidence; stay the implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an
injunctive order.
We have no problem with crime scene evidence, but what I want to So, if you are the defendant for example, and you do not like the
point out is the fact that: Can the Court compel the taking of order that DNA testing will be initiated by the Court, you can file a
biological samples of the accused upon the latter’s objection? Is it petition for certiorari but you have to include a prayer for injunction.
not a coercion? Remember that in the previous cases that we have TRO is possible or a preliminary prohibitory injunction to enjoin the
discussed the constitutionality and the validity of compulsory DNA taking of the DNA test. Otherwise, it will not stay the order.
testing have been upheld. So there is no question anymore that the
Court can order you to give biological samples. ADMISSIBILITY: The grant of DNA testing application shall not be
construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any
b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result
protect the integrity of the biological sample, the testing process thereof.
and the reliability of the test results, including the condition that
the DNA test results shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties So the Court already orders DNA testing and of course, it will yield
involved in the case; and results. But every component thereof, including the DNA profiles of
the DNA samples, they are not automatically admitted into
evidence.
This is more or less applicable in paternity suits because that is Reasons:
usually when the parties would require simultaneous disclosure of
the DNA test results. Dili pwede na unahon nimo sa plaintiff ug ulahi 1. DNA evidence, as any other type of evidence, must pass
sa respondent in paternity testing. the basic tests of relevancy and competency; (So if it is
excluded by the law or the Rules, the DNA that was taken
c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that should not be admitted.)
prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing by the other or the 2. DNA evidence must still be formally offered in order for
adverse party and where additional biological samples of the same the court to consider it; (The Court will not receive any
kind can no longer be obtained, issue an order requiring all parties evidence that is not formally offered.) and
to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be 3. A witness must still testify as to the result of the test.
conducted.
OBSERVATIONS
 It is submitted that a DNA Testing Order is akin to allowing What’s the difference between physical and mental examination of
the conduct of modes of discovery. persons and DNA testing under Section 4?
 Note that, in modes of discovery, the results are not
automatically admitted into evidence, as a general rule. They Had the DNA Test been conducted under Rule 28, the same rule sets
have to be formally offered to be admitted. In the case of a forth the conditions for waiver of privilege. We have no problem
deposition, the deponent must still testify in court, subject to there. There’s waiver of privilege.
certain exceptions.
 Under modes of discovery, we have Rule 28 (Physical and However, under the Rule on DNA evidence, there is no mention
Mental Examination of Persons). The Court may actually about waiver and physician-patient privilege. In fact, in several
order that you submit to a physical examination by the cases, the SC has ruled that a person can be compelled to undergo
doctor to determine injury, or mental examination. Ex. In a DNA testing without violating the right against self-incrimination.
proceeding for the probate of a will, and then you are still You can be compelled to undergo DNA testing
alive and you want it probated immediately. Pwede man na
diba? To have the probate of a will even when you are still Conclusion: The Physician-Patient privilege does not apply in court-
alive. That is allowed. But the opponent would oppose ordered DNA Testing.
probate on the ground that the testator, the maker of the
will, is not of sound mind. So the Court may actually order Sec. 6 is quite controversial: the law provides for it, the law allows it,
compliance with Rule 28 to determine whether you are really and yet nobody is successful in claiming it.
of sound mind.
RODE Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. – Post-conviction DNA
testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the
Section 4. Waiver of privilege. – By requesting and obtaining a prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory
report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of judgment provided that
the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he may
have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, a) a biological sample exists,
regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined b) such sample is relevant to the case, and
or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or
physical examination. modification of the judgment of conviction.
So you have been convicted already of final judgment. Maybe your

WHAT IS THIS PRIVILEGE? case is pending appeal before the Supreme Court, and the case is
let’s say for rape and there’s DNA sample that’s available from the
Rule 130, Section 24. – Disqualification by reason of privileged victim and you. Or it could be paternity testing because the
communication. The following persons cannot testify as to matters allegation could be that you fathered the child because of the rape.
learned in confidence in the following cases: So if there is a dissimilarity between the DNA profiles, meaning it’s
an exclusion result, you are not the father of the baby conceived
XXX
because of the rape. Would it be logical to assume that you should
be acquitted?
c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
Remember these cases:
examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in attending such patient  ANDAL vs. PEOPLE – G.R. No. 138268, 26 May 1999
in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to  PEOPLE vs. PENASO – G.R. No. 121980, 23 Feb 2000
enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the  IN RE: DE VILLA – G.R. No. 158802, 17 Nov 2004
reputation of the patient;  PEOPLE vs. MACAPAL – G.R. No. 155335, 14 Jul7 2005
 PEOPLE vs. RAYLES – G.R. No. 169874, 27 July 2007
Other privileged communication: attorney-client privileged

In all these cases, the SC either denied requests for post-conviction
communication rule, marital privileged rule and (c above) physician-
DNA testing or pleas for acquittal based on DNA testing results (See
patient privileged communication rule
In Re: De Villa) because pregnancy is not an element of rape. In
other cases, presence of semen is not an element or rape. It will
Hypothetical case
always be overcome by eyewitness testimony; by positive
JZE, married to Maja, had an affair with Bangs. Bangs got pregnant identification that you are the rapist.
and delivered a baby but JZE is not sure about the paternity of the
What the SC favored were the testimonies positively identifying the
child. So he privately went to a doctor, Dr. Hayden, to have a DNA
several accused as rapists.
test in secret. It turns out that he is the father of the child.
Will this now change because of the new Rule?
Ordinarily, Dr. Hayden cannot be compelled to divulge the results of
the DNA Test as he is covered by Physician-Patient privilege. The
SURVEY OF CASES: RAPE and DNA (Post-conviction DNA testing)
result also tends to blacken the reputation of the patient, JZE.
PEOPLE vs. UMANITO (2007)
However, suppose that the DNA Test was made in a civil case filed
by Bangs against JZE. Bangs applied for and was issued a DNA *first case where the SC applied the new Rule on DNA testing after
Testing Order. The question there would be, unsay effect niya?
the Rule took effect last October 15 continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.
FACTS: A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the
Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, which may
 The SC through Justice Dante O. Tinga remanded the case conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of
against Umanito to the RTC for reception of evidence in origin and issue the appropriate orders.
appropriate hearings, ruled that “the determination of whether
the appellant is the father of the rape victim’s child [born from
the alleged rape], which may be accomplished through DNA Results favorable to convict = remedy is to file a petition for Habeas
testing, is material to the fair and correct adjudication of the corpus
instant appeal. Under Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence,
the courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu Take note that this was the remedy applied for by the convict in IN
propio to order a DNA testing.” RE: DE VILLA. Let’s revisit it.
 He is already convicted. His appeal is now with the SC. Case
was remanded by the SC- obtain DNA; but did not say that if IN RE: DE VILLA (2004)
results were negative he would be acquitted
 99.9999% Match Reynaldo de Villa was sentenced to death for raping his 12-year-
 Given that the results of the Court-ordered DNA testing old niece, Aileen Mendoza who had subsequently given birth to a
conforms with the conclusions of the lower courts, and that no baby girl. De Villa had always maintained his innocence, but no
cause is presented for us to deviate from the penalties imposed paternity test had been carried out to establish whether or not he
below, the Court sees no reason to deny Umanito’s Motion to was the father of the child. Because de Villa was in prison, Cora de
Withdraw Appeal. Ungria, head of the DNA Analysis Laboratory of UP, could not
(Take note of the procedure followed by the RTC like how the obtain a DNA sample from de Villa directly. She enlisted the help of
samples will be taken, how they will be kept, how will they be the prison priest. He visited de Villa carrying a sterile blade and a
marked and then how will they be tested. And also what would blood collection vial hidden in his robes.
consist in the testimony later on.)
De Ungria still needed a sample from the child he had allegedly
fathered, then aged 10. De Villa’s grandson, a schoolmate of
Mendoza’s daughter, was coached to organize a spitting
PEOPLE vs. MAGLENTE (2008) competition in the playground. He collected the girl’s spit in a cup,
and de Ungria used it to generate a DNA profile.
 Complainant alleges that Maglente, her biological father,
had subjected her to sexual abuse as early as 1997, when she The results confirmed that de Villa was not the girl’s father, but the
was still nine (9) years old, until 13 July 2002, when she reached SC refused to consider the new evidence and so he remained on
14 years of age. As a result of her father’s molestation, she death row. Anent the remedy of habeas corpus, the Supreme
became pregnant and delivered a baby boy on 1 October 2002, Court said that:
which she gave up for adoption. On cross-examination, private
complainant testified that she was willing to have her baby Petitioner invokes the remedy of the petition for a writ of habeas
undergo DNA testing but the baby’s whereabouts were corpus to seek a re-examination of the records, without asserting
unknown to her. any legal grounds therefore. For all intents and purposes, petitioner
seeks a reevaluation of the evidentiary basis for his conviction. We
are being asked to reexamine the weight and sufficiency of the
HELD: Even if the DNA test were conducted and it established that evidence in this case, not on its own, but in light of the new DNA
appellant had not fathered the child, it would still be inconclusive to evidence that the petitioner seeks to present to this Court. This
prove that appellant was not guilty of having raped private relief is outside the scope of a habeas corpus petition, which applies
complainant. He cannot obtain an acquittal based on the only in case of denial of a constitutional right. The petition for
circumstances of private complainant’s pregnancy. Impregnation is habeas corpus, therefore, fails. (What the SC was saying in a
not an element of rape. Even proof that the child was fathered by nutshell was dili ka pwede magpa-acquit sa habeas corpus case
another man does not show that the appellant is not guilty. For the based on DNA evidence. But it is already different in Sec. 10. Very
conviction of an accused, the pregnancy of the victim is not clear na ang remedy is habeas corpus.)
required to be proved, since it is sufficient that the prosecution
establish beyond reasonable doubt, as it had in this case, that the Review of a judgment of conviction is allowed in a habeas corpus
accused had forced sexual relations with the victim. petition only I very specific instances, such as when, as a
consequence of judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a
deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a
REMEDY IF RESULTS ARE FAVORABLE – Apply Section 10 person; (b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or
(c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void
RODE Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing – Remedy if the as to such excess.
Results Are Favorable to the Convict. – The convict or the
In this instance, petitioner invokes the writ of habeas corpus to
prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
assail a final judgment of conviction, without, however, providing a
court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are
legal ground on which to anchor his petition. In fine, petitioner
favorable to the convict. In the case the court, after due hearing
alleges neither the deprivation of a constitutional right, the
finds the petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the
absence of jurisdiction of the court imposing the sentence, or that
judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless
an excessive penalty has been imposed upon him. (SC: habeas  In De Villa, the judgment made reference to the fact that it
corpus not a viable remedy if you are trying to present newly was the act of rape that got the niece pregnant and for her
discovered evidence or DNA evidence after conviction) to consequently bear a child.
 The request for paternity testing was also consistent with

Q: Has De Villa now been abrogated by Section 10? the defense presented at trial. The appellant’s testimony
of his incapacity for sexual intercourse due to his advanced
A: Not really. It is logical to suppose that, in De Villa, had the age was supported by his wife’s testimony. There were
petitioner been more precise in his invocation of the remedy, a also no allegations of multiple perpetrators or of
different result might have ensued. Which brings to the fore the promiscuous behavior of the victim. More importantly,
ability of a lawyer to craft a pleading. They wanted habeas corpus to records show that the trial court based its decision entirely
overturn the conviction pero you were not able to plead the on the birth of the child. (And now that he was able to
properly the basis for the grant of the habeas corpus petition. prove that the child was not his, and by implication he is
trying to allege that it could not have been him who raped
Take note of the following pronouncement in De Villa: or had intercourse with the victim, the SC did not want to
receive any further evidence.)
“First, the denial of a constitutional right has not been alleged by
petitioner. As such, this Court is hard-pressed to find legal basis on  In Penaso, the criminal complaint alleged that: “as a result
which to anchor the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.” (So what if he of his devilish act, it caused me to have an unwanted
alleged in that case that his constitutional right has been violated? pregnancy of an unwanted child.” (So that’s the allegation.
What constitutional right? Basic. Right to due process. Any general If that’s what you allege, that is what you prove in trial.
invocation will do.) And then later on post-DNA testing would show na dili diay
siya ang papa atong baby. Shouldn’t that call for a reversal
“In fine, we find that petitioner invokes the remedy of the petition for of the conviction under post-DNA conviction testing? The
a writ of habeas corpus to seek a re-examination of the record of SC seems to be very myopic in the sense that all it sees are
People v. de Villa, without asserting any legal grounds therefore.” the elements of rape. It should consider the factual milieu
(So had the convict here allege with more particularity the legal of the case.)
ground supposed to be could have been acquitted by way of the
habeas corpus case.) PEOPLE vs. BASALLO (2013)
However, take note that: Consideration of the factual milieu of the case seems to be
supported by the SC in Basallo. Here, the SC mentioned that:
 First, Section 10 can now be a viable legal basis for Habeas
Corpus by direct provision of the Rule. For a man who vehemently asserts his innocence, it mystifies the
 Second, this portion of the SC’s decision is deemed mind that the appellant would not exhaust all available avenues to
abrogated already: prove his innocence especially DNA testing that would conclusively
o We are being asked to reexamine the weight and prove that he is not the father of ABC’s so who is alleged to be the
sufficiency of the evidence in this case, not on its own, fruit of his crime. (That is conclusive proof which ought to be
but in the light of the new DNA evidence that the sufficient to overturn the conviction. However, no conviction has
petitioner seeks to present to this Court. This relief is been overturned yet through post-conviction DNA testing.)
outside the scope of a habeas corpus petition. (What
relief? To reexamine the weight and sufficiency of the
evidence.) The petition for habeas corpus must, Aftermath of DE VILLA
therefore, fail. (By way of Section 10, habeas corpus
can do this already)  Cora de Ungria marshaled international pressure and
Observations eventually, in February 2005, President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo granted him a pardon. His complete case records,
 The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant the motion to including the DNA test results, were sent to the Board of
reopen the case of De Villa was based on the principle that Pardons and Parole that recommended clemency to the
pregnancy (and also presence of seminal discharge) is not President.
an element of rape. The Supreme Court has consistently  De Villa was 67 years old at the time of the alleged rape. Thus,
upheld this ever since the Rule on DNA Evidence was when he was released on pardon, he was already 78 years old.
promulgated. (All you need is positive eyewitness testimony  In June 2006, due to the increasing amount of information
that there was penetration) available on the problems of the criminal justice system and
the implementation of the death penalty in the Philippines,
See Maglente, Hipona, Cabigquez and Lucero the President signed Republic Act No. 9346, once again
abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines.
 However, paternity (for the negation thereof) should be
used as evidence to exonerate the accused or convict in a
rape case if it is warranted by the factual milieu of the RODE Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. – In
case. Depende sa facts of the case. It should not be a assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the
blanket ruling that you only limit rape to penetration. court shall consider the following:
For example: A. The chain of custody, including how the biological

samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
possibility of contamination of the samples; 4. whether the theory or technique enjoys general
B. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and
disadvantages of the procedure, and The Philippines actually follows the Daubert Test by incorporation.
C. compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
conducting the tests; RODE Sec. 9. on DNA Testing Results. – In evaluating the results of
D. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by DNA testing, the court shall consider the following:
any reputable standards-setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If A. the evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or
the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence;
of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility
shall be properly established; and Take note that the SC uses the term “weight” for matching DNA
E. The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter evidence, and “relevance” for mismatching DNA evidence.
provided.
B. The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality
of the other evidence presented in the case; and that
Note that this provision is lifted almost entirely from the SC’s initial C. DNA results that exclude the putative parent form
pronouncement in Vallejo, to wit: paternity shall be conclusive proof on non-paternity. If
the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered
should consider, among other things, the following data: as corroborative evidence, if the value of the Probability
of Paternity is 99.9% or higher there shall be a disputable
 How the samples were collected presumption of paternity.
 How they were handled,
 the possibility of contamination of the samples
 the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
Weight of Matching DNA Evidence
 whether the proper standards and procedures were
followed in conducting the tests, and Weight means reliability and probative value of evidence
 the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests
In layman’s parlance, when you talk about weight or probative
RODE Sec. 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. – In value, you are talking about the believability of the evidence. So,
evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the believable ba ang matching DNA evidence? That’s what the court
court shall consider the following: should consider.
A. The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that Thus, if the DNA samples match, the court is tasked to determine
is, whether the theory or technique can be and has been whether the DNA testing result is reliable and what evidentiary
tested; value it will assign to it (i.e. whether the evidence is to be believed
B. The subjection to peer review and publication of the or not).
principles or methods;
C. The general acceptance of principles or methods by the Relevance of mismatching DNA evidence
relevant scientific community;
D. The existence and maintenance of standards and Relevancy, as you know, means that evidence must have such a
controls to ensure the correctness of data generated; relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
E. The existence of an appropriate reference population existence.
database; and
F. The general degree of confidence attributed to Thus, under this factor, the court should consider whether or not
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA the fact that the DNA profiles do not match bears a relation to the
profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical fact in issue in the case.
calculations used in comparing DNA profiles. So, when it’s mismatching, determine the relevance. If it’s matching,
determine the weight.
If you examine Section 8, you’ll find that it mirrors and expands the Take note that in US jurisprudence where our own laws were based,
Daubert Test first alluded to by the SC in People vs. Yatar. naay very important distinction between weight and relevancy. Ang
ilahang judicial system is run not only by a judge but also by a jury.
FOUR DAUBERT FACTORS
Now, whose function is it to determine the weight to be given to the
1. whether a theory or technique can be and has been evidence presented; the believability? The jury. Who determines the
tested; relevancy? The judge.
2. whether it has been subjected to peer review and
publication; In the Philippines, both the weight and relevancy is considered by
3. in respect to a particular technique, the known or the same person which makes our judicial system flawed.
potential rate of error and the existence or maintenance
of standards controlling the technique’s operation; and In the US jurisdiction, a judge is merely to be a gate keeper: Unsa
ang akong palusuton sa jury? The jury will make the decision. The
jury will determine the believability of evidence; what it will believe captor as the victim never saw Yau’s face.
and what it will not believe.
The Court agrees with the findings of the RTC and CA that the
In the Philippines it is totally different. The judge will determine foregoing pieces of circumstantial evidence (including the DNA test
whether he will admit it or not. When he admits it, in all probability, conducted upon the saliva sample of Petrus Yau and the residual
he will be believing it as well. DNA found on the mask he wore), when analyzed and taken
together, definitely lead to no other conclusion than that Petrus
Example: If the semen found at the vagina of the victim does not was the author of the kidnapping for ransom. When viewed as a
match the DNA profile of the accused-rapist, would it be relevant to whole the prosecution’s evidence effectively established his guilt
the issue of whether or not the accused raped the victim or not? beyond reasonable doubt. (That’s the totality of evidence)
(Unsa may nahitabo dinhi? Mismatch diba?)
PEOPLE vs. CABIGCUEZ, G.R. No. 185708, (September 29, 2010)

(From C above) DNA results that exclude the putative parent form
Neither a positive DNA match of the semen nor the presence of paternity shall be conclusive proof on non-paternity. If the value of
spermatozoa is essential in finding that rape was committed. The the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the
important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence, if the
but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. (It is value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher there shall
not relevant according to the SC. So how would you overturn the be a disputable presumption of paternity.
conviction kung dili siya relevant diay?)
Results of DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other
evidence: DNA results that exclude the putative parent form paternity shall be
conclusive proof of non-paternity. Excluded ka na, eh. So there’s a
A positive DNA match is unnecessary when the totality of the
mismatch. Your DNA profile does not match the DNA profile of the
evidence presented before the court points to no other possible
putative parent. So clearly, you are excluded. If the value of the
conclusion, i.e., appellant rape the private offended party. A positive
probability of paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA
DNA match may strengthen the evidence for the prosecution, but an
testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. Which means
inconclusive DNA test result may not be sufficient to exculpate the
there should be other types of evidence presented tending to
accused, particularly when there is sufficient evidence proving his
establish paternity. But if the value of the probability of paternity is
guilt. (PEOPLE versus CABIGCUEZ) (So diha gikan ang factor na
99.9% or higher (i.e. 99.91%), there shall be no dispute on the issue
totality of evidence)
of paternity. It is only disputable. It is still susceptible of contrary
proof.
Take note that DNA, by considering the totality of evidence, can be
merely circumstantial evidence for the prosecution such as when
Table of Probabilities of Paternity
there is no eyewitness tending to prove that the accused raped the
victim, for example. You have no eyewitness so you have to resort to
VALUE USE OF DNA TESTING RESULT
Less than 99.9% As corroborative evidence (in
Rule 133, Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. addition to traditional proof of
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (99.8999999+ and below) filiation)
(a) There is more than one circumstance; 99.9% or higher As disputable presumption of
paternity
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and
NOTE
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Section 9 (c) is taken from the pronouncement of the SC in Herrera
vs. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005, where the Court ruled: A
complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA
An example of that would be the case of profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity.
For this reason, trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a
PEOPLE vs. YAU (2014) minimum value of Probability of Paternity (W) prior to a paternity
inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the likelihood of paternity of
In a kidnapping for ransom case, the captor wore red mask which a putative father compared to the probability of a random match of
was retrieved as evidence of the case. A test conducted by the US two unrelated individuals. X X X
Federal Bureau of Investigation reveals that the DNA found I the
mask used by private complainant’s captor matched that of DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should
appellant Petrus Yau. (Modus operandi ng Sps. Yau to bring their be conclusive proof of non-paternity. (This is letter A). If the value of
victim unconscious sa taxi. And then as the captive, you wouldn’t W is less than 99.9% the results of the DNA analysis should be
know what happened to you. You would just wake up in a very considered as corroborative evidence.(This is letter B) If the value of
dark place and surrounded by people with masks.)The prosecution W is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of
presented several other pieces of circumstantial evidence. Take paternity. (This is similar to disputable, so letter C).
note that there was no direct evidence identifying Yau as the
Now, how do you prove filiation? This is answered by the case of September 1998, Rogelio abandoned Joanne and Jinky, and
stopped supporting the child, alleging that he is not the father of
AGUILAR vs. SIASAT (2015) the child. While the case was pending, Rogelio died.
On means of proving filiation
The burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that
The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children is the putative father is the biological father of the child. There are
established by: four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action
which parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative
(1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance
judgment; or between the putative father and child.
(2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent presumed legitimate. As a guaranty in favor of the child and to
concerned. protect his status of legitimacy, Article 167 for the Family Code
provides: Article 167. The children shall be considered legitimate
In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by: although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or
may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
(1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or With the advancement in the field of genetics, and the availability
of new technology, it can now be determined with reasonable
(2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. certainty whether Rogelio is the biological father of the minor,
(Sir: To my mind, this now includes DNA testing.) through DNA testing.
The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a Can DNA testing still be made considering that Rogelio is already
will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic dead?
writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the
child, and no further court action is required. X X X Where, instead,  The death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the
a claim for recognition is predicated on other evidence merely application of DNA testing for as long as there exist
tending to prove paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a appropriate biological samples of his DNA.
statement before a court of record or an authentic writing, judicial  The term biological sample means any organic material
action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential in originating from a person’s body, even if found in
order to establish the child’s acknowledgment. inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This
includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs
and bones.
LUCAS vs. LUCAS (2011)  Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological
samples as enumerated above as may be available, may be
(Also a DNA testing case) used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown
the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological
There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing.
paternity action which the parties have to face; 1) a prima facie And even the death of Rogelio cannot bar the conduct of
case, 2) affirmative defenses, 3) presumption of legitimacy, and 4) DNA testing.
physical resemblance between the putative father and the child. Sir: To my mind, this case is actually a recognition that the
Philippines has already the technological capacity to conduct DNA
testing even if the putative father is already dead. And then
Sir: To my mind, this is less reliable. When you talk about physical compare that to the previous cases where the SC was quite hesitant
resemblance it’s very unreliable compared to DNA evidence or DNA in even hinting on DNA testing.
testing results.
PEOPLE vs. UMANITO
(Chika here about Kardashians and OJ Simpson)
Citing Tecson vs. Commission on Elections, this Court held:
ESTATE OF ONG vs. DIAZ (2007)
In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to
A complaint for compulsory recognition with prayer for support satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing,
pending litigation was filed by minor Joanne Diaz, represented by which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the
her mother and guardian, Jinky, against Rogelio G. Ong, before the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent
RTC of Tarlac City. could be resorted to.
Jinky and Rogelio got acquainted in November 1993 in Tarlac City.

This developed into friendship and later blossomed into love. At
this time, however, Jinky was already married to a Japanese LUCAS vs. LUCAS (2011)
national.
In a petition to establish illegitimate filiation, the SC was
From January 1994 to September 1998, Jinky and Rogelio confronted with the question:
cohabited and lived together. From this live-in relationship, Joanne
Rodjin Diaz was conceived and born on 25 February 1998. In Is a prima facie showing of reasonable probability of paternity
necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order? preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological
samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic information
(What’s a prima facie case? You prove preliminarily that there is a obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose, the court may order
probability of parentage. How do you do that? So prior to asking the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence
for a DNA testing order, you present witnesses tending to show the as follows: (so for biological samples, dapat properly stored;
traditional proof of filiation. Nga ning-aknowledge niya na anak preserved in freezers)
siya niya; nagsign siya ug birth certificate, etc.)
In criminal cases:
(Note that Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence does not mention
prima facie case as a requirement.) i. for not less than the period of time that any person is
under trial for an offense; or
HELD: In some states, to warrant the issuance of DNA testing order, ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as
there must be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must the accused has served his sentence;
first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or a (NOTE: See Lejano vs. People – the DNA was not preserved)
reasonable possibility of paternity or good cause for the holding of
the test. In all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where
the DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory.
The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction
to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample
during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner before the expiration of the periods set forth above, provided that:
must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable
possibility of paternity. (The SC is adding this as a requirement a. A court order to that effect has been secured; or
despite its absence in Sec.4) b. The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained
has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a evidence.
DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court Sir: To my mind, letter B is flawed because it talks about the person
may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for from whom the DNA sample was obtained. Let’s say in a case of
the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of evidence to rape na nabuntis ang babae and gave birth to a child. Kinsa kaha ang
establish paternity and the DNA test result would only be kuhaan ug biological sample? The alleged rapist and the child that
corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA was born allegedly out of the rape. Now this child may actually
testing. consent in writing to have the DNA evidence disposed of. Pwede
diba? And then gipa-sibat sa mama. And the samples are now lost.
How can you now have confirmatory DNA testing?
Sec. 11. Confidentiality. – DNA profiles and all results or other To my mind, the better phraseology would be “the accused” can
information obtained from DNA testing shall be confidential. actually consent in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence;
Except upon order of the court, a DNA profile and all results or limited to the accused. Penal laws and even procedural laws are
other information obtained from DNA testing shall only be construed in favor of the accused rather than the prosecution. It’s
released to any of the following, under such terms and conditions the accused who stands to be benefited by this. He is the one who
as may be set forth by the court: can apply for post-conviction DNA testing.
A. Persons from whom the sample was taken; Sec. 13. Applicability to Pending Cases. Except as provided in
B. Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where Section 6 and 10 hereof, this Rule shall apply to cases pending at
the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to the time of its effectivity. (So, it retroacts)
be offered and presented;
C. Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action; Sec. 14. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 15, 2007,
D. Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and following publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
E. Other persons as determined by the court.
Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any SURVEY OF CASES on DNA and Right to Acquittal
information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court
order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein PEOPLE vs. PASCUAL (2009)
such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to be offered
and presented. In a rape with homicide case, forensic chemist testified that based
on DNA testing, she could not determine if a woman was raped or
Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken not. She further declared that in this case, it was possible that the
files a written verified request to the court that allowed the DNA stained vaginal smear prevented a complete and good result for
testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all the DNA profiling. Upon being questioned by the court, the forensic
results or other information obtained from the DNA testing, the chemist confirmed that DNA testing on the subject specimens was
same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written inconclusive and that the result was not good, as the specimens
verified request. submitted, i.e., the stained vaginal smear and the dirty white
panty, had already undergone serological analysis. (So, blood test.
It was already previously tested. And so the results were
inconclusive. It actually did not yield a positive match with the DNA
Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial court shall
of the accused. Now, should that entitle the accused to an immediately before the trial court pa lang. What you need to do is
acquittal?) to have DNA testing done at the trial court stage pa lang daan
because you can use that as your reasonable doubt. You have
Here, while the DNA analysis of the victim’s vaginal smear showed learned from the previous cases that post-DNA testing does not do
no complete profile of the accused-appellant, the same is not you anything. The SC is not a trier of facts.)
conclusive considering that said specimen was already stained or
contaminated which, according to the forensic chemist, Aida
Villoria-Magsipoc, deters a complete and good result for DNA
profiling. She explained in her testimony that generally, with the VIZCONDE MASSACRE
vaginal smear, they could see if there is a male profile in the smear.
However in this case, when they received the vaginal smear on the The Vizconde murder case, colloquially known as the Vizconde
stained slide, the same had already undergone serological analysis. massacre, was the multiple homicide of member of the Vizconde
Hence, according to the chemist, the DNA testing conducted on the family on 30 June 1991 at their residence in BF Homes, Parañaque.
specimen subject of this case was inconclusive.40 In light of this
flawed procedure, we hold that the result of the DNA examination  Estrellita, 49, had suffered thirteen (13) stab wounds;
does not entitle accused-appellant to an acquittal. Carmela, 18, had suffered seventeen (17) stab wounds and
had been raped before she was killed; and Jennifer, 6, had
PEOPLE versus HIPONA (2010) nineteen (19) stab wounds.
 Lauro Vizconde, Estrellita’s husband, and the father of
Appellant argues that he should only be held liable for robbery and Carmela and Jennifer, was in the United States on business
not the complex crime of Rape with Homicide (and Robbery). He when the murders took place.
cites the testimony of prosecution witness Aida Vilora-Magsipoc,
DNA expert of the National Bureau of Investigation, that she found
the vaginal smears taken from AAA to be negative of appellant’s LEJANO vs. PEOPLE (2010)
DNA.
Four years after the massacre, in 1995, the NBI announced that it
Appellant’s argument fails. The presence of spermatozoa is not had solved the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica M. Alfaro,
essential in finding that rape was committed, the important one of its informers, who claimed that she witnessed the crime.
consideration being not the emission of semen but the penetration (Saludo kaayo si Judge Tolentino sa iya. Her testimony was
of the female genitalia by the male organ. As underlined above, the believed.) She pointed to the accused Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb,
post-mortem examination of AAA’s body revealed fresh hymenal Antonio tony Boy Lejano, Artemio Dong Ventura, Michael A.
lacerations which are consistent with findings of rape. (Isn’t it that Gatchalian, Hospicio Pyke Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel Ging
the Rule on DNA evidence provides that if it is a finding that if it Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as the culprits. She also tagged accused
does not match, it has an effect of exclusion. You don’t need to police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory after the fact. Relying
belabor that. However, the Court still would not acquit accused primarily on Alfaro’s testimony, on August 10, 1995, the public
here. It remains to apply the rule that in rape cases, it is enough prosecutors filed an information for rape with homicide against
that there was penetration. Of course it’s true. But in a similar case Webb, et.al.
here of People vs. Ponga, the victim’s already dead. Who identified
the accused? Eyewitness. Remember that as a general rule, rapes On January 4, 2000, after four (4) years of arduous hearings, the
are unwitnessed.) trial court rendered judgment, finding all the accused guilty as
charged and imposing on Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez,
Estrada, and Rodriguez the penalty of reclusion perpetua and on
Biong, an indeterminate prison term of 11 years, 4 months, and 1
PEOPLE vs. CABIGCUEZ (2010) day to 12 years.
 Appellant cannot seek acquittal on the basis of the negative On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial courts decision. On motion for
result of the DNA test on the specimen conducted by the NBI. reconsideration by the accused, the CA’s Special Division of 5
 Notably, neither a positive DNA match of the semen nor the members voted 3 against 2 to deny the motion.
presence of spermatozoa is essential in finding that rape was
committed. The important consideration in rape cases is not the During the appeal to the SC, the Court issued a Resolution granting
emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the request of Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen
the male organ. (Pabalik-balik lang ang SC. Wala nay bili ang specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver, which specimen was
DNA testing.) believed to be still under the safekeeping of the NBI. The Court
granted the request pursuant to Section 4 of the Rule on DNA
Evidence.
PEOPLE vs. LUCERO (2011)
Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010 the NBI informed the Court that it
The DNA test is not essential, while there exists other evidence no longer has custody of the specimen, the same having been
pinning down accused-appellant as the perpetrator. Indeed, if he turned over to the trial court. The trial record shows, however,
honestly thought that the DNA test could have proved his that the specimen was not among the object evidence that the
innocence, he could have asked for the conduct of said test during prosecution offered in evidence in the case.
his trial instead of belatedly raising it on appeal, and attempting to
dictate upon the prosecution what course of actions it should have The outcome prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to
undertaken. (While you want to avail of DNA testing, do it acquit on the ground that the government’s failure to preserve
such vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his right to due
process. had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written
statement by Boblit confessing that he had committed the act of
ISSUE: Accused Webb’s motion to acquit present a threshold issue: killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had affirmed the
whether or not the Court should acquit him outright, given the conviction and remanded the case for retrial only on the question
government’s failure to produce the semen specimen that the NBI of punishment.
found on Carmela’s cadaver, thus depriving him of evidence that
would prove his innocence. US SC HELD: Withholding exculpatory evidence violates due
process where the evidence is material either to guilt or
Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland, that he is entitled to punishment the court determined that, under Maryland state law,
outright acquittal on the ground of violation of his right to due the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant
process given the State’s failure to produce on order of the Court but was material to the level of punishment he would be given.
either by negligence or willful suppression the semen specimen
taken from Carmela.
NOTE: Right now, the governing rule is Section 12 which mandates
HELD: The medical evidence clearly established that Carmela was preservation of DNA evidence in criminal cases for not less than the
raped and, consistent with this, semen specimen was found in her. period of time that any person is under trial for an offense or, in
It is true that Alfaro identified Webb in her testimony as Carmela’s case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused
rapist and killer but serious questions had been raised about her has served his sentence.
credibility. At the very least, there exists a possibility that Alfaro
had lied. On the other hand, the semen specimen taken from Webb’s main defense is ALIBI
Carmela cannot possibly lie. It cannot be coached or allured by a
promise of reward or financial support. If, on examination, the DNA He was able to present very credible evidence that he was at the US
of the subject specimen does not belong to Webb, then he did not at the time of the incident.
rape Carmela. It is that simple. Thus, the Court would have bgeen
able to determine that Alfaro committed perjury in saying that he POSTULATE TO REMEMBER: Alibi, being a negative evidence, is an
did. inherently weak defense. It is always discredited by positive eye
witness identification.
Still, Webb is not entitled to acquittal for the failure of the State to
produce the semen specimen, for one thing the ruling in Brady v.
Maryland that he cites has long been overtaken by the decision in Correlation:
Arizona v. Youngblood, where the U.S, Supreme Court held that
due process does not require the State to preserve the semen In Andal, etc., the SC always ruled that eyewitness identification
specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the cannot overrule DNA evidence tending to prove that the DNA
latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the samples did not match. (It’s a stubborn recitation of something
police. without reference to the facts. And my contention is you have to
look at the factual milieu of the case before you apply that very
For, another, when Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing stringent doctrine: that penetration is the only element of rape.)
DNA evidence did not yet exist, the country did not yet have the
technology for conducting the test, and no Philippine precedent LEJANO vs. PEOPLE (2010)
had as yet recognized its admissibility as evidence. Consequently,
the idea of keeping the specimen secure even after the trial court To be acceptable, the positive identification must meet at least two
rejected the motion for DNA testing did not come up. Indeed, criteria:
neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of
preserving the specimen in the meantime. First, the positive identification of the offender must come from a
credible witness. She is credible who can be trusted to tell the truth,
Parenthetically, after the trial court denied Webb’s application for usually based on past experiences with her. Her word has, to one
DNA testing, he allowed the proceeding to move on when he had who knows her, its weight in gold.
on at least 2 occasions gone up to the CA or the SC to challenge
alleged arbitrary actions taken against him and the other accused. Second, the witness’ story of what she personally saw must be
They raised the DNA issue before the CA but merely as an error believable, not inherently contrived. A witness who testifies about
committed by the trial court in rendering its decision in the case. something she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes
None of the accused filed a motion with the appeals court to have bewildering claims.
the DNA test done pending adjudication of their appeal. This, even
when the SC had in the meantime passed the rules allowing such Here, as already fully discussed, Alfaro and her testimony fail to
test. Considering the accused’s lack of interest in having such test meet the above criteria..
done, the State cannot be deemed put on reasonable notice that it
would be required to produce the semen specimen at some future
time. AFTERMATH
Mr. Vizconde filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Webb

acquittal. The SC denied the MR (G.R. No. 176389, January 18, 2011)
BRADY vs. MARYLAND (1963) due to double jeopardy considerations.
Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder.
Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit
He died on Feb.13 after suffering a series of heart attacks. He got his

wish to be buried next to spouse Estrellita and children Carmela and
Jennifer at Manial Memorial Park in Parañaque City.
He died without obtaining any measure of justice or peace of mind

after the brutal slaying of his family.
Webb was already 42 years old when he was released. He ran for
councilor for the City of Parañaque last May 2016.
Vandolph won. Pfft.
After the SC doctrinally immortalized her lies, Alfaro fled to Canada.
In March 2011, the Webb family filed a criminal case against her for
false testimony.
Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit. He who flees from prosecution

confesses his guilt.
What about Kris Aquino? I am telling you this as a matter of law: she
still sucks!
August 3, 2016  For documents, when there is an original, there are rules for
substitution that would apply (See Sections 4 to 8, Rule 130).
 For objects, a proponent cannot present a copy of a gun or rock.
RULE 130 – RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS He must present the gun or rock itself. There is no substitutionary
evidence. But for documents, there are allowable instances where
 Best Evidence Rule you can present a mere copy of an original.
 Original of a Document
 Procedure in Presentation of Secondary Proof
x x x (a) The original of the document is one the contents of which
 Parol Evidence Rule are the subject of inquiry. x x x
 Rule and Exceptions
 Do not view originality in terms of time of creation.Kung kanus-a
 Statute of Frauds ba na, unsay nauna? Copy A or Copy B?
 Compared with Parol Evidence Rule  Rather, you ought to determine the subject of inquiry in order for
you to determine which is the original.
Q: What is a document?
SPOUSES ALFARO VS. CA (2007)
RULE 130, Section 2. Documentary evidence – Documents as
evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, HELD: Original does not mean the first paper written, in contrast
words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written to a copy or transcript made later. The original depends upon the
expressions offered as proof of their contents. (n) issue to be proved. It is immaterial whether that document was
written before or after another, was copied from another, or was
I want to discuss Section 4 first before we proceed to discuss Section itself used to copy from, as long as its contents are the subject of
3 because while Section 3 already talks about the Best Evidence Rule inquiry.
and tells you a little bit about the original of a document, it does so
without first determining what an original document is. So to my That is what the SC is saying, tan-awon nato ang subject of inquiry.
mind the key to understanding Section 3 would be a prior
Dean Iñigo’s Example:
knowledge of Section 4. So mag-start ta sa Section 4.
 Libel Cases
Section 4. Original of document.
 Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines,
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of
libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime,
which are the subject of inquiry.
or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed
condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause
at or about the same time with identical contents, all
the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
such copies are equally regarded as originals.
blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to
business, one being copied from another at or near
another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the
the time of the transaction, all the entries are
person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice. (DAEZ VS. CA,
likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a)
GR No. 47971, October 31 1990)
Q: What is the original of a document? Gi-underline nako ang letter (b) “publication of the imputation”
because without the element of publicity, there is no crime. It has
 Layman would understand the word “original” as “first” or
to be published in the sense.
“earliest” or as an adjective.
 Being law students, we know that the term “original” has a
Article 355. Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the
different meaning. In layman’s understanding when you say
publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by
“original”, it’s an adjective. But we use the term “original” as a
similar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or
noun.
editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business
 The term “original” under Rule 130 is used as a noun. Conversely,
manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication,
in evidence, an original need not be the first or the earliest. The
shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to
minimum requirement is that it must be one the contents of
the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
which is the subject of the inquiry.
Q: Why do you call it an “original”? Q: How is a news article published?
Quite simple because it is that source of evidence that from which a A reporter types a story, with or without a source, and submits the
secondary evidence is copied or is sourced. Take note that there is same to his editor. The editor, after presumably doing some editing,
no such thing as an original of an object. then publishes the story in the newspaper.
 Section 3 and 4 (Rule 130) apply only to documents and not Question: In a prosecution for libel, which is considered the original?
objects. The story as typed by the writer or the story as published in the
newspaper?
You have to really look at it. In a crime of libel, what would be the another pleading with the same contents, it would take you forever
subject of inquiry? to do that, okay lang na naay carbon copies. All of those carbon
copies are equally regarded as originals.
According to Dean Iñigo, it depends. If the subject of inquiry is who
wrote the article, the original would be the story as prepared or  Writings with identical contents made by printing,
typed by the author. But if the issue to be established is whether mimeographing, lithography and other similar methods executed
the published story is libelous or not the original is the story which at the same time are considered originals. Thus, each newspaper
appeared in print. sold in the newsstand is an original in itself.
You can just imagine pinaka-original sa tanan-tanan. How many

newspapers are in circulation that can be considered as the original Notarial Acts
of the document in libel considering that the libelous article 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
becomes the subject of inquiry.
Rule VI, Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. – XXX
American Jurisprudence
d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary
 In a suit against the telegraph company for failure to transmit a public shall keep an original copy thereof as part of his records
message, the original is the message submitted to the company and enter in said records a brief description of the substance
for transmission (Jones on Evidence, § 210 citing Conyers vs. Postal thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number,
Cable Co. 92 Ga. 619, 19 S.E. 253 Am. St. Rep. 100). If the suit is for beginning with number one in each calendar year. He shall also
damages by the sender against the telegraph company because of retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court.
delay in transmission, the original would be the message as
received by the recipient (Jones on Evidence, §210 citing Collins vs. So let’s say there is a contract dispute regarding the provisions in a
Western Union, 145 Ala. 41241 So. 160, 8 ann. Cas. 268). contract to sell. Remember that under the Rules on Notarial
Practice, what’s the minimum number of copies that should be
 But if the subject of inquiry is the inaccuracy of transmission of the retained by a Notary Public who of course presides over the
telegram, the originals would be both telegrams as sent and
notarization of the contract? Under letter (d) he has to keep an
received (Regalado, Vol. II, pp. 722-723, 2008 ed.)
original copy as part of his records. And there should be a duplicate
It is not that difficult to determine kung unsa ang original if you original copy for the Clerk of Court. Minimum of two.
know the subject of inquiry.
But that is not what happens in practice because if you’re going to a
xxx (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or lawyer to have a contract drafted, of course at least two parties to a
about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are contract. So each party to a contract would also deserve and require
equally regard as originals. x x x a copy. So in addition to the two required by the Notarial Rules, for
every party who is available, you have to give a copy as well. In all
 This is also known as the DUPLICATE ORIGINAL RULE. probability that would also be an original copy. So executed at or
about the same time with identical contents.
Although there is no ruling of the SC specifically telling us that kini
na paragraph is called the Duplicate Original Rule. Manila Hotel(??) BPI VS. SMP (2009)
would tell you that.
FACTS: MP undertook to supply polysterene products to
 Any such copy may be introduced in evidence without accounting Clothespack in the amount of $118,500. As payment, Clothespack
for the non-production of the other copies if naa kay duplicate or issued postdated checks. The Sales Executive of SMP executed a
triplicate, multiplicate original. provisional receipt in triplicate with a notation “Materials belong
to SMP Inc. until your checks clear.” The checks bounced. In the
Examples: meantime, in a case filed by Far East Bank against Clothespack for
collection of a sum of money and Clothespack was subjected to a
 If a data entry clerk makes an entry of a transaction which is writ of preliminary attachment, which included the polysterene
repeated several times for the files of each department of the products sold to it by SMP. FEB secured a favorable judgment
Company, each document where the entry was made is an original which became final and executor which led to the execution
as long as the entries are made at or near the time of the against Clothespak’s properties inclusive of the goods earlier
transaction and in the regular course of business. attached.
 When a lawyer writes a pleading in two or more copies which are SMP filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim over the polysterene
executed at the same time, with identical contents, each products. It anchors its claim of ownership over the goods by
document is an original. virtue of the provisional receipt and presented it during trial. FEB
objected on the ground that SMP only presented the triplicate
Try to recall how lawyers did it or imagine how lawyers did it in the copy without presenting the original.
19kupong-kupongs compared to how we do it right now. . . Carbon
copy, typewriter, just very difficult. Because it was very impractical HELD: The receipt presented by SMP is deemed as an original,
considering that the triplicate copy of the provisional receipt was
to just type one pleading and after doing that you again type
executed at the same time as the other copies of the same receipt (a) The original is the one typed and signed by both parties and
involving the same transaction. which was lost when the office of the counsel of JZE was
burned. It is the one the contents of which is the subject of
inquiry.
So no need to present the other copies, that is an original in itself. (b) The photocopies are not duplicate originals. They cannot be
Very simple case but it illustrates two important principles, one in deemed as having been made at the same time with the
original because they were not signed unlike the original.
evidence and one in sales.
But what if this is what you do, you make one copy and then you
CAPITAL SHOES VS. TRAVELER KIDS (2014)
have it photocopied. Isa ra gyud imong gi-type, nagpa-photocopy
HELD: When carbon sheet are inserted between two or more ka. Gipirmahan kadtong originally na gi-type nimo, gipirmahan pud
sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon ang duha ka photocopy. Which one will be the original?
the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be
charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, All of them will become original. So that’s the principle that you
such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of pen need to remember. Originality therefore is not about form. Kung
which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets unsa ba ang original, kung unsa ang photocopy. It depends now on
so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of which of the documents have been authenticated by the signatures
them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting
of the parties. So if everything is signed, regardless of whether or
for the nonproduction of the others.
not photocopy lang tong uban na mga copies, well they’re all
originals because everything has been signed. That’s what we need
So that’s what you need to remember, kung duplicate, triplicate
to remember.
originals, multiplicate originals, only present one that would suffice.
No need to account for the other copies. That’s all that you need to
x x x (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
present. business, one being copied from another at or near the time of
the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
 Where a seller usually prepared two (2) copies of invoices for a originals. x x x
particular transaction, giving once copy to a client and retaining
the other copy, Section 4(b) of Rule 130 is applicable. To be considered originals under this provision, certain
requirements must be complied with:
American Jurisprudence (a) there must be entries made and repeated in the regular
course of business;
 Where a document is executed in duplicate or multiplicate form, (b) the entries must be made at or near the time of the
each one of the parts is primary evidence of the contents of the transaction.
document, and the other need not be produced. In such a case,
each is deemed an original. If several copies of a document are Can you think what entries in any business that you know would be
made at the same time by inserting on each page a carbon paper
regularly repeated, one copy from another at or near the time of the
but only one of them is signed, the signed copy is the original and
the others are only copies. transaction. Gisulat nimo, gikopya na pud nimo sa lain, all of those
entries are equally regarded as originals.
That’s an important principle to remember especially so that it came
out in the bar examinations in 1997. Example in Accounting: Difference between a journal and a ledger.
Everything that you do, supposed to be, it has an entry in that
BAR QUESTION (1997) document called a Journal. You write an entry to Journal but that is
the same entry that you’re going to transfer to a Ledger. So that’s
 When JZE loaned a sum of money to Bangs, JZE typed a single copy the meaning here of an entry repeated in the regular course of
of the promissory note, which they both signed. JZE made two business, one being copied from another, at or near the time of the
photocopies of the promissory note, giving one copy to Bangs and
transaction, all entries are likewise equally regarded as the originals.
retaining the other copy, JZE entrusted the typewritten copy to his
counsel for safekeeping. The copy with JZE’s counsel was
Example in Nursing: Let’s say the subject of inquiry is what the
destroyed when the law office was burned by Maja.
doctor prescribed to a patient who died because he was allergic to
(a) In an action to collect the promissory note, which is the medication, you have three originals. (1) The instructions of the
deemed to be the “original” copy? doctor (2) the medication tickets and (3) the patient’s record. So
repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from
Among the copies that existed, would it be the one kept by another, at or near the time of the transaction.
counsel? Would it be the one that were mere
photocopies? RAMOS VS. CA (1991)
(b) Can the photocopies in the hands of the parties be FACTS: Ramos, the bank manager, and several were prosecuted
considered “duplicate” originals? for Estafa, their modus operandi was that the depositors would
issue worthless checks and Ramos would allow the encashment
Suggested Answers of the same or the drawing against uncleared check deposits
(DAUD). The importance of the precise terms of writings in the world of

legal relations, the fallibility of the human memory as reliable
Evidence presented by the prosecution included audit evidence of the terms, and the hazards of inaccurate or
worksheets, bank ledgers and Xerox copies of the dishonored incomplete duplicates are the concerns addressed by the best
checks and check return slip. evidence rule.
Ramos objected on the ground that these documents were not

originals. Take note of the case LEE VS. PEOPLE (2004), it’s a very important
case.
HELD: Entries in the account ledgers of the depositors which are
on file on the bank may be regarded as originals. When an entry Q: When is BER APPLICABLE?
is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied
from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the  It’s only applicable when the subject of inquiry must be the
entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. contents of a document.
 The rule applies only when the purpose is to establish the terms of
a writing. When the evidence introduced concerns some external
BEST EVIDENCE RULE fact about a writing like its existence, execution or delivery
without reference to its terms, the rule cannot be invoked.
Section 3.Original document must be produced; exceptions –
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no Q: When would it be INAPPLICABLE?
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself, except in the following cases  We have that from the case of LEE VS. PEOPLE (2004)lang
gihapon.The BER does not apply to:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or 1. Proof of facts collateral to the issues such as the nature,
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the appearance or condition of physical objects; or
part of the offeror; 2. Evidence relating to a matter which does not come from
the foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
Take note that in the 1994 Bar examinations, a weird question was 3. When a party uses a document to prove the existence of
asked. Why is the best evidence rule considered as a misnomer? an independent fact, as to which the writing is merely
mali na pagkatawag. collated or incidental.
Best Evidence Rule: A Misnomer (1994 Bar) 1. Proof of facts collateral to the issues such as the nature,
appearance or condition of physical objects; or
The term “Best Evidence” has been a source of misconception. It has
often been misunderstood and given a meaning it does not deserve. To simplify everything, the BER simply does not apply to object
Despite the word “best”, the rule does not proclaim itself as the evidence. It’s as simple as that, kanang no. 1. Why am I emphasizing
highest and most reliable evidence in the hierarchy of evidence. The that? It’s been asked in the bar exam as well in 1994.
term “best” has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value
in relation to other types of evidence. It is not intended to mean the
BAR QUESTION (1994)
“most superior” evidence. More accurately, it is the “original
document” rule, or the “primary evidence” rule.
At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the
Q: Why do we need to present the original? Why can we not present prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00
mere duplicate copies? bills in the “buy-bust” operation. Ace objects to the introduction of
the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule prohibits
RATIONALE: The underlying purpose of the best evidence rule is the the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original.
prevention of fraud or mistake in the proof of the contents of a
writing. This Rule is adopted for the prevention of fraud and is (a) Is the photocopy object or documentary evidence?
(b) Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?
declared to be essential to the pure administration of justice.
(Moran, Vol. 5, p. 12) If a party is in possession of such evidence and
withholds it, the presumption naturally arises that the better How do you argue that it’s object or documentary evidence. You go
evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes. (Francisco, Rules of by definition, that’s the best thing to do it. But you need to
Court, Vol. VII, Part I, pp. 121, 122) remember is what would be the subject of inquiry? If the subject of
inquiry would be the contents of a document, then you’re talking
LEE VS. PEOPLE (2004)
about documentary evidence. But in a buy-bust operation, ang
HELD: Before the onset of liberal rules of discovery, and modern marked money, are you so concerned what is written in the marked
techniques of electronic copying, the best evidence rule was money? Simply marked money is an object addressed to the senses
designed to guard against incomplete or fraudulent proof and of the court. Of course, marked money here is an object. We’re not
the introduction of altered copies. But the modern justification talking about terms of a writing.
for the rule has expanded from the prevention of fraud to a
recognition that writings occupy a central position in the law. Answers:
(a) The photocopy is object evidence. It is not documentary  No. The receipt does not directly prove whether Gerald killed
evidence because it is not offered as proof of its contents. Matteo.
(b) Yes, the photocopy is admissible in evidence because the
best evidence rule does not apply to object or real Q: But is it collaterally relevant?
evidence.
 Yes. The photocopy of the credit card imprint reasonably tends to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. The
Q: What is the COLLATERAL FACTS RULE? credit card imprint places Gerald at the scene of the crime which is
contrary to his alibi. If he was at the scene of the crime, it would
 A document or writing which is merely “collateral” to the issue not be improbable for him to have the opportunity to poison
involved in the case on trial need not be proved. Where the Matteo.
purpose of presenting a document is not to prove its contents, but
merely to give coherence to, or to make intelligible the testimony Q: How do we now apply that to the Collateral Facts Rule?
of a witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, the
original of the document need not be presented.  The photocopy of the credit card imprint is merely “collateral” to
the issue involved in the case. It need not be proved. The purpose
The subject of inquiry therefore does not relate to what is stated in of presenting it is not to prove its contents, but merely to give
the document, in the writing. What is the subject of inquiry? coherence to, or to make intelligible the testimony of Piolo
Something extraneous to the writing which a witness may use to regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, i.e., that Gerald
was at the restaurant at the time of the alleged poisoning. Thus,
refer to these extraneous facts.
the original of the imprint need not be presented.
Relate this with:
Q: If you apply strictly the BER, would Piolo be able to use the
photocopy of the credit card imprint or receipt?
Rule 128, Section 4.Relevancy; collateral matters – Evidence
must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief
 No, it’s not original. You present the original mismo.
in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters
shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable
Q: But is the fact in issue here the contents of the credit card print
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue. out?
 No, it’s not the fact in issue in the case but it can still be used in
It may not be the fact in issue but it has relevance because it tends the case, it being a mere collateral fact under the Collateral Facts
to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. It’s a Rule. That’s also the way to explain kung unsa tong nakabutang na
collateral matter, it’s circumstantial to the fact in issue. It’s not “collateral” in the case of LEE VS. PEOPLE (2004).
direct proof but it is relevant nonetheless.
2. Evidence relating to a matter which does not come from
Case Study: Poison Poisoning Poison the foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
 Facts: Gerald was prosecuted for murdering Matteo. The 3. When a party uses a document to prove the existence of an
prosecution alleged that he poisoned Matteo’s drink while they independent fact, as to which the writing is merely collated or
were dining at the restaurant on October 31, 2015, discussing how incidental.
they are going further to corrupt the virtues of otherwise innocent
ladies. Gerald denies being at the said restaurant on the said date It’s a document but is it really the foundation of your cause of action
and thus, he could not have been the one who poisoned Matteo. or your defense? No, it can be presented despite the fact that it’s
 The prosecution presented as a witness Piolo who brought a
not original.
photocopy of a credit card imprint with Gerald’s name and
signature on it. The photocopy also contains the date and time
Like a party uses a document to prove the existence of an
when the credit card was allegedly swiped.
 Gerald questioned the admissibility of the photocopy because it independent fact, a contemporaneous fact, a collateral fact, as to
was not original and is therefore violative of the Best Evidence which the writing is merely collated or incidental, the BER does not
Rule. apply.
Resolution: Q: When is the document merely collaterally in issue?
Q: What is the fact in issue here?  When the documents is involved in the inquiry but the document
is only collaterally in issue, the best evidence rule does not apply.
 Whether or not Gerald killed Matteo. A document is collaterally in issue when the purpose of
introducing the document is not to establish its terms but to show
Q: Under Rule 128, Section 4, does the photocopy have such a facts that have no reference to its contents like its existence,
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non- condition, execution or delivery.
existence?
Is the BER applicable to deficiency assessment of taxes? Or would  The proponent or party must present the original document and
photocopies be okay to determine whether or not naa ba kay not a mere copy thereof. So long as the original is available, no
deficiency taxes? NO. other evidence can be substituted for the original.
Q: What should be done if the original cannot be presented? When

CIR VS. HANTEX TRADING (2005) will the exceptions apply?
HELD: The best evidence obtainable under Section 16 of the  The party must find a legal justification for the failure to present
1977 NIRC, as amended, does not include mere photocopies of the original and then present secondary evidence. That’s the only
records/documents. The petitioner, in making a preliminary and time that you can present a mere copy.
final tax deficiency assessment against a taxpayer, cannot anchor
the said assessment on mere machine copies of So for purposes of simplicity and easier understanding, allow me to
records/documents. Indeed, in United States vs. Davey, the U.S. restate the BER.
Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) ruled that where the accuracy of a
taxpayer’s return is being checked, the government is entitled to Restatement of BER
use the original records rather than be forced to accept
purported copies which present the risk of error or tampering.  The original of a document must be presented unless the
proponent can justify its unavailability in the manner provided in
In order to determine kung naa bay deficiency taxes na dapat the Rules. If the proponent can justify, copy can be presented.
bayaran ang usa ka taxpayer, there has to be original records  THE PROPONENT HAS TO LAY DOWN THE BASIS FOR THE
presented. The BIR should rely on original records than be forced to ADMISSION OF THE COPY IN LIEU OF THE ORIGINAL.
accept purported copies which present the risk of errors or
Q: So what would be the justifications for the unavailability of the
tampering. So medyo strict ta gamay when we talk about the tax
original that would allow you to present secondary or
collection efforts of the government.
substitutionary evidence?
Take note because this is a rule of admissibility, it can be waived.
Allowed Justifications:
Q: How can it be waived?
 When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
 The best evidence rule may be waived if not raised in the trial or produce in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.
for failure of the other party to object.  When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
 All rules of admissibility can be waived. So if you do not know the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
rule to apply in order for you to properly object, you therefore product it after reasonable notice;
waive it.  When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents, which cannot be examine in court without great loss
of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
HEIRS OF DELA CRUZ VS. CA (1998)
general result of the whole; and
 When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
HELD: If the party against whom the secondary evidence is
officer or is recorded in a public office.
offered does not object thereto when the same is offered in
evidence, the secondary evidence becomes primary evidence, its
We go to the exceptions one by one.
probative value must still meet the various tests by which its
reliability is to be determined. Its admissibility should not be
confused with its probative value. x x x (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produce in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror. x x x
You fail to object to the introduction of a photocopy but the court Loss, Destruction and Unavailability
still does not believe the contents of the photocopy and would have
wanted the original to be presented. So it’s the court’s call, the court Does the Rules of Court define loss? It does not. And so we have (?)
will determine whether this evidence is believable or not. It totally to the only definition of loss that we know and that is from Article
disregarded (?) or it might even put its entire decision on that 1189 of the Civil Code. And you will see that it applies also to
secondary evidence. As we will see later on in the case of ESTRADA remedial law.
VS. DESIERTO (2001), we’ll discuss that later on.
Define Loss
The law requires that you have to present the original, that’s the
 It is understood that the thing is lost when it perishes, or goes out
general rule. But it’s not available, you cannot find it anymore, you
of commerce, or disappears in such a way that its existence is
don’t know where it is. Does it mean the end of the world for you if unknown or it cannot be recovered. (Article 1189, Civil Code)
you are the party litigant? Of course no.
That’s the only definition of loss under the law and that is also the
Q: But the original is unavailable? way we should define under the rules. Wala may lain.
What about destruction?
 Destruction means the obliteration of a document such as by (1) You prove the existence of the document, that it is not a
tearing, shredding or burning. It can also include acts of alteration product of fiction. It really exists.
that would render the contents of a document unintelligible for (2) That it was executed by the parties charged with that
the purpose it is offered in evidence. document.
(3) That it is lost, destroyed or otherwise unavailable.
This definition I got from Succession. So there’s an original of a (4) You now present what should be the contents of that
document, that’s the only original that you have, the rest of them original document by presenting secondary or
you have photocopies. substitutionary evidence.
 Unavailability may be PHYSICAL or LEGAL. Later on we will distinguish between Laying the Basis, Laying the
Foundation, Laying the Predicate. There are three “laying” things in
1) Physical unavailability may refer to cases where the evidence. I keep on asking that in my examinations, I still don’t know
original consists of inscription on immovable objects or why you don’t get it.
monuments and even gravestones.
Di ba I explained to you already, remember that bato with a When you are able to lay the basis that’s the time that you apply
negotiable instrument in it? It doesn’t matter what the material is. It Section 5.
could be engraved in stone or written on human skin that would be
considered a document provided the subject of inquiry would be Section 5. When original document is unavailable.- When the
contents of a document. If it is offered as proof of its contents then original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
it’s a document. So what if what you want to present would be an produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its existence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove
inscription on a building? You cannot bring it in court so you need to
its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
resort to secondary evidence. What type of secondary evidence? authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
You may (?) or take a picture. Even if it is a photograph, the subject stated.
of inquiry would be the contents of the photograph, that’s a
documentary evidence. That’s the secondary evidence that is allowed. So nawala imong
original, but you are able to lay the basis to present secondary
2) Legal unavailability may refer to instances where the
evidence.
document is beyond the territorial or coercive jurisdiction
of the court.
Q: What’s your secondary evidence?
Kung beyond siya, dili ma-subpoena sa court. The court cannot
1. A copy of the original. It could be a photocopy.
enforce without its territorial jurisdiction an obligation on a party to
2. A recital of its contents in some authentic document.
produce the original of a document. You cannot compel it, wala tay
mahimo, so it is legally unavailable to a party. Q: What’s an example of an authentic document that would recite
the contents of the supposed original? How do you plead actionable
ONG CHING PO VS. CA (1994) documents?
HELD: Secondary evidence is admissible when the original
It’s either you attach it or you copy the contents of the actionable
document were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the
introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must document in your pleading. You plead it. So that’s an example.
establish the former existence of the document. The correct
order of proof is as follows: 3. By the testimony of witnesses.
1. EXISTENCE; That’s the third type of secondary evidence. And so a witness will
2. EXECUTION; testify that as far as his memory goes, the contents of the
3. LOSS; document.
4. CONTENTS.
 This order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the So mao na ang tulo ka secondary evidence in loss, destruction and
court (De Vera vs. Aguilar, 218 SCRA 602 [1993]) unavailability of the original document.
 This is the process of LAYING THE BASIS.
CITIBANK VS. TEODORO (2003)
Remember that. I don’t know why I keep on asking this in my HELD: Production of secondary evidence requires compliance
examinations, ONG CHING PO VS. CA (1994), almost every year I do, with the following:
and yet students still find it hard to remember these four words, (1) 1) The offeror must prove the execution or existence of the
original;
Existence (2) Execution (3) Loss (4) Contents.
2) The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability; and
3) The offeror must show that the unavailability was without
Q: How do you now lay the basis for the introduction of secondary
bad faith on his part.
or substitutionary evidence?
So wala siyay sala sa pagkawala sa original. Wala niya gitaguan ang
original. That would show that there is no bad faith on his part.
DELA CRUZ VS. CA (1998) Each exception naa na siyay separate na provision what to do in
order to present secondary evidence.
HELD: It is a well-settled principle that before secondary evidence
can be presented, all duplicated and/or counterpart must be So for the second exception, apply Section 6. After compliance,
accounted for, and no excuse for the non-production of the apply Section 6.
original document itself can be regarded as established until all
its parts are unavailable.
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody
or control. XXX If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of
It’s very important as well. Remember this because somehow you its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary
forget about it. evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
Example: There’s a contract of sale prepared in quadruplicate. One Q: What does this mean when Section 6 says “secondary evidence
with the notary public, one with the Clerk of Court, one each for the may be presented as in the case of its loss.”?
buyer and seller. You file a case to enforce the provisions of the
contract of sale, let’s say you are the seller, wala pa ka nabayran. So  It simply means that you APPLY Section 5. Section 5 tells you what
your contract of sale is actually an actionable document. Problem is would be the secondary evidence. Secondary evidence may be
you lost your copy. So what are you going to do? Do you introduced as follows: by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in
some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
immediately present secondary evidence? No, you have to account
order stated.
for the other originals. Find out what happened to the copy kept by
the Clerk of Court, kept by the lawyer and kept by the buyer. So that’s the meaning of Section 6, you go back to Section 5.
Account for them first before you’re able to present secondary
evidence. That’s the only time because the court may dispense with Q: What is the effect of the refusal or failure of the adverse party to
the presentation of secondary evidence if it can subpoena the copies produce the original is justified?
that are found elsewhere. No need to present secondary evidence.
That’s the important lesson in the case of DELA CRUZ VS. CA (1998).  It does not give rise to the presumption of suppression of
Remember that please, again that’s one thing that you seem to evidence, or create an unfavorable interference against him. It
only authorizes the presentation of secondary evidence.
forget at the end of the semester.
(Regalado, Vol. II, p. 727, 2008 ed.)
xxx (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of Remember once again that when we go to Rule 131, we will
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails encounter this “adverse presumption of suppression of evidence” –
to product it after reasonable notice; xxx that evidence if it is suppressed would be adverse if produced. So
that does not apply under this exception.
Original is in the custody or control of the adverse party
x x x (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
 The mere fact that the original document is in the custody or
documents, which cannot be examine in court without great loss of
under the control of the adverse party does not ipso facto
authorize the introduction of secondary evidence to prove its time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
contents. Although if you’re the plaintiff and the document is in general result of the whole; x x x
the possession of the defendant, you would find that the
defendant would be reluctant to supply you with documents so Original consists of numerous accounts
that you can sue him.
 Secondary evidence may be presented if:
 The part who seeks to present secondary evidence must lay the  The original consists of numerous accounts or other
foundation for its introduction, subject to the following documents.
 A good example of this would be books of accounts,
REQUISITES: receipts and similar documents;
1. That the original exists;  These documents cannot be examined in court without great
2. That said document is under the custody or control of the loss of time; and
adverse party;  The fact sought to be established from them is only the
3. That the proponent of secondary evidence has given the general result of the whole.
adverse party reasonable notice to produce the original  This means that the purpose for the introduction of such
document; and evidence is not to examine all the documents or pages of
documents but merely to give the judge a summary from
Q: What’s an example of reasonable notice? which he may draw a logical inference as to the probability
or improbability of the fact in issue.
You send him a letter requesting for a copy of the document.
Money claims, where the money claims would be the product of
4. That the adverse party failed to produce the original how many years of transactions between one party against another.
document despite the reasonable notice.
Example: Your client is a distributorship, in charge of distributing the (GR No. 156132, October 12, 2006)
product of Chippy all throughout the Mindanao region. So how
many transactions or deliveries you have of Chippy? How much ana  COMPANIA MARITIMA VS. ALLIED FREE WORKERS UNION, ET.AL.
ang nabayran na? How much ana ang wala pa nabayran? Let’s say GR No. L-28999, May 24, 1977
the distributorship agreement with Jack and Jill would be five years.
CITIBANK, N.A. VS. SABENIANO (2006)
Imagine the amount of documents then. So in that case I ask a
Certified Public Accountant.
FACTS: Respondent filed a Complaint against petitioners for
"Accounting, Sum of Money and Damages." She claimed to have
 Read the case of ATLAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
substantial deposits and money market placements with the
REVENUE GR No. 141104 & 148763, June 8, 2007
petitioners, the proceeds of which were supposedly deposited
 Requirements to comply with when the original consists in
automatically and directly to respondent's accounts with petitioner
numerous accounts
Citibank. Respondent alleged that petitioners refused to return her
You have to read this case, it’s very important.
deposits and the proceeds of her money market placements
despite her repeated demands.
Q: What are the requirements to comply with when the original
consists in numerous account? How do you make your life easier
Petitioners alleged that the respondent obtained several loans
when your documents are voluminous but what is required only is from petitioner Citibank, for which she executed Promissory Notes
the general result of the whole? (PNs). The proceeds of the loans were paid to respondent in
Manager Checks (MCs), with the respondent specifically named as
Summary of ATLAS VS.CIR (2007) payee. When respondent failed to pay her loans despite repeated
demands by petitioner Citibank, the latter exercised its right to off-
1. The party who desires to introduce as evidence such set or compensate respondent's outstanding loans with her
voluminous documents must, after motion and approval by deposits and money market placements.
the Court, present:
Respondent alleged that she received these checks, not as
a) a SUMMARY containing, among others, a chronological proceeds of loans, but as payment of the principal amounts and/or
listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by interests from her money market placements with petitioner
the invoices or receipts; and Citibank. On the other hand, petitioners submitted the
photocopies and microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and exchange
b) a CERTIFICATION of an independent Certified Public of letters between petitioner Citibank and respondent, as well as
Accountant attesting to the correctness of the contents the letters sent by other people working for respondent to
of the summary after making an examination, evaluation establish the existence of respondent's loans. CA dismissed the
and audit of the voluminous receipts and invoices. The documentary evidence submitted by petitioners based on the best
name of the accountant or partner of the firm in charge evidence rule.
must be stated in the motion so that he/she can be
commissioned by the Court to conduct the audit and, HELD: The SC disagrees with the CA. Rule 130, Section 5 of the
thereafter, testify in Court relative to such summary and revised Rules of Court is applicable in this case.
certification pursuant to Rule 32 (Trial by Commissioner)
of the Rules of Court. The terms or contents of these documents were never the point of
contention in the Petition at bar.The execution or existence of the
original copies of the documents was established through the
2. The method of individual presentation of each and every testimonies of witnesses, such as Mr. Tan (bank manager), before
receipt, invoice or account for making, identification and whom most of the documents were personally executed by
comparison with the originals thereof need not be done respondent. The original PNs also went through the whole loan
before the Court or Clerk of Court anymore. It is enough that booking system of petitioner Citibank.
the receipts, invoices, vouchers or other documents covering
the said accounts or payments to be introduced in evidence The original MCs were subsequently turned over to the Control
must be pre-marked by the party concerned and submitted to and Investigation Division of petitioner Citibank. The original
the Court in order to be made accessible to the adverse party documents in this case, such as the MCs and letters, were
who desires to check and verify the correctness of the destroyed and, thus, unavailable for presentation before the RTC,
summary and certification. Likewise, the originals of the when a fire broke out on the 7th floor of the office building of
voluminous receipts, invoices or accounts must be ready for petitioner Citibank. There is no showing that the fire was
verification and comparison in case doubt on the authenticity intentionally set. The fire destroyed relevant documents, not just
thereof is raised. of the present case, but also of other cases, since the 7th floor
housed the Control and Investigation Division, in charge of keeping
All you need to do is to ensure that the documents are available for the necessary documents for cases in which petitioner Citibank
inspection by the other party. How is that complied with? Give him a was involved.The foregoing would have been sufficient to allow
copy of your voluminous documents. the presentation of photocopies or microfilm copies of the PNs,
MCs, and letters by the petitioners as secondary evidence to
Read also establish the existence of respondent's loans, as an exception to
the best evidence rule.
 CITIBANK, N.A. VS. SABENIANO
COMPANIA MARITIMA VS. custody thereof.

ALLIED FREE WORKERS UNION, ET.AL. (1977)
You go to NSO, you need to get a copy of your birth certificate. Are
FACTS: Compañia Maritima and the Allied Free Workers Union you given your actual birth certificate when you were born? Of
entered into a written contract whereby the union agreed to course not, only a certified copy thereof.
perform arrastre and stevedoring work for the consignees’ vessels
at Iligan City. The shippers and consignees paid the union for the
You go to the ROD, you need a copy of the duplicate original copy
arrastre work. They refused to pay for the stevedoring service.
They claimed that the shipowner was the one obligated to pay for kept by the ROD. Why? Kay nawala imong Owner’s Duplicate
the stevedoring service because the bill of lading provided that the Certificate of Title (ODCT). You need to have it reconstituted but it’s
unloading of the cargo was at the shipowner's expense. A number still there, the ODCT. Pwede ba to na imohang kwaon kay mao
of court cases then ensued. nalang to imong original so that you can file an action for
reconstitution of lost title? No, what they will do is to give you a
The consignees’ branch manager hired accountants to ascertain photocopy and certify it as true and correct so that you will be
the losses suffered by the company. Their reports show that the issued an ODCT again.
total damages amounted to P349,245.37. The trial court awarded
actual damages, amounting to P450,000 on the basis of the Rationale
auditor's reports. The company argues that the accountants'
reports are admissible in evidence because of the rule that "when  The reason for this exception can actually be found in Rule 132,
the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents Section 26. It’s actually predicated on a rule
which cannot be examined in court without great loss-of time and
the fact sought to be established from them is only the general Section 26. Irremovability of public record. – Any public
result of the whole", hence, the original writings need not be record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence,
produced. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept,
except upon order of a court where the inspection of the
HELD: That rule cannot be applied in this case because the record is essential to the just determination of a pending
voluminous character of the records, on which the accountants' case. (27a)
reports were based, was not duly established. It is also a requisite
for the application of the rule that the records and accounts should  Thus, where the original document is a public record, the
be made accessible to the adverse party so that the company, of secondary evidence allowed is a certified true copy issued by the
the summary may be tested on cross-examination. What applies to public officer in custody thereof.
this case is the general rule "that an audit made by, or the
testimony of, a private auditor, is inadmissible in evidence as proof Q: Is there any other exception, it’s a public document other than
of the original records, books of accounts, reports or the like".
certified true copy issued by the public officer?
That general rule cannot be relaxed in this case because the Actually there’s one more according to Herrera, although there’s no
company failed to make a preliminary showing as to the difficulty
case saying about it.
or impossibility attending the production of the records in court
and their examination and analysis as evidence by the court. The
 Another secondary evidence of a public record: Official
accountants' reports reveal their lack of probative value. The best
publication (Herrera, Vol. V, p. 203, 1999 ed.)
evidence on the cost of the damages to the company by reason of
the depreciation of items of equipment would have been the sales
An official publication of that public record would do. So maybe if
invoices instead of the oral testimony of Teves. He did not produce
it appears in the Official Gazette, then why not.
the sales invoices.
A Non-codal Exception to the BER
Rationale for the Exception
ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO (GR Nos. 146710-15, April 3, 2001)
 Judicial ECONOMY, EXPEDIENCE and DISPATCH. We do not waste
the court’s time anymore, it’s easier for the parties, it’s faster for ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO (2001)
the parties.
FACTS: In the wake of EDSA II, President Estrada was constrained
And you have this exception: to leave Malacañang, VP Arroyo took her oath as the next
President. Estrada contends that he is merely a president on
x x x (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a leave. Part of the evidence considered by the Supreme Court in
public officer or is recorded in a public office; x x x declaring that President Estrada has in fact resigned were
newspaper accounts of diary of then Executive Secretary
Original Document is a Public Record Edgardo Angara.
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a According to reports of the Angara diary: Angara asked Senator
public record. – When the original of document is in the custody Pimental to advise Estrada to consider the option of dignified
of public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may exit or resignation. Estrada did not disagree but listened
be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in intently. At 9:30pm, Senator Pimental repeated to Estrada the
urgency of making a graceful and dignified exit. He gave the accurately.

proposal a sweetener by saying that petitioner would be allowed
Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document
to go abroad with enough funds to support him and his family.
is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with
Estrada expressed no objection to the suggestion for a graceful
identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same
and dignified exit but said he would never leave the country.
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
Due to this, the SC declared Estrada to have resigned as
or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the
President.
original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the
equivalent of the original.
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Estrada points out that the
admission into evidence of mere newspaper accounts of the Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be
Angara diary violated the Best Evidence Rule as the original itself admissible to the same extent as the original if:
was not presented.
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
HELD: It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but the original; or
only copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily (b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable
Inquirer on February 4-6, 2001. In doing so, the Court, did not, to admit the copy in lieu of the original.
however, violate the best evidence rule. Wigmore, in his book
on evidence, states that: Production of the original may be Atty. JZE: Now take note that somehow it borrows from the
dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion, whenever in the provisions of the law regarding best evidence rule and the original
case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the document with certain modifications that follows certain
contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be phraseology of the earlier E-commerce act. What we take out from
served by requiring production. the best evidence for electronic documents is the fact even if a
One thing that I need to tell you as early as now. A newspaper is document is electronic, if you remember, their nature is very easily
hearsay. Do you know what hearsay evidence is? Hearsay is reproduce. You can reproduce it by printing it but there would still be
some rules to follow. So the best evidence rule also applies therefore
evidence that does not come from your personal knowledge, not
to electronic documents.
based on your own perception. It was something that was merely
told to you. Just remember the codal provision, wala pa mn ni gipangutana sa
bar exam, just make sure that your familiar with the provision and
Newspapers would be double or triple hearsay. Double hearsay na also rememer that there is a best evidence rule for eletronic
evidence.
siya. Why? If I would be a writer, I get information from my source, I
write it down and then it’s printed. That’s three layers of hearsay NAPOCOR vs. CODILLA, G.R. No. 170491, April 4, 2007
there, double hearsay. So it’s really second or third hand
information that you read from the newspaper. So when you Issue: whether or not the photocopies are indeed electronic
present the newspaper in evidence, what really happens is you’re documents as contemplated in RA 8792 or the IRR of the Electronic
merely recounting what you read from something that was merely Commerce Act, as well as the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
told to the writer by someone else. That’s the reason why it’s
Held: NO.
chismis, it’s hearsay.
What differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based
So that’s what was used by the SC, newspaper accounts of the
document is the manner by which the information is processed;
Angara diary. Double hearsay, triple hearsay even.
clearly, the information contained in an electronic document is
That’s the justification of the SC. Is it lawful? No, we have our own received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
BER with various well-defined exceptions. But the SC has to rule produced electronically.
according to the dictates of the times. Unsa man,they will rule that
A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies
we violated the BER and therefore mubalik si President Estrada, the
submitted by petitioner will reveal that not all of the contents
SC cannot do that. And so this is what happened, even the SC admits
therein, such as the signatures of the persons who purportedly
to the fact that its ruling in Estrada vs. Desierto actually breaks a lot
signed the documents, may be recorded or produced electronically.
of procedural law barriers including hearsay, admissions, BER.
By no stretch of the imagination can a person’s signature affixed
August 8, 2016 manually be considered as information electronically received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE FOR ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE Hence, the argument of petitioner that since these paper printouts
were produced through an electronic process, then these
Rule 4 - BEST EVIDENCE RULE photocopies are electronic documents as defined in the Rules on
Electronic Evidence is obviously an erroneous, if not preposterous,
Section 1. Original of an electronic document. – An electronic
document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original interpretation of the law.
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot Atty. JZE: this is still in relation to the exception of the best evidence
be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or rule. In Section 8, even if you called for the production of the
document, nainspect nimo and it may not help your cause, section 8
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his
says that you are not bound to offer it as evidence. It is not your
part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents
evidence.
in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated. However, in the case at bar, though petitioner insisted EFFECT OF NOT OFFERING A DOCUMENT IN EVIDENCE AFTER
in offering the photocopies as documentary evidence, it failed to CALLING FOR ITS PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION
establish that such offer was made in accordance with the
 No unfavorable inference can be drawn for not offering a
exceptions.
document in evidence if the party who calls for its production
or inspection does not offer the same in evidence.
MCC INDUSTRIAL V. SSANGYONG G.R. 170633, OCT. 17, 2007 Atty. JZE: There is a presumption under Rule 131 regarding the
adverse presumption of suppression of evidence that if you do not
The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as present evidence that is within your power to present, it might be
adverse to you cause of action or defense. That is not applicable in
defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a
section 8. But by way of cross reference...
facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot
be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional
equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not RULE 27, Section 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. —
admissible as electronic evidence. Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in
which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and
permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf
of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books,
MCC INDUSTRIAL V. SSANGYONG G.R. 170633, OCT. 17, 2007 accounts, letters, XXX, not privileged, which constitute or contain
evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are
ISSUE: Why a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as in his possession, custody or control, XXX. (1a)
electronic evidence.
COMPARISON
The definitions under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, its IRR
and the Rules on Electronic Evidence, at first glance, convey the RULE 130, SECTION 8 RULE 27, SECTION 1
impression that facsimile transmissions are electronic data messages Procured by mere notice to The production of document is in
or electronic documents because they are sent by electronic means. the adverse party, which is a the nature of a mode of discovery
The expanded definition of an "electronic data message" under the condition precedent for the and can be sought only by the
subsequent introduction of proper motion in the trial court
IRR, "xxx [is] not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI),
secondary evidence by the and is permitted only upon good
electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy." proponent. cause shown.
However, Congress deleted the phrase, "but not limited to, Presupposes that the Contemplates a situation wherein
electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or document to be produced is the document is either assumed
intended as evidence for the to be favorable to the party in
telecopy," and replaced the term "data message" (as found in the
proponent who is presumed possession thereof or that the
UNCITRAL Model Law ) with "electronic data message." to have knowledge of its party seeking its production is not
contents. sufficiently informed of the
In an ordinary facsimile transmission, there exists an original paper- contents of the same.
based information or data that is scanned, sent through a phone
line, and re-printed at the receiving end. In a virtual or paperless
Atty. JZE: so they have different purpose, rule 27 is a mode of
environment, technically, there is no original copy to speak of, as all discovery, in rule 130 that is not its purpose, is the introduction of
direct printouts of the virtual reality are the same, in all respects, secondary evidence. In rule 130 section 8, why is he presumed to
and are considered as originals. Ineluctably, the law's definition of have knowledge with its contents, because when will we call for the
"electronic data message," which, as aforesaid, is interchangeable production of the original document it presupposes na naa kay
with "electronic document," could not have included facsimile secondary evidence or at least that you a party to that document.
transmissions, which have an original paper-based copy as sent and But in rule 27 section 1, precisely because it is a mode of discovery
you are presumed not to know anything about it that it is whay you
a paper-based facsimile copy as received. These two copies are
are asking for it. So if you studied will in your civil procedure, it would
distinct from each other, and have different legal effects. be easier for you to delineate.
RULE 130, SECTION 8. Party who calls for document not bound to RULE ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
offer it. - a party who calls for the document and inspects the same Rule 3 - ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
Section 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper- So during the solicitation stage (a period of bargaining between the
based documents. – Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term parties), one party makes an offer, the other party either accepts it,
writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other rejects it outright, or makes an counter offer until finally they come
form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic up with mutually agreeable terms and conditions Once they do that
document as defined in these Rules.
they reduced it into writing and everything else that preceded the
Atty. JZE: So electronic evidence therefore are considered drafting of the agreement in written form would therefore be
documentary evidence. If you translate, the rules on evidence also deemed waived. Wala na dapat pakialam ang balaod, walay kanay
includes electronic evidence. dapat pakialam sa inyong gisabutan before because its the writing
that would be supreme.
RULE 130, PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Effects of PER as a rule of exclusion.
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as  If not in the contract, it is INADMISSIBLE.
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the
Atty. JZE: So the parol evidence rule is a limitation on your ability to
parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
present certain types of evidence, certain nature of evidence.
other than the contents of the written agreement. XXX
 The stipulations may be valid but you cannot prove it in court.
Atty. JZE: itranslate nato to something more palatable, ok, kng WHY?
nagsabot na ang mga aprtido sa usa ka kontrataand then kay
tungod nagkasinabot na sila, gisulat nila, they already made a writen
contract out of it they will be governed by the writen contract and
1. HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE. Documentary evidence prevails
over testimonial evidence. (GSIS v. CA)
nothing else. So whatever terms are written in that agreement, that
will be the repository of their covenant that is included in their
meeting of the minds. 2. WHATEVER IS NOT WRITTEN IS WAIVED. The rule is based on
the presumption that the parties “have made the writing the
only repository and memorial of the truth and whatever is not
found in the writing must be understood to have been waived
WORD PLAY and abandoned” (CARENAN V. CA, G.R. 84358, May 31, 1989)
Atty. JZE: like the 10 commandments, written in stone, you cannot
“PAROL” comes from the French word parole which means “word”. say that there is an 11th commandment, you cannot add to the terms
of the written commandment, kung napulo, napulo lang na.
Related: Parole d'honneur or “word of honor”. In the 1600, this was
used to describe a promise made by a prisoner not to escape. Now, take note of the difference between a condition precedent and
a condition subsequent. Condition precedent means it preceded the
Parole d'honneur became the source of the English word “PAROLE”,
meeting of the minds of the parties. Condition subsequent are those
which is a word used to describe a process of allowing conditional
that arise after the meeting of the minds of the parties.
release of prisoner.
CONDITION PRECEDENT AND SUBSEQUENT
PAROL EVIDENCE, EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE ALIUNDE, and
ORAL EVIDENCE are all the same.  Under the parol evidence rule, there is a big difference
between a condition precedent and a condition subsequent. A
Atty. JZE: so what the immediate connection that you could make? condition precedent may be established by parol evidence
Parol evidence rule: oral evidence. Somehow there is that evolution because there is no varying of the terms for the reason that
of words. Evidence Aliunde is found in Successions. there is yet no contract in existence.*
Parol evidence rule IS A RULE OF EXCLUSION:
A condition subsequent, as a general rule, may not be
 When parties have already reduced their agreement into established by parol evidence since a written contract already
writing, the written agreement becomes supreme. It exist.**
supersedes everything they have discussed prior to the
perfection of the contract. * Atty. JZE: Now let me bring you back to sales, there's a big
 A party therefore cannot* say something different from what difference between a contract of sale and a contract to sell. In a
the contract says. (*the PPT says “can” but Atty. JZE correctly contract to sell, there is no contract of sale to speak of because the
rephrase it to “cannot” in his lecture) condition precedent for the meeting of the minds between the
 He cannot modify or add to its terms. parties lacking, wala pa nafulfill ang condition and therefore there is
no obligation to transfer ownership. What usually is the condition
precedent there is the full payment of the purchase price.
Atty. JZE: The written agreement becomes supreme, not oral
manifestations not proposed stipulations. It supersedes everything ** ok, we agreed now and this is our contract, but there are
they have discussed prior to the perfection of the contract. conditions not included in the contract that took place after,
normally under section 9, that cannot be prove as a general rule but Atty. JZE: Now take note what if you what to present an affidavit of
subject to exceptions provided in letters a-b. person, can you add to the terms of that affidavit? Generally, you
cannot, now you can add but the believability of that in the ears of
3. THE BELIEF THAT PAROL EVIDENCE IS MOST PRONE TO the court will still vary. But take note lang jud na ang affidavit being
FABRICATIONS (HERBONV. PALAD, G.R.No. 149542, July 20, not an agreement, it’s not supposed to be covered by the parol
2006) Thus, the purpose of the parol evidence is to give evidence.
stability to the written agreements and to remove the
temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be afforded  This general understanding is not available to the last part of
if parol evidence were admissible. (CONDE v. CA, 119 SCRA the Rule which provides that “(t)he term “agreement” includes
245) wills”
Atty. JZE: Why? Because under Rule 130, Section 9 although it

Atty. JZE: Because it is very easy ,if there were no rule like the parol includes will, we all know that a will is not an agreement. Now, can
evidence rule, what will happen is that anybody can say that instead you subject the making of a will to the mutual agreement between
of a party owing him 1 million that he owes him 10 million. Why? the parties? I make you my heir, you make me your heir? Can you do
Because it allowed without the parol evidence rule, you can vary it, that? You can’t because it is not allowed by law.
you can add to it. Di ba?
Because…
Take note that:
 Verily, a will is not an agreement. It is strictly personal and
Article 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they unilateral act. However, by force of the Rules and in an
may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for apparent legal fiction, a will is an agreement as well although
their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a there is clearly no meeting of the minds.
contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or
Why is the Rule applied to wills?
enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that
requirement is absolute and indispensable. (..beast mode)  The dangers sought to be avoided by the requirement of the
Rules is present in the making of wills and are deemed to be
In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the following article more prevalent inasmuch as the maker of a will, the decedent,
cannot be exercised. (Civil Code.) can no longer object to attempts to vary his testamentary
intent as his voice is already silenced by death.
Atty. JZE: Remember that parol evidence is not a requirement of
validity, it is a requirement of provability, what cannot and can be Atty. JZE: in contracts, when a parties adds to the terms of the
proved. written agreement, the other parties will still have the ability to
refute the same, which can still be subjected to cross-examination.
 While the Parol Evidence Rule does not proclaim itself to be a But in the making of will, during the probate of the will of a person
limitation on the validity of a contract, it is a requirement that deceased, you go to court and you say that actually the testator
must be taken into consideration as a condition precedent to a intended to give me 2 million pesos, if there is no parol evidence rule
party's ability to prove the same:
can you do that? If there no parol evidence rule its quite possible but
because of the parol evidence rule, that danger of perjury or making
 Even if the contract is valid in its oral form, contracts being
generally and essentially consensual, it is virtually futile if you fraudulent claims will also be diminished, plain and simple. Patay na
cannot therefore sue upon it or if you are barred by the gud ang testator unsaon pa nya pgrefute? As simple as that.
conclusive presence of a written document relative to the
same agreement. RULE ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Requisites of Parol Evidence Rule 3, Section 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is

admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility
1. There must be a written agreement;
prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduce to writing
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in-interest. authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.
4. There is a dispute as to the terms of the agreement
Atty. JZE: What is section 2 trying to tell you? That rules of
Requisite 1: AGREEMENT admissibility that would normally apply to other types of documents
or agreements that are paper-based are supposed to be applicable
 In order for the rule to apply, there must be an “agreement”. as well to electronic documents.
As understood, an agreement is a contract. Thus, where there
is a meeting of the minds between the parties and the same is Rule 2, Section 1 (h)
reduced into writing, the resulting contract is therefore
covered already by the Rule. "Electronic document" refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression, described or however represented, by But in other jurisdiction, the wills can be electronically made.
which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by
which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, E-Wills
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
 Nevada is the only state in the US that specifically provides
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-
guidelines for creating a valid electronic will. Ohio has trail
out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately
court decision declaring E-wills to be valid. While electronic
reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For wills are convenient, they raise concerns about the
purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be authentication and forgery. In some states, electronic will are
used interchangeably with "electronic data message". not allowed.
Atty. JZE: is it possible to come up with an agreement between the Nevada Will Statute
parties by electronic means? Suppose, I have your cellphone number
 No will executed in the State, except such electronic wills or
and I texted you “I promise to give you 100, 000 if you paint my car,
holographic wills as are mentioned in this chapter, is valid
and then you reply “OK”, is there a meeting of the minds? Yes. Does
unless it is in writing and signed by the testator, or by an
it make it that a less of a contract? Is there evidence of the contract? attending person at the testator's express direction, and
Yes. There is that text message. So there’s that contract, its source of attested by at least two competent witnesses who subscribe
the right of extinguishment of obligation. So it’s quite conceivable their names into the will in the presence of the testator.
that there should be application of Rule 130, Section 9 to electronic
evidence. Nevada Revised Statute, Section113
Does the parol evidence apply to electronic documents? Electronic will
 Can an agreement be in digital or electronic form? 1. An electronic will is a will of a testator that:
Atty. JZE: Yes. Email, can you be bound by your emails? Yes. Can (a). Is written, created and stored in the electronic record;
obligations be extinguish by way of email? Yes.
(b) Contains the date and the electronic signature of the
testator and which includes, without limitation, at least one
For example, you have a promissory note by which you promised to
authentication characteristic of the testator; and
pay the debt and then you received an email from me saying you
don’t have to pay the promissory note because it is already (c) Is created and stored in such a manner that:
condoned. That email is your evidence of the agreement. And (1) Only one authoritative copy exists;
therefore, there is no problem for us in applying the parol evidence
(2) The authoritative copy is maintained and
rule to electronic documents for agreements in general.
controlled by the testator or a custodian designated
by the testator in the electronic will;
But this is my question…
(3) Any attempted alteration of the authoritative
 Can a will be man in digital or electronic form? copy is readily identifiable; and
Atty. JZE: Let’s try to analyze, what are the ways that a person may (4) Each copy of the authoritative copy is readily
make a will in the Philippines? It can be holographically, where the identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative
will must entirely signed and dated by the testator and made in his copy.
own handwriting and second is notarial will, subject to the forms and
2. Every person of sound mind over the age of 18 years may, by
solemnities required by law. So, in that situation is there a way that a last electronic will, dispose of all of his or her estate, real and
holographic or notarial will can be produced electronically? personal, but the estate is chargeable with the payment of the
testator’s debts.
Hypothetically, if you can make your will in a tablet, or an E-will,
3. An electronic will that meets the requirements of this section
does the parol evidence also applies to E-will? Under Philippine law, I
is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of this
don’t know. Can there be an electronic will? Any way the Supreme State. An electronic will is valid and has the same force and effect
Court has not yet decided on this, but this much I know; e-Wills are as if formally executed.
valid in other jurisdictions and they even go to the extent as saying
4. An electronic will shall be deemed to be executed in this State
that the parol evidence rule applies to e-wills.
if the authoritative copy of the electronic will is:
Now, technically speaking, what would be the effect of the parol (a) Transmitted to and maintained by a custodian
evidence rule? The effect is simple, you are confined to the four designated in the electronic will at the custodian’s place of
corners of a document or agreement. If it is not within the four business in this State or at the custodian’s residence in this
State; or
corners, it’s not supposed to be a valid provision, or it’s a valid
provision but it’s something that you cannot prove. You cannot add (b) Maintained by the testator at the testator’s place of
to, explain or modify the terms. business in this State or at the testator’s residence in this
State.
Other countries with valid e-Wills Atty. JZE: If you have a document but you are only trying to prove its
existence, execution and physical condition of the paper AS AN
South Africa – its Supreme Court already declared the validity of an OBJECT, the parol evidence rule does not apply, similar to the best
e-Will, caveat, subject to certain conditions to be gauged in a case to evidence rule
case basis. EXCEPTIONS:
India – they are crazy.  Under section 9, a party may present evidence to modify,
explain, or add to the terms of the written agreement.
Requisite 2: REDUCED TO WRITING HOW?
Is it required that the agreement should be in a public instrument He must plead it. He must put in issue in his pleading any of the
following:
for the applicability of the Parol Evidence Rule? No. that is in the
case of… (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
INCIONG v. CA G.R. No. 96405 June 26, 1996 (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a
public document. (c) The validity of the written agreement; or
What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
fact founded on "long experience that written evidence is so much or their successors in interest after the execution of the
more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory written agreement.
only xxx. Thus, for the parol evidence rule to apply, a written In paragraph (a) there are actually 3 exceptions: Intrinsic ambiguity,
contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both mistake and imperfections.
parties.
Atty. JZE: Remember that when a law requires an agreement to be in AMBIGUITY

a public instrument, the general rule is it that it is only for
convenience. The only exception is that when you are dealing with  can be extrinsic (patent) or intrinsic (latent)
unregistered lands. In unregistered lands, always, all transactions
must in a public instrument and recorded in the Registry of Deeds. Atty JZE: When you say patent it means it’s very clear, when you look
at it, it’s really ambiguous, it’s doubtful, not certain.
Is it possible that there is an agreement despite the fact that only
one party signed the agreement? Unilateral contracts right?!  Extrinsic – cannot be proved by parol evidence because by
nature, it is incurable.
Requisite 3: DISPUTE IS BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR THEIR
SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST Examples: The will provides: “I will give B something”. There is really
no description there.
The rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either
party to the litigation against the other, where at least one of the Atty. JZE: Under the view of the Rules of Evidence it is not curable, do
parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written not confused it with the view under the law of successions.
instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument
or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation BORILLO v. CA, G.R. No. 55691 May 21, 1992
established thereby. (VICTORIA LECHUGAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
G.R. No. L-39972 & L-40300 August 6, 1986) In order to admit parol evidence to aid in the description of the
Thus, if one of the parties to the case is a complete stranger to the subject matter of a deed or other writing, there must be a
contract involved therein, he is not bound by this rule and can description that will serve as a foundation for such evidence; the
introduce extrinsic evidence against the efficacy of the writing. writing must at least give some data from which the description may
be found and made certain. Parol evidence is not admissible to
Atty. JZE: That is one of the distinctions between the best evidence
rule and the parol evidence. In the best rule even if you are not a identify the property where the description thereof is so vague as to
party to the agreement, you can seek refuge but under the parol amount to no description at all. In other words, parol evidence is not
evidence rule, both parties must be parties to the instrument permitted to supply a description, but only to apply it.
otherwise the rule will not apply.
Requisite 4: THERE IS DISPUTE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE Atty. JZE: The rule presupposes that, in order in order for parol
AGREEMENT evidence to be curative of an ambiguity, there has to be something
to start with in the first place. But if it is extrinsic ambiguity, it
Thus, if the dispute between parties who are contractually bound
amounts to no description at all.
refers to matters extraneous to the agreement or with respect to
rights and obligations that do not emanate from it, the Parol
Evidence Rule does not apply.
The situation is different where there is a mere imperfect tenants. Sometime later, in 1985, the Espejos brought back one of
description. The principle of FALSA DEMONSTRIO NON NOCET – a the properties. In the deed, the subject matter was described as
false or mistaken description does not vitiate – would then apply. “covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62096”. The Murong
property was later transferred to the tenants by way of VLTs
Atty. JZE: what is the example of my wife here? “I give to my (Voluntary land transfer), which however, referred to TCT No. T-
beautiful daughter something… unya kung dili gwapa unsa nlng 62836. CLOAs were subsequently issued to the tenants.
man? Imperfect ang description, a false description. Does it vitiate
the legacy or gift? It does not. You just disregard the description The Espejos filed an action for cancellation of the CLOA on the
“beautiful”, otherwise it will be absurd. Kinahanghan kapa ground that the Murong property, occupied by the petitioners, was
magpresent og evidence na gwapa ang anak. owned by the respondents by virtue of the 1985 buy-bay, as
documented in the Deed of Sale. They based their claim on the fact
FALSA DEMONSTRIO NON NOCET that their Deed of Sale refers to TCT No. T-62096, which pertains to
the Murong property.
If, on considering the language of a will with the aid of any
admissible extrinsic evidence, the court comes to the conclusion The tenants argued that what the Espejos repurchased from the
that the testator intended to pass something and can determine bank in 1985 was actually their Lantap property, as evidence by their
what that something is, then the fact that the testator gave it a continued occupation and possession of the Lantap property. The
wrong description in his will does not prevent the will taking effect bank also testified that although the Deed of Sale mentioned TCT
in regard to the subject matter intended by the testator. The No. T-62096, it meant the resell of the Lantap property (parol
principle may be applied in whatever part of the description the evidence).
error occurred.
IS THERE AN INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY?
Example of Dean Iñigo: In his will, X makes a specific gift of shares of
stock in ABZ Corporation, and X at the date of his will possessed no  Yes. The VLTs suffer from intrinsic ambiguity. The VLTs
such stock but possessed other stock in ABC Corporation which the describe the subject property as covered by TCT No. T-62836
court decides was meant, the latter stock passes under the gift (Lantap property) being located in Barangay Murong.
despite the false description.
Atty JZE: There is no ABZ Corporation but there is ABC, that is a false Furthermore, respondents, are not parties to the VLTs executed
description, but do you vitiate or render inutile the testamentary between RBBI and petitioners; they are strangers to the written
disposition? No. contract. Rule 130, Section 9 specifically provides that parol
evidence rule is exclusive only as between the parties and their
In that situation, you must present parol evidence to explain that successors-in-interest. The parol evidence rule may not be invoked
what was meant was not ABZ but ABC. where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy
of a party to the written document in question, and does not base
Intrinsic ambiguity, on the other hand, can be proved by parol his claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the
evidence. instrument.
Example: In a will, it is provided that the testator gives to Rrramon,

his nephew, P200,000.
INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY
However, the testator has two nephews named Rrramon.
This arises by the use equivocal word/s which is susceptible of more
Here, by way of exception, a latent ambiguity may be explained by than one interpretation. Evidence aliunde may be admitted by the
parol evidence, for, as the ambiguity has been brought about by court to explain or add to its meaning.
circumstances extraneous to the instrument, the explanation must
necessarily be sought for from such circumstances outside the Atty. JZE: this the third form of ambiguity. It is not recognized by the
instrument. Rules of Court but it is recognized under American jurisdiction and
old Supreme Court Decisions.
Atty JZE: The ambiguity came from the outside of the instrument, so
it must also be explained by matters that are also outside the Innocently, if you look at it, it is understandable enough. When you
instrument. say “writ”, you mean writ. But remember, when you are talking
about contractual terms, there can other meaning or shades of writ.
MARQUEZ V. ESPEJO, G.R No. 168387, August 25, 2010
Hence, evidence aliunde may be admitted by the court to explain or
The Espejos sold 2 parcels of land to the bank. One was covered by add to its meaning. There is only one interesting case here…
TCT No. T-62836 and was located in Lantap. The other one was
covered by TCT No. T-62096 and ws located in Murong and it has Case: Intermediate Ambiguity
A Chinese immigrant, Tan Quin Lay, as a manager of Song Fo of the parties to lay down all the terms and condition which are to
Company, entered into a contract with Fred Wilson and Co. for the constitute the agreement.
purchase of distilling apparatus for P10, 000. He purchased the
apparatus with the specification that it should have a capacity of Failure of the agreement to reflect the true intention of the
6,000 liters a day. parties.
After using the distilling apparatus for some time, Song Fo The exception obtains where the written contract is so ambiguous or
complained that it only produced 480 liters of alcohol per day, not obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot
6,000 liters and filed a case for breach of contract. Fred Wilson and be understood from the mere reading of the instrument. In such
Co. contended that it did not breach its contract which stated that case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the
the aparratus was of “de capacidad de 6,000 litros cada 24 horas de relations of the parties to each other, and of the facts and
trabajo”. It said that, since the apparatus was able to process 6,000 circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the
liters of raw materials per day, there was no breach of contract. contract may be received to enable the court to make a proper
interpretation of the instrument. (HEIRS OF DEL ROSARIO vs.
What does “capacity” mean? SANTOS, G.R. No. L-46892, SEPT, 30 1981)
Song Fo – producing capacity Atty. JZE: So what are we talking about failure of the agreement to
reflect the true intention of the parties? To my mind you are is still
Fred Wilson and Co. - receptive capacity talking about ambiguity. So to my mind this a superfluous additional
ground. Because the failure should be equated to ambiguity, its more
Clearly, there is intermediate ambiguity here. The term “capacity” is
or less the same exception.
susceptible of more than one interpretation.
CROSS-REFERENCE
HELD: Parol evidence is admissible to show which of the two
interpretations was meant by the parties. (Palanca v. Fred Wilson
Article 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the
and Co. 37 Phil. 506) parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the
instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of
Atty. JZE: Intermediate ambiguity is actually curable by parol mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, one of the parties
evidence. Intrinsic ambiguity curable by parol evidence. Extrinsic, no. may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the end that such
true intention may be expressed.
MISTAKE
If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a
First, the mistake should be of fact; second, that the mistake meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not
should prove by clear and convincing evidence; third; that the reformation of the instrument but annulment of the contract. (Civil
Code)
mistake should be common to both parties to the instrument. The
rule is, as has been above stated, that mistake must be mutual. (BPI
vs. FIDELITY G.R. No. L-26743, OCT. 19, 1927) Atty. JZE: Example of contracts that is open for reformation:
Equitable mortgage.
Atty. JZE: if you recall your obligations and contracts, this actually
are the requisites for the reformation of the instrument. Mistake to THE VALIDITY OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT
justify the reformation of a contract, but, it’s practically the same
Here, a party seeks to present extrinsic evidence to prove that
requisites for the parol evidence.
the contract is not valid. As in all other exceptions, he must raise
the invalidity of the contract in the pleading.
MAGELLAN vs. CA (G.R. No. 95529, AUG. 22, 1991)
RECALL
The mistake contemplated as an exception to the parol evidence
rule is one which the mistake of the fact mutual to both parties. Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from
Furthermore, the rules on evidence, as amended, require that in the beginning:
order that parol evidence may be admitted, said mistake must be
put in issue by the pleadings, such that if not raised inceptively in (1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to
the complaint or in the answer, as the case may be, a party cannot law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy;
later on be permitted to introduce parol evidence thereon.
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
IMPERFECTION (3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time
of the transaction;
This simply means that the writing is incomplete and does not
express the whole agreement of the parties. Here, there is a failure (4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service; 1. FORGERY. See ALORIA vs. CLEMENTE, G.R. No. 165644,
FEB. 28, 2006
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the
principal object of the contract cannot be ascertained; 2. FRAUD AND ILLEGALITY. See BOUGH vs. CANTIVEROS, G.R.
No. 13300, SEPT. 29, 1919
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
3. FALSE REPRESENTATION. See WOODHOUSE vs. HALILI,
These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up
the defense of illegality be waived. G.R. No. L-4811, JULY 31, 1953.
Atty. JZE: Take note of (3), that is a contract void ab initio. Lets the WOODHOUSE vs. HALILI, G.R. No. L-4811, JULY 31, 1953.
example of . . .
The statement of the plaintiff was not sought to be introduce
Hypothetical Problem (Dean Iñigo) to change or alter the terms of the agreement, but to prove how he
induce the defendant to enter into it – to prove the representations
A sells to B his land for 1million. They sign a deed of sale. or inducements, or fraud, with which or by which he secured the
other party's consent thereto. These are expressly excluded from the
So: “In consideration of 1 MILLION PESOS, receipt of which is hereby parol evidence rule. Fraud and false representation are an incident to
acknowledge in full, I hereby sell this property to B xxx”. the creation of a jural act, not to its integration. And are not
governed by the rules on integration.
But (in actuality) B says that he has to go to the bank to secure
manager's cheques as P1 Million is to large an amount to be paid in SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS
cash. A agrees to wait for B, while B brings with him the deed of sale
and the title of the land. But B never came back as he went straight  This is the exception which states:
to the Registry of Deeds to have the title of the property transferred
to him. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written
Atty. JZE: Now, here there is no payment, no consideration. So when agreement.
the cause or the object of the contract were no present, under Art.
1409 it is void and inexistent. Now try to reckon that with rule 130, RATIONALE
section 9, …
 Why is this an exception? When the parties executed the
In case for annulment of sale, how will A prove that B never paid him written agreement, they have yet to enter into the subsequent
agreement. The parties cannot incorporate in the contract or
the agreed consideration when the deed of sale has been duly
instrument something that they will still agree on in the
acknowledge and the sale duty registered?* future.
 A will prove, though his testimony, that he never received the Atty JZE: It does not even matter if the subsequent agreement is
consideration. written or oral, what matter is that it is subsequent.
 BUT, based on the general rule. A cannot really prove that he
did not receive the money because the documents will show
But isn't it easy to escape the obligations in a contract, all you have
otherwise. Any attempt on the part of A to do so will be
to say is that you executed in a subsequent agreement, whether its
objectionable under PER. **
 However, since he filed the case to nullify the deed of sale – in true or not? Remember that even if it is allowed, even if it is
effect, he is raising the issue on the validity of the said admissible, even if you can to modify or allowed to say something to
instrument. modify, it does not mean that it will be believe by the court. It is only
 So, in this case, parol evidence is allowed to prove lack of an assurance that your testimony will be heard, but there is no
consideration. assurance that it will be believed.
*Atty. JZE: remember that under the parol evidence rule, one cannot Hypothetical Case
vary the terms of the agreement. If the written agreement say that
you were already paid, therefore you are paid. So what can he do?  Maja borrowed money from JZE. For this, Maja signed a
Of course he can then apply the exception. promissory note in favor of JZE which fixed the maturity date
on August 15, 2015. When August 15, 2015 came, Maja did
** So what should he do? He should put in issue in his pleading, the not pay. Thus, JZE sues Maja for payment of the due account.
validity of the written agreement, By filing a case. Maja's defense is that the amount is not yet due because after
the execution pf the promissory note, for unwritten
considerations, JZE agreed to extend the period of payment to
What else may be raised under “validity of the written
until January 14, 2016.
agreement”?
What is Maja's evidence?
Her testimony that they agreed into a subsequent oral agreement government will purchase their lands for the expansion of the
which happened after the execution of the promissory note. (so airport. The landowners were convinced to sell their properties,
basically, the case is still premature) otherwise, the government will be forced to institute expropriation
proceedings in court. They were also assured that their properties
ADMISSIBLE? will be returned to them when they are no longer used by the
airport.
YES. This is the exception “the existence of other terms agreed to by
the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the Ouano did not want to sell at first, However, because she was
written agreement.” reassured by the promise that the land will be returned when it is no
longer in use, she was persuaded to enter into a contract of sale.
Ultimately, Maja can testify orally in court on the subsequent oral
agreement that she had with JZE. The extension in fact resulted in Vercide, another landowner, testified that in a meeting called by the
the novation of their previously agreed-upon maturity date. MCIAA, the landowners were given documents to sign, and he asked
for a rider or certification which would indicate that the land ill be
Atty JZE: Will it be believable? It’s up to the court to decide. returned to him should it not be used by the airport. He testified
that it was only after the rider was give to him that he signed the
PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER
document of sale.
The parties cannot incorporate in the contract or agreement
Years later, Pres. Aquino had ordered the airport to be transferred
something that they will still agree on in the future.
to Mactan. The grandchildren of Ouano tried to repurchase the
properties originally owned by their grandmother. On 2 October
SUMMARY
1991, they wrote to Capt. Antonio Oppus, the manager of MCIAA,
COVERED: (with respect to the time) signifying their intention to repurchase the properties originally
owned by their grandmother. Capt. Oppus denied their request
 Only PRIOR AND CONTEMPORANOEUS AGREEMENTS which because the deed of sale covering the properties does not contain
are deemed to have been merged in writing conformably to any condition relating to the right of repurchase. These properties, it
the “integration of the agreement rule” (WOODHOUSE vs. was explained, had become the absolute properties of the NAC.
HALILI)
The grandchildren filed a case for reconveyance with the RTC.
MCIAA contended that in the absence of any rider providing for such
NOT COVERED right of repurchase, no evidence, whatsoever can be receieved to
establish that such right indeed exists as it would violate the parol
 SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS, despite the fact that such evidence rule.
agreements may have the effect of adding to, changing,
modifying, or even altogether abrogating the contract of the
HELD: Under the parol evidence rule, when the terms of an
parties as evidenced by the writing. (RULE 130, Section 9 (d))
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the
parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
 COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS which, although oral and
contemporaneous with the writing, are separate and distinct other than the contents of the written agreement.
agreements. This are also known as CONTEMPORANEOUS
ORAL AGREEMENTS or “SIDE AGREEMENTS” However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to
the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading,
the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the
Atty JZE: Parol evidence rule is also called “a rule on integration” parties thereto.
Collateral agreements are other or side agreements at the time of The fact which private respondents seek to establish by parol
having a contract. They must be separate and distinct. Maybe it evidence consist of the agreement or representation made by NAC
that induced Ouano to execute the deed of sale; the vendors and
does not appear on writing but nonetheless, you made another
their heirs are given the right to repurchase should the government
agreement. no longer need the property. Where a parol contemporaneous
agreement was the moving cause of the written contract, or where
Remember also what is pactum commissorium. An agreement the parol agreement forms part of the consideration of the written
where in case of none payment of the mortgage, the property contract, and it appears that the written contract was executed on
automatically goes to the mortgagor. This against public policy. the faith of the parol contract or representation, such evidence is
admissable.
MCIAA vs. CA, G.R No. 121506, October 30, 1996 It is recognized that proof is admissible of any collateral parol
agreement that is not inconsistent with the terms of the written
Sometime in 1949, the National Airport Corporation informed the
contract though it may relate to the same subject matter. The rule
owners of the various lots surrounding the Lahug Airport that the
excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not
extend so far as to preclude the admission of existing evidence to instrument cannot be aright of repurchase but some other right like
show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements an option to buy.
between the parties, but such evidence may be received, regardless
of whether or not the written agreement contains any reference to Atty JZE: Is it applicable to the case of MCIAA? Remember that in
such collateral agreement, and whether the action is at law or in Villarica, it is a subsequent instrument. In MCIAA, the right of
equity. repurchase is made prior or contemporaneous with the written
agreement. So what's applicable . . .
Atty JZE: Now let’s try to analyze, does the contention that there is a
contemporaneous parol agreement regarding repurchase, is it LAUREANO vs. KILAYCO 34 Phil 148
inconsistent with a deed of sale without any mention of such right of
repurchase at all? An agreement of reconveyance is a distinct agreement, separate
from the sale itself, although the two agreements are usually
No. It is not inconsistent because it is silent. It did not prohibit, contained in one and the same document.
although it did not state that there a right of repurchase.
In Luareano, the agreement to reconvey was actually similar to the
In this case: one in MCIAA, as it was also and inducement to the signing of the
deed.
 Take note, that the courts should allow extrinsic evidence, if it
is not INCONSISTENT with the written agreement. Atty JZE: So, whether a right of repurchase is separable depends on
 In MCIAA, the contract neither contained nor prohibited a when it was actually granted. Subsequent to the written agreement,
right or repurchase. Thus, there was no inconsistency. it is not even a right but a mere option to buy. If it was made prior or
contemporaneous with the written agreement, even if it be made
SEPARATE OR AT LEAST SEPARABLE
orally, then it is considered separable base on a case of Luareano.
 If the subject matter of the written agreement is different
from that of the contemporaneous oral agreement, then the Other permitted collateral agreements
later is a separate and distinct agreement and, therefore,
provable by parol evidence.  Inducements and representations which lead to the execution
 If the two agreements refer to the same subject matter, the of an agreement may be proven by parol evidence because
test is to determine whether or not the contemporaneous oral they do not vary the terms of the agreement. (WOODHOUSE
agreement is separable. If the oral agreement is separable vs. HALILI, BOUGH vs. CANTIVEROS)
then it is considered separate and distinct and therefore
provable by parol evidence.  Parol evidence is admissible to prove an independent and
collateral agreement which constitutes an inducement to the
In MCIAA Case. . . making of the sale or part of the consideration thereof.
(ROBLES vs. LIZARRAGA, 50 Phil. 387)
The oral agreement to repurchase the property refers to the same
A condition precedent not stipulated in writing is provable by oral
subject matter as the written agreement. Thus, we have to
evidence.
determine whether it is separable or not.
Atty JZE: Now the question is, would there be separability between  REASON: Before the happening of the condition, there is no
written agreement yet to which the parol evidence may apply.
the deed of sale of the land and the right of repurchase?
 EXAMPLE: Conditional sale where transfer of ownership is
subordinated to the condition of full payment of the purchase
Remember in you sales that when you talk about a right of
price.
repurchase, it is resolutory condition. Once it is repurchased, the
contract of sale is extinguished. It is usually included in the same Verbal assurances given by the indorser of an out-of-town check
agreement that conveyed the property. So we go to a sales case.. to the employees of the bank where is it was presented for
encashment that he would refund the amount if the check
should be dishonored by the drawee bank is a collateral
agreement separate and distinct for the indorsement, by virtue
VILLARICA vs. CA 28 SCRA 189-193 (1968)
of which the first bank was induced to cash the same, and
The right of repurchase is not a right granted to vendor by the therefore, provable by parol evidence. (PNB vs. SEETO, 91 Phil.
vendee in a subsequent instrument, but is a right reserve by the 756)
vendor in the same instrument of sale as one of the stipulations of
the contract. Once the instrument of absolute sale is executed, the Atty JZE: A verbal assurance is more or less same with inducement.
vendor can no longer reserve the right to repurchase, and any right
 Any prior or contemporaneous conversation in connection
thereafter granted to the vendor by the vendee in a separate
with a note or its indorsement may be proved by parol
evidence. (PNB vs. SEETO, 91 Phil. 756)
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
 An extrinsic agreement between indorser and indorsee which

cannot be embodied in the instrument without impairing its Presupposes that the original The original document is not
credit may be proved by parol evidence. (PNB vs. SEETO, 91 document is available in court. available or is a dispute as to
Phil. 756) whether said writing is original.
Prohibits the varying of the Prohibits the introduction of
terms of the written agreement. secondary evidence regardless
 The fact that parties who appear to have signed as principals of whether or not it varies the
did so as merely sureties is provable by parol evidence. (TAN contents of original .
MACHAN vs. DELA TRINIDAD, 3 Phil. 684)
Applies only to documents Applies to all kinds of writings.*
which are contractual in nature
NOT COVERED by PER except wills.
Can be invoked only when the Can be invoked by any party to
 ALL OTHER AGREEMENTS, whether prior and
controversy is between the an action whether he has
contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral, if the issue
parties to the written participated or not in the
revolves around fraud and false representation since they are
agreement and their privies. writing.
incidental to the execution and not to the integration. (
WOODHOUSE vs. HALILI, G.R. No. L-4811, JULY 31, 1953) It applies to any type of Its object is to prevent perjured
contract, and its purpose is to testimony in proof of certain
make sure that the parties' final contracts and the statute applies
 ALL OTHER AGREEMENTS, whether prior and understanding, deliberately only to those enumerated
contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral,, when third expressed in writing shall not be types.**
parties, who are not privy thereto, are involved. (LECHUGAS changed.
vs. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. L-39972, August 6, 1986) Applies to wills. Does not apply to wills.
RANDOM NOTES ON THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Rule of integration which Rule of unenforceability which
applies where there is a written applies in the absence o writing.
ILEU-FFW vs. INTERPHIL LABS (G.R. No. 142824, December 19, agreement.
2001)
Bars evidence of terms that Bars proof of an agreement
exist outside the agreement. altogether.
The parol evidence rule cannot be invoked in tribunals not strictly
bound by the rules of evidence. In labor cases pending before the
Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing in *Atty JZE: do you apply the best evidence rule to wills? Yes, because
courts of law or equity are not controlling. Rules of procedure and it is still a document. You need to present the original will for
evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor probate.
cases. Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and
Other concepts to be distinguished, parol evidence rule and statute
evaluating evidence other than, and even contrary to, what is stated
of frauds. Not discussed, sir did presume to know more that our obli-
in the CBA.
con professors, read and review on our own.
HOW TO CONTRADICT WRITTEN AGREEMENT
** Remember, exclusio unios ex exclusio alterios (?) - only those that
Quantum of proof required: Oral testimony cannot, as a rule, prevail are enumerated would be included under the per view of the statute
a written agreement of the parties. In order to contradict the facts of frauds.
contained in a notarial document XXX as well as the presumption of
My favorite way of testing my students; DISTINCTIONS! IF YOU CAN
regularity in the execution thereof, there must be clear and
DISTINGUISH ON TERM FROM ANOTHER IT MEANS THAT YOU HAVE
convincing evidence that is more than merely preponderant.
UNDERSTOOD. KAYA TUYOK-TUYOKON.
(MANZANO V. PEREZ, G.R. No. 112485, August9, 2001)
2015 TSN
HOW TO RAISE SOF AS A DEFENSE
How do you use the SOF to prevent the introduction of parol or oral
evidence during trial of the contract? There are many ways to skin
CITIBANK vs. SABENIANO, G.R. 156132, October 12, 2006 the cat so to speak:
When a document is presented to prove its existence or condition, it  Use it as a ground as a motion to dismiss within the time
is offered not as documentary, but as real evidence. Parol evidence required for you to file your answer. Remember under Rule 16
Section 1, SOF is a ground for motion to dismiss.
of the fact of execution of the document is allowed.
Question: So your motion to dismiss based on SOT was granted,
can the plaintiff refile the complaint this time attaching the We see no reason why the second agreement of the parties to
written contract? So SOF, with prejudice. Such order ordering deliver the petitioner's cargo to Roxas City instead of Kalibo, Aklan,
the dismissal of the case based on SOT shall bar the refiling of
should not be recognized simply because it was not in writing. Law
the same action or claim. That is Rule 16, Section 5.
and jurisprudence support the validity of such a contract.
 File an Answer and use SOF as an affirmative defense. An
advantage to that (instead of filing motion to dismiss) is The parol evidence rule is clearly inapplicable because that involves
because a motion to dismiss is NOT a pleading, it does not the verbal modification usually not allowed a written agreement
affect the other parties’ right to amend his pleading as a admittedly still valid and subsisting. In the case at bar, the first
matter of right. So you would rather file an Answer and use written agreement had not merely been modified but actually
SOF as a ground as an affirmative defense then ask a
replaced by the second verbal agreement, which is perfectly valid
preliminary hearing as if a motion for dismissal was made.
even if not in writing like the first. As has been correctly held:
 In a demurrer of evidence. Remember that if it is
unenforceable supposedly you cannot present any evidence to No principle of law makes it necessary that a new contract upon the
prove it. But let’s assume that the judge still admitted the oral same subject between the same persons shall be reduced to writing
contract, erroneously. So the other party has finished
because the old contract was written.
presenting his evidence-in-chief. What can you do being the
defendant? File a demurrer of evidence stating that there’s
violation of SOF under Rule 33. Why, because there can never
be a prima facie case unless there is admissible evidence to QUA CHEE GAN vs. LAW UNION AND ROCK INSURANCE , G.R. No. L-
support the claim.
4611, December 17, 1955
 How else? By objecting to the reception of such oral evidence
when it is presented in court. Qua Chee Gan seeks to recover the proceeds of certain fire
insurance policies, issued by the Law Union, upon certain bodegas
Remember that failure to object in any of these occasions is
tantamount to a waiver of the right to object based on the ground of and merchandise of the insured that were burned on June 21, 1940.
SOF. That is why you really need to memorize the SOF. For your sake,
as future barristers and as future lawyers. Be familiar with it. The insurance company alleges that xxx the policies were avoided
for breach of warranty, xxx since the bodegas insured had an
external wall perimeter of 500 meters or 1,640 feet, the appellee
STATUTE OF FRAUDS versus PAROL EVIDENCE
should have eleven (11) fire hydrants in the compound, and that he
Similarities: They are similar in the sense that both rules limit the actually had only two (2), with a further pair nearby, belonging to
ability of a party to present oral evidence in certain contractual the municipality of Tabaco.
situations. Same type of evidence, which is parol or oral evidence is
prohibited in both. HELD: the appellant is barred by waiver (or rather estoppel) to claim
Law New Civil Code. Rules of Court. violation of the so-called fire hydrants warranty. The insurance
Article 1403 (2) Rule 130, Section 9 company was aware, even before the policies were issued, that in
the premises insured there were only two fire hydrants and two
Object Certain agreement Nothing to do with the manner of
must be proved by proving agreements. Its object is others nearby, owned by the municipality of Tabaco, contrary to the
some writing, note to prohibit alteration, change, requirements of the warranty in question.
or memorandum modification, variation or
in order to be contradiction of the terms of a The appellant company, in this particular case, so worded the
enforceable written agreement policies that while exacting the greater number of fire hydrants and
RE: Clearly, does not By fiction of law, treats wills as appliances, it kept the premium discount at the minimum of 2 1/2
Wills apply to wills agreement and thus it made per cent, thereby giving the insurance company a double benefit. No
applicable to wills
reason is shown why appellant's premises, that had been insured
When Cannot be invoked Cannot be invoked by either party with appellant for several years past, suddenly should be regarded in
invoked by a stranger to to the litigation against the other 1939 as so hazardous as to be accorded a treatment beyond the
the contract where at least one of the parties limits of appellant's own scale of allowances. Such abnormal
to the suit is not a party or a privy
treatment of the insured strongly points at an abuse of the
of a party to the written
instrument. insurance company's selection of the words and terms of the
Simply stated: This does not apply contract, over which it had absolute control.
where third parties are affected
(?) These considerations lead us to regard the parol evidence rule,
invoked by the appellant as not applicable to the present case. It is
not a question here whether or not the parties may vary a written
contract by oral evidence; but whether testimony is receivable so
that a party may be, by reason of inequitable conduct shown,
MARKET DEVELOPERS vs. IAC and UY, G.R. No. 74978 (1989)
estopped from enforcing forfeitures in its favor, in order to forestall
fraud or imposition on the insured.

Transcript Law On Evidence First Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript Law On Evidence First Exam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript Law On Evidence First Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAW ON EVIDENCE based on the lectures of ATTY.

4. Article 114, paragraph 2 (Treason, Revised Penal Code) –

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE Summary

AS TO TYPE If the evidence is the object itself, it is an object evidence.

If the evidence is what is written and that is the fact in

prove the same proposition different types of evidence

person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or

(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal

Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written,

Presumption With respect to judicial admissions, when a fact is already admitted

REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE b) Doctrine of Incorporation – such as in the incorporation clause in

Can a court take judicial notice of a decision of CA? Or is it limited Ordinances

incident involved over 300 heavily armed military officers and

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

In line with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or

1. Judicial admission - made by the party in the course of the

Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or

rile pre-trial on August 8, 1985, which was not signed by the

In the present case, petitioner's conviction was based on the

So mao na siya ang contention. On the one hand, we have Fule on

1. Object Evidence Second, is the capacity of recollection; mahinumduman nimu imung

declarations. We will learn later on the requirement that a to the case.

In appreciating demonstrative evidence, the court use the same five

The answer is simply when THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT of the

o Authenticity is the act of proving the accuracy of

(6) identification of the speakers; and

THE ANSWER OF COURSE IS IT WILL NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT. The

In this case, what he wanted to be excluded as object evidence is

Examples: Distinction between object evidence and documentary evidence.

 Objects which are offensive to man’s sensibilities or

Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing

Conclusion: Despite the fact that it is papyric in nature, it does not

QUESTION: IS THERE AN INSTANCE WHERE A DOCUMENT CAN BE July 22, 2016

5. 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans, 90% of

Vallejo was charged with raping and murdering a 9-year-old child.

1. DNA Testing in court involves a scientific procedure.

Note: DAUBERT TEST

HERRERA vs. ALBA (GR No. 148220, June 15, 2005)

shoulder one-half (1/2) of the expenses to be incurred by [the

PEOPLE vs. RAYLES (GR No. 169874, July 27, 2007)

Accused-appellant would have this Court credit him for having

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (Oct. 2, 2007)

JULY 27, 2016

“Probability of Parentage” means the numerical estimate for

So you have been convicted already of final judgment. Maybe your

Other privileged communication: attorney-client privileged

 The request for paternity testing was also consistent with

For example: A. The chain of custody, including how the biological

PEOPLE vs. CABIGCUEZ, G.R. No. 185708, (September 29, 2010)

Jinky and Rogelio got acquainted in November 1993 in Tarlac City.

Mr. Vizconde filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Webb

He died on Feb.13 after suffering a series of heart attacks. He got his

He died without obtaining any measure of justice or peace of mind

Vandolph won. Pfft.

After the SC doctrinally immortalized her lies, Alfaro fled to Canada.

Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit. He who flees from prosecution

Q: Why do you call it an “original”? Q: How is a news article published?