Evidence Reviewer

Preliminary Considerations
Evidence
Preliminary Considerations  Materiality of evidence is determined by

WON the fact it tends to prove is in issue
c. Competent – one that is not excluded by the
Rule 128 – General Provisions Rules, law or Consti
2. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
Section 1 – EVIDENCE DEFINED a. Direct – that which proves the fact in dispute
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of without the aid of any inference or
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth presumption
respecting a matter of fact b. Circumstantial – proof of the fact or facts from
which, taken either singly or collectively, the
Section 2 - SCOPE existence of a particular fact in dispute may be
The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and inferred as a necessary or probable
in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided consequence
by law or these rules. 3. Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence
a. Cumulative – evidence of the same kind and to
• Evidence - mode and manner of proving competent facts the same state of facts
in judicial proceedings b. Corroborative – additional evidence of a
• Proof - result or effect of evidence different character to the same point
» When the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular 4. Prima facie and Conclusive Evidence
fact has been duly admitted and given weight a. Prima facie – that which, standing alone,
• Factum probandum – ultimate fact or fact sought to be unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
established maintain the proposition affirmed
» proposition b. Conclusive – that class of evidence which the
• Factum probans – evidentiary fact or the fact by which law does not allow to be contradicted
the factum probandum is to be established 5. Primary and Secondary Evidence
» Materials which establishes the proposition a. Primary – or best evidence, that which the law
• Law on evidence – procedural law regards as affording the greatest certainty of
» Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive the fact in question
rights (Sec 5 (5), Art VIII, Consti) b. Secondary evidence – substitutionary
» New rules may be held applicable to cases pending evidence, that which is inferior to the primary
at the time of the change in rules as parties have no evidence and is permitted by law only when
vested right in the rules of evidence the best evidence is not available
▪ Except in criminal cases when the new rule 6. Positive and Negative Evidence
would permit reception of lesser quantum of a. Positive – when a witness affirms that a fact
evidence to convict -> unconstitutional, ex did or did not occur
post facto  Entitled to greater weight since witness
» Principally found in ROC represents of his personal knowledge
▪ Special laws: RA 4200, Code of Commerce Art b. Negative – witness states that he did not see
448, Civil Code, RPC Art 217 or know of the occurrence of a fact
» Bill of Rights Sec 2 and 3  Total disclaimer of personal knowledge
▪ See notes under Sec 33, Rule 130
▪ Right against self-incrimination cannot be Section 3 – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
invoked in situations covered by immunity Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
statutes and is not excluded by the law or these rules
 RA 1379 – immunity to witnesses in
proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfully Section 4 – RELEVANCY; COLLATERAL MATTERS
acquired property Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
 PD 749 – immunity in bribery and graft as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
cases Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
» Specifically applicable only in judicial proceedings except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
▪ Quasi-judicial: suppletory character whenever establish the probability of the facts in issue
practicable and convenient, except when the
governing law specifically adopts ROC • Two requisites for admissibility:
• Classification of evidence based on ROC: 1. Relevance – determinable by rules of logic and
1. Object – that which is directly addressed to the human experience
senses of the court and consists of tangible things ▪ None but facts having rational probative value
exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an are admissible (Wigmore)
ocular inspection or at a place designated by the 2. Competence – determined by prevailing
court for its view or observation of an exhibition, exclusionary rules of evidence
experiment or demonstration ▪ All facts having rational probative value are
▪ Autoptic proference – presenting in open court admissible unless some specific rule forbids
the evidentiary articles for the observation or their admission
inspection of the tribunal » Therefore, admissibility is an affair of logic and law
2. Documentary evidence – evidence supplied by • Admissibility – determined at the time it is offered to the
written instruments or derived from conventional court
symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are » Object evidence – offered when presented for the
represented on material substances court’s view or evaluation
3. Testimonial – submitted to the court through the » Testimonial – offered by the calling of the witness to
testimony or deposition of a witness the stand
• Other classifications » Documentary – formally offered by the proponent
1. Relevant, Material, and Competent Evidence immediately before he rests his case
a. Relevant – evidence having any value in • Objection to the admissibility – made at the time such
reason as tending to prove any matter evidence is offered or as soon as the objection to the
provable in an action admissibility shall have become apparent
 Test of relevancy – logical relation of the » Otherwise, waived
evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, • Conditional admissibility – where the evidence at the
whether it tends to prove the probability time it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant
or improbability of the fact in issue unless it is connected with the other facts to be
b. Material – evidence directed to prove a fact in subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on
issue as determined by the rules of substantive condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter,
law and pleadings otherwise the evidence will be stricken out
» Qualification: no bad faith on the part of the proponent
azereth
page 1
▪ Necessary to avoid unfair surprises to the other
party
• Multiple admissibility – where evidence is relevant and
competent for two or more purposes, such evidence
should be admitted for any and all the purposes for
which it is offered provided it satisfies all the
requirements of law for its admissibility
• Curative admissibility – treats upon the right of a party to
introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the
court has admitted the same kind of evidence of the
adverse party
» Theories:
1. American rule – admission of such incompetent
evidence, without objection by the opponent
does not justify such opponent in rebutting it
by similar incompetent evidence
2. English rule – if a party has presented
inadmissible evidence. The adverse party may
resort to similar incompetent evidence
3. Massachusetts rule – adverse party may be
permitted to introduce similar incompetent
evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of the other
party’s
» To determine application:
1. WON incompetent evidence was reasonably
objected to, and
2. WON, regardless of the objection vel non, the
admission will cause a plain and unfair
prejudice to the party against whom it is
admitted
▪ Conversely, where admissible evidence has
been improperly excluded, the other party
should not be permitted to introduce similar
evidence (Martin)
• Former rule: illegally obtained evidence still admissible
unless specifically forbidden
» Abandoned in Stonehill vs. Diokno -> documentary
evidence, illegally obtained, is inadmissible on a
timely motion or action to suppress
• Collateral matters – matters other than the facts in issue
and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the
existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
» Irrelevant collateral matters inadmissible
» Circumstantial evidence – evidence of relevant
collateral facts
• Weight to evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial
evaluation (Rule 133 and jurisprudence)
What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
What Need Not Be Proved An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof. The admission may be contradicted only
by showing that it was made through palpable mistake
Rule 129 – What Need Not Be Proved
or that no such admission was made.
Section 1 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY • Judicial admissions may be made in
A court shall take judicial notice, without the 1. Pleadings filed by the parties
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial 2. The course of the trial, either by verbal or written
extent of states, their political history, forms of manifestations or stipulations
government and symbols of nationality, the law of 3. Other stages of the judicial proceeding
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world • Must be made in the same case in which it is offered
and their seals, the political constitution and history of » If made in another case or in another court – must
the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive be proved as in any other fact, but entitled greater
and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of weight
nature, the measure of time, and the geographical ▪ Admissible unless:
divisions. 1. Made only for purposes of the first case
2. Withdrawn with the permission of the
Section 2 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN DISCRETIONARY court
A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of 3. Court deems it proper to relieve the party
public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable • Admissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn or
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because supersede by an amended pleading
of their judicial functions. » Considered as extrajudicial admissions
» However, the rule seems now to include superseded
Section 3 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING pleadings as judicial admissions
NECESSARY
During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on Lim vs. Jabalde (1989)
request of a party, may announce its intention to take Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be by the parties at the pre-trial of a case constitute judicial
heard thereon. admission by them which, under this section, do not require
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to
proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a have been made through palpable mistake.
party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow
the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is PCIB vs. Escolin (1974)
decisive of a material issue in the case. When the parties in a case agree on what the foreign
law provides, these are admissions of fact which the other
• Judicial notice – cognizance of certain facts which judges parties and the court are made to rely and act upon; hence
may properly take and act on without proof because they they are in estoppel to subsequently take a contrary position
already know them
» Based on considerations of expediency and
convenience
» May be taken by court on its own motion or when it
is requested by either parties
▪ Court will allow the parties to be heard on the
matter in question
» Must be exercised with caution and every
reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in
the negative
• Courts are required to take judicial notice of laws
» Different with ordinances:
▪ MTC – required to take judicial notice of
ordinances of the municipality or city wherein
they sit
▪ RTC – must take judicial notice only:
1. When required to do so by statute
2. In a case of appeal before them wherein
the inferior court took judicial notice of an
ordinance involved in said case
» Or when capable of unquestionable
demonstration (also applies with
administrative regulations)
• Courts are required to take judicial notice of the
decisions of appellate courts but not of the decisions of
coordinate courts
» Not even the decision or the facts involved in
another case tried by the same court itself
▪ Unless the parties introduce the same in
evidence or doing so is convenient
• Foreign laws – question of fact
» May not be taken judicial notice and have to be
proved
▪ Except: said laws are within the actual
knowledge of the court
» To prove written foreign law: follow requirements in
Sec 24-25, Rule 132
» May be subject of judicial admission
» Processual presumption - no proof nor admission,
foreign law presumed to be the same as that in the
Philippines
» To prove unwritten foreign law – Sec 46, Rule 130
Section 4 – JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
azereth
page 3
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence a. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or

cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on
the part of the offeror;
b. When the original is in the custody or under the
Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE reasonable notice;
c. When the original consists of numerous accounts
SECTION 1 - OBJECT AS EVIDENCE or other documents which cannot be examined in
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses court without great loss of time and the fact sought
of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in to be established from them is only the general
issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by result of the whole; and
the court. d. When the original is public record in the custody of
a public officer or is recorded in a public office
• Where object is relevant to a fact in issue, court may
acquire knowledge by: Section 4 – ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT
1. Actually viewing the object – becomes object a. The original of a document is one the contents of
evidence which are the subject of inquiry.
2. Receiving testimonial evidence thereon b. When a document is in two or more copies
• The fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not executed at or about the same time, with identical
preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
same issue originals.
» Ocular inspection – lies within the discretion of the c. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
court business, one being copied from another at or near
▪ Invalid if conducted by a judge without notice the time of the transaction, all the entries are
or presence of the parties likewise equally regarded as originals.
• Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely
on testimonial evidence alone if: • Document – deed, instrument or other duly authorized
1. Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy, paper by which something is proved, evidenced, or set
morals or decency forth
▪ But if view is necessary in the interest of • Best Evidence Rule – rule of exclusion
justice, may still be exhibited but the court » Secondary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced
may exclude the public from such view as the original writing itself must be produced in
▪ Viewing may not be refused if the indecent or court
immoral object constitute the very basis for the » Non-production of the original document, unless
criminal or civil action justified under Sec 3, gives rise to the presumption
2. To require its being viewed in court or in an ocular of suppression of evidence
inspection would result in delays, inconvenience, » Applies only when the content of such document is
and expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary the subject of inquiry
value of such object » In criminal cases where the issue is not only with
3. Such object evidence would be confusing or respect to the contents of the document but also as
misleading to whether such document actually existed with the
4. Testimonial or documentary evidence already participation therein as imputed to the accused, the
presented clearly portrays the object in question as original itself must be presented.
to render a view unnecessary ▪ Libel published in a newspaper: copy of said
• Object evidence – includes any article or object which newspaper
may be known or perceived by the use of any of the ▪ Falsification of a document: original of the
senses – sight (visual), hearing (auditory), touch document
(tactile), taste (gustatory), or smell (olfactory) » Does not apply if transactions have been recorded
» Includes: in writing but the contents of such writing are not
1. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of the subject of inquiry
any substance taken therefrom ▪ Affidavits and depositions – strictly speaking,
2. Conduct of tests, demonstrations, or BER does not apply, but will not be admitted if
experiments affiants or deponents are available as
3. Examination of representative portrayals of the witnesses
object in question
• Observations of the court may be amplified by Mahilum vs. CA (1966)
interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence, A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document
especially be experts executed at the same time as the originals is known as a
• Documents are considered object evidence if the purpose duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without
is to: accounting for the non-production of the original.
1. Prove their existence or condition or the nature
of the handwritings thereon People vs. Tan (105 Phil 1242)
2. Determine the age of the paper used or the With respect to documents prepared in several copies
blemishes or alterations thereon through the use of carbon sheets, SC has held that each
» Otherwise, considered documentary evidence carbon copy is considered an original provided that the writing
of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE of the party sought to be charged thereby, produces a
facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus
Section 2 – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the
Documents as evidence consists of writings or any surface or exposed impression
material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressions offered • However, even if said signature on each copy was written
as proof of their contents through separate acts, all of carbon copies are regarded
as originals if each copy was intended as a repository of
1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE the same legal act of the party thereto
• Imperfect carbon copies – merely secondary evidence
Section 3 – ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED; • Telegrams and cables – depends on the issue to be
EXCEPTIONS proved
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a » Original dispatch – issue is the contents of the
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than telegram as received by the addressee
the original document itself, except in the following » Message delivered for transition – issue as to the
cases: telegram sent by the sender
azereth
page
Evidence
» Both – issue m f by
is the inaccuracy its 2. Loss, the
of the exe destruction pers
transmission cut or on in
ion unavailability who
Provincial Fiscal of wa of all such se
Pampanga vs. s originals, not cust
Reyes (55 Phil ack due to bad ody
905) no faith the
On the issue as wle ▪ Intentio docu
to the contents of the dg nal men
articles sent by the ed; destructi t
accused for or on of was
publication, the c. An the and
manuscript was the y originals has
best evidence; but on per by a been
the issue as to what son party unab
was actually wh who, le to
published, a copy of o however find
the newspaper wa , had it
publication was the s acted in c. Has
best evidence. pre good mad
sen faith e
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE t does not any
an preclude othe
Section 5 – WHEN d his r
ORIGINAL sa introduc inve
DOCUMENT IS w tion of stiga
UNAVAILABLE it seconda tion
When the original exe ry whic
document has been cut evidence h is
lost or destroyed, or ed of the suffi
cannot be produced an contents cient
in court, the d thereof to
offeror, upon proof deli ▪ May be satis
of its execution or ver proved fy
existence and the ed by any the
cause of its or person cour
unavailability wh who: t
without bad faith on o a. Kne that
his part, may prove the w of the
its contents by a rea fact docu
copy, or by a recital fter of men
of its contents in sa loss t is
some authentic w or inde
document, or by the it dest ed
testimony of an ruct lost
witnesses in the d ion 3. Reasonable
order stated. rec b. Ha diligence and
og d good faith in
• Requisites: proof niz ma the search or
by satisfactory ed de attempt to
evidence of the a produce the
1. Due sig suff original
execution of nat icie » All duplicates or
the original ure nt counterparts
▪ Proved s, exa must be
through or mi accounted for
the on nat before using
testimo e ion copies thereof
ny of to of
either: wh the De Vera
a. Pe om pla vs.
rs the ces Aguilar
on par wh (1993)
/s ties ere Since all the
w the the duplicates or
ho ret doc multiplicates are parts of
ex o um the writing to be proved,
ec ha ent no excuse for non-
ut d or production of the
ed pre pap document can be
it; vio ers regarded as established
b. P usl of until it appears that all of
er y sim its parts are unavailable
so con ilar
n fes cha PNB vs.
b sed rac Olila (98
ef the ter Phil
or exe are 1002)
e cuti usu When the original
w on ally is outside the jurisdiction
h the kep of the court, as when it
o reo t is in a foreign country,
azereth
page
Evidence
secondary evidence is loss
Section 8 – PARTY for the production
admissible
WHO CALLS FOR of a document and
DOCUMENT NOT inspects the same
• Secondary
BOUND TO OFFER is not obliged to
evidence may
IT offer it as evidence
consist of:
A party who calls
1. Copy of said
document • No particular form for the recovery or
2. Recital of its of notice is annulment of documents
contents in required wrongfully obtained or
an authentic » As long as it withheld by the other
document fairly party, no notice to
3. Recollection appraises the produce said documents
of witnesses other party is required
» In this as to what
particular order papers are • Third exception to
▪ Except desired BER – justified not
when • Even oral demand only by the fact that
specific in court is allowed the records are
ally » Made on a voluminous but also
require reasonable time because the fatum
d by • Notice must be probandum is just
law given to the the general result of
 E. adverse party or the whole
g. his counsel even if » For exception to
lo papers is in the apply
st hands of a third 1. The
n person volumino
ot us
ar Phil. Ready-Mix Concrete Co. vs. character
ial Villacorta, et al of the
wi (98 Phil 993) records
ll Where receipt of must be
– the original of a letter is establishe
te acknowledged on a d
st carbon copy thereof, 2. Such
i there is no need for a records
m notice to the other must be
o party to produce the made
n original of the letter available
y to the
of • Remember: the adverse
at duplicate copy, if party so
le complete is itself that their
as an original copy correctne
t » Only issue: ss may be
2 receipt of the tested on
cr original cross-
e • Justified refusal of examinati
di the adverse party on
bl to produce the » Originals have to
e document ≠ be produced if:
wi presumption of ▪ Detailed
tn suppression of contents
es evidence of the
se » Only records
s authorizes are
• Reconstitution – the challenge
governed by Act introduction d for
3110 + of secondary being
jurisprudence evidence hearsay1
• Where such ▪ Issues
Section 6 – WHEN document is are raised
ORIGINAL produced ≠ as to the
DOCUMENT IS IN admissibility authentici
ADVERSE PARTY’S
CUSTODY OR » Requisites for
ty
correctne
or
CONTROL admissibility must ss of the

If the document is detailed
in the custody or be present entries
under the control • Production of
of the adverse evidence under Section 7 – EVIDENCE
party, he must have Rule 130 ≠ ADMISSIBLE WHEN
reasonable notice Production of ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
to produce it. If evidence under IS A PUBLIC RECORD
after such notice Rule 27 When the original of a
and after document is in the
satisfactory proof of Warner, Barnes & custody of a public
its existence, he Co., Ltd. vs. officer or is recorded
fails to produce the Buenaflor (36 OG in a public office, its
document, 3290) contents may be
secondary evidence Where the nature proved by a certified
may be presented of the action is in itself copy issued by the
as in the case of its a notice, as where it is public officer in
azereth
page
Evidence
custody thereof agreement is
De Guzman • Latent ambiguity
not
vs. Calma – when the
• Complements the inconsistent
(100 Phil writing on its
4th exception to with the
1008) face appears
BER terms of the
Parol evidence clear and
» See Rule contract
is based upon the unambiguous but
132 Sections 24 » Collateral
consideration that there are
and 27 agreement
when the parties collateral
has not been
have reduced their matters or
3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE integrated in
agreement on a circumstances
and is
particular matter which make the
Section 9 – independent
into writing, all their meaning
EVIDENCE OF of the written
previous and uncertain
WRITTEN contract
AGREEMENTS
contemporaneous
agreements on the
(suppletory » Or where the
When the terms of to the writing
matter are merged
an agreement have original admits of
therein
been reduced to document) two
writing, it is » Collateral construction
considered as agreement is s both of
containing all the subsequent which are in
terms agreed upon to the written harmony
and there can be, contract with the
between the parties » Collateral language
and their agreement used 6
successors in constitutes a
interest, no condition
evidence of such precedent
terms other than which
the contents of the determines
written agreement. whether the
However, a party written
may present contract may
evidence to modify, become
explain or add to effective
the terms of written ▪ Does
agreement if he not
puts in issue in his apply to
pleading: a
a. An intrinsic conditio
ambiguity, n
mistake or subsequ
imperfection in ent not
the written stated in
agreement; the
b. The failure of agreeme
the written nt
agreement to • Par
express the o
true intent and l
agreement of
the parties
e
thereto;
c. The validity of v
the written i
agreement; or d
e
d. The existence
n
of other terms
c
agreed to by
e
the parties or
their
successors in d
interest after o
the execution e
of the written s
agreement.
The term
"agreement" n
includes wills. o
t
1
US vs. Razon (37 Phil a
856) p
p
• Parol evidence – embodied in
l
evidence aliunde a document
y
(oral or written) • As long as they
» Intended or have been put into
tends to issue, parol w
vary or evidence did not h
contradict a bar evidence of a e
complete collateral r
and agreement in e
enforceable instances where:
agreement » Collateral
azereth
page
Evidence
a r
t i
t
t
l
e
e
n
a
s
t a
g
r
o
e
n
e
e
m
e
p n
a t
r
t
i
y
n
t
q
o
u
e
t s
h t
e i
o
n
s
u
i Parol Evidence Best Evidence
t
Presupposes that the original Situation wherein the original
document is available in writing is not available and/or
i court there is a dispute as to
s whether said writing is
original
n Prohibits the varying of the Prohibits the introduction of
o terms of a written agreement substitutionary evidence in
t lieu of the original document
a Applies only documents that Applies to all kinds of writings

are contractual in nature
p Can be invoked only when Can be invoked by any party

a the controversy is between to the action
r the parties to the written
t agreement, their privies or
y any party directly affected
thereby (cestui que trust)
o
r • To
b
e
p
r
i a
v d
y m
i
s
o s
f i
b
a l
e
,
p
a
r m
t i
y s
t
a
t k
o e
t o
h r
e
i
w m
azereth
page
Evidence
p e
e m
r e
f n
e t
c
t
o
i
f
o
n
t
h
o
e
f
p
t
a
h
r
e
t
i
d e
o s
c ,
u
m
o
e
r
n
t
t
h
o
e
r
v
i
a
t
l
s
i
d
f i
a t
i y
l
u
o
r
f
e
t
t
h
o
e
e
d
x
o
p
c
r
u
e
m
s
e
s
n
t
t
h
m
e
u
s
t t
r
u
b
e
e
i
p
n
u
t
t
e
n
t i
n
a
n i
d s
s
u
a
e
g
r
e b
azereth
page
Evidence
y l
e
t
v
h
i
e
d
e
p n
l c
e e
a ▪ B
d u
i t
n
g
i
s
f
»
P
l d
a e
i f
n e
t n
i d
f a
f n
t
f
a
i
i
n
l
v
e
o
d
k
e
t
d
o
a s
l u
l c
e h
g
e
f
i a
n c
t
h
i i
s n
c
o h
m i
p s
l
a
a
i
n
n
s
t
w
e
–
r
,
c
a
n p
n a
o r
t o
l
i
n
e
t
v
r
i
o
d
d
e
u
n
c
c
e
e
p
a m
r a
o y
azereth
page
Evidence
n
o
b
t
e
o
i b
n j
t e
r c
o t
d e
u d
c
e t
d o
2
,
»
H o
o b
w j
e e
v c
e t
r i
, o
n
e
v d
e e
n e
m
i e
f d
n w
o a
t i
v
r e
a d
i
s »
e M
d i
s
o t
n a
k
t e
h
e o
r
p
l i
e m
a p
d e
i r
n f
g e
s c
t
b i
u o
t n
p m
a u
r s
o t
l
b
e e
v
i p
d r
e o
n v
c e
e d
i b
s y
c
azereth
page
Evidence
l t
e o
a
r
t
h
a
e
n
d
p
c a
o r
n t
v i
i e
n s
c 4
i » Or
n w
g h
e
e r
v e
i
d t
e h
n e
c
e i
3
n
• Mis n
t o
a c
k e
e n
t
–
p
a
r r
e t
f y
e
r w
s a
s
t
i
o
m
p
m o
i s
s e
t d
a
k u
e p
o
n
o
f b
y
f
a u
c n
t f
a
i
w r
h
i d
c e
h a
l
i
i
n
s
g
m o
u f
t
u t
a h
l e
azereth
page
Evidence
o s
t t
h r
e u
r m
e
CC Art. 1363 n
W t
h
e
d
n
i
d
o
n
n
e
o
t
p
a
s
r
t
t
a
y
t
e
w
a
t
s
h
e
m i
i r
s
t
r
a
e
k
a
e
l
n
a
a
g
n
r
d
e
e
t m
h e
e n
t
,
o
t
h b
e u
r t
k c
n o
e n
w c
e
a
o
l
r
e
d
b
e
t
l
h
i
a
e
t
v
e
d f
a
c
t
t
h
a
t f
r
o
t
m
h
e
t
h
i
e
n
azereth
page
Evidence
n
f
t
o
h
r
e
m
e
t
r
r
,
u
e
t
h i
e n
t
e
i n
n t
s
t o
r f
u
m t
e h
n e
t
p
m a
a r
y t
i
e
b s
e 5
o
r
r
e
f
t
o
h
r
e
m
e
t
d
r
.
u
e
• Failure to express true intent
» n
P a
u t
r u
p r
o e
s
e o
: f
e t
n h
a e
b i
l r
e
a
t g
h r
e e
e
c m
o e
u n
r t
t
t
2
PNR vs. Surety Co. (51 Phil
CFI of 57)
o
Albay 5
Tolentino vs.
(1978) Gonzales Sy Chiam
a 3
Tolentino (50 Phil 558)
s vs.
c Gonzales
e Sy Chiam
r (50 Phil
t 558)
a 4
BPI vs.
i Fidelity &
azereth
page
Evidence
6
Ignacio vs. including the
Rementeria (99 Phil Section 17 - OF
situation of the
1054) TWO
CONSTRUCTIONS,
Palanca vs. ambiguity subject thereof and
WHICH PREFERRED
Fred Wilson • Remember: falsa of the parties to it,
When the terms of
& Co. (87 demonstration may be shown, so
an agreement have
Phil 506) non nocet cum de that the judge may
been intended in a
The phrase corpore constat be placed in the
different sense by
“capacity of » False position of those
the different parties
6,000 liters” description whose language he is
to it, that sense is
used in does not to interpret.
to prevail against
connection with a vitiate a either party in
distilling document if Section 14 -
which he supposed
apparatus was the subject is PECULIAR
the other
held to be a sufficiently SIGNIFICATION OF
understood it, and
latent ambiguity identified TERMS
when different
which had to be • No express trust The terms of a
constructions of a
clarified by parol concerning an writing are presumed
provision are
evidence to immovable or any to have been used in
otherwise equally
determine interest therein their primary and
proper, that is to be
whether it meant may be proved by general acceptation,
taken which is the
receiving, parol evidence but evidence is
most favorable to
treating, or the admissible to show
the party in whose
producing Section 10 - that they have a
favor the provision
capacity of the INTERPRETATION OF local, technical, or
was made.
machine A WRITING otherwise peculiar
ACCORDING TO ITS signification, and
Section 18 -
• Patent ambiguity LEGAL MEANING were so used and
CONSTRUCTION IN
– extrinsic; such The language of a understood in the
FAVOR OF NATURAL
ambiguity which writing is to be particular instance,
RIGHT
is apparent on interpreted in which case the
When an
the face of the according to the agreement must be
instrument is
writing itself and legal meaning it construed
equally susceptible
requires bears in the place of accordingly.
of two
something to be its execution, unless interpretations, one
added in order to the parties intended Section 15 - WRITTEN
in favor of natural
ascertain the otherwise. WORDS CONTROL
right and the other
meaning of the PRINTED
against it, the
words used Section 11 - When an instrument
former is to be
» Parol evidence INSTRUMENT consists partly of
adopted.
is not admissible CONSTRUED SO AS written words and
▪ Court TO GIVE EFFECT TO partly of a printed
Section 19 -
would ALL PROVISIONS form, and the two
INTERPRETATION
not be In the construction are inconsistent, the
ACCORDING TO USAGE
constru of an instrument, former controls the
An instrument may
ing a where there are latter.
be construed
contrac several provisions or according to usage,
t, but particulars, such a Section 16 - EXPERTS
in order to
creatin construction is, if AND INTERPRETERS
determine its true
g a possible, to be TO BE USED IN
character.
contrac adopted as will give EXPLAINING
t for effect to all. CERTAIN WRITINGS
• Rules on
the When the characters
interpretation
parties Section 12 - in which an
» For contracts:
• Intermediate INTERPRETATION instrument is written
CC Articles 1370 to
ambiguity – the ACCORDING TO are difficult to be
1379
words of the INTENTION; deciphered, or the
» For wills: CC
writing, though GENERAL AND language is not
Articles 788 to 794
seemingly clear PARTICULAR understood by the
and with a PROVISIONS court, the evidence
C. TESTIMONIAL
settled meaning, In the construction of persons skilled in
EVIDENCE
is actually of an instrument, the deciphering the
equivocal and intention of the characters, or who
1. QUALIFICATION OF
admits of two parties is to be understand the
WITNESSES
interpretations7 pursued; and when a language, is
» Example: general and a admissible to declare
Section 20 -
“dollars” – particular provision the characters or the
WITNESSES; THEIR
may refer are inconsistent, the meaning of the
QUALIFICATIONS
to currency latter is paramount language.
Except as provided
of US or HK to the former. So a in the next
particular intent will succeeding section,
or Australia control a general one all persons who can
“Ton” – can that is inconsistent
7
Referred to in American perceive, and
be long ton, with it. jurisprudence
perceiving, can
short ton, make their known
displacemen Section 13 - perception to
t ton, INTERPRETATION others, may be
freight ton ACCORDING TO witnesses.
or timber CIRCUMSTANCES Religious or
ton For the proper political belief,
» Parol construction of an interest in the
evidence is instrument, the outcome of the
admissible to circumstances under case, or conviction
clarify the which it was made, of a crime unless
azereth
page
Evidence
otherwise tender s minded
provided by law, years – (198
shall not be take into 4) • Or a mental
ground for account As long as the retardate, or is a
disqualification. their witness can convey schizophrenic
competenc ideas by words or • Requirements for
Section 21 e at the signs and give deaf-mutes:
- time of sufficiently 1. Can
DISQUALIF the intelligent answers understand
ICATION occurrence to questions and
BY to be propounded, she is a appreciate
REASON testified competent witness the sanctity
OF • Interest in the even if she is feeble- of an oath
MENTAL subject matter –
2. Can in the case of other
INCAPACIT does not disqualify
comprehend witnesses generally
Y OR » Affects only his
facts they are
IMMATURI credibility, not his
going to Lezama
TY competency
testify to vs.
The following » Except: Dead
3. Can Rodrigue
persons cannot be Man’s Statute
communicate z (1968)
witnesses: • Defendant
their ideas Where the wife is a
a. Those declared in
through a co-defendant in a suit
whose default – not
qualified charging her and her
mental disqualified
interpreter husband with collusive
conditio from testifying
• Considerations for fraud, she cannot be
n, at the fro his non-
a child witness: called as an adverse
time of defaulting co-
1. Capacity at party witness under (Sec
their defendant
the time the 10, Rule 132) as this will
producti • Conviction of a
fact to be violate the marital
on for crime – not ground
testified disqualification rule.
examina for disqualification
occurred
tion, is » But must
such that he Section 23 –
such answer to
could receive DISQUALIFICATION
that the fact of
correct BY REASON OF DEATH
they are a previous
impressions OR INSANITY OF
incapabl final
thereof ADVERSE PARTY
e of conviction
2. Capacity to Parties or assignors of
intellige as it may
comprehend parties to a case, or
ntly affect
the obligation persons in whose
making credibility
of an oath behalf a case is
known » Except:
3. Capacity to prosecuted, against an
their conviction
relate those executor or
percepti of
facts truly at administrator or other
on to falsificatio
the time he is representative of a
others; n of a
offered a deceased person, or
b. Children document,
witness against a person of
whose perjury or
unsound mind, upon a
mental false
Section 22 – claim or demand
maturity testimony
DISQUALIFICATION against the estate of
is such –
BY REASON OF such deceased person
as to disqualifie
MARRIAGE or a person of
render d from
During their unsound mind, cannot
them being
marriage, neither the testify as to any
incapabl witnesses
husband nor the wife matter of fact
e of to a will,
may testify for or occurring before the
perceivi therefore
against the other death of such
ng the cannot
without the consent deceased person or
facts testify on
of the affected before such person
respecti probate
spouse, except in a became of unsound
ng • “Unsound
civil case by one mind
which mind” – any
against the other, or
they are mental
in criminal case for a • Dead man statute
examine aberration
crime committed by
d and of whether
one against the other
relating organic or Ma
or the latter’s direct Dead Man Statute
them functional or
descendants and
truthfull induced by
ascendants Partial disqualification Com
y. drugs or
hypnosis • Disqualified only to testify
• Called rule on as matter of facts
• Qualifications/ » At the time of
marital occurring before the death
disqualificatio the testimony
disqualification or of deceased person or
ns of » If at the time
spousal immunity before deceased person
witnesses - of the fact
• Requisites:
determined as to be became of unsound mind
1. Marriage is
of the time testifies –
valid and Applies only to civil case or App
the witnesses affects
existing as of special proceeding over the case
are produced only his
the time of estate of deceased / insane
for credibility
the offer of person
examination
testimony
in court or at Peop
2. The other
the taking of le • Requisites:
spouse is a
their vs. 1. Witness
party to the
depositions De offered for
action
» Children of Jesu examination is
• May be waived as
azereth
page
Evidence
a party insane
▪ Neces insane
plaintiff, or person
sary person
the assignor
that ▪ Does
of said
defen not
party, or a
dant apply
person in
is where
whose
being it is
behalf a
sued the
case is
in his admini
prosecuted
repre strator
▪ Plaintiff
senta who
must
tive brough
be the
capac t the
real
ity action
party in
and to
interest
not in recove
▪ Not
indivi r
applica
dual proper
ble to
capac ty for
mere
ity the
witness
▪ If estate
es
prope 4. Testimony
▪ Assign
rty to be given
or –
involv is on a
one
ed matter of
who
has fact
transfe
alrea occurring
rred
dy before the
his
been death of
interes
adjud such
ts in a
icate deceased
case
d to person or
 As
the before such
sig
heirs, person
ne
still became of
e
prote unsound
–
cted mind
no
– ▪ Negati
t
consi ve
dis
dered testim
qu
as ony –
ali
repre testim
fie
senta ony
d
tives that
▪ Does
of the the
not
decea fact
apply
sed did not
where
▪ Appli occur
a
es during
counte
whet the
rclaim
her lifetim
has
the e of
been
decea the
interpo
sed deceas
sed by
died ed –
the
befor not
defend
e or covere
ant as
after d
the
the ▪ Testim
plaintif
suit ony of
f would
was the
thereb
filed presen
y be
as t
testifyi
long posses
ng in
as he sion by
his
was the
defens
dead witnes
e
at the s of a
▪ Also if
time written
deceas
the instru
ed
testi ment
contrac
mony signed
ted
is to by the
through
be deceas
an
prese ed is
agent
nted also
2. Case is
3. Case is not
against the
upon a covere
executor or
claim or d
administrat
demand  M
or or
against a’
representati
the estate a
ve of the
of such m
deceased or
deceased / :
azereth
page
Evidence
misl the prohibited c. A person the patient;
eadi matters authorized to d. A minister or
ng 3. Defendant practice priest cannot,
bec cross- medicine, without the
aus examines surgery or consent of the
e thereon obstetrics person making
the cannot in a the confession,
doc Section 24 – civil case, be examined as
ume DISQUALIFICATIO without the to any
nt N BY REASON OF consent of the confession
cont PRIVILEGED patient, be made to or any
ains COMMUNICATION examined as advice given by
acts The following to any advice him in his
of persons cannot or treatment professional
the testify as to given by him character in
dec matters learned in or any the course of
eas confidence in the information discipline
ed following cases: which he may enjoined by the
befo a. The husband have acquired church to
re or the wife, in attending which the
he during or such patient minister or
died after the in a priest belongs;
• Does not marriage, professional e. A public officer
apply to land cannot be capacity, cannot be
registration examined which examined
cases or without the information during his term
cadastral consent of the was of office or
cases other as to necessary to afterwards, as
• Purpose: any enable him to to any
discourage communicatio act in that communication
perjury and n received in capacity, and s made to him
protect the confidence by which would in official
estate from one from the blacken the confidence,
fictitious claim other during reputation of
• Prohibition the marriage,
when the court
does not apply except in a Marital Privilege
finds that the
despite civil case by • Requisites for
public interest
meeting all one against marital privilege:
would suffer by
requirements the other or 1. There was
the disclosure.
if: in a criminal a valid
1. Testimon case for a marital
• Objections can
y is crime relations
only be made by
offered committed by 2. Privile
the persons
to prove one against ge
protected and may
a claim the other or was
be waived by the
less than the latter’s invoke
same persons
what is direct d with
expressly or
establish descendants respec
impliedly
ed under or t to a
a written ascendants; confid
documen b. An attorney ential
t cannot, comm
2. Testimon without the unicati
y is consent of his on
intended client, be betwe
to prove examined as en the
a to any spous
fraudulen communicatio es
t n made by the during
transacti client to him, the
on of the or his advice said
deceased given thereon marria
, in the course ge
provided of, or with a 3. Spous
such view to e
fraud is professional agains
first employment, t
establish nor can the whom
ed by attorney’s the
evidence secretary, testim
aliunde stenographer ony is
• Disqualification or clerk be given
waived: examined did
1. Defendan without the not
t does consent of the give
not client and his his/he
timely employer, r
object to concerning conse
the any fact the nt
admissio knowledge of • Privilege cannot
n of such which has be claimed to
evidence been acquired confidential
2. Defendant in such matters given
testifies on capacity; before the
azereth
page
Evidence
marriage must have 1. Physician treatment,
• Privilege been consulted is if revealed,
cannot be in his authorize would
invoked if professional d to blacken the
the capacity even practice reputation
communicati if pro bono medicine, of the
on was not • Preliminary surgery patient
intended to communication or 4. Privilege is
be s made for the obstetrics invoked in
confidential purpose of 2. Informati a civil case,
• If third creating on was whether
person heard attorney-client acquired the patient
the relationship or the is a party
communicati are within the advice or thereto or
on, such privilege treatmen not
person is not • Communicatio t was • Not necessary
covered by ns include given by that the
the verbal him in relationship was
prohibition statements, his created by the
» But if papers, professio voluntary act of
person document or nal the patient –
is the even actions capacity may have been
agent of • Does not apply to for the acquired by
one communication: purpose another
spouse, 1. Intended to of » E.g. patient in
covered be made treating extremis
by the public or curing • Privilege
prohibiti 2. Intended to the extends to all
on be patient forms of
communicate 3. Informati communication,
d to others on, advice or
Marital Privilege
3. Intended for advice or treatment
Can be claimed WON the an unlawful
» Includes ordered or by
spouse is a party to the purpose
information taking the
action 4. Received
acquired by deposition of
from third
the the examiner,
Can be claimed even after persons
physician the party
the marriage has been not acting
through his examined
dissolved as agent
observation waives any
of the
s and privilege he
Applies only to confidential client
examination may have in
communications between the 5. Made in
s of the that action or
spouses the
patient any other
presence
• Does not apply involving the
of third
where: same
persons
1. Communicati controversy,
Attorney – Client who are
on not given regarding the
Privilege strangers
in confidence testimony of
• Requisites: to the
2. Communicat every other
1. There is an attorney-
ion is person who
attorney- client
irrelevant to has examined
client relationshi
the or may
relation p
professional thereafter
2. Privileg • Period to be
employment examine him
e is considered is
3. Communicati in respect of
invoked that date when
on was the same
with the
made for an mental or
respect communication
unlawful physical
to a was made
purpose examination
confide » In
4. Information
ntial determining
was Minister/Priest –
commu whether past or
intended to Penitent Privilege
nication future crime
be made • Requires that
betwee »
public communication
n them
5. There was a was made
in the Communi
waiver of pursuant to a
course cation
the privilege religious duty
of having to
either by enjoined in the
professi do with a
provisions course of
onal future
of contract discipline of the
employ crime is
or law sect or
ment not
denomination
3. Client covered
Rule 28 • Must be
has not by the
PHYSICAL AND confidential in
given privilege
MENTAL character
his • If attorney is a
EXAMINATION » E.g. under the
consent co-conspirator
OF PERSONS seal of the
to the to the crime,
Section 4 – confessional
disclosu privilege not
WAIVER OF
re of applicable
PRIVILEGE Privileged
the
By requesting Communications as
commu Physician – Patient
and obtaining a to Public Officials
nication Privilege
report of the • Requisites:
• Attorney • Requisites:
examination so 1. It was
azereth
page
Evidence
made to g
» Can be invoked
the public a
in any case
officer in z
against any
official i
of his
confidence n
parents,
2. Public e
direct
interest
descendant
would o
s, children
suffer by r
or direct
the
ascendants
disclosure p
of the e
communic r
ation i
o
Others d
• RA 53, as amended by RA 1477 i
» c
P a
u l
b
l o
i f
s
h g
e e
r n
, e
r
e a
d l
i
t c
o i
r r
c
o u
r l
a
d t
u i
l o
y n
a –
c
c c
r a
e n
d n
i o
t t
e
d b
e
r
e c
p o
o m
r p
t e
e l
r l
e
o d
f
t
a o
n
y r
e
n v
e e
w l
s
p t
a h
p e
e
r s
, o
u
m r
a c
azereth
page
Evidence
e u
s
o e
f
o
a r
n
y c
o
n m
e m
w i
s t
t
r e
e e
p
o o
r f
t
C
w o
h n
i g
c r
h e
s
w s
a
s f
i
r n
e d
l s
a
t t
e h
d a
t
t
o s
u
h c
i h
m
r
i e
n v
e
c l
o a
n t
f i
i o
d n
e
n i
c s
e
» d
U e
n m
l a
e n
s d
s e
d
t
h b
e y
c t
o h
u e
r
t s
e
o c
r u
r
a i
t
H y
o
azereth
page
Evidence
o r
f e
a
t t
h e
e d
S a
t s
a
t p
e r
• Article 233 of Labor Code i
» All v
i i
n l
f e
o g
r e
m d
a
t c
i o
o m
n m
u
a n
n i
d c
a
s t
t i
a o
t n
e s
m
e a
n n
t d
s
s
m h
a a
d l
e l
a n
t o
t
c
o b
n e
c
i u
l s
i e
a d
t
i a
o s
n
e
p v
r i
o d
c e
e n
e c
d e
i
n i
g n
s
t
s h
h e
a
l N
l L
R
b C
e ,
t a
azereth
page
Evidence
n a
d r
d
t i
h n
e g
c t
o h
n e
c
i m
l a
i t
a t
t e
o r
r
s t
a
a k
n e
d n
s u
i p
m
i a
l t
a
r t
h
o e
f
f c
i o
c n
i c
a i
l l
s i
a
s t
h i
a o
l n
l
p
n r
o o
t c
e
t e
e d
s i
t n
i g
f s
y
c
i o
n n
d
a u
n c
y t
e
c d
o
u b
r y
t
t
o h
r e
m
b • Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA 9285)
o »
d S
y e
c
r
e 9
g
azereth
page
Evidence
( Section 25 - PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
a N
) o
–
p
e
I
r
n
s
f
o
o
n
r
m
a m
t a
i y
o
n
b
o e
b
t c
a o
i m
n p
e e
d l
l
t e
h d
r
o
u t
g o
h
t
m
e
e
s
d
t
i
i
a
f
t
y
i
o
n a
g
s a
h i
a n
l s
l t
b
h
e
i
s
p
r
i p
v a
i r
l e
e n
g t
e s
d ,
a
n o
d t
h
c e
o r
n
f d
i i
d r
e e
n c
t t
i
a
l a
s
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE c
e
n
azereth
page
Evidence
d r
a u
n l
t e
s
,
o
f
c
h
d
i
i
l
s
d
q
r
u
e
a
n
l
i
o f
r i
c
a
o
t
t
i
h
o
e
n
r
,
d
a
i
s
r
e
c t
t h
e
d
e d
s e
c s
e c
n e
d n
a d
n a
t n
s t
.
w
• Disqualification by reason of relationship
a
• Fili
s
a
l
n
o
p
t
r
i
v i
i n
l c
e o
g m
e p
e
t
-
e
n
n t
o
t
t
o
c
o
t
r
e
r
s
e
t
c
i
t
f
l
y
y
a
a
g
a
azereth
page
Evidence
i t
n
s
s
t
h
a
h l
i l
s
b
a e
s
c
c
e
o
n
m
d
p
a
e
n
l
t
l
s
e
,
d
,
b
u
i
t
n
w
a
a
s
c
r
a
i
c
m
t
i
u
n
a
a
l
l
l
y
c
a
a
s
e
p ,
r
i
t
v
o
i
l
e t
g e
e s
t
i
n
f
o
y
t
a
t
g
o
a
i
t n
e s
s t
t
i
h
f
i
y
s
Art. 215, FC
N p
o a
r
e
d
n
e
t
s
s
c
e
n a
d n
a d
n
azereth
page
Evidence
t
h
g
e
r
a
n d
d e
p s
a c
r e
e n
n d
t a
s n
, t
e o
x r
c
e
b
p
y
t
o
w
n
h
e
e
n
p
a
s
r
u
e
c
n
h
t
t
a
e
g
s
a
t
i
i
n
m
s
o
t
n
y
t
h
i
e
s
o
i
t
n
h
d
e
i
r
s
.
p
e
• Bot
n
h
s
a
b p
l a
e r
e
n
i
t
n
a
l
a
a
c n
r d
i
m
f
e
i
l
a i
g a
a l
i
n
p
s
r
t
i
v
azereth
page
Evidence
i declared in Chavacano
l dialect that he killed his
e wife because he was
g informed in prison by
e his relatives that his
s wife was fooling around
with other men. Aling
was charged with
a
parricide and during
r
arraignment, he
e
pleaded guilty although
he had no lawyer. A
g counsel de oficio was
r appointed for him.
a When he was again
n arraigned, he pleaded
t guilty with the
e assistance of counsel.
d Aling was placed on the
witness stand and
examined by his
t counsel and after being
o informed that the
penalty for parricide is
a death or life
n imprisonment, Aling
y still admitted killing his
wife.
Issue: WON the
p marriage of Aling
e and Norija was
r proven Held: Yes
s
o
n
3. ADMISSIONS AND matters
CONFESSIONS of fact,
not of
Section 26 - law
ADMISSION OF A 2. Be categorical
PARTY and definite
The act, declaration 3. Be knowingly
or omission of a and
party as to a voluntarily
relevant fact may made
be given in 4. Be adverse to
evidence against the admitter’s
him. interest
▪ Otherwi
• Admission – any se would
statement of fact be self-
made by a party serving
against his and
interest or inadmis
unfavorable to sible
the conclusion • Judicial admission
for which he – one made in
contends or is connection with a
inconsistent with judicial proceeding
the facts alleged in which it is
by him offered
• Extrajudicial
admission – any
Admissions
other admission
Statement of fact which does
not involve an Peop
acknowledgement of guilt or le vs.
liability Aling
(198
May be express or tacit 0)
Facts: Norija Mohamad
May be made by third was stabbed in the
persons and, in certain cases, chest and diaphragm
are admissible against a and she died two days
party later in the hospital.
Girlie Aling and Norija’s
daughter Daria brought
• To be
Norija to the hospital.
admis
They learned from the
sible,
police that Norija was
an
stabbed by her
admis
husband Airol Aling.
sion
Aling was investigated
must:
by the police and he
Involve
azereth
page
Evidence
azereth
page
Evidence
azereth
page
Evidence
Ratio: The testimony of
Aling that he was married to
Norija is an admission
against his penal interest. It
was a confirmation of the
maxim simper praesumitur
matrimonio and the
presumption that a man and
Admissions Declarations Against
a woman deporting
Interest
themselves to be husband
Need not be made against Must have been made against and wife have entered into a
the proprietary or pecuniary the proprietary or pecuniary lawful contract of marriage.
interest of the parties interest of the parties
But if so made, it will greatly
enhance its probative weight
Made by the party himself, Must have been made by the

and, is a primary evidence person who is either
and competent though he be deceased or unable to testify
present in court and ready to
testify
Can be made anytime Made ante litem motam
azereth
page
Evidence
» Does not include his the accused who medical bills by
testimony as a witness in made the plea or Peopl reason of
court offer. e vs. victim’s injuries
» Cannot be An offer to pay or Valde – not admissible
considere the payment of z to prove civil or
d self- medical, hospital (1987 criminal liability
serving if or other expenses )
it was occasioned by an An offer of Section 28 -
not made injury is not marriage by the ADMISSION BY THIRD
in admissible in accused during the PARTY
anticipati evidence as proof investigation of the The rights of a
on of a of civil or criminal rape case is also an party cannot be
future liability for the admission of guilt prejudiced by an
litigation injury. act, declaration, or
• Criminal cases omission of
Peopl • Offer of involving another, except as
e vs. compromise criminal hereinafter
Bocas (civil case) – negligence or provided.
as not a tacit quasi- offenses
(198 admission of are allowed to • First branch of res
5) liability and be inter alios acta alteri
Flight from cannot be compromised, nocere non debet
justice is an proved over the hence an offer • Exceptions: third
admission by objection of the of settlement is person is a
conduct and offeror not an partner, agent,
circumstantial • Offer of admission of or has joint
evidence of compromise guilt interest with the
consciousness of (criminal case) • Offer to pay or party, or is a co-
guilt – implied the actual conspirator or a
admission of payment of privy of the party
• The act of guilt
repairing a » But accused People
machine, is vs.
bridge or permitted Valero
other facility to prove (1982)
after an injury that offer Facts: Michael and
has been was not Annabel, children of
sustained made Ceferino Velasco, died
therein is not under • Self-serving of poisoning after
an implied consciousn declaration – one eating bread
admission of ess of which has been containing endrin, a
negligence by guilt but made commercial
conduct merely to extrajudicially by a insecticide. Their
» Merely a avoid risks party to favor his sister Imelda would
measure of of criminal interests have also died if not
extreme caution action » Not for the timely medical
against admissible in assistance given to
Section 27 - OFFER him evidence her. At about the
OF COMPROMISE • Offer of same time, 3 puppies
NOT ADMISSIBLE compromise of Velasco under the
In civil cases, an (violation of balcony where the
offer of internal children ate the bread
compromise is revenue law) – also died of
not an admission not admissible poisoning. Earlier that
of any liability, in evidence morning, Velasco was
and is not seen throwing
admissible in People poisoned rats in the
evidence against vs. river near his house.
the offeror. Amisc
The evidence of the wrapped in a piece
In criminal cases, ua
prosecution shows that of paper to Alfonso
except those (1971)
the poisoned bread was and instructed him
involving quasi- In a rape
given to the children by by sign language to
offenses case, an offer to
Alfonso Valero alias deliver the same to
(criminal compromise for a
Pipe, deaf-mute brother the Velasco
negligence) or monetary
of accused Lucila children. He never
those allowed by consideration, and
Valero, and that it was saw what was
law to be not to marry the
Lucila who gave Alfonso inside the piece of
compromised, an victim, is an implied
the bread to be paper. His
offer of admission of guilt
delivered to the testimony as to
compromised by
children. Lucila denies WON he saw the
the accused may People
the allegation. The parcel delivered to
be received in vs.
evidence of the defense the children was a
evidence as an Manza
tends to show that the series of
implied no
children might have contradictions. He is
admission of (1982)
eaten one of the sliced what the defense
guilt. In a rape case,
poisoned bread used by counsel calls and
A plea of guilty the attempt of the
their father in poisoning “eleventh-hour
later withdrawn, parents of the
the rats. witness
or an unaccepted accused to settle the
3/9 witnesses for the 2. Federico Jaime and
offer of a plea of case with the
prosecution: Ceferino Velasco –
guilty to lesser complainant was
1. Rodolfo Quilang – did not see Lucila
offense, is not considered an
testified that he deliver to Alfonso
admissible in implied admission of
saw Lucila deliver the alleged parcel,
evidence against guilt.
something as well as the
azereth
page
Evidence
alleged agency, may be common law system
instruction. Both given in evidence from which the »Because if it was, can become vague (sam
claimed that they against such party provision was taken, »It only appears in Section 31: admission b
learned the after the partnership that is, in solidum, and What predecesso
information from or agency is shown not mancomunada = this is the ra
Pipe after by evidence other
interviewing him than such act or omission in Section 31
by means of sign declaration. The GR:
• admission of some1 else shouldn't be taken a
language. same rule applies to But Section 29 is an exception: admission of anot
Testimony of the act or declaration – fair?
Jaime was of a joint owner,
confusing. There joint debtor, or other
is nothing in the person jointly
testimony of interested with the Section 30 -
Velasco party. ADMISSION BY
indicating that CONSPIRATOR
Alfonso pointed • Requisites: The act or
to Lucila as the 1. That the declaration of a
source of the partnership, conspirator relating
poisoned bread. agency or to the conspiracy
Issue: WON the joint interest and during its
testimonies of Jaime is established existence, may be
and Velasco may be by evidence given in evidence
admitted other than against the co-
Held: No the act or conspirator after
Ratio: The evidence is declaration the conspiracy is
pure hearsay. It 2. That the shown by evidence
violates the principle act/declaratio other than such act
of res inter alios acta. n must have of declaration.
Alfonso, who was the been within
source of the the scope of Peo
information, was the ple
never presented as a partnership, vs.
witness either for the etc. Serr
defense or the 3. Such ano
prosecution. act/declaratio This rule applies
Testimony of Velasco n must have only to extrajudicial
cannot be considered been made acts or statements
as part of res gestae during the and not to testimony
because when the existence of given on the witness
information was the stand at the trial
allegedly obtained by partnership, where the party
Velasco from Alfonso, etc. adversely affected
nobody was poisoned • Admissions made thereby has the
yet. With regard to in connection with opportunity to cross-
the testimony of the winding up – examine the
Jaime, there is no still admissible declarant.
showing that the • Admission by An admission by
revelation was made counsel – a conspirator is
by Alfonso under the admissible against admissible against his
influence of a startling client (agent- co-conspirator if:
occurrence. principal) 1. Such
The failure of the » Limitation: conspiracy is
defense counsel to 1. admissio shown by
object to the n should evidence
presentation of not aliunde
incompetent evidence amount 2. Admission
does not give such to a was made
evidence probative compro during the
value. The lack of mise existence
objection may make 2. admissi of the
any incompetent on conspiracy
evidence admissible. should 3. Admission
But admissibility of not relates to the
evidence should not amount conspiracy
be equated with to a itself
weight of evidence. confessi These are not
Hearsay evidence on of required in admissions
whether objected to judgme during the trial as the
or not has no nt co-accused can
probative value examine the
Ja declarant.
Section 29 - uci
ADMISSION BY CO- an • Judicial
PARTNER OR AGENT vs. admissions -
The act or Qu admissions after
declaration of a er the conspiracy
partner or agent of ol has ended
the party within the The phrase joint • Existence of
scope of his debtor does not refer to conspiracy may be
authority and a mere community of inferred from
during the interest but should be 1. Acts of the
existence of the understood according accused
partnership or to its meaning in the 2. Confessions of
• 1st exception to Section 28

azereth
•pageWord omission in Section 28 doesn't appear here
Evidence
the accused a a a
3. By prima r t wi
facie proof e o tn
thereof r es
s s
c
Peop 4. a
o
le s
n a
vs. ci
f f
Aleg rc
i t
re u
r e
(197 m
m r
6) st
e
Where there a
d
is no independent t nt
evidence of the h ia
alleged conspiracy, i e l
the extrajudicial n i e
confession of an r vi
accused cannot be d
used against his t e
a
co-accused as the h n
p
res inter alios rule e c
p
applies to both r e
extrajudicial i e to
confessions and n h s
admissions d e h
i n o
• Extrajudicial v s w
admission i i th
made by a d o e
conspirator u n pr
after the a 3. a o
conspiracy l s b
has ended and e a
even before x bi
trial – not a lit
t
admissible r y
against co- a c of
conspirator j i th
» Except: u r e
1. If d c c
mad i u o-
e in c m c
the i s o
pres a t n
enc l a s
e of c n pi
the o c ra
co- n e to
cons f r’
pira e s
tor t p
s
who o ar
s
expr i ti
essl o ci
d
y or n p
e
impl s at
t
iedl io
e
y n
r
(taci m in
m
t a th
i
adm d e
n
issio e of
e
n, fe
Rule n
b
130. t s
y
32) h e
agre e
ed t Peopl
ther h e vs.
c
ein e Ola
r
2. Whe (198
e
re 7)
c d
the In order that
o i
fact the extrajudicial
- b
s statements of a co-
i
stat accused may be taken
l
ed c into consideration in
i
in o judging the testimony
t
the n of a witness, it is
y
said s necessary that the
adm p statements are made
issio i o by several accused,
ns r f the same are in all
azereth
page
Evidence
material respects latter, while the issue will shall be
identical, and there holding the title, • Applies where a used against
could have been no in relation to the person is him. Secret
collusion among property, is surprised or detention
said co-accused in evidence against even if he is places,
making such the former. already in the solitary,
statements. custody of the incommunicad
• Requisites: police o, or other
Section 31 - 1. There » Voluntary similar forms
ADMISSION BY must be a participati of detention
PRIVIES relation of on in the are prohibited
Where one privity reenactme 3. Any confession
derives title to between nt of the or admission
property from the party crime obtained in
another, the act, and the conducted violation of this
declaration, or declarant by police or Section 17
omission of the is hereof shall be
considered inadmissible in
2. The
Section 32 - tacit evidence
admission
ADMISSION BY admission against him.
was made
SILENCE of 4. The law shall
by the
An act or complicity provide for
declarant,
declaration made ▪ But penal and civil
as
in the presence to be sanctions for
predecessor
and within the given violations of
in interest,
hearing or weigh this section as
while
observation of a t, the well as
holding title
party who does or validi compensation
to the
says nothing when ty to and
property
the act or and rehabilitation
3. The
declaration is such effica of victims of
admission is
as naturally to call cy of torture or
in relation to
for action or the similar
said
comment if not confe practices and
property
true, and when ssion their families.
• Privity in estate
proper and must
may have arisen
possible for him to first Section 17, Article
by succession, by
do so, may be be III, 1987
acts mortis causa
given in evidence show Constitution
or by acts inter
against him. n No person shall
vivos
be compelled
• Requisites to be Section 12, to be a witness
admissible against Article III, 1987 against himself
a party: Constitution
1. He must 1. Any person • Rule does not apply:
have under » if the
heard or investigation statements
observed for the adverse to
the act or commission of the party
declaratio an offense were made
n of the shall have the in the
other right to be course of an
person informed of official
2. He must have his right to investigatio
had the remain silent n
opportunity to and to have » Or where the
deny it competent party had a
3. He must and justifiable
understood independent reason to
the statement counsel remain
4. He must preferably of silent (e.g.
have an his own acting on
interest to choice. If the advice of
object, person cannot counsel)
such that afford the • Keep in mind
he would services of that a person
naturally counsel, he under
have done must be investigation for
so, if the provided with the commission
statement one. These of a crime has
was not rights cannot the right to
true be waived remain silent and
5. The facts except in to be informed of
were within writing and in that right
his knowledge the presence • Rule applies to
6. The fact of counsel. adverse
admitted 2. No torture, statements in
or the force, writing if the
inference violence, party was
to be threat, carrying on a
drawn intimidation, mutual
from his or any other correspondence
silence is means which with the
material to vitiate free declarant
azereth
page
Evidence
» If no such judgment –
mutual made in a civil
correspondence, case where the
rule is relaxed party expressly
▪ The admits his
ory: liability
a • Confession can be
pro made orally or in
mpt writing
resp
ons
e
can
gen
erall
y
not
be
exp
ecte
d if
the
part
y
still
has
to
reso
rt to
a
writ
ten
repl
y,
as
opp
ose
d to
a
stat
eme
nt
orall
y
mad
e
Section 33 –
CONFESSION
The declaration
of an accused
acknowledging
his guilt of the
offense charged,
or of any offense
necessarily
included therein,
may be given in
evidence against
him.
• Confession –
categorical
acknowledge
ment of guilt
made by an
accused in a
criminal case,
without any
exculpatory
statement or
explanation
» If there is
an
allegatio
n of a
justificati
on for
the act,
merely
an
admissio
n
• Confession of
azereth
page
» Ii in writhing – need not be under oath
• Judicial confession – one made before a court in which
the case is pending and in the course of legal
proceedings therein
» By itself, can sustain a conviction
• Extrajudicial confession – one made in any other place or
occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti
Rule 133, Section 3 - EXTRAJUDICIAL

CONFESSION, NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR
CONVICTION
An extrajudicial confession made by an accused,
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
• Requisites for admissibility

1. Confession must involve an express and categorical
acknowledgement of guilt
2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of an offense
3. Confession must have been given voluntarily
4. Confession must have been intelligently made, the
accused realizing the importance of his act
5. No violation of Sec 12, Art III of the Constitution
People vs. Garcia (101 Phil 615)

Confessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus
is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary for having
been obtained by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of
reward or leniency.
• Indicia of voluntariness of confession

1. contains details which the police could not have
supplied or invented
2. contains details which could have been known only
to the accused
3. contains statements which are exculpatory in nature
4. contains corrections made by the accused in his
handwriting or with his initials
5. accused sufficiently educated and aware of his the
consequences of his acts
6. made in the presence of an impartial witness with
the accused acting normally on that occasion
7. lack of motive on the part of the investigators to
extract a confession
8. accused questioned the voluntariness of his
confession only on trial
9. contents were affirmed by the accused in his
voluntary participation in the reenactment of the
crime
10. facts in confession were confirmed by other
subsequent facts
11. after confession, accused subjected to physical
examination and there were no signs of
maltreatment or accused never complained thereof
▪ not applicable when accused failed to complain
because of a reasonable apprehension of
further maltreatment as he was still in the
custody of his torturers
• Justifications for inadmissibility of involuntary confessions
1. unreliable
2. humanitarian considerations
3. legal considerations of their violative of the
Constitution
• But there were cases stating that involuntary admissions
are admissible if they contain the truth
» No longer applies because of the ruling in Stonehill vs.
Diokno
Section 20, Article IV, 1973 Constitution

No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. Any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have the right
to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed
of such right. No force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the
free will shall be used against him. Any confession
in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
evidence
• If confession obtained before effectivity of 1973

Constitution (17 Jan 1973), admissible even without
informing the accused of his right to remain silent
Draculan vs. Donato (1978)
3) Accused admitted the facts stated in the
Where, before the statement containing the extrajudicial
confession after being apprised of such
confession of guilt was taken, the accused was asked whether
confession
he was familiar with the provisions of Sec 20, Art IV, 1973
4) Charged as co-conspirators and confession is
Constitution and he answered in the affirmative, and the
used only as corroborating evidence
statement which he signed states that he had been apprised
5) Confession is used as circumstantial evidence
of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything he
to show the probability of participation by the
would say might be used against him in court, such
co-conspirator
extrajudicial confession is admissible
6) Confessant testified fro his co-defendant
7) Co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is
People vs. Tampus (1980)
corroborated by other evidence of record
Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made
• Confession of the accused admissible not only with
without counsel, but it was spontaneously made by the
respect to the offense charged but also any offense
accused immediately after the assault, the same is admissible,
necessarily included therein
not under the confession rule, but as part of the res gestae
• 1987 Constitution – illegal confessions and admissions
are inadmissible against confessant or admitter
People vs. Felipe (1981)
» But admissible against the person who violated the
Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional
constitutional provision against obtaining illegal
rights and asked if he understood what he was told, but he
confessions or admissions
was never asked whether he wanted to exercise or avail
himself of such rights, his extrajudicial confession is
People vs. Domantay (1999)
inadmissible
Facts: The body of six year old Jennifer Domantay, bearing
several stab wounds, was found sprawled amidst a bamboo
People vs. Broqueza (1988)
grove. The investigation by the police pointed to Bernardino
Where the extrajudicial confession of the accused while
Domantay, cousin of the victim’s grandfather, as the lone
under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the
suspect in the crime. Police officers (Montemayor, De la Cruz
investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights, to
and De Guzman) picked up Domantay at the public market
which he answered that he was going to tell the truth, the
and took him to the police station. Upon questioning by SPO1
same is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute a
Espinoza, Domantay confessed to the killing of Jennifer. He
waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by one
also said that he had given the bayonet he used in the killing
when he signed the confession. His short answer does not
to Casingal spouses, his aunt and uncle. The next day, SPO1
show that he knew the legal significance of what were asked
Espinoza and another policeman took Domantay to the
of him
Casingal spouses where they recovered the bayonet.
The prosecution presented 7 witnesses:
Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile (1983)
1. Edward Domantay – testified that in the morning of the
The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial
incident, he was drinking with Caballero, Macasaeb and
investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel
Domantay. There, Domantay rolled up his shirt and said
that he will massacre somebody in their place. Edward
• Requirement is now embodied in the 1987 Constitution
saw that tucked in the left side of Domantay’s waistline
was a bayonet without a cover handle. Edward has seen
People vs. Jara (1986)
that bayonet being carried by Domantay many times.
Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of
2. Jiezl Domantay (10 years old) – testified that at about
the accused and, consequently, are not admissible as against
2pm, she saw Domantay and Jennifer walking towards
them, with much more reason should the same be
the bamboo grove where the body of Jennifer was later
inadmissible against a third accused who had no participation
found. Domantay was about 2 meters ahead of Jennifer.
therein
3. Lorenzo Domantay – corroborated Jennifer’s testimony.
He said that he saw Domantay standing at the spot in the
• Promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if
bamboo grove where Jennifer’s body was later found.
given by the offended party or by the fiscal
Domantay appears restless and worried as he kept
» Not if given by a person whom the accused could
looking around. Lorenzo was in a hurry and did not try to
not have reasonably expected to be able to comply
find out why Domantay was restless.
with such promise (e.g. investigator who is not a
4. Joselito Mejia – a tricycle driver. He said that when he
prosecuting officer) or could not bind the offended
was about to take his lunch, Domantay approached him
party which was a corporation
and implored him to take him (Domantay) to Malasiqui at
once. Mejia said he will first take his lunch. Domantay
US vs. Mercado (6 Phil 332)
pleaded with him and said that they will not be long so
Where the accused voluntarily made a second
Mejia agreed. Domantay alighted near the Mormon
extrajudicial confession after he has been maltreated in order
church outside Malasiqui, instead of the town proper
to extort the first confession, such second confession is
5. SPO1 Antonio Espinoza – testified that he investigated
admissible only if it can be proved that he was already
the case. Before questioning Domantay, he appraised the
relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment
latter of his constitutional right to remain silent and to
have a competent and independent counsel, in English,
• Entire confession must be admitted in evidence
which was later translated into Pangasinense. Domantay
» But court may, in appreciating it, reject such
agreed to answer the questions even in the absence of
portions as are incredible
counsel and admitted to the killing of Jennifer. Domantay
also disclosed the location of the bayonet he used.
Camasura vs. Provost Marshal (78 Phil 131)
(Cross-examination) Espinoza admitted that Domantay
Where the extrajudicial confession was obtained by
was not assisted by counsel during the course of the
maltreatment, the judgment based solely thereon is null and
questioning. Neither was Domantay’s statement reduced
void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of
into writing. This testimony was admitted over the
habeas corpus
objection of the defense.
6. Celso Manuel – radio reporter of DWPR. He interviewed
• The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only
upon him and is not admissible against his co-accused Domantay who was then detained in the municipal jail.
» Except if: He introduced himself as a media reporter to Domantay.
1) Co-accused impliedly adopted said confession He said that Domantay was willing to state what
by not questioning its truthfulness happened. When he asked Domantay if he committed the
2) Interlocking confessions – accused persons crime, Domantay said yes. Domantay also said that he
voluntarily and independently executed killed Jennifer in his revenge for a boundary dispute and
identical confessions without conclusion, that he is willing to accept his punishment. (Cross)
Manuel explained that the interview was conducted in the
 which confessions are corroborated by
jail, 2-3 meters away from the police station. An uncle of
other evidence and not contradicted by
Jennifer was with him. The nearest policeman was 2-3
the co-accused who was present
meters away. There was no lawyer present and it was the first time that he was called to testify regarding an
interview he conducted. This testimony was admitted
day of the incident, he was locking one of the doors of the
over the objection of the defense
shop when 3 men approached him from behind and one of
7. Dr. Ronald Bandonill – conducted an autopsy of the
them held him at gunpoint. Mayola and Balderas saw what
victim.
was happening and shouted for help. Mantung was taken to
Defense presented Domantay as its lone witness. Domantay
the comfort room when he heard 2 gunshots and the shouts of
denied the allegations against him. He denied Edward’s claim.
Mayola and Balderas stopped. The men took him out, pushed
He admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that
him inside a red car and blindfolded him. Afterwards, he felt
he did not know that Jennifer was following him. He admitted
the car stop and he was left alone by his captors. He then
hiring Mejia to get to Malasiqui to meet his brother, who did
seized the opportunity to escape. He saw that they stopped in
not come. He denied confessing to SPO1 Espinoza and he
the pier so he mingled with the people and boarded a ship to
denied having a grudge against Jennifer’s parents because of
Cebu and from there went to Cotabato. He denied that pieces
a boundary dispute. He admitted being interviewed by Manuel
of jewelry were recovered from him. He refuted the reports
but denied ever admitting anything to the reporter.
saying he admitted to the killing of the victims in the press
Domantay was convicted by the trial court
conference. According to him, he did not tell anyone what
Issue: WON the extrajudicial confessions made by Domantay
happened because he was confused and he did not know what
to SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel are admissible
to do.
Held: No and Yes, respectively
Issue1: WON Mantung’s admission during the press
Ratio: Art III, Sec 12 of the 1987 Constitution applies to
conference is admissible
custodial investigation, when the investigation is no longer a
Held1: Yes
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a
Ratio1: The clippings of the news articles reporting Mantung’s
particular person as a suspect. RA 7438 extended the
confession is hearsay because their writers were not presented
constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual
to affirm the veracity of the reports. However, Ricardo Diago,
has not been formally arrested but has merely been “invited”
an employee of Cebuana Lhuiller present during the press
for questioning.
conference, was presented as rebuttal witness to prove that
Requirements for admissibility of extrajudicial confessions:
Mantung indeed claimed responsibility for the killings.
1. It must be voluntary
The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not
2. It must be made with the assistance of a competent and
apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through
independent counsel
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
3. It must be express
manner whereby accused orally admitted having committed a
4. It must be in writing
crime. The rights under Sec 12 are guaranteed to preclude the
When Domantay was brought to the police station he was
slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the
already under custodial investigation and the rights
accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from
guaranteed by the Constitution apply to him. Even though he
freely and voluntarily telling the truth (People vs. Andan).
waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver was not put into
There is nothing to show that Mantung’s admission was
writing nor made in the presence of counsel. Therefore the
coerced or made under duress.
waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible. The
bayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a “fruit of a
Ladiana vs. People (2002)
poisonous tree”.
Facts: Josue Ladiana, a police officer, was accused of killing
Domantay’s confession to Manuel is admissible. The Bill of
Francisco San Juan, a Barangay Captain. The case was filed in
Rights does not concern itself with the relation between
the Sandiganbayan and Ladiana was found guilty of homicide.
private individuals. The prohibitions therein are primarily
The prosecution presented 5 witnesses:
addressed to the State and its agents.
1. Caridad San Juan – wife of the victim. She testified that
Domantay claims that the atmosphere during the interview
San Juan was the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Salac,
was tense and intimidating. The Court does not agree. There
Lumban, Laguna. She said that she was in her house
is no indication that the presence of the police officers exerted
when an unidentified woman came and told her that her
any undue pressure or influence on Domantay and coerced
husband was killed by Ladiana. She also presented the
him into giving his confession. There is also no evidence that
death certificate of her husband. (Cross) She admitted
Manuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shown
that she did not witness the killing of her husband.
that his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit
2. PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda Jr. – He recounted that somebody
incriminating information from Domantay.
whose name he could not recall reported to him about an
Domantay’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by
existing trouble in the scene of the incident. He
evidence of corpus delicti, as required by Rule 133, Sec 3.
responded by going to the scene, accompanied by
another person. There, he saw the dead body of San
People vs. Mantung (1999)
Juan. He gathered from the people milling around the
Facts: Maribel Mayola and Renjie Balderas were found dead
body that it was Ladiana who killed San Juan. He
inside the vault room of the Maywood branch of Cebuana
immediately left to look for Ladiana. He later learned that
Lhuiller where they were employed. The jewelries kept inside
Ladiana surrendered to the police. (Cross) He testified
the safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied
that he did not witness the incident. He also said that it
of its contents. In the counter, a holster was placed on top of
was the people around the incident who told him that
a letter addressed to Mary Ann Gordoncillo, district manager
Ladiana already left. He also saw a stab wound on
of Cebuana Lhuiller. The letter was written by Guiamad
Ladiana’s right bicep but he did not ask him how he got
Mantung, the security guard assigned to the branch. Mantung
it.
wrote in Filipino that he killed Mayola and Balderas because
3. Dr. Rogelio Javan – performed the necropsy
they gave him pork which his Moslem religion prohibited him
4. SPO2 Percival Gabinete – his testimony was dispensed
from eating. He also admitted taking the cash and jewelry
with upon the admission of the defense that he was part
inside the vault, claiming that he needed the money. He wrote
of the group that responded to the incident
another letter addressed to his wife, which was found in the
5. Mario Cortez – retired Assistant Prosecutor of Laguna.
office logbook. Mantung was later arrested in Sultan Kudarat,
Prior to the conduct of examination-in-chief of Cortez,
Cotabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part of
defense counsel admitted to the authorship, authenticity,
the loot were recovered from him. After his arrest, he was
and voluntariness of the execution of the counter-
immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented to
affidavit of Ladiana. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana
the media at a press conference called by Mayor Joey
admitted shooting Francisco but he allegedly did so in
Marquez. When Mayor Marquez then asked him if he is the
self-defense as Francisco was then attacking Ladiana and
one who killed the two employees, Mantung answered yes and
had in fact already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of
said that he killed the victims because they induced him to eat
Ladiana. Cortez emphasized that he was not the one who
pork. The news about Manton’s admission to the killings
conducted the PI. He also said that he would not be able
appeared in the Inquirer and Manila Bulletin the following day.
to recognize the face of the affiant in the counter-
Clippings of these reports were presented as evidence by the
affidavit but maintained that there was a person who
prosecution during the trial.
appeared and identified himself as Josue Ladiana before
The defense presented the lone testimony of Mantung to
him.
substantiate his claims of innocence. He claimed that on the
Defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence
Issue: WON the counter-affidavit executed by Ladiana during was present when he executed it
the preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel Held: Yes
Ratio: The constitutional guarantee applies only during
5. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
custodial investigations. Custodial investigation is the
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
Section 36 – TESTIMONY GENERALLY CONFINED TO
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY EXCLUDED
freedom of action in any significant way.
A witness can testify only to those facts which he
The Court held that the right to counsel does not extend to
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
PIs. A PI is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
provided in these rules.
that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A person
• Hearsay evidence – any evidence, whether oral or
undergoing PI before a public prosecutor cannot be considered
documentary, whose probative value is based not on
as being under custodial investigation.
personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge
However, the accused possesses rights that must be
of some other person not on the witness stand
safeguarded:
» Excluded because the party against whom it is
1. Right to refuse to be made witness
presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine
2. Right not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to
the persons to whom the statements or writings are
him by such refusal
attributed
3. Right to testify on his own behalf, subject to cross-
» If a party does not object – admissible
examination by the prosecution
4. While testifying, the right to refuse to answer a specific
Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang
question that tends to incriminate him for some crime
Pilipino (1975)
other than that for which he is being prosecuted
The repeated failure of the party to cross-examine the
Ladiana’s counter-affidavit is not an extrajudicial confession, it
witness is an implied waiver of such right and the testimony of
is only an admission. In confession, there is an
the said witness who died thereafter should not be excluded
acknowledgement of guilt. In an admission, there is merely a
from the record
statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgement
of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which
People vs. Cusi, Jr. (1965)
one is charged. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana admits
Facts: Arcadio Puesca, Walter Apa, Jose Gustilo, Filomeno
shooting San Juan but denies having done it with criminal
Macalinao, Ricardo Dario and Magno Montano were charged
intent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense.
with robbery in band with homicide.
There is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counter-
During trial, while Sgt. Bano was testifying as prosecution
affidavit. The admissions of Ladiana made through his counsel
witness regarding the extrajudicial confession made to him by
during the trial are very clear.
Puesca, he said that Puesca admitted his participation in the
In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their
offense and revealed the name of other persons who
untruth or by showing that they were made by mistake.
conspired with him. Counsel for Macalinao, Gustilo and Dario
Ladiana never offered any rationalization why he made the
objected to the naming of the co-conspirators. Trial judge
admission.
resolved the objection directing the witness to name the co-
conspirators other than the 3 objectors.
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
Issue: WON the witness should be allowed to name all the
conspirators as stated to him by Puesca
Section 34 – SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE
Held: Yes
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
Ratio: While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement
one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did
made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of
not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it
the facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay
may be received to prove a specific intent or
evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the
custom or usage, and the like.
statement was made or the tenor of such statement.
For the limited purpose of establishing the fact that Puesca
• Second branch of res inter alios acta
mentioned the names of his co-conspirators, the evidence
» Applies to both criminal and civil cases
should be admitted but with the understanding that the
» Strictly enforced in all cases applicable
testimony shall not be taken as competent evidence to show
• Exceptions to the rule: evidence of similar acts may
that the persons named really and actually conspired with
prove
Puesca.
1. Specific intent or knowledge
2. Identity
• But even if hearsay evidence not objected to is
3. Plan, system or scheme
admissible, it has no probative value and as opposed to
4. Specific habit
direct primary evidence, the latter always prevails
5. Established customs, usages and the like
• Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution
Section 28, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
for robbery where it has the tendency to identify the
HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN CHILD ABUSE CASES
accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime
A statement made by a child describing any act or
» But not where the evidence is to prove that he
attempted act of child abuse not otherwise
committed another crime wholly independent of that
admissible under the hearsay rule, may be
for which he is on trial
admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-
• Previous acts of negligence is admissible to show
criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
knowledge or intent
a. Before such hearsay statement may be
admitted, its proponent shall make known to
Section 35 – UNACCEPTED OFFER
the adverse party the intention to offer such
An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or
statement and its particulars to provide him a
to deliver a written instrument or specific personal
fair opportunity to object. If the child is
property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent
available, the court shall, upon the motion of
to the actual production and tender of the money,
the adverse party, require the child to be
instrument or property
present at the presentation of the hearsay
statement for cross-examination by the
• Merely evidentiary complement to the rule on payment
adverse party. When the child is unavailable,
• Such tender of payment must be followed by
the fact of such circumstance must be proved
consignation of the amount in court in order to produce
by the proponent
the effects of valid payment
b. In ruling on the admissibility of such
hearsay statement, the court shall consider
the time content and circumstances thereof
which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It
shall consider the following factors:
1. Whether there is motive to lie;
2. The general character of the declarant
impending death and as long as no retraction was made
child;
by the declarant before his death
3. Whether more than one person heard
the statement;
4. Whether the statement was
spontaneous;
5. The timing of the statement and the
relationship between the declarant child
and witness;
6. Cross-examination could not show the
lack of knowledge of the declarant child;
7. The possibility of faulty recollection of
declarant child is remote; and
8. The circumstances surrounding the
statement are such that there is no reason
to suppose the declarant child
misinterpreted the involvement of the
accused.
c.The child witness shall be considered
unavailable under the following situations:
1. Is deceased, suffers from physical
infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness,
or will be exposed to severe psychological
injury; or
2. Is absent from the hearing and the
proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable means.
d. When the child witness is unavailable,
his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if
corroborated by other admissible evidence.
• Not covered by hearsay rule - where the statements or

writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness
stand are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts
stated therein but to prove that those statements were
made or writings executed
» Witness who testifies is competent – these are
matters derived from his own perception
• Doctrine of independently relevant statements –
independent of whether the facts stated are true or not,
they are relevant because they are the facts in issue or
are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue
People vs. Arguel (1980)

Newspaper clippings or facts published in the
newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless
substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of said
facts
6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Dying Declaration
Section 37 – DYING DECLARATION

The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received
in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry,
as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death.
• Dying declaration – antemortem statement or statement

in articulo mortis
• Requisites:
1. That death is imminent and the declarant is
conscious of that fact
▪ Considerations for the consciousness of
imminent death:
a. Words or statements of the declarant
b. His conduct at the time the declaration
was made
c. Serious nature of his wounds as to
engender a belief on his part that he
would not survive
2. That the declaration refers to the cause and the
surrounding circumstances of such death
3. That the declaration relates to facts which the victim
is competent to testify to
4. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the
declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry
• Intervening time from the making of the declaration up
to the actual death is immaterial as long as the
declaration was made under the consciousness of
People vs. Sabio (1981) It is the belief in the impending death at the time the
statement was made, and not the rapid succession of death,
4. That his declaration was offered in evidence in a criminal
that renders the dying declaration admissible.
case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the
declarant is the victim
• Interval of time may be taken into account where the
All these circumstances were present when Abelardo made his
declaration was ambiguous as to whether the declarant
declaration
believed that his death was imminent when he made the
declaration
People vs. Molo (1979)
Facts: Not long after the couple Venacio Gapisa and Simeona
People vs. Antonio (1970)
Rapa-Gapisa had retired for the night, Simeona heard and
Where the declarant stated that he would not die if
indistinct sound of murmur and gnashing teeth. Venacio was
treated, such statement indicates an awareness of death and
asleep by then. Although seized by fear, Simeona managed to
the nature of his wound and his death an hour later qualifies
peep through the dilapidated buri wall and saw Dominador
such statement into a dying declaration, or at least, as part of
Molo attired only in short pants, alone. She tried to awaken
res gestae.
Venacio but he did not respond. Molo had already climbed up
the stairs and barged into the house. When he found Venacio
People vs. Gueron (1983)
asleep near the door, he immediately grabbed the latter’s left
Where, shortly after he was wounded, the victim was
wrist and started hacking the old man. Venacio woke up and
asked as to whether he believed he would die and to which he
tried to fight back but he was unable to retaliate because Molo
replied, “I cannot ascertain,” and he died the following day,
started hacking him again. Simeona rushed out of the house
his statement is admissible both as part of res gestae and as a
and called for help. Her son Alejandro and Roman Mangaring
dying declaration.
ran towards the house and there they found Venacio bleeding
profusely. When Alejandro took his father in his arms, Venacio
People vs. Laquinon (1985)
told him that he was boloed by Boslo, the name by which Molo
Where the victim, when asked as to whether he thought
was known in their locality. Roman also asked Venacio who
he would die, replied, “I don’t know,” his declaration was not
his assailant was and the latter answered Boslo. Venacio was
made under the consciousness of his imminent death and
rushed to the hospital where he died a few minutes after
does not qualify as an antemortem statement, although the
arrival.
same may be admitted as part of the res gestae since it was
Issue: WON the statements made by Venacio to Alejandro and
made immediately after the incident
Roman are admissible
Held: Yes
• The credibility and weight of the admitted dying
Ratio: The statements of Venacio identifying Molo as his
declaration should be determined under the same rules
assailant to Alejandro and Roman are dying declarations.
used in other testimonial evidence
Considering the nature of the wounds, 8 in all, Venacio must
• A dying declaration is admissible only to insofar as it
have the seriousness of his condition and that it can therefore
refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding
be inferred that he made the incrimination under the
circumstances of the declarant’s death
consciousness of an impending death.
• A dying declaration is admissible in any case as long as
the requisite concur
Declaration Against Interest
• A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by
signs which could be testified to by a witness thereto
Section 38 – DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable
People vs. Odencio (1979)
to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the
If the antemortem statement was made orally, the
fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was
witness who heard it may testify thereto, without necessarily
made was so contrary to declarant’s own interest, that
reproducing the exact words as long as he can give the
a reasonable man in his position would not have made
substance thereof, and if the deceased had an unsigned dying
the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be
declaration, the same may be used as a memorandum by the
received in evidence against himself or his successors
witness who took it down
in interest and against third persons.
• May be attacked on the absence of any of the requisites
• Made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity
and may be impeached in the same manner as the
with a party to the suit
testimony of any other witness on the stand
» Admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as
» American jurisprudence: dying declarations are on
a witness
the same footing as testimony of a witness on a
• Requisites:
stand and whatever would disqualify the witness
1. Declarant is dead or unable to testify
would also make such declaration incompetent
2. It relates to the facts against the declarant
evidence
3. At the time he made the declaration, he is aware
that the same was contrary to the aforesaid interest
People vs. Molas (1993)
4. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such
Facts: Bernardo Resonable went home after working in his
declaration to be true
farm. There he found his son Abelardo (8) bleeding at the
doorway of their house. Bernardo carried Abelardo inside the
Act or Declaration About Pedigree
house. Abelardo informed his father that Josue Molas was the
person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed his
Section 39 – ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
sister Dulcesima and mother Soledad. Molas and Dulcesima
The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable
were sweethearts and engaged to be married. While Bernardo
to testify in respect to the pedigree of another person
looked for the bodies of his wife and daughter, Abelardo was
related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in
brought to the hospital by his brother Nicholas. Abelardo died
evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and
the next day.
the relationship between the two persons is shown by
Issue: WON the statement of Abelardo is admissible
evidence other than such act or declaration. The word
Held: Yes
“pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy,
Ratio: Abelardo’s statement was given to his father while he
birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places
lay at death’s door, bleeding from stab wounds, as a result of
where these facts occurred, and the names of the
which he died the next day. It was indubitably a dying
relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
declaration.
intimately connected with pedigree.
To be admissible, a dying declaration must:
1. Concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
• Requisites:
declarant’s death
1. The actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify
2. That the time it was made, the declarant was under a
2. The act or declaration is made by the person related
consciousness of impending death
to the subject by birth or marriage
3. That he was a competent witness
3. The relationship between the declarant or the actor
and the subject is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration
4. The act or declaration was made prior to the
Res Gestae
controversy
• Do not require any specific degree of relationship
Section 42 – PART OF THE RES GESTAE
» But may affects the weight of such act or
Statements made by a person while a startling
declaration
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res
gestae. So also statements accompanying an equivocal
Section 40 – FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
REGARDING PEDIGREE
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae
The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous
to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one
• Res gestae (“things done”) refers to:
of its members, may be received in evidence if the
1. Spontaneous statements in connection with a
witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
startling occurrence relating to that fact and in
family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in
effect forming part thereof
family bibles or other family books or charts,
2. Statements accompanying an equivocal act (verbal
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may
act) on the theory that they are the verbal parts of
be received as evidence of pedigree
the act to be explained
• Requirements:
• Requisites:
1. The principal act (res gestae) is a startling
1. Witness testifying thereto must be a member, by
occurrence
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the
2. The statements forming a part thereof were made
subject
before the declarant had the opportunity to
2. Such tradition or reputation must have existed in
contrive
that family ante litem motam
3. Statements refer to the occurrence in question and
• Person’s statement of date of birth and age – declaration
its attending circumstances
of family tradition
» Only such statements as appear to have been
» Prevails over mere opinion of the trial judge
involuntarily wrung from the witness by the impact
» But cannot generally prevail over secondary
of the occurrence are admissible
statement of the father
• Interval of time between the startling occurrence and the
statement depends upon the circumstances
Common Reputation
» But statement must have been made while the
declarant was under the immediate influence of the
Section 41 – COMMON REPUTATION
startling occurrence
Common reputation existing previous to the
▪ If declarant rendered unconscious after the
controversy, respecting facts of public or general
startling occurrence, his statement relative to
interest more than 30 years old, respecting marriage or
thereto upon regaining consciousness still
moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments
forms part of re gestae regardless of the time
and inscriptions in public places may be received as
that intervened between
evidence of common reputation
People vs. Berame (1976)
• Common reputation – general reputation; definite
If the statement was made under the influence of a
opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved
startling event and the declarant did not have time to concoct
is known or exists
or contrive a story, even if made 9 hours after the killing, the
» General or substantially undivided reputation and
statement is admissible as part of res gestae
need not be unanimous
» Admissible to prove:
• Statements or outcries as part of res gestae had been
▪ Facts of public or general interest more than
admitted to establish the identity of assailant, prove the
30 years old
complicity of another person to the crime, establish
 Public interest – national interest
admission of liability on part of the accused
 General interest – affecting inhabitants of
• Requirements for verbal acts to be admissible:
a particular region or community
1. Res gestae be characterized as equivocal
 Must be more than 30 years old
2. Such act must be material to the issue
» Established only by persons who
3. Statements must accompany the equivocal act
have had knowledge of that fact for
4. Statements give a legal significance to the
such length of time, or by
equivocal act
monuments or documents existing
» “Verbal act” – used to denote that such statements
for that length of time
are the verbal parts of the equivocal act of which
▪ Marriage
such statements are explanatory
▪ Moral character
 Not required to be more than 30 years old
Borromeo vs. CA (1976)
» Must be ante litem motam
Notes taken regarding a transaction by a person who is not
» Established by:
a party thereto and who has not been requested to take down
1. Testimonial evidence of competent witness
such notes are not part of the res gestae
2. Monuments and inscription in public places
3. Documents containing statements of
reputation Res Gestae (re a homicidal Dying Declaration
• Reputation – opinion of him by others act)
• Character – inherent qualities of a person
» Under this section, character may be established Statement may also be made Declaration can only be made
through common reputation by the killer himself or by a by the victim
• As a rule, reputation of a person should be that existing third person
in the place of his residence
» But, it may also be that existing in the place where Statement may precede, Declaration made only after
he is best known accompany, or be made after the homicidal attack was
the homicidal act was committed
US vs. Choa Chiok committed
The character of a place as an opium joint may be
Has its justification in the Trustworthiness is based
proved by its common reputation in the community
spontaneity of the statement upon its being given under
• Statement may not be a dying declaration because it was • Where the elements of boththe
areawareness
present, may
of impending
be admitted
not made under the consciousness of an impending death, as both death
but may be admissible as part of res gestae if made
immediately after the incident Entries in the Course of Business
2. The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts
Section 43 – ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
stated by him or such facts were acquired by him
Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to
from reports made by persons under a legal duty to
which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to
submit the same
testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein
3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner
stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
in the official records
person made the entries in his professional capacity or
• Motor vehicle accident report made at about the time of
in the performance of a duty and in the ordinary or
the accident by a police officer in the performance of his
regular course of business or duty.
duties
» Admissible if based upon information given by the
• Requisites:
drivers who figured in the accident
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or
» Prima facie evidence of facts therein stated
unable to testify
• Sheriff’s return – exception to hearsay
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the
» Sheriff need not testify in court
transaction to which they refer
• Entrant must have been competent
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entries
Remigio vs. Ortiga (33 Phil 614)
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity
While a priest who officiates at a baptism acts pursuant
or in the performance of a duty, whether legal,
to a legal duty in recording the facts of such baptism in a
contractual, moral or religious
register, such entries in the register are not admissible to
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
prove the date of birth of the child or its relation to particular
course of business or duty
persons as the entrant priest is not competent to testify with
respect to the truth of these latter facts
Cang Yui vs. Gardner (34 Phil 376)
If the entrant is available as a witness, the said entries
• Church registries – no longer public writings pursuant to
will not be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, but
GO No. 58 and Act No. 190
they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a
» But still admissible as evidence of the facts stated
memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the
therein
transactions reflected therein
» But necessary to be authenticated as private
writings
Rule 132, Section 16 – WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER
» A copy of the certificate transmitted to the public
TO MEMORANDUM
officer as required by law becomes a public
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
document
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded
▪ Admissible without prior authentication
by himself or under his direction at the time when
• Entries in official records may be proved and evidenced
the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at
in the manner provided by Rule 132 Sections 24 and 25
any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that the same was correctly
Commercial Lists
written or recorded; but in such case the writing or
record must be produced and may be inspected by
Section 45 - COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross-
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
examine the witness upon it and may read it in
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list,
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such
register, periodical, or other published compilation is
a writing or record, though he retain no
admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant
recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to
matter so stated if that compilation is published for use
swear that the writing or record correctly stated
by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally
the transaction when made; but such evidence
used and relied upon by them therein.
must be received with caution.
• Examples: Carlisle or Wigglesworth Tables and accepted
Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
actuarial and annuity tables
Gutierrez, et al (CA, 59 OG 8122)
In the presentation and admission as evidence of entries
Learned Treatises
made in the regular course of business, there is no overriding
necessity to bring into court all the clerks or employees who
Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES
individually made the entries in a long account. It is sufficient
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
that the person who supervises the work of the clerks or other
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as
employees making the entries testify that the account was
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if
prepared under his supervision and that the entries were
the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in
regularly entered in the ordinary course of business
the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in
the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
Entries in Official Records
profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Section 44 – ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
• Requisites:
Entries in official records made in the performance of
1. The court takes judicial notice thereof
his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
2. The same is testified to by a witness expert in the
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
subject
by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated • CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values8
• Legal treatises also included
• Merely prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated
• Requisites: Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding
1. Entries were made by a public officer in the
performance of his duties or by a person in the Section 47 - TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law PROCEEDING
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or
unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties
and subject matter, may be given in evidence against
the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-
examine him.
• Requisites:
8
Estrada vs. Noble (CA, 49 OG 139)
1. Witness is dead or unable to testify
Section 50 - OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given,
case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
may be received in evidence regarding
between the same parties or those representing the
a. The identity of a person about whom he has
same interests
adequate knowledge;
3. The former case involved the same subject as that
b. A handwriting with which he has sufficient
in the present case, although on different causes of
familiarity; and
action
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
4. The issues testified to by the witness in the former
sufficiently acquainted.
trial is the same issue involved in the present case
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
examine the witness in the former case
• Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second
• General rule: Section 48
trial, or hostility since testifying at the first trial ≠
• Exceptions: Sections 49 and 50
inability to testify
• Opinion of a witness is admissible in the following
» Inability should proceed from a grave cause almost
circumstances:
amounting to death
1. On a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
Aldecoa vs. Jugo (61 Phil 374)9 experience or training which he possesses, that is,
Testimony given by a witness in a civil case is not when he is an expert thereon
admissible in a subsequent criminal case, even if said witness
had died in the interim, because the former testimony 2. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a
referred to in sec 15 of GO No. 58 10 as being admissible in the person, when he has knowledge of the person or
trial of the criminal case refers to testimony given in the handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or expert
preliminary investigation or prior trial of said criminal case and witness
not to testimony taken in a prior civil case, the actions being 3. On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is
essentially different sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the
latter is an expert witness
Guevara vs. Almario (56 Phil 476)
The testimony of the witness in a prior criminal action 4. On the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance
for libel as to the reputation of the offended party would be of a person which he has observed
admissible in the civil case arising from the same criminal
offense if said witness was no longer available
5. On ordinary matters known to all men of common
perception as the value of ordinary household
• Admissibility of prior judgment – governed by different articles14
rules  Expert witness – one who belongs to the profession or
calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates
Almeida Chantangco vs. Abaroa (40 Phil 1056) and who possesses special knowledge on questions on
A judgment in a criminal proceeding or in an which he proposes to express an opinion
administrative proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civil » No definite standard of determining degree of
action against a person not a party thereto to establish any knowledge or skill
fact therein determined. The matter is res inter alios and » Factors:
cannot be invoked as res judicata 1. Training and education
2. Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts
• Such judgment may only be admitted in evidence in a of the case
civil case by way of inducement, or to show a collateral
fact relevant to the issue in the civil action 11 3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon
which his opinion is based15
» Judgment can only prove that a certain defendant » Expert evidence is admissible only when:
has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to the 1. The matter to be testified to is one that
penalty therein imposed12 requires expertise
2. The witness has been qualified as a witness
Miranda vs. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc. » Hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert
(99 Phil 670)
A judgment of conviction, in the absence of collusion » Courts are not bound by the expert’s findings16
between the accused and the offended party, is binding and
conclusive upon the person subsidiarily liable not only with
» Generally not regarded as conclusive, but purely
advisory in character17
regard to his subsidiary liability but also with regard to the
amount thereof
Wells vs. Leek (151 Pa. 431, 439, 25 Atl. 101)
In weighing the testimony of an expert witness, courts
• Said judgment is admissible in evidence in the civil action
must necessarily consider all the circumstances of the case,
brought to enforce said subsidiary liability13
among them his qualifications, experience and degree of
learning, the basis and logic of his conclusion, and the other
7. OPINION RULE
evidence of record. The value of expert testimony depends
largely on the extent of the experience or studies of the
Section 48 - GENERAL RULE
witness, because the greater his experience or knowledge, the
The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as
greater is the value of his opinion resting upon the same
indicated in the following sections.
US vs. Kosel (24 Phil 594)
Section 49 - OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS
With respect to a handwriting expert, the value of his
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
opinion depends not upon his mere statement whether the
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown
handwriting is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he
to posses, may be received in evidence.
may afford in pointing out the distinguishing marks,
characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape
9
Also in People vs. Villaluz (1983) notice or detection by an untrained observer
10
Later 1964 ROC Rule 115 Sec 1(f)
11
Ed A. Keller & Co. (Ltd.) vs. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.  Whether or not courts are bound by the testimony of an
(Ltd.) (38 Phil 514); City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co. (52 Phil expert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject of
586) inquiry
12
Arambulo vs. Manila Electric Co. (55 Phil 75)
13
Pajarito vs. Seneris (1978)
14
Galian vs. State Assurance Co. Ltd. (29 Phil 413)
15
People vs. Abriol (2001) 17
People vs. Deauna (2002)
16
People vs. Florendo (68 Phil 619)
19
Raymundo vs. Legaspi (47 OG 807), cited in NARIC vs. First National
» If the same is one that falls within the general Security & Assurance Co., Inc. (CA, 64 OG 10607)
knowledge of judges, courts are not bound by the
conclusions of even a real expert along such line18
» Only where the subject of inquiry is of such a
technical nature that a layman can possibly have no
knowledge thereof that the courts must depend and
rely upon expert evidence19
 Conflicting expert evidence have neutralizing effect
» Generates doubt
18
Paras vs. Narciso (35 Phil 244); Dolar vs. Diansin (55 Phil 479)
Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan (1985)20
Where the supposed expert’s testimony would
constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is 20
Siasat vs. IAC (1985)
equally expert testimony to the contrary, the constitutional
presumption of innocence must prevail
 Expert evidence on handwriting is at best, weak and

unsatisfactory
» Proof of handwriting by comparison is in most cases
unsafe, even when several documents are used
as bases for comparison
 Contrary ruling: see Lopez vs. CA (1978)
» Opinions of handwriting experts are not necessarily
binding upon the courts
 Authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be
determined solely upon its general characteristics,
similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine
signature
» Dissimilarities are not decisive on the question of a
signature’s authenticity
 Common knowledge that that the writing of a person
changes as time passes
Cirujano vs. PNB (CA, 59 OG 8404)

Less weight should be given to inferences from
comparison, than to direct and credible testimony of
witnesses as to the matters within their personal
observation
 Diphenaline or Paraffin Test – proved to be extremely

unreliable in use
People vs. Mendoza (1989)

The Paraffin test is not conclusive as to the presence
of gunpowder because fertilizers, cosmetics, cigarettes,
urine, and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrites and
nitrates will give a positive reaction
People vs. Castillon III (2001)

A finding that the paraffin test yielded negative
results is not conclusive evidence that the accused had not
fired a gun. It is possible for a person to have fired a gun
and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates, as when
he wore gloves or washed his hands afterwards
 Results of blood grouping tests on the filiation of a

child, competently conducted by qualified persons, are
admissible and conclusive on the non-paternity of a
person over a child
 Admissibility of DNA evidence has been upheld by the SC
» In assessing the probative value, necessary to
consider, inter alia, how the samples were
collected, how they were handled, the possibility
of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, the
determination of whether or not the proper
standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted those tests
Bryan vs. Eastern & Australian S.S. Co.,

Ltd. (28 Phil 310)
The testimony of a witness skilled in the unwritten
law of a foreign country is not necessarily binding on our
courts
8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Section 51 - CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT GENERALLY

ADMISSIBLE; EXCEPTIONS:
a. In Criminal Cases:
1. The accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged. The good or bad moral
character of the offended party may be
proved if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
b. In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil
case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue
of character involved in the case.
c. In the case provided for in Rule 132, Sec 14.
Summary of the rules on character evidence:

 With respect to the nature of the case
» Criminal cases
 Prosecution at the outset may not prove the
bad moral character of the accused which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged
 Intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the
accused
 If accused in his defense attempts to
prove his good moral character,
prosecution can introduce evidence of bad
moral character in rebuttal
 Good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved by either party as long as
such evidence is relevant
» Civil cases
 Moral character of either party cannot be
proved unless pertinent to the issue of
character involved
 With respect to the person
» Accused: character evidence must be pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged
» Offended party: sufficient that character evidence is
relevant
» Witness: bad moral character may always be proved
by either party (Rule 132 Sec 11)
 Not evidence of his good moral character
unless it has been impeached (Rule 132 Sec
14)
Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
Burden of Proof and What Need the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the
accused, the onus probandi rests on him. It is not incumbent
Not Be Proved upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a
negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by
established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be
Rule 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions disproved by documents or other evidence within the knowledge
or control of the accused.
1. BURDEN OF PROOF
People vs. Macalaba (2003)
Section 1 – BURDEN OF PROOF Thus where the charge is made that the accused carried
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present on a business without a license, the fact that he has a license
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his is a matter which is peculiarly within his knowledge and he
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by must establish that fact or suffer conviction.
law
2. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
• Burden of proof – onus probandi; obligation imposed
upon a party who alleges the existence of facts necessary A. FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED
for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish
the same by the requisite quantum of evidence • Presumption – inference of an existence or non-existence
» Civil cases – preponderance of evidence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the
proof of other facts
Rule 183, Section 1 » Compared to judicial notice and judicial admission
▪ Presumption: proponent still has to introduce
evidence of the basis of the presumption,
» Criminal cases evidence of the existence or non-existence of
▪ For issuance of warrant of arrest after PI – facts from which the court can draw the
evidence of probable cause inference of the fact in issue
 Reasonable ground to believe that the ▪ Judicial notice and judicial admission: as a rule, proponent
accused committed the offense does not have to introduce evidence
▪ To warrant the filing of an information – prima
facie evidence
▪ To sustain a conviction – evidence beyond Presumptions of Law Presumptions of Fact
reasonable doubt
» Charge of misconduct against judges – clear and Praesumptiones juris Praesumptiones hominis
convincing evidence
Certain inference must be Discretion i vested in the
▪ Removal – beyond reasonable doubt
made whenever the facts tribunal as s to drawing the
» Agrarian cases – substantial evidence
appear which furnish the inference
▪ Only such relevant evidence as a reasonable
basis for the inference
mind might accept, as sufficient to support a
conclusion ▪ However,
Reduced to fixed rules and Derived wholly and directly
▪ Also applies to cases filed before administrative or quasi- in civil
form a part of the system from the circumstances of the
judicial bodies cases,
of jurisprudence particular case by means of the
even if
common experience of
negative
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence mankind
allegation
Types: is an
Civil cases - on the party who Both civil and criminal cases essential
1. Conclusive (juris et de
would be defeated if no – lies with party who asserts part of
jure)
evidence were given on an affirmative allegation the COA
2. Disputable (juris
either side • Negative or
tantum or prima facie)
Criminal cases – always on allegations – do defense,
the prosecution not have to be such does
proved not have
Does not shift as it remains Shifts from party to party
» Except where to be
throughout the trial with the depending upon the
such are proven if
party upon whom it is exigencies of the case in the
essential it is only
imposed course of the trial
parts of the for the
Generally determined by the Generally determined by the COA or purpose
pleading filed by the party developments at the trial or defense in a of
by provisions of law civil case or denying
essential the
ingredients of existence
the offense of a
▪ E.g. document
breach which
of would
contract properly
: prove be in the
the fact custody
that the of the
defenda adverse
nt did party
not ▪ The
comply general
with the rule is if
obligatio the
n Illegal criminal
possessi charge is
on of predicate
firearms d on a
: negative
absence allegation
of a or that a
license negative
azereth
page
Evidence
averm takes ordinary concerns;
ent is care of his
1) Conclusive
an
Presumptions e. That evidence matters within an
essenti
willfully issue raised a
al
Section 2 – suppressed dispute submitted
elemen
CONCLUSIVE would be for arbitration
t of the
PRESUMPTIONS adverse if were laid before
crime,
The following produced; the arbitrators
the
instances are f. That the money and passed upon
prosec
conclusive paid by one to by them;
ution
presumptions: another was due p. That private
has the
a. Whenever a to the latter; transactions have
burden
party has, by g. That the thing been fair and
of
his own delivered by one regular;
provin
declaration, to another q. That the ordinary
g the
act, or belonged to the course of
charge
omission, latter; business have
.
intentionally h. That an been followed;
Where
and obligation r. That there was
the
deliberately delivered up to sufficient
negativ
led another to the debtor has consideration for
e of an
believe a been paid; a contract;
issue
particular i. That prior rents s. That a negotiable
does
thing true, or installments instrument was
not
and to act had been paid given or indorsed
permit
upon such when a receipt for a sufficient
of
belief, he for the latter consideration;
direct
cannot, in any ones is t. That an
proof,
litigation produced; indorsement of a
or
arising out of j. That a person in negotiable
where
such possession of a instrument was
declaration, thing taken in made before the
act, or the doing of a instrument was
omission, be recent wrongful overdue and at
permitted to act is the taker the place where it
falsify it; and the doer of was dated;
b. The tenant is the whole act; u. That a writing is
not permitted otherwise, that duly dated;
to deny the things which a v. That a letter duly
title of his person directed and
landlord at possesses, or mailed was
the time of exercises acts of received in the
the ownership over, regular course of
commenceme are owned by the mail;
nt of the him; w. That after an
relation of k. That a person in absence of 7
landlord and possession of an years, it being
tenant order on himself unknown whether
between for the payment or not the
them. of money, or the absentee still
delivery lives, he shall be
• Based upon anything, has considered dead
doctrine of paid the money for all purposes
estoppel in pais or delivered the except those of
thing succession.
2) Disputable accordingly; The absentee
Presumptions l. That a person shall not be
acting in a considered dead
Section 3 – public office was for the purpose of
DISPUTABLE regularly opening his
PRESUMPTION appointed or succession till
The following elected to it; after an absence
presumptions are m. That official duty of 10 years. If he
satisfactory if has been disappeared after
uncontradicted, regularly the age of 75, an
but may be performed; absence of 5
contradicted and n. That a court, or years shall be
overcome by other judge acting as sufficient in order
evidence: such, whether in that his
a. That a person is the Philippines succession may
innocent of crime or elsewhere, be opened.
or wrong; was acting in The following
b. That an the lawful shall be
unlawful act exercise of presumed dead
was done jurisdiction; for all purposes,
with unlawful o. That all the including the
intent; matters within division of the
c. That a person an issue raised estate among the
intends the in a case were heirs:
ordinary laid before the 1) A person
consequences court and on board a
of his passed upon by vessel lost
voluntary act; it; and in like during a sea
d. That a person manner that all voyage, or an
azereth
page
Evidence
aircraft in any case,
x. That dd. That if the
which is before
acquiescence marriage is
missing, marrying
resulted from terminated and
who has again, the
a belief that the mother
not been spouse
the thing contracted
heard of present
acquiesced in another
for 4 years must
was marriage
since the institute a
conformable within 300
lost of the summary
to the law or days after such
vessel or proceeding
fact; termination of
aircraft; as provided
y. That things the former
2) A in the
have marriage,
member of Family Code
happened these rules
the armed and in the
according to shall govern in
forces who rules for
the ordinary the absence of
has taken declaration
course of proof to the
part in of
nature and contrary:
armed presumptiv
the ordinary 1) A child
hostilities e death of
habits of life; born
and has the
z. That persons before 180
been absentee,
acting as co- days after
missing for without
partners have the
4 years; prejudice to
entered into a solemnizat
3) A the effect of
contract of ion of the
person the
partnership; subsequen
who has reappearan
aa. That a man t marriage
been in ce of the
and woman is
danger of absent
deporting considered
death spouse.
themselves as to have
under
husband and been
other
wife have conceived
circumstan
entered into a during the
ces and
lawful former
whose
contract of marriage,
existence
marriage; provided it
has not
bb. That property be born
been
acquired by a within
known for
man and a 300 days
4 years;
woman who after the
4) If a
are terminatio
married
capacitated to n of the
person has
marry each former
been
other and marriage.
absent for
who live 2) A child
4
exclusively born after
consecutiv
with each 180 days
e years,
other as following
the spouse
husband and the
present
wife without celebratio
may
the benefit of n of the
contract a
marriage or subsequen
subsequen
under a void t marriage
t marriage
marriage, has is
if he or she
been obtained considered
has a well-
by their joint to have
founded
efforts, work, been
belief that
or industry; conceived
the absent
cc. That in cases of during
spouse is
cohabitation such
already
by a man and marriage,
dead. In
a woman even
case of
who are not though it
disappeara
capacitated to be born
nce, where
marry each within
there is
other and 300 days
danger of
who have after the
death
acquired terminatio
under the
property n of the
circumstan
through their former
ces
actual joint marriage.
hereinabov
contribution ee. That a thing
e provided,
of money, once proved to
an absence
property, or exist continues
of only 2
industry, such as long as is
years shall
contributions usual with the
be
and their things of that
sufficient
corresponding nature;
for the
shares ff. That the law has
purpose of
including joint been obeyed;
contractin
deposits of gg. That a printed
g a
money and or published
subsequen
evidences of book,
t marriage.
credit are purporting to
However,
equal; be printed or
azereth
page
Evidence
published by rules: facie
• Requisites for par.
public 1) If both evidence of
(e)
authority, were guilt provided
1. The evidence is
was so under the there be a
material
printed or age of rational
2. Party had the
published; 15, the connection
opportunity to
hh. That a older is between the
produce the
printed or deemed facts proved
same
published to have and the
3. Said evidence
book, survived; ultimate fact
is available
purporting 2) If both presumed
only to said
to contain were ▪ RPC,
party
reports of above Article
▪ Presu
cases the age 217
mption
adjudged in of 60, the
does
tribunals of younger
not
the country is
apply
where the deemed
if
book is to have
eviden
published, survived;
ce is
contains 3) If one is
equally
correct under 15
availab
reports of and the
le to
such cases; other is
both
ii. That a above
parties
trustee or 60, the
, or is
other person former is
merely
whose duty deemed
corrob
it was to to have
orative
convey the survived;
/cumul
real property 4) If both
ative
to a be over
or
particular 15 and
unnece
person has under 60,
ssary
actually and the
conveyed it sex is
People
to him when different,
vs.
such the male
Realon
presumption is
(1980)
is necessary deemed
Presumption
to perfect to have
does not arise from
the title of survived;
the failure of the
such person if the sex
prosecution to present
or his is the
the NBI agents and
successor- same,
the results of the
in-interest; the older;
fingerprint and
jj. That except 5) If one be
paraffin tests in view
for purposes under 15
of the overwhelming
of or over
evidence on the
succession, 60, and
positive identification
when 2 the other
of the accused.
persons between
Furthermore, the
perish in the those
defense could have
same ages, the
availed of said
calamity, latter is
evidence which was
such as deemed
equally available to it
wreck, to have
battle, or survived
People
conflagratio kk. That if there is
vs.
n, and it is doubt, as
Navaja
not shown between 2 or
(1993)
who died more persons
The adverse
first, and who are
presumption of
there are no called to
suppression of
particular succeed each
evidence does not
circumstanc other, as to
arise when:
es from which of them
1. The suppression is
which it can died first,
not willful,
be inferred, whoever
2. The evidence
the alleges the
withheld is
survivorship death of one
merely
is prior to the
corroborative or
determined other, shall
cumulative,
from the prove the
3. The evidence is at
probabilities same; in the
the disposal of both
resulting absence of
parties,
from the proof, they
4. The suppression is
strength and shall be
an exercise of a
age of the considered to
privilege
sexes, have died at
according to the same
• Par. (i) is connected
the following time.
with the Civil Code
• Par (a) may provide principles
» Legislature for prima
azereth
page
Evidence
Civil Code, 13, Sec 10, service actua
Article 1176 by pleadings by mail lly
The receipt is complete upon the provi
of the expiration of 10 days de for
principal by after mailing, unless a
the creditor, the court otherwise presu
without provides, while mptio
reservation service by registered n –
with respect mail is complete coroll
to the upon actual receipt ary
interest, by the addressee, proce
shall give but if he fails to dural
rise to the claim his mail from rule
presumption the post office within
that said 5 days from the date Victory Shipping
interest has of first notice, the Lines vs. WCC
been paid. service is complete (106 Phil 1165)
The receipt at the expiration of Where the fate
of a later such time. There of the vessel is
installment must, however, be known, and not
of a debt conclusive proof that where the vessel
without a first notice was was merely lost or
reservation sent to the missing, the
as to prior addressee as the disputable
installments, presumption that
shall official duty has
likewise been regularly
raise the performed does not
presumption apply to this
that such situation
installments
have been Ferrare
paid. n vs.
Santos
• Par (j) – similar (1982)
rationale: If, however,
the postmaster
People certifies that first
vs. notice was sent, the
Senday presumption that
diego official duty has
(1978) been regularly
If a person performed arises
had in his and overrides the
possession a contrary claim of the
falsified document addressee.
and he made use
of it, taken • Par (w) – taken
advantage of it and from Civil Code
profited thereby, » Sub par 1&2
the presumption is – the
that he is the absentee
material author of is
the falsification. presumed
to have
• Par (v) – it died at the
must be end of the
proved that period
the letter was (5/7/10
properly years)
addressed » Sub par 3
with postage (qualified
pre-paid and absence)
that it was –
actually absentee
mailed is
» If not presumed
returned to have
to died at the
sender, it time he
is was
presume exposed to
d that it the danger
was or peril
received ▪ At the
by the start of
addresse the 4
e year
period
Barram ▪ Num
eda vs. ber
Castillo (4)
(1977) does
Under Rule not
azereth
page
presumption of death does not arise and the fact of death,
must, instead, be established by preponderance of evidence
• Par (dd) – taken from Art 259 of the Civil Code, in line
with Art 168 of the Family Code
• Par (jj) – requisites:
1. Deaths occurred in a calamity
2. There are no particular circumstances from which it
can be inferred that one died ahead of the other
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Presentation of Evidence b. Refers to his previous final conviction or

offense
2. Under the right against self-incrimination
▪ Criminal cases – Rule 115 Section 1(e):
Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
accused may refuse to take the stand
altogether
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES  Accused: may be with reference to the
offense involved in the same case wherein
Section 1 – EXAMINATION TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURT he is charged or to an offense for which
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or he may be charged and tried in another
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or case
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to  Witness: offense involved is one for which
speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
he may be tried in another case
answer, the answers of a witness shall be given orally
 Right should be seasonably invoked and
may be waived
Section 2 – PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED
▪ Other cases/proceedings – a party may be
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including
compelled to take the stand but he may object
the questions to be propounded to a witness and his
to incriminating questions
answer thereto, the statements made by the judge or
any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference
Beltran vs. Samson (53 Phil 570)
to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
Where in a prosecution for falsification, the
stenotype or by other means of recording found
accused took the stand and testified denying his
suitable by the court.
authorship of the alleged falsified signature, on
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by
cross-examination he can be compelled to give a
the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
sample of his handwriting and it was not a denial of
certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie
his right against self-incrimination
a correct statement of such proceedings.
Bermudez vs. Castillo (64 Phil 483)
• To be admissible, testimony of a witness may be given in
Where, in a disbarment case, the complainant on
open court
cross-examination denied authorship of certain
» May be supplanted by:
handwritten letters, she could not be compelled to
1. Civil cases – depositions (Rules 23 – 24)
give samples of her handwriting as it would amount
2. Criminal cases – depositions or conditional
to a denial of her right against self-incrimination in a
examinations (Rule 119 Sections 12-15 and
possible charge for perjury
Rule 123 Sec 1)
» Mere presentation of affidavits of witnesses subject
▪ Conflict can be reconciled:
to cross-examination is not allowed by the rules
 Beltran: it was the accused himself who
» But, under BP 129, summary procedures may be
opened the issue on his direct
authorized by SC in special cases
examination
▪ May provide that affidavits and counter-
» He could have refused to testify
affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral
altogether
testimony
» Therefore, he waived his right
• Testimony of witness should be elicited by questions of
 Bermudez: complainant could not refuse
counsel
to testify without an unfavorable inference
» But Court itself may propound questions or may
being drawn against her
suggest questions to counsel
» Also, issue was raised during cross-
examination, hence she did not
People vs. Manalo (1987)
waive the right
The court should be given reasonable leeway to
▪ “Unless otherwise provided by law” – refers to
ascertain the truth, and the extent to which such examination
immunity statutes wherein the witness is
may be conducted rests in its discretion and will not be
granted immunity from criminal prosecution
controlled in the absence of abuse of discretion to the
prejudice of either party
Section 4 - ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN
INDIVIDUAL WITNESS
Section 3 - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
The order in which the individual witness may be
A witness must answer questions, although his answer
examined is as follows;
may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it
a. Direct examination by the proponent;
is the right of a witness:
b. Cross-examination by the opponent;
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
c. Re-direct examination by the proponent;
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
d. Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
Section 5 - DIRECT EXAMINATION
justice require;
Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
witness by the party presenting him on the facts
pertinent to the issue;
relevant to the issue.
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
Section 6 - CROSS-EXAMINATION; ITS PURPOSE AND
provided by law; or
EXTENT
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
Upon the termination of the direct examination, the
his reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue
witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as
or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be
to many matters stated in the direct examination, or
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and
his previous final conviction for an offense. (3a,
freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and
19a)
freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
• Witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to
the inquiry even if it may tend to establish a claim
Section 7 - RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION; ITS PURPOSE
against him
AND EXTENT
• But may refuse if:
After the cross-examination of the witness has been
1. Under the right against self-degradation unless:
concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling
a. Such question is directed to the very fact in
him, to explain or supplement his answers given during
issue
the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination,
questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-
azereth
page
Evidence
examination, may » Same as accused concluded, the
Section 8 - RE-
be allowed by the testifying on his witness cannot be
CROSS-
court in its own behalf recalled without
EXAMINATION
discretion. • Question which leave of the court.
Upon the
assumes facts not The court will grant
conclusion of the
on the record: or withhold leave in
re-direct
» If on cross its discretion, as
examination, the
examinati the interests of
adverse party may
on – justice may require.
re-cross-examine
objectiona
the witness on
ble for • Recall based on
matters stated in
bring discretion of the
his re-direct
misleading court
examination, and
» If on direct » But recall is a
also on such other
examinati matter of
matters as may be
on – right if the
allowed by the
objectiona examination
court in its
ble for of the
discretion.
lack of witness has
basis not been
• A witness may
concluded
be cross
Bachrach or the recall
examined by
Motor Co., has been
the adverse
Inc. vs. CIR expressly
party not only
(1978) reserved by
as to matters
When cross a party with
stated in the
examination is not the
direct
and cannot be done approval of
examination
or completed due to the court
but also as to
causes attributable
matters
to the party who Section 10 - LEADING
connected
offered the witness, AND MISLEADING
therewith, and
the uncompleted QUESTIONS
this should be
testimony is thereby A question which
allowed to do
rendered incomplete suggests to the
with sufficient
and should be witness the answer
fullness and
stricken from the which the
freedom to test
record examining party
the witness’
desires is a leading
accuracy,
People question. It is not
truthfulness
vs. allowed, except:
and freedom
Seneri a. On cross
from interest or
s examination;
bias, and also
(1980 b. On preliminary
to elicit from
) matters;
him any
Where in a c. When there is
important fact
criminal case the a difficulty is
bearing upon
prosecution witness getting direct
the issue
was extensively and intelligible
» American
cross examined on answers from a
rule –
the essential witness who is
cross-
elements of the ignorant, or a
examinati
crime and what child of tender
on must
remained for further years, or is of
be
cross-examination feeble mind, or
confined
was the matter of a deaf-mute;
to the
the prize or reward d. Of an unwilling or
matters
which was treated hostile witness; or
inquired
therein as merely an e. Of a witness
about in
aggravating who is an
the direct
circumstance, his adverse party
examinati
failure to appear for or an officer,
on
further cross- director, or
» English rule –
examination thereon managing
witness
will not warrant the agent of a
may be
striking out of his public or
cross-
direct examination, private
examined
especially since corporation or
not only
further cross- of a
upon
examination could partnership or
matters
not be conducted association
relevant to
due to the which is an
the issue
subsequent death of adverse party.
» This
the said witness, a A misleading
jurisdiction – more
circumstance not question is one
on English rule
attributable to the which assumes as
• Unwilling/hostil
prosecution true a fact not yet
e/adverse party
testified to by the
witness – cross
Section 9 - witness, or contrary
examination
RECALLING WITNESS to that which he
shall only be on
After the has previously
the subject of
examination of a stated. It is not
his
witness by both allowed.
examination-in-
sides has been
chief
azereth
page
Evidence
Section 11 - OF ADVERSE inexperienced;
in the same
IMPEACHMENT PARTY'S WITNESS unsophisticated; feeble-
case, but
minded; confused and
A witness may be EVIDENCE OF not the
agitated; terrified, timid
impeached by the INCONSISTENT testimony
or embarrassed while
party against whom STATEMENTS of another
on stand; lacking in
he was called, by Before a witness can witness
comprehension of
contradictory be impeached by 2. Evidence of
questions or slow to
evidence, by evidence that he has prior
understand; deaf and
evidence that his made at other times inconsistent
dumb; or unable to
general reputation statements statements
speak or understand
for truth, honestly, inconsistent with his –
the English language or
or integrity is bad, present testimony, statements,
only imperfectly
or by evidence that the statements must oral or
familiar therewith
he has made at be related to him, documentar
other times with the y, made by
• Misleading
statements circumstances of the the witness
question – one
inconsistent with times and places and sought to
which assumes
his present, the persons present, be
facts not in
testimony, but not and he must be impeached
evidence or
by evidence of asked whether he on
without sufficient
particular wrongful made such occasions
basis or which
acts, except that it statements, and if other than
assumes
may be shown by so, allowed to the trial in
testimony or proof
the examination of explain them. If the which he is
which has not
the witness, or the statements be in testifying
been given
record of the writing they must be ▪ “Laying
judgment, that he shown to the witness the
Fernandez
has been convicted before any question predicate”
vs. Tantoco
of an offense. is put to him a. B
(49 Phil
concerning them. y
380)
Section 12 - PARTY c
A party who
MAY NOT IMPEACH • Leading question – o
voluntarily offers the
HIS OWN WITNESS one which nf
testimony of a witness
Except with respect suggests to the ro
in the case is, as a rule,
to witnesses witness the nt
bound by the testimony
referred to in answer desired in
of the said witness. The
paragraphs (d) and » May cause the g
exceptions to the rule
(e) of Section 10, witness, by hi
are:
the party producing reacting to m
1. In case of a hostile
a witness is not an inference wi
witness
allowed to impeach in his mind, th
2. Where the witness
his credibility. to testify in s
is the adverse
A witness may be accordance u
party or the
considered as with the c
representative of a
unwilling or hostile suggestion h
judicial person
only if so declared by the st
which is the
by the court upon question at
adverse party
adequate showing ▪ Answer e
3. When the witness
of his adverse may be m
is not voluntarily
interest, unjustified “rather e
offered but is
reluctance to an echo nt
required by law to
testify, or his of the s,
be presented by
having misled the question wi
the proponent, as
party into calling than a th
in the case of a
him to the witness genuine th
subscribing
stand. recollect e
witness to a will
The unwilling or ion ci
hostile witness so » Testimony on rc
• Party can impeach
declared, or the direct u
adverse party’s
witness who is an examination m
witness by:
adverse party, may elicited st
1. Contradictory
be impeached by through a
evidence –
the party leading n
other
presenting him in questions has ce
testimony of
all respects as if he little s
the same
had been called by probative u
witness, or
the adverse party, value n
other
except by evidence d
evidence
of his bad People er
presented by
character. He may vs. w
him
also be impeached Dela hi
and cross- Cruz c
examined by the (2002) h
adverse party, but Leading th
such cross- questions may be e
examination must permitted in the y
only be on the examination of a w
subject matter of witness who is er
his examination-in- immature; aged and e
chief. infirm; an bad physical m
condition; uneducated; a
Section 13 - HOW ignorant of, or d
WITNESS unaccustomed to, court e
IMPEACHED BY proceedings; b. B
azereth
page
Evidence
y c mere
aski h i witnes
ng a s s
him n  St
whe c r at
ther e a e
he i m
mad t s e
e o e nt
suc d s
h e ar
stat x w e
eme p h in
nt l e th
c. By a n e
givi i n
ng n t at
him h ur
a t e e
cha h of
nce e d a
to o n
expl d c a
ain i u d
the s m m
inco c e is
nsis r n si
tenc e t o
y p i n
» a n
I n v Juan
m c o Y
p y l s
e » v m
a B e a
c u d e
h t l
m i
e d s &
n e
t f o C
e f o
i c f .
s t e ,
r
i i e I
n s d n
c c
o w f .
m a o
p i r v
l v a s
e e d .
t d m
e i H
i s a
i f s s
f n i h
o o i
w n m
i o ▪ No
t b need (
n j to lay 5
e e the 0
s c predi
s t cate P
i if the h
i o prior i
s n incon l
sisten
n o t 1
o n state 3
t ment 2
t appe )
g h ars in Where
i a a previous
v t depos statements
e ition of a witness
n g of the are offered
r adver as evidence
t o se of an
h u party admission,
e n and and not
d not a merely to
azereth
page
Evidence
impeach conversing with when the fact » Reason: the
him, the one another until occurred, or witness has
rule on all shall have been immediately just the
laying examined. thereafter, or at any memorandum
the other time when the to testify on
predicate • Power of fact was fresh in his the basis of
does not exclusions memory and knew refreshed
apply apply only to that the same was memory
witnesses and correctly written or » Memorandum not
3. Evidence of not to parties in recorded; but in such admissible as
bad the civil case case the writing or corroborative
character • Parties have a record must be evidence
4. Evidence right to be present produced and may be
of bias, at the trial inspected by the Borro
interest, » Either by adverse party, who meo
prejudice themselves or by may, if he chooses, vs. CA
or their counsels cross examine the (1976)
incompet » Since they witness upon it, and Where the witness
ence have such may read it in has testified
• Party can right, they evidence. So, also, a independently of or after
impeach his own cannot be witness may testify his memory has been
witness only by: divested from such writing or refreshed by a
1. Evidence thereof by record, though he memorandum of the
contradictor an retain no recollection events in dispute, such
y to his exclusion of the particular memorandum is not
testimony order facts, if he is able to admissible as
2. Evidence of swear that the corroborative evidence,
prior Paez vs. writing or record since the witness may
inconsistent Berengue correctly stated the not be corroborated by
statements r (8 Phil transaction when any written statement
» In case of 457) made; but such prepared wholly by him.
hostile/a A party to an evidence must be He cannot be more
dverse action has a right to received with credible just because he
party/inv be present in court caution. supports his open-court
oluntary while his case is declaration with written
witnesse being tried, and the • American statements of the same
s – can rule authorizing the jurisprudence: facts even if he did
also be exclusion of » First sentence – prepare them during the
impeache witnesses during “revival of present occasion in dispute,
d by trial cannot be memory” unless the proper
other understood to ▪ Applies predicate of his failing
modes of extend to him if memory is priorly laid
impeach witness down
ment • If witness rememb
violates the ers the Section 17 - WHEN
Section 14 - order of facts PART OF
EVIDENCE OF exclusion, court regardin TRANSACTION,
GOOD may bar him g his WRITING OR RECORD
CHARACTER OF from testifying entries GIVEN IN EVIDENCE,
WITNESS or give little and is THE REMAINDER, THE
Evidence of the weight to his entitled REMAINDER
good character of testimony to ADMISSIBLE
a witness is not » Aside from his greater When part of an act,
admissible until liability for weight declaration,
such character contempt » Second sentence conversation, writing
has been – revival of past or record is given in
impeached. People recollection evidence by one party,
vs. Lua ▪ Applies the whole of the same
Section 15 - Chu (56 where subject may be
EXCLUSION AND Phil 44) the inquired into by the
SEPARATION OF It is within the witness other, and when a
WITNESSES power of the trial does not detached act,
On any trial or judge to refuse to recall declaration,
hearing, the order the exclusion the facts conversation, writing
judge may of the principal involved or record is given in
exclude from the witness of the and is evidence, any other
court any government during entitled act, declaration,
witness not at the hearing of a to lesser conversation, writing
the time under criminal case and it weight or record necessary to
examination, so may not, on that • Applies only when its understanding may
that he may not count alone, be it is shown also be given in
hear the considered as an beforehand that evidence.
testimony of abuse of his there is a need to
other witnesses. discretion refresh the • Similar rule in
The judge may memory of the depositions
also cause Section 16 - WHEN witness
witnesses to be WITNESS MAY • Memorandum Rule 32, Section 4
kept separate REFER TO used to refresh – OATH OF
and to be MEMORANDUM the memory of the COMMISSIONER
prevented from witness does not Before entering
constitute upon his duties
A witness may be anything written or
evidence and may the commissioner
allowed to refresh recorded by himself
not be admitted as shall be sworn to
his memory or under his
such a faithful and
respecting a fact, by direction at the time
azereth
page
Evidence
honest doc ▪ R
performance um e
• Classification in
thereof ent q
RPC is different
: u
Section 18 - RIGHT • “Public a. Mu i
TO RESPECT st r
WRITING SHOWN documents” be e
TO WITNESS att m
Whenever a writing Antillon est e
is shown to a vs. ed n
witness, it may be Barcelon by t
inspected by the (37 Phil the
adverse party. 148) offi
Public i
cer
documents s
B. AUTHENTI hav
generally ing
CATION AND include notarial leg n
documents and al o
PROOF OF are admissible cus t
in evidence tod
DOCUMENTS without the y
necessity of of m
Section 19 - preliminary the e
proof as to rec r
CLASSES OF authenticity ord e
and due s l
DOCUMENTS execution or y
For the purpose of his
their presentation dep a
evidence, uty
documents are b. Mu
either public or st t
private. be e
Public documents acc c
are: om h
a. The written pan n
official acts, or ied i
records of the by c
official acts of a a
the sovereign Phil l
authority, ippi i
official bodies ne t
and tribunals, dipl y
and public om
officers, atic
b
whether of the or
u
Philippines, or con
t
of a foreign sul
country; ar
b. Documents rep i
acknowledge res s
before a notary ent
public except ativ
i
last wills and e
n
testaments; to
t
and the
e
c. Public records, for
n
kept in the eig
d
Philippines, of n
e
private cou
d
documents ntr
required by law y
to the entered cer t
therein. tify o
All other writings ing
are private. tha
t j
» Except if law  Re u
suc
requires proof qui s
h
▪ E.g. site t
att
notaria s i
esti
l wills for f
ng
– law ad y
offi
still mis
cer
require sibi
has t
s lity
the h
witnes of
cus e
ses for cop
tod
its y
y
probat of g
of
e for i
the
» Kinds: eig v
doc
1. Official n i
um
docume offi n
ent
nts cial g
azereth
page
Evidence
of wri 7 document is more
ful tin ) than thirty years old,
l gs If a is produced from the
fai are private custody in which it
th als writing would naturally be
an o itself is found if genuine, and
d pu inserted is unblemished by any
cr blic officially alterations or
ed doc into a circumstances of
it um public suspicion, no other
to ent record, evidence of its
th s, its authenticity need be
e the record, given.
ge pu its
nu blic recordat Section 22 - HOW
in wri ion, or GENUINENESS OF
en tin its HANDWRITING
es g is incorpor PROVED
s not ation The handwriting of a
of the into the person may be proved
a wri public by any witness who
do tin record believes it to be the
cu g becomes handwriting of such
m itse a public person because he has
en lf docume seen the person write,
t but nt, but or has seen writing
in the that purporting to be his
a “pu does not upon which the
for blic make witness has acted or
ei rec the been charged, and has
gn ord private thus acquired
co ” writing knowledge of the
un the itself a handwriting of such
try reo public person. Evidence
2. Those f docume respecting the
ackno nt so as handwriting may also
wledge Repu to make be given by a
d b the comparison, made by
before li private the witness or the
person c writing court, with writings
s v it admitted or treated as
authori s admissib genuine by the party
zed to . le against whom the
admini W without evidence is offered, or
ster o authenti proved to be genuine
oaths – r cation to the satisfaction of
further l the judge.
govern d • “Private
ed by w documents” – • Rules of authenticity
Section i commercial and • In addition,
30 d private documents American
3. Private e jurisprudence also
docum I Section 20 - PROOF gives:
ents n OF PRIVATE » Doctrine of self-
require s DOCUMENT authentication
d by u Before any private - where the
law to r document offered as facts in the
entere a authentic is received writing could
d in n in evidence, its due only have been
public c execution and known by the
records e authenticity must be writer
– & proved either:
subject a. By anyone who
to S saw the
provisi u document
ons of r executed or
Section e written; or
27 t b. By evidence of
 W y the genuineness
hi C of the signature
le o or handwriting
p . of the maker.
u ( Any other private
bl C document need only
ic A be identified as that
re , which it is claimed to
co 6 be.
rd 2
s O Section 21 - WHEN
of G EVIDENCE OF
pr AUTHENTICITY OF
iv 8 PRIVATE DOCUMENT
at 8 NOT NECESSARY
e 5 Where a private
azereth
page
Evidence
» Rule of • Authenticity be under the official
authentic and due Lop seal of the attesting
ation by execution of a ez officer, if there be
adverse private vs. any, or if he be the
party – document is CA clerk of a court
where proved by, inter (19 having a seal, under
the reply alia, evidence 78) the seal of such
of the of genuineness Rule 132 court.
adverse of the Section 22 merely
party handwriting of enumerates the Section 26 -
refers to the maker methods of proving IRREMOVABILITY OF
and » Handwriting is handwriting but does PUBLIC RECORD
affirms proved by: not give preference Any public record,
the 1. Witne or priority to a an official copy of
sending ss particular method which is admissible
to him who in evidence, must
and his actua Section 24 - PROOF not be removed
receipt lly OF OFFICIAL RECORD from the office in
thereof saw The record of public which it is kept,
of the the documents referred except upon order
letter in perso to in paragraph of a court where
question, n (a) of Section 19, the inspection of
a copy of writin when admissible the record is
which g the for any purpose, essential to the just
the instru may be evidenced determination of a
proponen ment by an official pending case.
t is (Sec publication thereof
offering 20a) or by a copy • Public record –
as 2. Witness attested by the cannot be
evidence familiar officer having the removed from
• Authentication of with legal custody of the office in
document not such the record, or by which it is kept
required if: handwrit his deputy, and without a court
1. The writing ing (Sec accompanied, if order such as
is an 22) the record is not subpoena duces
ancient and kept in the tecum
document who Philippines, with a » Even court
(Sec 21) can certificate that cannot
2. The writing give such officer has order its
is a public his the custody. If the removal
document opini office in which the except
or record on record is kept is in when
(Sec 19) there foreign country, essential to
3. It is a on, the certificate may the just
notarial such be made by a determinati
docume opini secretary of the on of the
nt on embassy or pending
acknowl being legation, consul case
edged, exce general, consul, » Refers only to
proved ption vice consul, or a public
or to consular agent or record an
certified opini by any officer in official
in on the foreign service copy of
accorda rule of the Philippines which could
nce with (Rule stationed in the be made
Sec 30 130, foreign country in available to
4. The Sec which the record the
authenti 50b) is kept, and interested
city and 3. Comp authenticated by party and is
due ariso the seal of his admissible
executio n by office. in evidence
n of the the
docume court Section 25 - WHAT Wildvalley
nt has of the ATTESTATION OF Shipping Co.,
been quest COPY MUST STATE Ltd. vs. CA
expressl ioned Whenever a copy (2000)
y or hand of a document or Absent the
impliedl writin record is attested attestation of the
y g and for the purpose of officer having the
admitte admit evidence, the legal custody of the
d by a ted attestation must records and the
failure genui state, in certificate to that
to deny ne substance, that effect by a Philippine
the speci the copy is a foreign service officer,
same mens correct copy of the a mere copy of the
under there original, or a foreign document is
oath of specific part not admissible as
▪ Actiona (Sec thereof, as the evidence to prove the
ble 22) case may be. The foreign law
docume 4. Expert attestation must
nts evidence
Section 27 - PUBLIC record of a private
(Rule 8, (Rule
RECORD OF A document may be
Section 130 Sec
PRIVATE DOCUMENT proved by the original
8) 49)
An authorized public record, or by a copy
azereth
page
Evidence
thereof, attested by 24 and evidence during
the legal custodian 25 in Spanish
of the record, with  Unl Philippin regime –
an appropriate ess e courts considered as
certificate that such spe unless it public
officer has the cific is documents
custody. ally certified » Issued after the
exe as such Spanish
Section 28 - PROOF mpt in regime –
OF LACK OF RECORD ed accorda private
A written statement (FC, nce with document and
signed by an officer Art Rule 132 cannot even
having the custody 12) Sec 24 be prima facie
of an official record by a evidence of the
or by his deputy M secretar fact that gave
that after diligent a y of the rise to its
search no record or hi embassy execution (the
entry of a specified lu or fact of the
tenor is found to m legation, baptism and
exist in the records v consul- the date
of his office, s. general, thereon)
accompanied by a C consul, ▪ Hearsay
certificate as above A vice- and
provided, is ( consul, inadmissib
admissible as 1 consular le
evidence that the 9 agent or  Unle
records of his office 6 by any ss
contain no such 6 officer in the
record or entry. ) the pries
It is foreign t
Section 29 – HOW presume service who
JUDICIAL RECORD d that in the perf
IMPEACHED the Philippin orm
Any judicial record requisite es ed
may be impeached stamps statione the
by evidence of: have d in the bapti
a. Want of been foreign smal
jurisdiction in affixed country right
the court or to the in which s
judicial officer, original the and
b. Collusion copy of record is mad
between the a kept of e
parties, or docume said the
c. Fraud in the nt public certi
party offering where docume ficat
the record, in only the nt and e is
respect to the carbon authenti prod
proceedings. copies cated by uced
thereof the seal
• Rule 39 Sec 1 are of his
availabl office
Section 30 - PROOF e
OF NOTARIAL • Even public
DOCUMENTS Lo documents do not
Every instrument pez have uniform
duly acknowledged vs. probative value
or proved and CA » Probative value
certified as (19 depends on
provided by law, 87) the kind of
may be presented Wher document
in evidence without e the that is
further proof, the special presented in
certificate of power of evidence
acknowledgment attorney • Baptismal
being prima facie is certificates
evidence of the execute » Held as
execution of the d and analogous to
instrument or acknowl the records
document involved. edged of birth in CC
before a Art 265,
• Public documents notary before the
may be proved public or establishmen
by: other t of civil
1. Original compete registry in
copy nt 1917
2. Official officer in ▪ Consider
publication a ed
thereof foreign presump
3. Certified country, tive
true copy it evidence
thereof cannot of facts
▪ Require be stated
ments admitte therein
in Secs d in » Issued by priests
azereth
page
Evidence
» Not
of the cause of death,
its probative value
English and Spanish
A official languages
sufficient being confined only to • Section 3(3), Article
to prove XV, 1973
paternity the fact of death, and Constitution –
21
or the statement therein English and Pilipino
voluntary » PD 155 – Spanish
recogniti Garcia language shall
on of a Fule vs. continue to be
child22 Malvar recognized as
(1976) an official
A death language while
certificate is admissible important
to prove the residence documents in
of the deceased at the government
time of his death files are in the
Spanish
Section 31 - language and
ALTERATION IN not translated
DOCUMENT, HOW TO into Pilipino or
EXPLAIN English
The party producing • Section 7, Article
a document as XIV, 1987
genuine which has Constitution - the
been altered and official languages
appears to have been are Filipino and,
altered after its until otherwise
execution, in a part provided by law,
material to the English, with the
question in dispute, regional languages
must account for the as auxiliary official
alteration. He may languages in the
show that the region
alteration was made
by another, without C.
his concurrence, or
was made with the O
consent of the
parties affected by it, F
or was otherwise
properly or innocent F
made, or that the
alteration did not E
21
Arde vs. Anocoche
(1978)
change the meaning
222 or language of the R
Berciles vs. GSIS
(1984)
instrument. If he
fails to do that, the
Mac rape document shall not
adan be admissible in A
gdan Peopl evidence.
g vs. e vs. N
CA Lland Section 32 – SEAL
(198 elar There shall be no D
0) (200 difference between
A baptismal 1)23 sealed and unsealed
certificate is While recognizing private documents
proof only of the the primacy of a insofar as their O
baptism birth certificate as admissibility as
administered by proof of the evidence is B
the priest who victim’s age, the concerned.
baptized the SC held that, in J
child but not the the absence of Section 33 -
veracity of the such evidence, the DOCUMENTARY E
declarations and victim’s minority EVIDENCE IN AN
statements in the may be proved by UNOFFICIAL C
certificates other LANGUAGE
concerning the documentary Documents written in T
relationship of evidence such as an unofficial
the person her baptismal language shall not be I
baptized certificate or other admitted as
authentic records evidence, unless O
» Above accompanied with a
doctrines • Death certificate translation into N
modified by English or Filipino. To
the SC in Sison vs. Sun Life avoid interruption of
determining Assuran proceedings, parties
the minority ce Co. or their attorneys are S
of the victim of directed to have such
in statutory Canada translation prepared e
rape or (CA, 47 before trial.
where that OG c
fact is an 1954) • Section 3, Article
element of A death XIV, 1935 t
qualified certificate is not proof Constitution –
azereth
page
Evidence
orally must be made
i offer shall be done Section 39 - STRIKING
immediately after
orally unless OUT ANSWER
the offer is made.
o allowed by the Should a witness
Objection to a
court to be done in answer the question
question propounded
n writing. before the adverse
in the course of the
oral examination of a party had the
witness shall be opportunity to voice
made as soon as the fully its objection to
3 grounds therefor the same, and such
shall become objection is found to
4 reasonably apparent. be meritorious, the
An offer of evidence court shall sustain the
in writing shall be objection and order
objected to within the answer given to
- three (3) days after be stricken off the
notice of the offer record.
unless a different On proper motion, the
period is allowed by court may also order
O the court. the striking out of
In any case, the answers which are
F grounds for the incompetent,
objections must be irrelevant, or
F specified. otherwise improper.
E Section 37 - WHEN Section 40 - TENDER

REPETITION OF OF EXCLUDED
R OBJECTION EVIDENCE
UNNECESSARY If documents or
When it becomes things offered in
reasonably apparent evidence are excluded
O in the course of the by the court, the
examination of a offeror may have the
F witness that the same attached to or
question being made part of the
propounded are of record. If the evidence
the same class as excluded is oral, the
E those to which offeror may state for
objection has been the record the name
V made, whether such and other personal
objection was circumstances of the
I sustained or witness and the
overruled, it shall not substance of the
D be necessary to proposed testimony.
repeat the objection,
E it being sufficient for • Parties who offer
the adverse party to objections to
N record his continuing questions on
objection to such whatever ground
C class of questions. are entitled to a
ruling at the time
E Section 38 – RULING the objection is
The court shall The ruling of the made
consider no » Unless they
evidence which has court must be given
not immediately after present a
been formally the objection is question with
offered. The made, unless the regard to
purpose for which court desires to take which the
the evidence is a reasonable time to court desires
offered must be inform itself on the to inform itself
specified. question presented; before making
but the ruling shall a ruling
Section 35 - WHEN always be made
TO MAKE OFFER during the trial and Lopez vs.
As regards the at such time as will Valdez
testimony of a give the party (32 Phil
witness, the offer against whom it is 644)
must be made at made an opportunity If no ruling is
the time the to meet the situation made during the course
witness is called to presented by the of the trial, counsel
testify. ruling. would have no means of
Documentary and The reason for knowing whether or not
object evidence sustaining or he would be compelled
shall be offered overruling an to meet any evidence at
after the objection need not all, hence it would
presentation of a be stated. However, prejudice the substantial
party's testimonial if the objection is rights of his client
evidence. Such based on two or
more grounds, a People vs.
ruling sustaining the Singh (45
23
Also in People vs.
Jalosjos (2001) and objection on one or Phil 645)
People vs. Fruna (2002) some of them must The failure of the
specify the ground or court to make such
Section 36 – Objection to grounds relied upon. ruling should be brought
OBJECTION evidence offered to its attention, failing
azereth
page
Evidence
which the case cannot judge of first which may have been
Oliveros vs.
be reopened for a new instance, in the early marked as exhibits
Oliveros
trial on that ground stages of the during the hearing but
(106 Phil
development of the which were not
369)24
People proof, to know with formally offered in
The trial
vs. any certainty evidence cannot be
courts should permit
Tavera whether testimony is considered as
all exhibits
(47 Phil relevant or not; and evidence nor can they
presented by the
645) where there is no be given evidentiary
parties, although not
The reservation indication of bad value
admitted, to be
of a ruling made by faith on the part of
attached to the
the court on an the attorney offering People
records so that, in
objection to the the evidence, the vs.
case of appeal, the
admissibility of court may, as a rule, Mate
appellate court may
evidence, without safely accept the (1981
be able to examine
subsequently testimony upon the )
the same and
excluding the same, statement of the (Criminal case
determine the
amounts to a denial of attorney that the for kidnapping with
propriety of their
said objection proof offered will be murder) Even if there
rejection
connected later was no formal offer of
the exhibits but the
B
People vs. same have been duly
a
Diano (CA, identified by
ñ
66 OG testimony duly
e
6405) recorded and the
z
Evidence exhibits have been
v
submitted for one incorporated in the
s.
purpose may not be records of the case,
C
considered for any said exhibits are
A
other purpose admissible against the
(
accused
1
Sheraton-Palace
9
hotel vs. Quijano People
7
(CA, 64 OG 9118) vs.
4
A document or Jose
)
writing which is (1976)
Where
admitted not as 27
documentary Considering the

independent
evidence was gravity of the offenses
evidence but merely
rejected by the trial and in the interest of
as part of the
court and the offeror justice, the SC
testimony of a
did not move that allowed the
witness does not
the same be presentation and
constitute proof of
attached to the admitted the birth
the facts related
record, the same certificates of the
therein
cannot be accused to prove the
considered by the mitigating
• Identification of
appellate court circumstance of
documentary
evidence ≠ its minority although said
De birth certificates were
formal offer
Castro not presented or
» Identification
vs. CA offered in the trial
– made in the
(75 Phil courts
course of the trial
824)
▪ Evide
Documents • Section 37 –
nce
forming no part of party may just
identi
the of proofs before enter a general
fied
the appellate court and continuing
and
cannot be objection to the
mark
considered in same class of
ed as
disposing of the evidence the
exhibi
case. ruling of the
ts
may court shall be
• Otherwise, it applicable to all
be
would infringe such evidence of
withd
on the the same class
rawn
constitutional
befor
right of the Ed. A. Keller
e
adverse party & Co.
forma
to due process (Ltd.)
l offer
of law25 vs.
» Formal offer –
• The practice of Eller
when proponent
excluding man
rests his case
evidence on &
▪ Where
doubtful Buck
objection
objections nall
may be
should be Stea
made
avoided mshi
Vda de p Co.,
Prats & Co. vs. (Ltd.)
Flores
Phoenix Insurance (38
vs. WCC
Co. (52 Phil 807) Phil
(1977)26
In a case of 514)
Documents
any intricacy it is
People vs.
impossible for a
azereth
page
Evidence
Abalos Cruz (1971) review on
(CA, 58 25
Tinsay vs. Yusay (47 certiorari
OG 5446) Phil 639)
The courts
26
Also Republic vs. CA
should consider the and People vs. CA
evidence only for the (1982), cf. People vs.
purpose for which it Pecardal and Soliman
vs. Sandiganbayan
was offered
(1986)
24
Also Lamagan vs. Dela 27
Also Co vs. Ca (1980)
The court itself

P
may motu proprio
e
treat the objection as
o
a continuing one
pl
e
vs
.
B
a
n
d
e
An erroneous
rejection or
admission of
evidence by the trial
court is not a ground
for a new trial or
reversal of the
decision if there are
other independent
evidence to sustain
the decision, or if
the rejected
evidence, if it had
been admitted,
would not have
changed the decision
• Otherwise, a
new trial is
warranted by
reason of the
erroneous
ruling which
goes into the
merits of the
case and would
have affected
the decision28
Tinsay
vs.
Yusay
(47 Phil
639)
If the trial
court erroneously
ruled out the
evidence and
discovered such
error before the
judgment had 28
US vs. Villanueva (18
become final or Phil 639)
before an appeal
therefrom had been
perfected, it may re-
open the case
• Rulings of trial
court on
procedural
questions and
on admissibility
of evidence
during the
course of the
trial are
interlocutory in
nature and may
not be the
subject of
separate
appeals or
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
Weight and Sufficiency of People vs. Quilino (CA, 50 OG 68)

The failure of a party to present merely corroborative or
Evidence cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or
unfavorable presumption
Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
R
E
P
O
N
D
E
R
A
N
C
E
O
F
E
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
,
H
O
W
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
I
n
c
i
v
i
l
c
a
s
e
s
,
t
h
e
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
a d
r e
t n
y c
e
.
h
a
v I
i n
n
g
d
e
b t
u e
r r
d m
e i
n n
i
n
o
g
f
w
p
h
r
e
o
r
o
e
f
t
m
h
u
e
s
t
p
r
e
e
s
p
t
o
a
n
b
d
l
e
i
r
s
a
h
n
c
h e
i
s
o
r
c
a
s
s
u
e
p
e
b r
y i
o
r
a
w
p e
r i
e g
p h
o t
n
d
e o
r f
a
n
e
c
v
e
i
d
o e
f n
c
e
e
v
i o
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
n a
n
c
t
e
h
s
e
o
i
f
s
s
u t
e h
s e
i c
n a
v s
o e
l ,
v
e
t
d
h
e
l
i
w
e
i
s
t
,
n
e
t s
h s
e e
s
'
c
o
u m
r a
t n
n
e
m
r
a
y
o
f
c
o
n t
s e
i s
d t
e i
r f
y
i
a
n
l
g
l
,
t
t
h
h
e
e
i
f r
a
c
i
t
n
s
t
e
a l
n l
d i
g
e
c n
i c
r e
c ,
u
m
s t
t h
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
e
i
t
r
h
e
m
e
n
a
a
n
t
s
u
r
a e
n
d
o
f
o
p
t
p
h
o
e
r
t
u f
n a
i c
t t
y s
o t
f o
k w
n h
o i
w c
i h
n
g
t
h
t e
h y
e
t
f e
a s
c t
t i
s f
y
,
t
o
t
h
w
e
h
i
c p
h r
o
b
t
a
h
b
e
i
r
l
e
i
t
a y
r
e
o
r
t
e
i
s
m
t
p
i
r
f
o
y
b
i
a
n
b
g
i
,
l
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
i r
t s
y o
n
a
o
l
f
c
t
r
h
e
e
d
i
i
r
b
i
t l
e i
s t
t y
i
m
s
o
o
n
y
, f
a
r
t
h
e a
i s
r
t
i h
n e
t
e
s
r
a
e
m
s
e
t
m
o
a
r
y
w
l
a
e
n
g
t
i
t
o i
f m
a
t
i
e
n
l
t
y
e
r
e a
s p
t p
, e
a
r
a
n
d u
p
o
a
n
l
s
o t
h
e
t
h
e t
i r
r i
a
l
p
.
e
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
T i
h s
e
n
c o
o t
u
r
n
t
e
c
m e
a s
y s
a
r
a
i
l
l
s
y
o
w
c
i
o
t
n
h
s
i
d t
e h
r e
t g
h r
e e
a
t
n
e
u
r
m
b
e n
r u
m
b
o
e
f
r
.
w
i Section 2 - PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
t I
n n
e
s a
s
e
s c
, r
i
m
t i
h n
o a
u l
g
h
c
a
t s
h e
e ,
p t
r h
e e
p
o
n a
d c
e c
r u
a s
n e
c d
e
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
b
t
i
.
s
P
e
r
n
o
t
o
i
f
t
l
e b
d e
y
o
t
n
o
d
a
r
n
e
a
a s
c o
q n
u a
i b
t l
t e
a
l
d
,
o
u
u b
n t
l
e
d
s
o
s
e
s
h
i
n
s
o
t
g
u
m
i
e
l
a
t
n
i
s
s
u
c
s h
h
o
a
w
n
d
e
b
g
e
r
y
e
o
e
n
d
o
f
r
e
a p
s r
o o
n o
a f
b ,
l
e
e
x
d c
o l
u u
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
d
i
r
n
e
g
q
u
p i
o r
s e
s d
i ,
b
i
o
l
r
i
t
y t
h
a
o
t
f
d
e
e
r
g
r
r
o
e
r
e
,
o
p
f
r
o
d p
u r
c o
e o
s f
a w
b h
s i
o c
l h
u
t
e p
r
o
c d
e u
r c
t e
a s
i
n
l c
y o
. n
v
i
M c
o t
r i
a o
l n
c i
e n
r
t
a a
i n
n
l u
y n
p
o r
n e
l j
y u
d
i
i c
s e
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
d l
m a
i n
n d
d
.
c
r
• Sec
i
t
m
i
i
o
n
n
a
s
l
1
c
&
a
2
s
e
g s
i »
v L
e a
s
t
t
h
2
e
s
r e
u n
l t
e e
n
c
o e
n s
t o
h f
e
S
e
r c
e 1
q :
u
i f
s a
i c
t t
e o
r
s
q
u
w
a
h
n
i
t
c
u
h
m
t
o h
f e
c
e
o
v
u
i
r
d
t
e
n
m
c
a
e
y
i t
n a
k
e
c
i i
v n
i t
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
o m
u
c s
o t
n
s
b
i
e
d
e
r f
a r
t o
i m
o
n
a
i
n c
r
d e
e d
t i
e b
r l
m e
i
n
i s
n o
g u
r
t c
h e
e
a
w
n
e
d
i
g
h m
t u
s
t t
o
b
b
e
e
g c
i r
v e
e d
n i
b
i l
n e
t
e i
s n
t
i i
m t
o s
n e
i l
a f
l » It
s
e h
v a
i l
d l
e
n b
c e
e
• Evi n
d a
e t
n u
c r
e a
l
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
, n
r a
e c
a c
s o
o r
n d
a
b w
l i
e t
, h
a c
n o
d m
m
p o
r n
o
b k
a n
b o
l w
e l
e
a d
s g
e
t
o a
n
m d
a
k e
e x
p
i e
t r
i
e e
a n
s c
y e
t o
o f
b m
e a
l n
i k
e i
v n
e d
» To • Ge
b n
e e
r
b a
e l
l
i
r
e
u
v
l
e
e
d
:
,
i f
t i
n
s d
h i
o n
u g
l s
d
b o
e f
i j
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
u p
d p
g e
e a
l
,
w
h
o u
n
l
t
e
r
s
i
s
e
d
t
h
t
e
h
r
e
e
c
a
a
r
s
e
e
s
a
u
n
b
d
s
t
h a
e n
a t
r i
d a
l
t
h f
e a
c
t
w s
i
t
n a
e n
s d
s
e
c
s
i
r
a c
r u
e m
s
t
n a
o n
t c
e
t s
o
w
b h
e i
c
h
d
i
s h
t a
u v
r e
b
e b
d e
e
o n
n
o
a v
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
e e
r »
l I
o s
o s
k u
e e
d :
c
a
r
n
e
d
d
i
w b
h i
i l
c i
h t
, y
o
i f
f
t
p h
r e
o
p w
e i
r t
l n
y e
s
s
c
o -
n
s t
i r
d i
e a
r l
e
d c
, o
u
r
m
t
i
g
i
h
s
t
i
a n
f
f t
e h
c e
t
b
e
t
t
h
t
e
e
r
r
e p
s o
u s
l i
t t
i
o
o n
f
t
t o
h
e d
e
c
c i
a d
s
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
e p
l
t a
h i
e n
l
q y
u
e
o
s
v
t
e
i
r
o
l
n
o
,
o
k
h
e
a
d
v
i
n c
g e
r
h t
e a
a i
r n
d
a f
n a
d c
t
o s
b
s o
e f
r
v
e s
d u
b
t s
h t
e a
n
d c
e e
m
e
a
a
n
n
d
o
r
v
o a
f l
u
t e
h
e
w
h
w
i
i
c
t
h
n
,
e
s
s i
▪ U f
n
l
e c
s o
s n
s
i
i d
t e
r
e
h
d
a
,
s
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
m t
i n
g e
h s
t s
e
s
a
f
f a
e n
c d
t
a
t n
h o
e t
h
e
o
r
u
t
c j
o u
m d
e g
e
o
f p
e
n
t
n
h
e
e
d
c
t
a
h
s
e
e
▪ D
o d
e e
s c
i
s
n
i
o
o
t
n
a People vs. Magallanes (1968)

p T
p h
l e
y
m
a
i t
f t
e
o r
n
e o
f
j a
u s
d s
g i
e g
n
i
h
n
e
g
a
r
v
d
a
l
t u
h e
e s
t
w o
i
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
d j
e u
c d
l g
a e
r ,
a
t w
i h
o o
n ,
s
u
a n
t l
i
t k
h e
e
a
w p
i p
t e
n l
e l
s a
s t
e
s
t m
a a
n g
d i
s
i t
s r
a
b t
e e
s s
t ,
a c
n a
d n
m w
o e
s i
t g
h
c
o s
m u
p c
e h
t
e t
n e
t s
l t
y i
m
p o
e n
r y
f
o i
r n
m
e l
d i
g
b h
y t
a o
f
t
r t
i h
a e
l
d
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
e s
f
e o
n f
d
a t
n h
t e
’
s t
r
b i
e a
h l
a
v c
i o
o u
r r
, t
s
d
e c
m o
e m
a m
n a
o n
r d
,
g
c r
o e
n a
d t
u
c w
t e
i
a g
n h
d t
a a
t n
t d
i
t r
u e
d s
e p
e
a c
t t
t People vs. Enriquez (CA, 44 OG 3853)

h T
e h
e
t
r t
i r
a i
l a
, l
a c
n o
d u
r
t t
h
e s
h
c o
o u
n l
c d
l
u n
s o
i t
o
n d
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
i a
s l
c
r e
e x
d p
i r
t e
s
a s
i
w o
i n
t s
n
e a
s r
s e
b n
y o
t
t
h n
e e
c
s e
u s
p s
p a
o r
s i
e l
d y
e i
x n
p d
r i
e c
s a
s t
i i
o v
n e
o o
f f
l o
a n
c e
k ’
s
o
f f
e
s e
i l
n i
c n
e g
r s
i .
t
y T
h
i e
n
t
h r
i i
s a
l
f
a c
c o
e u
. r
t
F
a s
c h
i o
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
u l
l a
d i
n
h
a w
v h
e y
m h
a e
d
e w
a
i s
t
s
a h
p o
p w
e i
a n
r g
i s
n u
c
t h
h
e a
n
r
e e
c x
o p
r r
d e
s
a s
n i
d o
n
a
l o
l n
o
w h
e i
d s
t f
h a
e c
e
w
i Caluna vs. Vicente (1951)
t A
n s
e
s a
s
g
t e
h n
e e
r
o a
p l
p
o r
r u
t l
u e
n ,
i
t t
y h
e
t
o n
u
e m
x b
p e
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
r c
a
o s
f e
w o
i f
t
n c
e o
s n
s f
e l
s i
c
s t
h i
o n
u g
l
d t
e
n s
o t
t i
m
i o
n n
i
a e
n s
d
o
b f
y
w
i i
t t
s n
e e
l s
f s
e
d s
e ,
t
e t
r h
m e
i
n n
e u
m
t e
h r
e i
c
w a
e l
i
g f
h a
t c
t
o o
f r
e m
v a
i y
d
e b
n e
c
e g
, i
v
b e
u n
t
c
i e
n r
t
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
a
People vs. sufficient
i
Watin (CA, number to
n
67 OG prove the
5899) commission
w
When the of the crime
e
witnesses on both sides • Inconsistencies
i
are equally interested on mere details –
g
or otherwise biased, do not impair the
h
especially if there is no credibility of the
t
numerical witness
People either statement as » Actually indicate
preponderance on
vs. proof. The witness by veracity rather than
either side, bias ceases
Rivera his own act of giving prevarication
to be a consideration in
(CA, 58 false testimony determining where the » Perfect
OG 68) impeaches his own weight of evidence dovetailing
By credibility of testimony and the court rests. Credit should be of witnesses
a witness is meant his should exclude it from given to the one whose testimonies
integrity, disposition all consideration demeanor and manner can
and intention to tell of testifying convinces generate
the truth in the People vs. suspicion –
the court of his veracity
testimony he has Reyes prefabricate
given as distinguished (CA, 50 • Testimony of d story
from the credibility of OG 665) interested witness • Falsus in uno,
his testimony It has been said – not necessarily falsus in omnibus
that “perhaps the most biased or self- – deals only with
El Beaterio del Santissimo subtle and prolific of all serving eight of
Rosario de Molo fallacies of testimony » But may affect evidence and is
(1968) arises out of their credibility not a positive
To hold that a unconscious rule of law and
particular person is partisanship. Upon the Peopl the rule is not an
competent to testify happening of an e vs. inflexible one of
upon a given matter accident, the occasional Aquin universal
does not mean that passengers on board of o application
his testimony thereon a streetcar are very apt (1974 » Modern trend –
must be believed by to side with the ) testimony
the court or must be employees in charge of While the of a witness
deemed by it to be of the car (citing Wellman, testimony of a co- may be
sufficient probative The Art of Cross- conspirator or an believed in
value to establish the Examination) accomplice is part and
point which it was admissible, such disbelieved
intended to prove. People vs. testimony comes from in part
Competency of a Juarez (CA, a polluted source and ▪ Depen
witness is one thing, 57 OG must be scrutinized ding
and it is another to be 2518) with great caution as it upon
credible witness. The fact that a is subject to grave the
Courts allow a person person has reached the suspicion corrob
to testify as a witness “twilight of his life” is orative
upon a given matter not always a guaranty • Testimony of a eviden
because he is that he would tell the single witness ce and
competent but may truth. It is also quite may support a the
thereafter decide common that advanced conviction – if probab
whether to believe or age makes a person trustworthy and ilities
not to believe his mentally dull and reliable and
testimony completely hazy about » And clear and improb
things which have convincing abilitie
US vs. happened to him and, • Testimony of s of
Macut at times, it weakens offended party – the
i (26 the resistance to not essential to case
Phil outside influence ▪ Does not
convict accused if
170) apply
there are already
It is a well- US vs. where:
other evidence to
settled doctrine that Laban 1. T
prove the guilt of
the demeanor, the (21 h
the accused
emphasis, gestures Phil e
» Prosecution not
and inflection of the 297) c
obliged to
voice of a witness, The record of a h
present each
while testifying, are PI constitutes no part al
and every
potent aids in the of the final proceedings le
person who
proper evaluation of in a cause, unless it is n
witnesses the
his credibility presented in evidence, g
occurrence
and the facts adduced e
but only a
Mond therein are evidence d
rago only for the purpose of te
n vs. testing the credibility of st
CA the witnesses i
(197 m
4) • Bias – that which o
When a witness excites the n
makes two sworn disposition to see y
statements and these and report is
two statements incur matters as they s
in the gravest are wished for uf
contradictions, the rather than as fi
court cannot accept they are ci
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
entl witness without any fear of reprisal administerin
y explanation given » Or intense g officer
corr why he was not so grief and the
obor produced, weakens • Relationship of affiant
ated the testimony of the witness to the simply signs
on witness who named victim – does after the
man the corroborating not impair his same have
y witness in his clear and been read
gro testimony positive to him
und testimony nor » Discrepancies
s • Rape cases: give it lesser between the
2. The corroborative credit affidavit
falsi statements not » Unless there and the
ty required is a showing of open court
con » But testimony improper motive statement
sists should be ▪ Do not
of exercised Tunala vs. discred
mist with Diola (CA, it the
ake greatest 62 OG witnes
s on care 4946) s
poin Where a party becaus
ts Garcia resorts to falsehood e ex
that vs. to advance his suit, parte
are Garcia it is presumed that affidav
not (63 Phil he knows perfectly its are
mat 419) well that his cause is genera
erial The testimony groundless, and this lly
3. Suc of persons presumption affects incomp
h accidentally present the whole mass of lete for
mist at the time of the evidence presented want
ake execution of the will, by such party of
s do but who have sugges
not nothing to do with • Affidavits – tion
aris the transaction, is generally and
e not as weighty as subordinated in inquiri
fro that of the importance to es
m subscribing witness open court ▪ Does
the declarations not
app • Affirmative » Often apply
aren testimony – executed where
t stronger than when the the
desi negative testimony affiant is self-
re » Greater at a high contra
to weight pitch of diction
perv must be excitement or
ert given to » Not complete inconsi
the the reproducti stencie
trut positive ons of s are
h testimony what the on
but of the declarant very
fro witness have in materi
m than to mind al and
inno the denial because substa
cent of the they are ntial
laps defendant generally matter
es • Conflict in the prepared s
and testimony of 2 by the
the witnesses –
» Only prima ▪ May be
desi may be due to
facie proved by
re difference in
evidence of a number
of observation or
weak of
the memory
probative indefinite
witn » Does not
force and acts,
ess necessarily imply
should be conditions
to falsehood
received with and
exc • Delay of the
caution circumsta
ulpa witness in
• Conspiracy – need nces
te revealing to the
not establish that • Qualifying and
him authorities
all parties agreed aggravating
self what he knows
to every detail circumstances –
but of the crime –
» Enough that must be proved in
not does not render
it may be an evident and
com his testimony
reasonably incontestable
plet false
deduced that manner
ely » Attributed
they had a » As conclusively
to natural
common plan as the crime itself
People reticence
to commit • Self-defense – one
vs. and
the felony who sets up must
Abonales abhorrenc
» But must be rely on the strength
(106 Phil e to get
proven beyond of his own evidence
190) involved in
reasonable doubt and not on the
The non- a criminal
» Need not be weakness of the
production of a case
established by prosecution
corroborative » Or inherent
direct evidence » Quantum: clear
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
and convincing d by OCEAN ed that crime and
evidence possession he acted the
• Alibi – one of the ▪ But not in the identificat
weakest defenses conclusiv defense ion
» May be e of a 6. Suggestiv
considered evidence stranger eness of
only when of 7. Where the
established ownershi the identificati
by positive, p evidence on
clear and » Non-payment – is procedure
satisfactory indicative of circumst
evidence the fact that antial
» Must be claimant and
physically does not inconclu
impossible believe sive
for the himself to be 8. Where
accused to the owner of malice is
be at the the property an
scene of the • Motive of the element
crime at the accused in a of the
time of the criminal case – offense
commission immaterial » Mere proof of
» Strong defense » But necessary in motive, no
when there the following matter how
is no instances: strong,
positive and 1. Where cannot
proper identity sustain a
identificatio of the conviction if
n of the assailant there is no
accused as is in other
the author question evidence
of the 2. To establishing
offense determi the guilt of
» When set up, ne the the accused
the court voluntar » Evidence is
should not iness of weak,
at once the without any
have a criminal motive –
mental act or reasonable
prejudice the doubt
against him sanity of • “Totality of
the circumstance” test
People accused – used for the
vs. 3. To admissibility and
Aquiedo determi reliability of out-
(108 Phil ne from of-court
186) which identification of
Where one side the suspects
accused withdraws his unlawful » Factors:
appeal after realizing aggressi 1. Witness’
the futility of his on opportu
defense, and the commen nity to
other escapes from ced view the
confinement thereby (self- criminal
causing the dismissal defense at the
of his appeal, said ) time of
acts are unmistakable 4. To the
signs of guilt determi crime
ne the 2. Witness’
• Flight – evidence specific degree
of guilt and a nature of
guilty conscience of the attention
» “The wicked crime at the
flee even committ time
when no ed 3. Accurac
man (murder y of any
pursueth, or prior
whereas the homicid descripti
righteous e) on given
are as brave 5. To by the
as a lion” determi witness
» Non-flight – not ne 4. Level of
an indication of whether certainty
innocence the demonst
• Payment of taxes shooting rated by
» Continuous was the
payment – intentio witness
evidence of nal or at the
great accident identific
weight in al ation
favor of 6. Where 5. Length
ownership, the of time
especially if accused between
accompanie contend the
azereth
page
Index
Evidence
• Res ipsa formi • A mere 111)
loquitur – the ng voluntary When the
fact of the the extrajudicial complex crime of
occurrence of basis confession robbery with homicide
an injury, of uncorroborated is charged and the
taken with the the by independent extrajudicial
surrounding crimi proof of corpus confession of the
circumstances nal delicti is not accused of the entire
, may permit charg sufficient to charge is corroborated
an inference e sustain a by corpus delicti of
or raise a Existence judgment of homicide alone, the
presumption of a conviction entire confession is
of negligence crimi » Evidence may admissible although
or make out a nal be there is no
plaintiff’s agen circumstan independent evidence
prima facie cy as tial but it of the robbery
case and the must
present a cause substantia Section 4 -
question of of te the CIRCUMSTANTIAL
fact for the the confession EVIDENCE, WHEN
defendant to act or » But corpus SUFFICIENT
meet with an result delicti is Circumstantial
explanation » Identity of the not evidence is sufficient
» Doctrine is accused not a synonymo for conviction if:
merely necessary element us with a. There is more
evidentia » Literally means the whole than one
ry or “body of the crime” charge circumstances;
procedur » Proved when ▪ Need b. The facts from
al in the not which the
nature evidence requi inferences are
▪ Doe on record re derived are
s shows that that proven; and
not the crime all c. The
disp prosecute the combination of
ens d had elem all the
e been ents circumstances
with committed of the is such as to
the • Theft: corpus crime produce a
req delicti – be conviction
uire 1. Property was estab beyond
men lost by the lished reasonable
t of owner indep doubt.
pro 2. It was lost by ende
of felonious ntly People vs. Tan-
of taking ▪ Were Choco; People vs.
negl » Crime may be it Jara (1986)
igen establishe requir In order to
ce d without ed convict a person
recovery that, accused of a crime on
Section 3 - of the indep the strength of
EXTRAJUDICIAL property ende circumstantial
CONFESSION, • Illegal possession nt of evidence alone, it is
NOT SUFFICIENT of firearms the incumbent upon the
GROUND FOR 1. Existence of confe prosecution to present
CONVICTION the firearm ssion, such circumstantial
An extrajudicial 2. It has evide evidence which will
confession made actually nce and must necessarily
by an accused, been held be lead to the conclusion
shall not be with adduc that the accused is
sufficient ground animus ed guilty of the crime
for conviction, possidendi suffici charged beyond
unless by the ent in reasonable doubt,
corroborated by accused itself excluding all and each
evidence of without to and every reasonable
corpus delicti. the convi hypothesis consistent
correspon ct, with his innocence
• Corpus delicti ding the
– actual license utility • Circumstantial
commission • Murder: corpus of a evidence is
by someone delicti is the fact of confe sufficient for
of the death ssion conviction in
particular » Where there as a capital offenses
crime charged is doubt as speci
» Common fact to the es of
made up of 2 identity of proof
things: the would
Existence cadaver, be
of a in the illuso
cert absence of ry
ain any other
act evidence, People
or there is no vs.
resu corpus Sasota
lt delicti (91 Phil
azereth
page
» Except when law specifies the quantum of evidence,
such as in treason
» Falsification, bigamy and libel - circumstantial
evidence not sufficient to sustain a conviction
▪ Documents involved must be presented
▪ Bigamy: direct evidence of first marriage is
necessary
 Reputation or cohabitation merely
corroborative
 Same as in adultery, parricide or other
cases where issue of marriage is primarily
involved
• Prior and coetaneous, as well as subsequent, acts of the
accused are circumstantial evidence of guilt
• While motive of the accused is generally immaterial not
being an element of the crime, such motive becomes
important when the evidence of the crime is purely
circumstantial
People vs. Turtoga (2002)

The fact that the accused was in dire need of money and
the victim scolded him for soliciting a loan from her, robbery
as the motive explains the killing
Section 5 - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Biak-na-Bato Mining Co. vs. Tanco (1991)

Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean
preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases, but
such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion
• Or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent

men in the conduct of their affairs
Section 6 - POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER

EVIDENCE
The court may stop the introduction of further
testimony upon any particular point when the evidence
upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the
same point cannot be reasonably expected to be
additionally persuasive. But this power should be
exercised with caution.
Guinea vs. Vda. De Ramonal (1975)

The court has the power to stop the introduction of
testimony which will merely be cumulative
Section 7 - EVIDENCE ON MOTION

When a motion is based on facts not appearing of
record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the respective parties, but the
court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or
partly on oral testimony or depositions.
Sapida vs. De Villanueva (1972)

While the court may hear and rule upon motions solely
on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits, if the affidavits
contradict each other on matters of fact, the court can have
no basis to make its findings of fact and the prudent course is
to subject the affiants to cross-examination so that the court
can decide whom to believe

Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary Considerations

Preliminary Considerations  Materiality of evidence is determined by

Section 4 – JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Admissibility of Evidence a. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or

CONTROL admissibility must ss of the

a Applies only documents that Applies to all kinds of writings

p Can be invoked only when Can be invoked by any party

Made by the party himself, Must have been made by the

Can be made anytime Made ante litem motam

• 1st exception to Section 28

Rule 133, Section 3 - EXTRAJUDICIAL

• Requisites for admissibility

People vs. Garcia (101 Phil 615)

• Indicia of voluntariness of confession

Section 20, Article IV, 1973 Constitution

• If confession obtained before effectivity of 1973

• Not covered by hearsay rule - where the statements or

People vs. Arguel (1980)

6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

Section 37 – DYING DECLARATION

• Dying declaration – antemortem statement or statement

 Expert evidence on handwriting is at best, weak and

Cirujano vs. PNB (CA, 59 OG 8404)

 Diphenaline or Paraffin Test – proved to be extremely

People vs. Mendoza (1989)

People vs. Castillon III (2001)

 Results of blood grouping tests on the filiation of a

Bryan vs. Eastern & Australian S.S. Co.,

Section 51 - CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT GENERALLY

Summary of the rules on character evidence:

Presentation of Evidence b. Refers to his previous final conviction or

E Section 37 - WHEN Section 40 - TENDER

documentary Considering the

The court itself

Weight and Sufficiency of People vs. Quilino (CA, 50 OG 68)

Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

a People vs. Magallanes (1968)

t People vs. Enriquez (CA, 44 OG 3853)

People vs. Turtoga (2002)

Section 5 - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Biak-na-Bato Mining Co. vs. Tanco (1991)

• Or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent

Section 6 - POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER

Guinea vs. Vda. De Ramonal (1975)

Section 7 - EVIDENCE ON MOTION

Sapida vs. De Villanueva (1972)

You might also like