ASSIGNMENT FOR DAY ONE

1.

2.

Scope of the Rules on Evidence

Explain the concept of evidence

Section 2. Scope.

Section 1. Evidence defined.

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

The rules of evidence in the Rules of Court are guided by the

Principle of Uniformity. As a general policy, the rules of evidence
shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings.

Component Elements
1.

The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.

Evidence as a means of ascertainment evidence may refer to the

evidentiary fact or the manner of bringing this fact forward before the
tribunal, or both.

2.

Sanctioned by these rules NOT excluded but must be allowed by the

Rules of Court or by the law

3.

In a Judicial Proceeding contemplates action of proceeding filed in a

court of law; NOT a mere dispute between two contending parties.

4.

The Truth respecting a matter of fact refers to an issue of fact and is

both:
a.

Substantive determines the facts to be established; and

b.

Procedural governs the manner of proving said facts.

(HERRERA, Remedial Law, Vol. V.
1999)

Significantly, Section 4 of Rule 1 provides for the non-applicability

of the Rules of Court, including necessarily the rules of evidence, to
certain specified proceedings. The provision declares that the rules
shall NOT apply to: (NICOLE)
1.

Naturalization cases

2.

Insolvency proceedings

3.

Cadastral proceedings

4.

Other cases not herein provided for

5.

Land registration cases

6.

Election cases

Purpose of Evidence
The purpose of evidence under the Rules of Court is to ascertain the truth
respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding. The truth must have to be
determined by the rules for admissibility and proof. (Lagon v. Hooven
Industries, Inc. 349 SCRA 363)

EXCEPT by:

Analogy

In a suppletory character

Whenever practicable and convenient

NOTE: An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses
occasioned by an injury is NOT admissible as proof of criminal or civil liability
for the injury. (Sec, 27, Rule 130)
4.

3.

Distinctions between the Rules of Evidence in Civil cases versus

Evidence in Criminal Cases
In Civil Cases

In Criminal Cases

Quantum of
Evidence

Preponderance of
evidence

Proof beyond reasonable

doubt

Offer of
Compromise

NOT an admission of any

liability

May be received in evidence

as an implied admission of
guilt
EXCEPTIONS:
Quasi-offenses or
those allowed by
law to be
compromised
Payment of any
internal revenue
tax and all criminal
violations may be
compromised,
EXCEPT those
already filed in
court and those
involving fraud (Sec
204, RA 8424)
Rape cases,
through marriage
(Art. 344, RPC)
A plea of guilty later
withdrawn or an unaccepted
offer of a plea of guilty to a
lesser offense, is NOT
admissible in evidence
against the accused who
made the plea of offer (Sec.
27, Rule 130)
A constitutional guarantee
on the accused (Sec 14, Art
3)

Presumption
of Innocence

DOES NOT APPLY

Proof versus Evidence

Proof the result or effect of evidence.

Evidence the mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial
proceedings.
Proof is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is
merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of
the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence. (29 AM Jurisprudence
2d, Evidence, Section 2)
5.

Factus Probans versus Factus Probandum

Evidence signifies a relationship between two facts, namely:

a. Factum Probandum - The Fact or proposition to be established , and
b. Factum Probans the facts or material evidencing the fact to be
established.
Factum Probans
Facts or material evidencing the
proposition
The evidentiary fact tending to prove
the fact in issue
6.

Factum Probandum
The proposition to be established
The ultimate fact sought to be
established

Admissibility of Evidence
a. Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence.

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by
the law of these rules.

Evidence is admissible when it is:

1.

Relevant to the issue; and

2.

Competent not excluded by the law or the ROC.

Admissibility is determined at the time the evidence is offered to

the court.

Such evidence may be received, on condition that the other facts will be
proved thereafter,
Otherwise, the evidence already given shall be stricken out.
e.

b.

Relevance of Evidence and Colalteral matters. Give example.

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters.

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

Relevancy

Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to

induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

Determinable by the rules of logic and human experience.

Collateral matters

Matters other than the fact in issue which are offered as a basis for
inference
as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.
General Rule: Evidence on collateral matters is NOT allowed.
Exception: When it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

What is prohibited by the Rules is not evidence of all collateral matters,

but evidence of IRRELEVANT collateral matters. (Regalado)
c.

What does Multiple Admissibility mean?

What is Curative Admissibility?

Where the court has admitted incompetent evidence adduced by the adverse
party, a party has a right to introduce the same kind of evidence in his/her
behalf.
What determines the rule of curative admissibility:
(1) Whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to - Lack of
objection to incompetent evidence constitutes waiver on the part of the
party against whom it was introduced but the opposing party is not
deprived of his right to similar rebutting evidence; and
(2) Whether the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and unfair
prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted
f.
Direct and Circumstantial evidence
Direct evidence

proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or

presumption

proves a fact without need to make an inference from another fact

Circumstancial evidence

Proof of a fact/s from which, taken either singly or collectively, the

existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
necessary or probable consequence.

Or Indirect Evidence; that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in

issue through an inference which the fact frinder fraws from the
evidence established.
g.

Positive and Negative evidence

Positive Evidence

Witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur

E.g., He is a drug-addict; He is not a drug-addict

Doctrine of Multiple Admissibility

Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes,
such evidence shall be admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is
offered,
provided it satisfies all the requisites of law for its admissibility therefor.

Negative Evidence

Witness states that he/she did not see or know of the occurrence of a
fact

E.g., I dont know if hes a drug-addict

Depending on circumstances, the declaration of a dying person may be

admitted for several purposes. It may be offered as a dying declaration, as
part of res getae or as a declaration against interest.

A denial is a negative evidence. It is considered by the Court to be a very

weak form of defense and can never overcome an affirmative or positive
testimony particularly when the latter comes from the mouth of a credible
witness. (People v. Mendoza, 450 SCRA 328)

d.

What is Conditional Admissibility?

Doctrine of Conditional Admissibility

Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or
irrelevant
Unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved,

Positive Evidence is, as a general rule, more credible than Negative Evidence.
The reason for this rule, is that the witness who testifies to a negative may
have forgotten what actually occurred while it is impossible to remember what
never existed. (Gomez v. Gomez-Samson, 514 SCRA 475)
h. Competence (Competent) and Credible evidence

Competence

Eligibility of evidence to be received as such

Competent Evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case. It
is not excluded by the Rules on Evidence, the law and the Constitution.
Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to the eligibility of an
evidence to be received as such.
However, when applied to a witness, the term competent refers to the
qualifications of the witness.
In other words, Competence refers to his eligibility to take the stand and
testify.
Test of Relevance logic, common sense and human experience
Test of Competence law or the rules
If the law or a particular rule excludes the evidence, it is INCOMPETENT.
Competence is primarily therefore a matter of law or a matter of rule.
Credibility

Worthiness of belief; believability

The competency of a witness differs from his credibility.
A witness may be competent, and yet give incredible testimony; he many be
incompetent, and yet his evidence, if received, is perfectly credible.
The term credibility refers to worthiness of belief, that quality which renders
a witness worthy of belief.
Admissible evidence is not necessarily credible evidence.
The term admissible means that the evidence is of such character that the
Court, pursuant to the rules of evidece, is bound to receive it or to allow it to
be introduced at the trial.
Admissibility, however, does not guarantee credibility.

ASSIGNMENT FOR DAY TWO

1. Distinguish Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence
BURDEN OF PROOF
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his/her claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law. [Sec. 1, Rule 131]
In civil cases, the quantum of evidence required to sustain the proponent of
an issue is preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof is on the party
who would be defeated if no evidence were given in either side, the plaintiff
with respect to his complaint, the defendant with respect to his counterclaim,
and the cross-claimant, with respect to his cross-claim.
In criminal cases:

For the issuance of warrant of arrest - evidence of probable cause

that there exist a reasonable ground that the accused has committed
an offense [Algas v. Garrido, A.M. No. 289-MJ, November 15, 1974]

To warrant the filing of an information - prima facie evidence

To sustain a conviction - evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which

courts are permitted to draw from proof of other facts
Is NOT an evidence. They merely affect the burden of offering
evidence.
Kinds of Presumptions
1. Presumption of Law or Presumption Juris
An assumption which the law requires to be made from a set
of facts.
2. Presumption of Fact or Presumption Hominis
When the assumption is made from the facts without any
direction or positive requirement of a law
b.

Conclusive Presumption
Inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow
them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong
A presumption is conclusive when the presumption becomes
irrebuttable upon the presentation of the evidence and any evidence
tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible.

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution.

BURDEN FOF EVIDENCE
A party will have the burden of evidence only (i.e., will have to be a
proponent) if there is any factum probandum (whether evidentiary or
otherwise) that the adverse party has already established (whether by law,
rule, or by virtue of evidence that he has presented) that he (the potential
proponent) has to overcome. That factum probandum may, but does not
have to be, nor is limited to a "prima facie presumption." Likewise, a party
will not have any burden of evidence at all if the adverse party has not
established any factum probandum in the first place (Prof. Avena).
In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of evidence lies with the
party who asserts an affirmative allegation. [Regalado]

c.

a.

Define Presumptions

PRESUMPTION
Is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires
such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or
otherwise established in the action.

What are the Conclusive Presumptions

Section 2. Conclusive presumptions.

The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:

Equipoise Rule or Equiponderance Doctrine

The doctrine refers to the situation where the evidence of the parties are
evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates.
In this case, the decision should be against the party with the burden of
proof. [Rivera v. CA, GR No. 115625, Jan. 23, 1998; Marubeni v. Lirag, GR No.
130998, Aug. 10, 2001]
In criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that where the evidence is
evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales
in favor of the accused. [Malana v. People, G.R. No. 173612, August 27,
2008]

What is Conclusive Presumption

a.

Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,

intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify
it:

b.

The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the
time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them.

Conclusive Presumptions under the Rules [Sec. 2, Rule 131]:

1.

A party is not permitted falsify a thing if:

a. By his own declaration, act or omission;
b. He intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a
particular thing is true;
c. To act upon such belief; and
d. The litigation arises out of such declaration act or omission.

2.

A tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
These conclusive presumptions are based upon the doctrine of estoppel in
pais under the Civil Code. [Regalado]
d.

What is Disputable Presumption?

Disputable Presumption
A presumption is disputble or rebuttable if it may be contradicted or
overcome by other evidence
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

15. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed
upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
16. That private transactions have been fair and regular;
17. That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
18. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
19. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;

1.

That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

20. That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was
overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;

2.

That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;

21. That a writing is truly dated;

3.

That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;

22. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;

4.

That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;

23. That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still
lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.

5.

That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;

6.

That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;

7.

That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;

8.

That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;

9.

That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is
produced;

10. That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is
the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
11. That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the
delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
12. That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
13. That official duty has been regularly performed;
14. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting
in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;

The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after
an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of
five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
i.

A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing,
who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;

ii.

A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been
missing for four years;

iii.

A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for four years;

iv.

If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present
may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the
absent spouse is already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of
death the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall
be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any
case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a summary
proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance
of the absent spouse.

24.

That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to
the law or fact;

25. That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
nature habits of life;

36. That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity,
such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined
from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to
the following rules:

26. That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
27. That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage;
28.

That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other
and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry.

29. That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including
joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.
30. That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within
three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall
govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
i.

ii.

A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the
termination of the former marriage.
A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the
termination of the former marriage.

31. That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature;
32. That the law has been obeyed;
33. That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public
authority, was so printed or published;
34. That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such
cases;
35. That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular
person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the
title of such person or his successor in interest;

i.

If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have
survived;

ii.

If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;

iii.

If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have
survived;

iv.

If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is
deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;

v.

If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the
latter is deemed to have survived.

37. That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each
other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other,
shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the
same time. (5a)

2.

What is a Liberal Construction of the Rules of Evidence?

Like all other provisions under the Rules of court, rules of evidence
must be liberally construed.
Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to
frustrate substantial justice.
However, to justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation
and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have always been
required.

3.

Quantum of Evidence (weight and sufficiency of evidence)

a. When Proof beyond reasonable doubt required?

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

Applicable quantum of evidence in criminal cases. The accused is

entitled to an acquittal if his guilt is not shown beyond reasonable
doubt.
It does not mean such a degree of proof excluding possibility of
error and producing absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is
required that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. [Sec. 2, Rule 133]
The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, NOT on the accused to prove his/her innocence.
The prosecution must not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the
defense.
b.

What is Preponderance of Evidence?

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.

Degree of evidence required in cases filed before administrative or

quasi-judicial bodies.
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
d.

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.

In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may
consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of
testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts
to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may
legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater
number.
-

Applicable quantum of evidence in civil cases

Means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior
to or has greater weigh than that of the other.

In determining preponderance of evidence, the court may consider:

1. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
2. The witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means
and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they testify, the nature
of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of
their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon
the trial;
3. Number of witnesses (although preponderance is not necessarily with
the number of witnesses).
c.

What is Substantial evidence?

What is Clear and Convincing evidence? When is it required?

The standard of proof required in granting or denying bail in

extradition cases is clear and convining evidence that the potential
extradee is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and
process of the extradition court. [Government of Hongkong Special
Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007]

Intermediate in character lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt, but

higher than preponderance of evidence

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS under RULE 133 Weight and Sufficiency of

Evidence

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.

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

a.

There is more than one circumstances;

b.

The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

c.

The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a

conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

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.

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.

ASSIGNMENT FOR DAY THREE

1.

Distinguish judicial notice and judicial admissions

Judicial Notice
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take
and act on without proof because these facts are already known to them. Put
differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact without need of further
traditional evidentiary support. The principle is based on convenience and
expediency in securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not
ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed.
WHAT
a.
b.
c.

a. When need not be proved

NEED NOT BE PROVED
Facts of Judicial Notice
Judicial Admissions
Conclusive Presumptions
b.

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.

A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or
are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.

Discretionary
1. Matters of public knowledge;
2. Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration; and
3. Matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions.

What are matters of judicial notice?

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and
maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and
history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
the geographical divisions.

Mandatory
1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
2. Their political history, forms of government, and symbols of
nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
6. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of
the Philippines;
7. LaWs of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions. [Sec. 1, Rule 129]
Note: It would be error for the court not to take judicial notice of an
amendment to the Rules of Court [Riano citing Siena Realty v. Gal-lang (428
SCRA 422)]

Requisites:
For the court to take judicial notice, three material requisites should be
present:
1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain;
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
court. [State Prosecutors v, Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876,
September 19, 1994]
Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of
the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not
authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or
professionally known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken
only of those matters which are "commonly" known. [State Prosecutors
v, Muro (supra)]

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary.

During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own
initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and
allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
issue in the case.

When Hearing Necessary

During the trial
The court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce
its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to
be heard thereon.
After the trial
Before judgment or on appeal
The proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if
such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. [Sec. 3, Rule 129]
With Respect to Courts Own Acts and Records
A court MAY take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same
case, of facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the
authenticity of its own records of another case between the same
parties, of the files of related cases in the same court, and of public
records on file in the same court. [Republic v Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
119288, August 18, 1997]
With Respect to Records of Other Cases
General Rule: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the
contents or records of other cases even if both cases may have been tried or
are pending before the same judge. [Prieto v. Arroyo (G.R. No. L-17885 June
30, 1965)]
Exceptions: In the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to
all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a
case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it,
when:
1. With the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it
for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by
which it is sufficiently designated; or
2. The original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually
withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction, at the request
or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the
record of the case then pending.
With Respect to Ordinances
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial notice of the ordinances of
the municipality or city wherein they sit.
Regional Trial Courts must take judicial notice of such ordinances only:
1. When required to do so by statute e.g. in Manila as required by the
city charter [City of Manila v. Garcia, et al., L-26053, February 21,
1967]; and
2. In a case on appeal before them and wherein the inferior court took
judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case. [U.S. v. Blanco,
37 Phil. 126; U.S. v. Hernandez, 31 Phil. 342]

Note: The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be

judicially known is that of notoriety. It is either
1. generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
2. capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable. [Riano]
c.

What are judicial admissions

Section 4. Judicial admissions.

An admission, verbal or written, made by the 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 or
that no such admission was made.

To be a
1.
2.
3.

judicial admission, the same:

Must be made by a party to the case;
Must be made in the course of the proceedings in the same case; and
May be verbal or written.

Note: As regards judicial admissions made in the trial of another case, the
same would be considered an extrajudicial admission for the purpose of the
other proceeding where such admission is offered. [Riano]
Judicial admissions may be
(1) Made in:
(a) Pleadings filed by the parties (including admissions made in
pleadings which are withdrawn/superseded by an amended
pleading [Regalado])
(b) Stipulations of facts by the parties in a pre-trial conference
(c) The course of the trial either by verbal or written
manifestations/stipulations
(d) Other stages of judicial proceedings
(2) Obtained through:
(a) Depositions
(b) Written interrogatories
(c) Request for admissions
There are averments made in pleadings which are not deemed admissions
even if the adverse party fails to make a specific denial of the same like
immaterial allegations (Sec. 11, Rule 8), conclusions, non-ultimate facts in the
pleading (Sec. 1, Rule 8) as well as the amount of liquidated damages (Sec.
11, Rule 8). [Riano]

Although an admission made during the pre-trial is deemed to have been

made in the course of the judicial proceeding and is necessarily a judicial
admission, an admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a criminal
case is not necessarily admissible against him. To be admissible, it must
comply with the conditions set forth under Sec. 2, Rule 118:
(1) Reduced in writing, and
(2) Signed by the accused and counsel. [Riano]
i.

Effect of judicial admissions

It does NOT require proof. [Sec. 4, Rule 129]

General rule: Judicial admissions CANNOT be contradicted. [Sec. 4, Rule
129]
An original complaint, after being amended, loses its character as a judicial
admission, which would have required no proof. It becomes merely an extrajudicial admission requiring a formal offer to be admissible. [Torres v CA, G.R.
No. L-37420, July 31, 1984].
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact as judicial
admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with.
[Alfelor v Halasan, G.R. No. 165987 March 31, 2006]
d.

How admissions may be contradicted

How judicial admissions may be contradicted

As an exception to the general rule, judicial admissions may be contradicted
only by showing that:
1. It was made through palpable mistake; or
2. No such admission was made.
This may be invoked when the statement of a party is taken out of context or
that his statement was made not in the sense it is made to appear by the
other party.
e.

Rules on judicial notice of foreign laws, law of nations and

municipal ordinance

Foreign Laws
General Rule: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. They
must be alleged and proved as any other fact. [Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales,
G.R. No. L-55960, Nov. 24, 1988]
Law of Nations
The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land. [Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Constitution]
Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore in the nature of local laws,
and hence, subject to mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1 of Rule 129.
Municipal Ordinances
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial notice of the ordinances of
the municipality or city wherein they sit.
However, in the case of the RTC, they must take such judicial notice only
(a) when required to do so by statute;

All courts sitting in the City of Manila shall take judicial notice of the
ordinances by the Municipal Board. [Sec. 50, RA 409 Revised
Charter of the City of Manila]
(b) in a case of appeal before them wherein the inferior court took judicial
notice of an ordinance involved in said case
Written foreign law may be proved by:
1. An official publication; or
2. A duly attested and authenticated copy.
Attested copy
1. Attestation must be made by the officer having legal custody of
the record or by his deputy. (Sec. 24, Rule 132)
2. It must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof (Sec. 25, Rule 132)
3. It must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there
be any, or if he be a clerk of court having a seal, under the seal
of such court. (Sec. 25, Rule 132)
4. It must be accompanied by a certificate that attesting officer has
custody
a. The certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated
by the seal of his office.
Unwritten foreign law may be proved through Sec. 46, Rule 130
Published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science
or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if:
1. the court takes judicial notice, or
2. a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement
in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession
or calling as expert in the subject.
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as
the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case.
The court may take judicial notice of the foreign law
(1) Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court
such as when the law is well and generally known such as when they
are well and generally known or they had been ruled upon in other
cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise [PCIB v
Escolin (G.R. L-27860 and L-27896 March 29,1974)]
(2) When the foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet and the writer is recognized in his/her profession or calling as
expert in the subject
[Sec. 46, Rule 130]

ASSIGNMENT FOR DAY FOUR

1. Object (Real) evidence
a. Nature of object evidence
b. Requisites for admissibility
c. Categories of object evidence
d. What is Demonstrative evidence?
e. When is view of an object or scene required?
f.
What is Chain of custody, in relation in Sec. 21 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002?
2. Explain Rule on DNA Evidence (AM No 06-11-5-SC)

b.
c.
d.

4.

ASSIGNMENT FOR DAY FIVE

Documentary Evidence
1.
2.
3.

Meaning of documentary evidence

Requisites of admissibility
Best evidence rule
a. Meaning of the rule

5.

When applicable? Exceptions?

Meaning of the original?
Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence under (a) of
Sec 3 Rule 130
e. In cases under (b) Sec 3, Rule 130
Rules on Electronic Evidence (AM No. 01-7-01-SC)
a. Scope; coverage, meaning of electronic evidence; electronic
data message
b. Probative value of electronic documents or evidentiary
weight; method of proof
c. How to authenticate electronic documents and electronic
signatures
d. Electronic documents vis-a-vis the hearsay rule
e. Audio, photographic, video and ephemeral evidence
Parol Evidence Rule
a. Application of the parol evidence rule
b. When parol evidence can be introduced
c. Distinctions between the best evidence rule and parol
evidence rule